Missouri County Treasurer Will Accept Same-Sex Marriages From Other States In Unclaimed Property Claims

According to Monday's Columbia Daily Tribune, in Boone County, Missouri (which includes Columbia) County Treasurer Nicole Galloway has announced she will recognized same-sex marriages from out of state. This means that after the death of a spouse, a surviving same-sex spouse can obtain unclaimed property of the deceased being held by the county. The county treasurer took the step despite the provision in Sec. 33 of the Missouri Constitution that provides: "That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman." Galloway said: "In Boone County and in my office, we accept legal documents from every state in America, and this is just an extension of that." [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Wedding Photographer Successfully Challenges Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

 In Chelsey Nelson Photography LLC v. Louisville/ Jefferson County Metro Government, (WD KY, Aug. 14, 2020), a Kentucky federal district court held that a wedding photographer is likely to succeed in her Free Speech challenge to Louisville, Kentucky's Fairness Ordinance. That law prohibits a business from denying services to an individual based on the person's sexual orientation, and from advertising that it will engage in such discrimination.  Holding that plaintiff's wedding photography is speech, the court said in part:

Nelson is a photographer, editor, and blogger. She takes engagement and wedding photos with artistic skill....

Nelson is also a Christian. Her faith shapes everything she does, including how she operates her photography studio. She believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. For that reason, she would decline to photograph a same-sex wedding, and she would decline to edit photos from a same-sex wedding. She wants to explain these views on her website....

 Louisville can’t ban expression just because it finds the expression offensive.

To be clear, most applications of anti-discrimination laws — including Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance — are constitutional. Today’s ruling is not a license to discriminate. Nor does it allow for the “serious stigma” that results from a sign in the window announcing that an owner won’t serve gay and lesbian customers.... Marriott cannot refuse a room to a same-sex couple.  McDonald’s cannot deny a man dinner simply because he is gay. Neither an empty hotel room, nor a Big Mac, is speech.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

UK Equality Commission Wants European Court To Require Accommodation of Employees' Religious Beliefs

Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission announced Monday that it has petitioned to intervene in four religious discrimination cases being appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, all involving attempt by employees to obtain accommodation of their religious practices.  In its applications to intervene, the Commission argues that past decisions have not sufficiently protected freedom of religion or belief.  It will urge the Court to adopt a principle of reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs.  Two of the cases involve female employees who wished to wear a cross on a necklace in violation of their employers' dress policies. (Applications of Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin).  The second two cases involved employees with religous objections to same-sex unions.  One case involved a marriage registrar who objected to taking part in registration of same-sex civil partnerships.  The second involved a counselor who had concerns about providing sexual counselling to same-sex couples. (Applications of Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane).

District Court Invalidates DOMA and Related Care Insurance Restrictions

In Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, (ND CA, May 24, 2012), a California federal district court held unconstitutional Sec. 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and federal provisions (26 USC Sec. 7702B(f)) that effectively bar states from permitting same-sex domestic partners or same-sex spouses from participating in state-maintained long-term care insurance policies. DOMA was defended by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (BLAG) since the administration refused to defend its constitutionality.  In striking down the provisions, the court said in part:

the legislative record contains evidence of anti-gay animus and the BLAG has failed to establish that § 3 of the DOMA is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.  Accordingly, Plaintiff same-sex spouses are entitled to summary judgment that § 3 of the DOMA is invalid under the Constitution’s equal protection principles to the extent that the law blocks their access to the CalPERS long-term care plan....

Because Congress’s restriction on state-maintained long-term care plans lacks any rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, but rather appears to be motivated by antigay animus, the exclusion of registered domestic partners of public employees from § 7702B(f)’s list of individuals eligible to enroll in state-maintained long-term care plans violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

Metro Weekly reports on the decision.

Refusing To Provide Photography Services To Same-Sex Ceremony Violates State Anti-Discrimination Law

In Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, (NM Ct. App., May 31, 2012), a New Mexico state appeals court held that a photography firm's refusal to provide its services to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony violates the New Mexico Human Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.  According to the court:

Elane Photography’s owners are Christians who believe that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one woman.  They also believe that photography is an artistically expressive form of communication and photographing a same-sex commitment ceremony would disobey God and the teachings of the Bible by communicating a message contrary to their religious and personal beliefs.

Rejecting Elane Photography's free expression arguments, the court held:

the mere fact that a business provides a good or service with a recognized expressive element does not allow the business to engage in discriminatory practices.... While Elane Photography does exercise some degree of control over the photographs it is hired to take... this control does not transform the photographs into a message from Elane Photography.

