New Hampshire Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill Different From House Version

Yesterday, the New Hampshire Senate passed by a vote of 13-11 a bill authorizing same-sex marriage in the state. The House also approved a same-sex marriage bill last month, but differences between the Senate and House versions mean that the bill must now go back to the House for its approval. HB436, as amended by the Senate, provides:

Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender. Each party to a marriage shall be designated "bride," "groom," or "spouse."

The bill also provides that a marriage may be solemnized either in a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony, and that neither clergy nor civil officials shall be required to officiate at any civil of religious marriage ceremony that would violate their free exercise of religion. Baptist Press reports that the Senate amendment clearly recognizing a difference between religious and civil ceremonies convinced Senate Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Deborah Reynolds to vote for the bill in the full Senate after opposing it in committee.

Under the bill, previous civil unions will be recognized as marriages in the state. AP reports that New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has said that the crucial issue is providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as to others, and that the state's existing civil unions law does that. Thus it is unclear whether the Governor will sign the same-sex marriage bill even if both houses agree on it.

Another Decision Invalidating Alabama's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In Alabama last week, a federal district court took another step toward requiring all counties to issue licenses for same-sex marriages.  A federal district court had already issued an injunction against the attorney general and one state probate judge requiring them to issue marriage licenses to same sex-couples. (See prior posting.) Now in Strawser v. Strange (Doc. 122), (SD AL, May 21, 2015), the same federal district court permitted plaintiffs to turn the case into a class action against "all Alabama county probate judges who are enforcing or in the future may enforce Alabama’s laws barring the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and refusing to recognize their marriages."  It also certified as a plaintiff class "all persons in  Alabama who wish to obtain a marriage license in order to marry a person of the same sex and to have that marriage recognized under Alabama law, and who are unable to do so because of the enforcement of Alabama’s laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and barring recognition of their marriages."

Then in a second opinion the same day, Strawser v. Strange (Doc. 123), (SD AL, May 21, 2015), the court again held that Alabama's marriage laws that prohibit and refuse to recognize same-sex marriages violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. It granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, but stayed it until the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, expected within the next several weeks.  Christian Science Monitor reports on the decision.

Can New York Municipal Clerks Require Accommodation of Objection To Licensing Same-Sex Marriages?

As previously reported, New York's recently-enacted same-sex marriage law protects from liability or penalty any clergy who refuse to officiate at a same-sex marriage, but does not contain any explicit conscience exception  to shield municipal clerks who have religious objections to issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples. At least one town clerk has already resigned over this. Now, however, Constitutional Law Prof Blog reports that the Alliance Defense Fund last week sent a memo (full text) to New York Municipal Clerks telling them that they are entitled to claim a religious accommodation to exempt them from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.  The accommodation provisions appear in the New York Human Rights Law, Executive Law Sec. 296(10)(a.). That section bars employers from requiring any employee

to violate or forego a sincerely held practice of his or her religion ... unless, after engaging in a bona fide effort, the employer demonstrates that it is unable to reasonably accommodate the employee's ... sincerely held religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.

ADF's memo argues:

because New York law [Domestic Relations Law Sec. 15(3)] explicitly allows a municipality to delegate a clerk’s duties concerning marriage licenses to a deputy clerk or any other employee, a city or town should have no reason to deny a clerk’s request for an accommodation. It should be a simple matter to delegate those duties to others who do not object to issuing and signing marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

ADF's memo fails however to discuss two other provisions that may shed some question on its analysis. Executive Law Sec. 296(1)(d.) provides that:

an accommodation shall be considered to constitute an undue hardship if it will result in the inability of an employee to perform the essential functions of the position in which he or she is employed.

In addition,  Domestic Relations Law Sec. 15(3) cited by ADF, appears to allow appointment of a deputy clerk or other employee by a city, but does not appear to provide for the same delegation by towns. [Thanks to Ruthann Robson for the lead.]

More Alabama Same-Sex Marriage Developments

Alabama has been "ground zero" for opposition to same-sex marriage.  Two more developments help it keep that title.  According to the Montgomery Advertiser, in Prattville, Alabama last week, a Unitarian minister pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct charges and was sentenced to six months unsupervised probation and a $250 fine. The charges were filed last February when Anne Susan DiPrizio offered to marry a lesbian couple who had just received a marriage license, planning to conduct the ceremony inside the Autauga County Probate Office.  However, the local Probate Judge had stopped all marriages in the office.  After DiPrizio refused to leave, sheriff's deputies were called and disorderly conduct charges were filed.

