Oregon Judge Creates Legal Defense Fund After Refusal To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

In Marion County, Oregon, Circuit Judge Vance Day, former chairman of the state Republican Party, has apparently decided for religious reasons not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.  This has led to inquiries by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability as to whether Day has violated the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct or the Oregon Constitution.  The Oregonian reports that yesterday the Oregon Government Ethics Commission voted unanimously to approve Day's request to establish a legal defense fund in connection with these inquiries.

AG Says U.S. Government Benefit Programs Will Recognize Same-Sex Spouses In All States

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced yesterday that the Supreme Court's marriage equality decision will be applied across the federal government.  She said in part:

[C]ritical programs for veterans and elderly and disabled Americans, which previously could not give effect to the marriages of couples living in states that did not recognize those marriages, will now provide federal recognition for all marriages nationwide....  Just over a year ago, Attorney General Holder announced that agencies across the federal government had implemented the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision by treating married same-sex couples the same as married opposite-sex couples to the greatest extent possible under the law as it then stood.  With the Supreme Court’s new ruling that the Constitution requires marriage equality, we have now taken the further step of ensuring that all federal benefits will be available equally to married couples in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the US Territorie

Vermont's Gay Marriage Law Contains Strong Religious Exemptions

Last week, Vermont's legislature overrode the veto of Gov. Jim Douglas and became the fourth state to authorize same-sex marriages. As the Burlington Free Press reported last week, this is the first time that gay marriage has been approved legislatively, rather than by the courts. Largely uncommented upon until an article in today's New York Daily News are the strong religious freedom exemptions included in the new law (full text of S. 115).

Statutory provisions on who may solemnize marriages were amended to include this provision:

[18 VAA Sec. 5144(b): ] This section does not require a member of the clergy ... to solemnize any marriage, and any refusal to do so shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

The provisions of Vermont's Banking and Insurance law relating to Fraternal Benefit Societies was amended to include the following:

[8 VSA Sec. 4501(b):] The civil marriage laws shall not be construed to affect the ability of a society to determine the admission of its members ... or to determine the scope of beneficiaries..., and shall not require a society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the society’s free exercise of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of United States or by Chapter I, Article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Vermont.

Finally, the law amended Vermont's provisions banning discrimination in public accommodations to include the following:

[9 VSA Sec. 4502(l):] Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with this subsection shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

This subsection shall not be construed to limit a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization from selectively providing services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to some individuals with respect to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage but not to others.

Religious Child Placement Agency Challenges HHS Non-Discrimination Regulations

Suit was filed yesterday against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in a Tennessee federal district court by a religious child welfare agency that offers residential and foster care services for abused and neglected children. The suit challenges an HHS regulation that prohibits foster care and adoption programs receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or same-sex marriage status. The regulation expands upon the statutory prohibition on discrimination in such programs on the basis of race, color or national origin. The complaint (full text) in Holston United Methodist Home for Children v. Becerra,(ED TN. filed 12/2/2021), alleges that the regulation exceeds the federal agency's authority and that it violates RFRA and various 1st Amendment rights. The complaint alleges in part:

28. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with persons that do not agree with its Christian statement of faith and beliefs....

30. It would substantially burden Holston Home’s exercise of its religious beliefs to knowingly engage in child placing activities in connection with couples who may be romantically cohabitating but not married, or who are couples of the same biological sex.

The Trump Administration had issued waivers of the rule for faith-based agencies, but those waivers were rescinded by the Biden Administration last month. (See prior posting). ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

NY Marriage Equality Act Survives Open Meeting Act Challenge

In New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms v New York State Senate, (NY App. Div., July 6, 2012) a New York state appeals court rejected a challenge to the state's Marriage Equality Law (which permits same-sex marriage) enacted last year. Plaintiffs claimed that private lobbying of the Republican Conference of the State Senate in favor of the law by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor Andrew Cuomo violated the Open Meetings Act. The court concluded that the exemption in the Open Meetings Law for deliberations of political caucuses, including invited staff or guests, covered the lobbying being challenged. It rejected the argument that the exemption for invited guests only includes guests of the same political party as the caucus. Advocate.com reports on the decision.

Official Results and Reactions To Ireland's Marriage Equality Referendum

The official results of Ireland's referendum last Friday (see prior posting) that approved same-sex marriage was 62.07% yes and 37.93% no. (60.52% of the voters turned out for the election,) In a speech on Saturday (full text) welcoming the result, Ireland's Prime Minister Enda Kenny said in part:

So – the people went to the polls. It passed. The answer is YES. Yes to their future. Yes to their love. Yes to their equal marriage. That yes is heard loudly across the living world as a sound of pioneering leadership of our people and hopefully across the generations of gay men and women born as we say, before their time.

In an inteview on Saturday (full text) ith Vatican Insider, Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin said in part:

The Church needs to ask itself when this cultural revolution began  and why some of its members refused to see this change. There also needs to be a review of youth pastoral care: the referendum was won with young people’s votes and 90% of young people who voted “yes” to the motion, attended Catholic schools....