The court also rejected Elane Photography claim that applying the Human Rights Act to it would violate its free exercise of religion protected by the U.S. and New Mexico constitutions. It held that the statute is a neutral law of general applicability. Finally it rejected a claim under the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act, concluding that it applies only to suits in which government agencies are the adverse parties, not to suits against a private individual or business.  Volokh Conspiracy has an extensive discussion of this aspect of the case, as well as a posting on its more general holding.

Judge Wechsler filed a concurrence in the case, arguing that the New Mexico constitution's free exercise clause is broader than that in the First Amendment, but also concluding that Elane Photography had not properly preserved that issue for appeal. WND reports on the decision.

Another Temporary Stay For Same-Sex Couples Married In Utah During Gap Period

As previously reported, on May 19 in Evans v. Utah a Utah federal district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages solemnized under Utah marriage licenses on the 17 days between a federal district court decision striking down Utah's ban  on same-sex marriages, and the U.S. Supreme Court's stay of that order. However the district court postponed the effectiveness of its order for 21 days to give the state time to decide how to proceed.  The 21-day period would expire on Monday.  Yesterday the Utah Attorney General's office announced that it has filed a notice of appeal and a request for a stay with the 10th Circuit in Evans.  In response, within hours, the 10th Circuit issued a temporary stay and ordered plaintiffs to respond by June 12 to the motion for a stay pending appeal. (AG office announcement.)

Suit Challenges South Carolina's Refusal To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

Last week, a suit was filed in a South Carolina federal district court challenging the state's refusal to allow same-sex marriages and its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.  The complaint (full text) in Bradacs v. Haley, (D SC, filed 8/28/2013), contends that South Carolina's statutory law (SC Code 20-1-15) and its constitutional provision barring recognition of plaintiffs' marriage (Art. XVII, Sec. 15) violate the due process, equal protection and full faith and credit clauses of the Constitution.  The State reports on the lawsuit that was filed by Highway Patrol Trooper Katherine Bradacs and her spouse, Tracie Goodwin, who were married in the District of Columbia last year.

Suit Challenges Ohio's Refusal To Allow Same-Sex Marriages

In the wake of a federal district court ruling two weeks ago that Ohio's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is unconstitutional (see prior posting), a new federal lawsuit was filed yesterday challenging Ohio's ban on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples who wish to wed in Ohio.  The complaint (full text) in Gibson v. Himes, (SD OH, filed 4/30/2014), contends:

Ohio Rev. Code § 3101.01 and OH Const. Art. XV, §11 violate fundamental liberties that are protected by the Freedom of Association Clause of the First Amendment, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment on their face.

Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

State Trial Court Voids Florida's Ban On Same-Sex Marriages; Appeal Stays Decision

In Huntsman v. Heavlin,(FL Cir. Ct., July 17, 2014), a Florida state trial court judge enjoined the clerk of Monroe County, Florida from enforcing the state's ban on same-sex marriages. Finding that the ban violate's the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses, the court ordered the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to plaintiffs and other similarly-situated same-sex couples. According to the Washington Blade, the judge's order is automatically stayed because the Florida Attorney General quickly filed a notice of appeal.

Court Rejects Challenges To Foster Care Agency Non-Discrimination Requirement

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, (ED PA, July 13, 2018), a Pennsylvania federal district court rejected Catholic Social Services challenges to the requirement that it not discriminate against same-sex couples in foster care placement.  CSS argued that the requirement violates the Free Exercise, Free Speech and Establishment Clauses of the 1st Amendment as well as Pennsylvania's Religious Freedom Act. The court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the requirement, saying in part:

CSS’s compliance with the terms of the Services Contract does not: constrain or inhibit CSS from conduct or expression mandated by its religious beliefs, curtail CSS’s ability to express adherence to CSS’s religious faith, deny CSS a reasonable opportunity to “provide foster care to children,” or compel CSS to engage in conduct or expression that violates a “specific tenet” of CSS’s religious faith....

CSS contends that the provision of certification services for same-sex couples would require CSS to express its religious approval of same-sex relationships in contravention of Catholic teaching about marriage. This is not the case. To illustrate this point, if, for example, CSS were to certify a couple where one spouse is previously divorced, CSS’s certification would not suggest that CSS approved of divorce as a religious matter.

Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the decision.