Meanwhile also last week, the Alabama state Senate passed and sent to the state House of Representatives SB 377 (full text) that would end the issuance of marriage licences in the state.  Instead a couple would enter a "marriage contract" containing specified information and would record that contract in the office of the county probate court.  If and when same-sex marriage becomes legal in Alabama, this procedure eliminates the issue of whether a probate court employee who objects to same-sex marriage must issue a license to a same-sex couple. The bill's sponsor defines the bill's purpose more broadly, saying: "When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties." (Yellowhammer News, 4/30/15).

Japanese Court Upholds Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

NPR reports that in Japan on Monday, the Osaka District Court ruled that the country's ban on same-sex marriage does not violate Japan's Constitution, rejecting plaintiffs' demand for damages of 1 milliion Yen ($7400 (US))

The Osaka court on Monday said freedom of marriage in the 1947 constitution only means male-female unions and does not include those of the same sex, and therefore banning same-sex marriages is not unconstitutional.

Judge Fumi Doi said marriage for heterosexual couples is a system established by society to protect a relationship between men and women who bear and raise children, and that ways to protect same-sex relationships are still undergoing public debate.

The court, however, urged the parliament to seek methods to better protect same-sex relationships, including options to legalize same-sex marriage.

The decision is contrary to a ruling in 2021 by a court in Sapporo.

Order Stayed By Court After Enjoining Wisconsin's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

As previously reported, on June 6 a Wisconsin federal district court declared Wisconsin's constitutional and statutory provisions barring same-sex marriage unconstitutional and instructed the parties to submit proposed language for an injunction. Now in Wolf v. Walker, (WD WI, June 13, 2014), the court issued a carefully worded injunction against the governor, state registrar and three county clerks. However the court also stayed the injunction, as well as its earlier declaratory judgment, until the conclusion of any appeals or after the expiration of the deadline for filing appeals.  Judge Crabb wrote in part:

If I were considering these factors as a matter of a first impression, I would be inclined to agree with plaintiffs that defendants have not shown that they are entitled to a stay. However, I cannot ignore the Supreme Court’s order in Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 (2014), in which the Court stayed a district court’s order enjoining state officials in Utah from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage.....  [S]ince Herbert, every statewide order enjoining the enforcement of a ban on same-sex marriage has been stayed, either by the district court or the court of appeals, at least when the state requested a stay.....

It is true that the Supreme Court declined to issue a stay in a more recent case in which a district court in Oregon enjoined enforcement of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage. National Organization for Marriage v. Geiger .... (June 4, 2014). However, that order is not instructive because the district court’s injunction was not opposed by the state; rather, a nonparty had requested the stay. Thus, I do not interpret Geiger as undermining the Court’s order in Herbert.

Yesterday's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports on the decision.

New Hampshire Governor Will Sign Same-Sex Marriage Bill Only If New Religious Protections Are Added

New Hampshire's Governor John Lynch yesterday released a statement saying that despite his personal views on the subject, he will sign the same-sex marriage legislation passed by the state legislature last week only if legislators first amend it to provide more protections for religious institutions. Otherwise he will veto it. NECN News has posted both a transcript and a video of his statement, which says in part:

... I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that ... a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families. I have also heard, and I understand, the concerns of our citizens who have equally deep feelings and genuine religious beliefs about marriage. They fear that this legislation would interfere with the ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.

Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections. That is what I believe we must do today. But ... we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals.

The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs. But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.... [T]he laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, ... go further in protecting religious institutions.... This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions. This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions. It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn't pass these provisions, I will veto it.

(See prior related posting.)

Wisconsin's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down; Marriages Begin Ahead of Motion To Stay Court's Order

Yesterday in Wolf v. Walker, (WD WI, June 6, 2014), a Wisconsin federal district court, in an 88-page opinion, struck down Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in part:

I conclude that the Wisconsin laws prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples interfere with plaintiffs’ right to marry, in violation of the due process clause, and discriminate against plaintiffs on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the equal protection clause.... To decide this case in favor of plaintiffs, it is not necessary, as some have suggested, to “cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools,”....  Rather, it is necessary to conclude only that the state may not intrude without adequate justification on certain fundamental decisions made by individuals and that, when the state does impose restrictions on these important matters, it must do so in an even-handed manner.

This case is not about whether marriages between same-sex couples are consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of a particular religion, whether such marriages are moral or immoral or whether they are something that should be encouraged or discouraged....  Quite simply, this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution.

 As reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the court's decision does not make clear whether counties may begin to immediately issue marriage licenses. The court declared the state constitutional and statutory provisions barring same-sex marriage unconstitutional and gave the parties until June 16 to submit proposed language for an injunction. The paper reports:

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, a Democrat, began issuing marriage licenses at 5 p.m. Friday as gay couples were married there throughout the night. He said state Department of Justice officials advised him not to issue the licenses but McDonell moved forward despite that.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a news release announcing that he will file emergency motions in federal courts seeking a stay of the district court's order. Yesterday Van Hollen also issued a statement in a series of nine Tweets saying that his office will continue to defend the constitutionality of "our traditional marriage laws."

Montana's Same-Sex Marriage Bans Falls; Becomes 34th State To Recognize Marriage Equality

On Wednesday, a Montana federal district court issued a permanent injunction barring Montana from enforcing statutory and constitutional provisions that prevent same-sex marriages or recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.  The opinion in Rolando v. Fox, (D MT, Nov. 19, 2014), granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement on their equal protection claim, relies heavily on the 9th Circuit's decision last month striking down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada. (See prior posting.) The Montana federal court's injunction, made effective immediately, makes Montana the 34th state to permit same-sex marriage.

AP reported today that in the Yellowstone County clerk's office in Billings, one deputy clerk has expressed religious objections, and three others have moral objections, to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The County Human Relations Director, after consulting with the county attorney, has exempted the four, in part citing Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring religious discrimination in employment.  Yellowstone County Clerk Kristie Lee Boelter is unhappy with the exemptions.  There are a total of 20 deputy clerks in the office.

Justice Department Briefs Its Position On Merits In Both SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The U.S. Department of Justice has now filed briefs setting forth its arguments on the merits in the two same-sex marriage cases that will be argued before the Supreme Court later this month.  On Feb. 22, the Justice Department filed a merits brief (full text) in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Yesterday the Justice Department filed an amicus brief (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the federal equal protection challenge to California's Proposition 8. In both cases, the Justice Department argued that classifications based on sexual orientation should, when challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, be subject to heightened scrutiny. In its Hollingsworth brief, DOJ stated directly that: "The President and Attorney General have determined that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny for equal protection purposes."

In its Windsor brief, DOJ argued rather straight forwardly that Section 3 of DOMA fails heightened scrutiny. In its Hollingsworth brief, however, the Department of Justice took a more complicated position.  As discussed by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog, DOJ took the position that California's Proposition 8 fails the heightened scrutiny test, but in an argument that stops short of contending that the U.S. Constitution requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage.  DOJ reasoned that California does not substantially further any important governmental interest by barring same-sex marriage since it already gives same-sex couples the right to enter domestic partnerships that confer all the same rights as marriage.  This argument would apply only to the 8 states that have granted domestic partners or those who have entered civil unions rights equal to those of married couples.

District Court Invalidates Nebraska Bans on Same-Sex Marriages

In Waters v. Ricketts, (D NE, March 2, 2015), a Nebraska federal district court issued a preliminary injunction, effective March 9, prohibiting enforcement of the state's laws that bar same-sex marriage and recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, saying:

Under existing precedent, Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban is at least deserving of heightened scrutiny because the challenged amendment proceeds "along suspect lines," as either gender-based or gender-stereotype-based discrimination.

The court's order implementing its decision requires state officials:

to treat same-sex couples the same as different sex couples in the context of processing a marriage license or determining the rights, protections, obligations or benefits of marriage.

ACLU issued a statement announcing the decision.  According to AP, Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson plans to ask the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals for an order barring county officials from issuing same-sex marriage licences while the district court opinion is appealed. 