Group Urges SEC To Expand Accredited Investor Rule To Cover Same-Sex Couples

The U.S. Supreme Court's Windsor decision striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is rippling through unexpected corners of federal regulation.  A group of investors and entrepreneurs calling themselves StartupEquality.org last week sent a letter (full text) to the Securities and Exchange Commission urging the expansion of SEC's Regulation D that allows businesses to raise capital from wealthy investors in private placements without filing a full registration statement. SEC Rule 501 defines "accredited investors"-- those who may purchase in private placements-- as including spouses who jointly meet certain income or net worth levels.  The group's letter says that the Windsor decision should be read to automatically extend Rule 501 to same-sex married couples, and urges the SEC to expand the rule so that same-sex couples in civil unions, domestic partnership arrangements and the like who are unable to marry may also aggregate their income and assets to determine accredited investor status.

Missouri Court Denies TRO To Prevent Same-Sex Couples' Joint Tax Filings

In Messer v. Nixon, (MO Cir. Ct., April 4, 2014), a Missouri state court judge refused to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent state tax officials from accepting joint returns from same-sex couples. The court concluded that plaintiffs had not shown the irreparable injury necessary for issuance of a TRO.  The court said: "should the ultimate outcome of this litigation establish that such an income tax filing was improper resulting in state income taxes being illegally avoided or refunded, the State has, as it always has had, the right to challenge that filing and seek recovery." Links to all the pleadings in Messer v. Nixon at on Marriage Equality Wikia. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's office issued a statement after the April 4 decision, defending the Executive Order that permits same-sex joint filing as being consistent with Missouri law which requires state tax conformity to federal tax definitions.

Defense Secretary Chastises State National Guards That Are Refusing To Issue ID To Same-Sex Spouses

According to a report this week from American Forces Defense Service, nine states are defying a Department of Defense directive instructing National Guard facilities to issue new ID cards to same-sex spouses.  The new IDs will allow them to obtain spousal and family military benefits in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down Sec. 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Indiana, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia, however, are requiring their National Guard members to go to a federal military base if they want to obtain the new ID. In a speech (full text) to an Anti-Defamation League Dinner on Thursday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in part:

... [A]ll spouses of service members are entitled to DoD ID cards, and the benefits that come with them.  But several states today are refusing to issue these IDs to same-sex spouses at National Guard facilities.  Not only does this violate the states’ obligations under federal law, but their actions have created hardship and inequality by forcing couples to travel long distances to federal military bases to obtain the ID cards they’re entitled to.

This is wrong.  It causes division among our ranks, and it furthers prejudice, which DoD has fought to extinguish, as has the ADL.

Today, I directed the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Frank Grass, to take immediate action to remedy this situation.  At my direction, he will meet with the Adjutants General from the states where these ID cards are being declined and denied.  The Adjutants General will be expected to comply with both lawful direction and DoD policy, in line with the practices of 45 other states and jurisdictions.

Suit Challenges North Carolina's Marriage Laws As Free Exercise and Establishment Violations

An unusual lawsuit was filed earlier this month in state court in North Carolina challenging North Carolina's statutes that require any marriage to be solemnized by a magistrate or a member of the clergy (GS Sec. 51-1) and prohibit them from solemnizing a marriage unless the couple has obtained a marriage license (GS Sec. 51-6). The complaint (full text) in Thigpen v. Cooper, (NC Super. Ct., filed 12/8/2011), alleges that (1) it violates the Establishment Clause for the state to make a member of the clergy an agent of the state to perform a marriage ceremony and submit a state granted license; (2) it violates state and federal free exercise protections for the state to require individuals entering into marriage to participate in a state-prescribed ceremony and licensing of the marriage; and (3) it is unconstitutional for the state to prohibit members of the clergy from solemnizing the marriage of same-sex couples. The complaint also alleges that the state's marriage requirements violate the personal liberty protections of the 14th Amendment and North Carolina's constitution. The Greensboro News-Record reported on the case last week.

Indiana Deputy Clerk, Fired For Refusing To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licences, Sues [UPDATED]

Linda Summers, a former deputy clerk in the Harrison County, Indiana Superior Court Clerk's Office, last week filed a federal court lawsuit alleging violation of her First Amendment free exercise rights. religious discrimination in employment.  The Louisville Courier Journal reports that after the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of a case from Indiana upholding marriage equality, County Clerk Sally Whitis sent an e-mail to all employees telling them that even if it conflicted with their religious beliefs, they were required to process licenses for same-sex couples. Summers responded with a hand-delivered letter asking that she not be required to do so based on her religious beliefs.  She was fired for insubordination. The lawsuit seeks damages and a change in employment practices.