Cert. Denied In Appeal By Kim Davis Who Refused To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Davis v. Ermold, the case involving former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis who refused on religious grounds to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, concurred in the denial of review, but issued a four page statement critical of the Court's same-sex marriage precedent. (Order List, scroll to page 55.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Davis may be sued in her individual capacity and is not entitled to qualified immunity. (See prior posting). Justice Thomas wrote in part:

In Obergefell v. Hodges ... the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs.... The Court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often “decent and honorable,” ... the Court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview....

The Hill reports on the case.

Suits Challenge Missouri's and Louisiana's Refusals To Recognize Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages

Yesterday, the ACLU announced that has filed a state court lawsuit on behalf of 8 Missouri same-sex couples challenging Missouri's statutory and state constitutional provisions that deny recognition to plaintiffs' marriages that were legally entered into in other jurisdictions. The complaint (full text) in Barrier v. Vasterling, (MO Cir. Ct. Jackson County, filed 2/12/2014) contends:

Missouri’s exclusion of married same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities of marriage violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This discriminatory treatment is subject to heightened scrutiny because it burdens the fundamental right to marry and because it discriminates based on sex and sexual orientation. But it cannot stand under any level of scrutiny because Missouri’s refusal to recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples does not rationally further any legitimate government interest. It serves only to disparage and injure same-sex couples and their families.

Reporting on the lawsuit, the Columbia Missourian notes:

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon drew criticism from gay marriage opponents in November when he directed the state Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns from same-sex couple who are legally married in other states.... The directive prompted a lawsuit filed by same-sex marriage opponents, and led a Republican lawmaker last week to file articles of impeachment against the Democratic governor.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana an organization that advocates for LGBT equality filed a federal court lawsuit challenging Louisiana's statutory and state constitutional provisions that bar recognition of same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere. The complaint (full text) in Forum for Equality Louisiana, Inc. v. Barfield, (ED LA, filed 2/12/2014), in claiming that the Louisiana Anti-Recognition Laws violate plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights, focuses particularly on the state's refusal to accept joint tax returns from married same-sex couples and its refusal to issue birth certificates naming same-sex couples as parents of a child.  The New Orleans Times Picayune reports on the lawsuit.

Australia's Top Court Upholds Planned Mail Survey of Voters On Same-Sex Marriage

In Wilkie v. Commonwealth of Australia, (High Ct. Australia, Sept. 7, 2017), Australia's highest court unanimously upheld the government's plan to conduct a voluntary survey by mail of the country's voters on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized.  At issue in the case was whether the government acted properly when it used a law permitting expenditures which are urgent and unforeseen to fund the survey.  As reported by news.com.au:

Ballots with the question, “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” will be sent to households across the nation on September 12....

If a majority of people vote in favour, a vote will then be held in parliament which [Prime Minister Malcolm] Turnbull says he expects will make same-sex marriage legal. If Australians vote no, Mr Turnbull has said the parliamentary vote will not proceed.

The postal survey was conceived after Australia's Senate voted against government sponsored legislation for a binding plebiscite. Interestingly, advocates of marriage equality were among those challenging the plebiscite, arguing that Parliament should legalize same-sex marriage without this preliminary vote. (Marriage Equality Information Sheet).  Law & Religion Australia last month had a lengthy post on the religious liberty implications of the substantive legislation that is being considered.

Saga of Recalcitrant Rowan County Clerk Continues

Developments over the Labor Day weekend have made same-sex marriage opponent Kim Davis-- the Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk who was remanded to jail on civil contempt charges Thursday for refusing to allow her office to issue marriage licenses-- into a high profile symbol of conservative Christian resistance to the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision. (On details of her jailing, see prior posting.)  As reported by the Washington Post, on Friday morning, Deputy Clerk Brian Mason began issuing marriage licenses without Davis' name appearing on them. The County Attorney had ruled that deputy clerks do not need Davis' approval to issue licenses.  However Davis' attorneys argue that these licenses are void.   Marty Lederman at Balkinization blog on Saturday posted a detailed analysis of Kentucky law on this and related issues.

Meanwhile Davis' attorneys have filed motions seeking to get Davis released from jail. Before Davis was held in contempt, she had already filed an appeal with the 6th Circuit seeking to overturn the preliminary injunction that had been issued ordering her to end her resistance. (See prior posting). On Sunday, her attorneys filed an amended notice of appeal (full text), appealing the contempt citation against her as well as the district court's order clarifying that its injunction required issuance of licenses to all qualified couples, not just the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. A Liberty Counsel press release announcing the filing said in part:

“While most Americans are enjoying the extended holiday weekend with family and friends, Kim Davis sits in isolation for the fourth day in jail,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “We are working through the holiday to secure Kim’s freedom”....

In a subsequent press release on Monday announcing a press conference and rally for this afternoon, Davis' attorneys said:

Kim Davis has never sought the spotlight. Although some people have said she is a hero and some accuse her of wanting to be a martyr, neither is true. Kim bristles at the thought. She loves God, loves people, and loves her job. She remains faithful to all three and that is why she is here in jail. She may be a prisoner because of her faith, but Kim is freer than most Americans.

Yesterday, Davis' attorneys also filed a separate emergency motion for an injunction (full text) asking the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to bar enforcement against her of Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear's memo ordering Clerks to comply with the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision, and asking that the court exempt her from being required to authorized same-sex marriages. Marty Lederman has extensive analysis of this motion as well.

Mic reports that conservative politicians are drawing analogies to the civil rights movement.  Iowa Congressman Steve King said that Davis should be considered for the Rosa Parks award, and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee compared the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision to the Dred Scott decision.

Illinois Governor Signs Marriage Equality Law; Catholic Bishop Responds With Exorcism Prayers

The Chicago Tribune reports that yesterday Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. (See prior related posting.) The law takes effect June 1, though some are pressing for additional legislation to speed up the effective date.  Meanwhile, in Springfield, Illinois, Catholic Bishop Thomas Paprocki held a a service, largely in Latin, to offer Prayers of Supplication and Exorcism in Reparation for the Sin of Same-Sex Marriage.  In his homily (full text), he said in part:

Our prayers at this time are prompted by the fact that the Governor of Illinois today is signing into Illinois law the redefinition of civil marriage, introducing not only an unprecedented novelty into our state law, but also institutionalizing an objectively sinful reality....

Our prayer service today and my words are not meant to demonize anyone, but are intended to call attention to the diabolical influences of the devil that have penetrated our culture, both in the state and in the Church....

Since the legal redefinition of marriage is contrary to God's plan, those who contract civil same-sex marriage are culpable of serious sin. Politicians responsible for enacting civil same-sex marriage legislation are morally complicit as co-operators in facilitating this grave sin.....

We must also affirm the teaching of the Catholic Church that homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity....." The Church loves homosexual persons and looks upon them with compassion, offering assistance through support groups such as the Courage Apostolate to live in accord with the virtue of chastity.

Indiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Invalidated; Motion for Stay, Appeal Filed As Some Counties Issue Licenses

In Baskin v. Bogan, (SD IN, June 25, 2014), an Indiana federal district court held that Indian's ban on same-sex marriage, and on recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, is unconstitutional. The court found that the ban infringes the fundamental right to marry protected by the due process clause, and discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, adding:

The court has never witnessed a phenomenon throughout the federal court system as is presented with this issue. In less than a year, every federal district court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions – laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love. In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples, such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as marriage-- not as same-sex marriage.  These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.

The Indianapolis Star reports that county clerks in several counties began issuing licenses for same-sex marriages yesterday. As reported by WTHR, Indiana's Attorney General quickly filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal (full text) and a notice of appeal to the 7th Circuit (full text). Two county clerks' offices also filed notices of appeal. Meanwhile the Attorney General contacted all counties stating that while only the five county clerks named in the lawsuits are required to comply with the court's order, everyone should "show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued."

Wyoming Supreme Court Censures Judge Who Refused To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

In a 3-2 opinion yesterday, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that a judge who, because of religious objections, refuses to perform same-sex marriages violates the Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct.  In Neely v. Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics, (WY Sup. Ct., March 7, 2017), Justice Fox wrote for the majority, saying in part:

This case is not about same-sex marriage or the reasonableness of religious beliefs.... This case is also not about imposing a religious test on judges. Rather, it is about maintaining the public’s faith in an independent and impartial judiciary that conducts its judicial functions according to the rule of law, independent of outside influences, including religion, and without regard to whether a law is popular or unpopular.