UPDATE: Despite the Courier Journal's quote from plaintiff's counsel that the lawsuit is "just a generic First Amendment free exercise case", now that I have a copy of the complaint it appears that the suit is based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Here is the full text of the complaint in Summers v. Whitis, (SD IN, (filed 7/17/2015).  [Thanks to Greg Lipper for the copy of the complaint.]

Baker With Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage Did Not Violate California's Civil Rights Law

In a tentative decision which becomes final in ten days unless objections are filed, a California state trial court has concluded that a bakery which refuses on religious grounds to furnish custom designed cakes for same-sex weddings and instead refers customers to another bakery for such items did not violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cathy's Creations, Inc., (CA Super. Ct., Oct. 21, 2022), the court concluded that the state failed to prove intentional sexual orientation discrimination, saying in part:

Miller and Tastries do not design and do not offer to any person-- regardless of sexual orientation-- custom wedding cakes that "contradict God's sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.

The court went on to hold that because California's Unruh Civil Rights Act is a neutral law of general applicability, the state did not violate defendant's free exercise rights. However, application of the Unruh Civil Rights Act here would violate defendants' free speech rights because it would compel expressive conduct based on content or viewpoint. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the decision.

Farmers' Market's Exclusion of Vendor Over Same-Sex Marriages Views Is Challenged

A suit was filed on Wednesday in a Michigan federal district court challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds the City of East Lansing's Vendor Guidelines for its Farmers' Market. The complaint (full text) in Country Mill Farms, LLC v. City of East Lansing, (WD MI, filed 5/31/2017), claims that the city modified its Guidelines to target Country Mill Farms because its owner, Stephen Tennes, shared on Facebook his Catholic belief opposing same-sex marriage.  Tennes posted that while his Farm hosts weddings, it only hosts those that conform to his belief that marriage is a sacramental union between one man and one woman. Following this post, city officials unsuccessfully attempted to pressure Country Mill to end its participation in the Farmer's Market.  When that was unsuccessful, the city changed its Guidelines to require all Farmers' Market participants to abide by the city's Civil Rights Ordinance both while at the market and as a general business practice.  The complaint also alleges that this is an attempt by the city to extend the reach of its ordinances beyond its borders in violation of the Michigan Home Rule City Act.  ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• John R. Morss, The International Legal Status of the Vatican/Holy See Complex, (Forthcoming, European Journal of International Law).
• Rex Ahdar, Solemnisation of Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom, (Ecclesiastical Law Journal / Volume 16 / Issue 03 / September 2014, pp 283 - 305).
• Richard Moon, Conscientious Objections by Civil Servants: The Case of Marriage Commissioners and Same Sex Civil Marriages, (June 30, 2015).
• Stephen D, Sugarman, Is It Unconstitutional to Prohibit Faith-Based Schools from Becoming Charter Schools?, (July 21, 2015).
• Geoffrey Brahm Levey, Secularism as Proto-Multiculturalism: The Case of Australia, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2015/56, July 2015).
• Nadia N. Sawicki, Mandating Disclosure of Religious Limitations on Medical Practice, (Loyola University Chicago School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-016 (July 2015)).
• Harlan Grant Cohen, Zivotofsky II's Two Visions for Foreign Relations Law, (109 AJIL Unbound 10 (2015)).
• C. Christine Fair, Sharia, Piety and Maslak: Support for Sectarian Violence in Pakistan, (July 20, 2015).

Alabama Supreme Court Affirms Suspension of Chief Justice Over Defiance of Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, a specially composed panel of judges sitting as the Supreme Court of Alabama unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspending Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore for the remainder of his term. Six judges joined in the court's opinion, while one judge concurred only in the result. In Moore v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, (AL Sup. Ct., April 19, 2017), the court in a 66-page opinion agreed that Moore violated various provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics when he issued directions to Alabama judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal court decisions and orders to the contrary, including the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision.  AL.com reports that Moore remains defiant

Chinese Court In First Ruling of Its Kind Rejects Same-Sex Marriage

A court in China yesterday ruled that same-sex marriages are not legal.  As reported by the New York Times, this is the first case of its kind adjudicated in China.  In a decision handed down a few hours after the hearing, the court upheld a decision by the civil affairs bureau in Changsha, Hunan Province, to deny Sun Wenlin and Hu Mingliang a marriage license.  The two men plan an appeal.