Responding to petitioner's free exercise argument, the majority stated:

Allowing Judge Neely to opt out of same-sex marriages is contrary to the compelling state interest in maintaining an independent and impartial judiciary.

However, rejecting the Commission's recommendation that Judge Neely be removed from office, the majority said:

Weighing these factors, we find that Judge Neely’s misconduct warrants a public censure. We further find that Judge Neely must perform her judicial functions, including performing marriages, with impartiality. She must either commit to performing marriages regardless of the couple’s sexual orientation, or cease performing all marriage ceremonies.

Justice Kautz, joined by Justice Davis, dissented, saying in part:

The majority’s position that Judge Neely violated Rule 1.2 is based on the mistaken conclusion that Judge Neely refused “to follow the law of the land.” As discussed above, the undisputed evidence shows that Judge Neely made no such refusal. She did not state that she would deny marriage to same sex couples, but rather said she would assist such couples in finding someone to perform their civil marriage ceremony. The law does not require Judge Neely personally to perform every marriage.

Focusing on the majority's free exercise argument, the dissenters said in part:

Apparently some individuals might find it offensive that Judge Neely said she would decline to personally perform a same-sex marriage and instead would refer them to someone else. There is no compelling state interest in shielding individuals from taking such an offense.

AP reports on the decision. [Thanks to Gabe Rusk for the lead.]

Church and State Responses To Same-Sex Couples Continue To Evolve

As the debate over recognizing same-sex couples continues, both church groups and governmental bodies are responding in varied way. The AP today reports that in some liberal churches around the country-- such as some United Church of Christ congregations -- ministers have begun performing only religious marriage ceremonies. They refuse to act as agents of the state to sign civil marriage licenses so long as state law rejects same-sex marriage. Rev. Mark Wade, pastor of a Unitarian Universalist Church in Asheville, N.C., said that the move emphasizes the separation of church and state: "We tell couples to go to the magistrate. I felt I couldn't serve an unjust law." At the same time, in Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is recognized, some conservative pastors refuse to perform the civil portion of marriage ceremonies so that they are not pressured to officiate for same-sex couples.

Meanwhile, Toledo, Ohio yesterday became the largest city in the state to create a domestic partnership registry. Today's Toledo Blade reports that on its first day of operation, eight couples registered with the city as domestic partners. The city ordinance creates the registry for both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners. Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner who signed the ordinance last month says that he is a "strong Christian believer" who does not advocate alternative lifestyles, but who does believe in minority rights and diversity. One of those who registered yesterday, Carol Bresnahan, vice provost at the University of Toledo, said that bigotry in the name of religious belief accounts for those who oppose the law. When the ordinance was passed last month, the Ohio's Gay People's Chronicle reported that there are 152 similar registries nationwide.

Marriage Equality Proponents Win Victories In Nevada, Idaho, North Carolina

As previously reported, on Wednesday U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued an order temporarily staying the 9th Circuit's  mandate invalidating same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada, even though only Idaho officials applied for the stay.  Later the same day, Justice Kennedy issued a second order (full text) vacating the portion of his order staying the 9th Circuit's decision as to Nevada, presumably allowing same-sex marriages to begin immediately there.Then yesterday, the full Court issued an order as to the Idaho case (full text) reading:

The application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied. The orders heretofore entered by Justice Kennedy are vacated.

The 9th Circuit's decision affirmed the Idaho federal district court's decision invalidating Idaho's same-sex marriage ban.  However, because the 9th Circuit recalled its mandate ordering its affirmance effective immediately once the petition for a stay was filed with the Supreme Court, the parties are concerned that the decision by itself did not serve to dissolve the stay pending appeal of the district court's decision entered by the 9th Circuit in May. So yesterday the plaintiffs filed a motion (full text) to dissolve that stay, and (as reported by SCOTUblog) the 9th Circuit has called for a response by noon Monday, and a reply to that by 5:00 p.m. Monday. [Corrected chronology.]

Meanwhile, in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Resinger, (D NC, Oct. 10, 2014), a North Carolina federal district court on its own motion in a case challenging North Carolina's same-sex marriage ban held that the ban is unconstitutional as a matter of law.  In a brief opinion and order, the court pointed to the 4th Circuit's decision in Bostic v. Schaefer striking down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) The Charlotte Observer reports on the decision.