An individualistic idea of the family prevails. The concept of marriage as a fundamental element of social cohesion has been lost. A reasoning based on respect for the rights of the individual is more successful than one based on social ethics.

Christian School Sues Over Exclusion From State Funding Programs

Suit was filed on Monday in a Maryland federal district court by a preschool- 8 Christian school that was excluded from Maryland's scholarship program for low-income students, as well as the state's textbook and technology and its aging schools programs.  The complaint (full text) in Bethel Ministries, Inc. v. Salmon, (D MD, filed 6/24/2019), alleges that the school does not discriminate in admissions on the basis of sexual orientation, but that it was nevertheless disqualified because of its policy on transgender students and on same-sex marriage.  According to the complaint:

50. Faculty, staff, and students are expected to align their conduct with Bethel’s belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. 

51. Faculty, staff, and students are expected to align their conduct with Bethel’s belief that biological sex as either male or female is an immutable gift from God, and therefore identify with, dress in accordance with, conduct themselves in keeping with, use the pronouns associated with, and use the facilities provided for, their biological sex....

53. Bethel’s conduct policy prohibits any communication of a sexual nature, such as identifying as the opposite sex, or expressing romantic attraction towards another student.

The school alleges that disqualifying it on this basis violates its 1st and 14th Amendment rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Federal District Court Strikes Down Mississippi's Anti-LGBT Conscience Protection Law

In Barber v. Bryant, (SD MS, June 30, 2016), a Mississippi federal district court in a stinging 60-page opinion, issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Mississippi House Bill 1523, the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.  The new law protects a wide variety of conduct, or refusals to provide goods and service, based on a religious or moral belief that: (1) marriage is a union of one man and one woman; (2) sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage; and (3) gender is an immutable characteristic determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.  The court concluded that the law, which would have gone into effect today, violates both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Summarizing the history of the bill, the court said:

In physics, every action has its equal and opposite reaction. In politics, every action has its predictable overreaction..... Obergefell has led to HB 1523.

The court summarized its conclusions:

HB 1523 grants special rights to citizens who hold one of three “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” reflecting disapproval of lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons.... That violates both the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection of the laws.

The Establishment Clause is violated because persons who hold contrary religious beliefs are unprotected – the State has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others. Showing such favor tells “nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and . . . adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” ... And the Equal Protection Clause is violated by HB 1523’s authorization of arbitrary discrimination against lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons....

Responding to the state's argument that the law "is justified by a compelling government interest in accommodating the free exercise of religion," the court said that the state had "not identified 'even a single instance' in which Obergefell has led to a free exercise problem in Mississippi." The court added:

In this case, moreover, it is difficult to see the compelling government interest in favoring three enumerated religious beliefs over others....  It is not within our tradition to respect one clerk’s religious objection to issuing a same-sex marriage license, but refuse another clerk’s religious objection to issuing a marriage license to a formerly-divorced person. The government is not in a position to referee the validity of Leviticus 18:22 (“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”) versus Leviticus 21:14 (“A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take.”).

BuzzFeed and the Washington Post have additional coverage of the opinion.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Bruce Bartlett, Tax Policy and the Bible, (Tax Notes, Vol. 141, No. 11, 2013).
• P.G. Monateri, Stasis in Moltmann e Schmitt (Stasis in Moltmann and Schmitt), (Cosmo. Comparative Studies in Modernism, 3 - 2013: Diritto e Religione, a cura di Cristina Costantini, pp. 9-17).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, Abortion Distortions, (Washington and Lee Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Charles J. Reid, 'May a Man Marry a Man?' Medieval Canon Lawyers Analyze Same-Sex Unions, (U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-02 (2014)).
• Mattheew I. Hall & Benjamin Means, The Prudential Third Party Standing of Family-Owned Corporations, (University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online, Forthcoming).
• Michael J. Perry, David C. Baum Memorial Lecture: Why Excluding Same-Sex Couples from Civil Marriage Violates the Constitutional Law of the United States, (University of Illinois Law Review, 2014, Forthcoming).
• Brian Christopher Jones, SCOTUS Short Title Turmoil: Time for a Congressional Bill Naming Authority, (32(1) Yale Law & Policy Review Inter Alia 25-33 (2013)).
• Andrew A. Proia, Freeing the Prop 8 Tape: Perry v. Brown, the Presumption of Access to Civil Proceedings, and the Preservation of Judicial Integrity, (University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2013).

From SSRN and elsewhere (Islamic Law):

• Suznne Bouclin, YouTube and Muslim Women's Legal Subjectivities, (Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Vol. 3, No. 7, 2013).
• Iris Sportel, 'Because It's an Islamic Marriage' Conditions Upon Marriage and after Divorce in Transnational Dutch-Moroccan and Dutch-Egyptian Marriages, (Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Vol. 3, No. 6, 2013).
• Javaid Rehman, Islam and Human Rights: Is Compatibility Achievable between the Sharia and Human Rights Law?, (January 2, 2014).
• Special Issue: Islamic Bioethics: Text and Context, [Table of Contents], Bioethics, Vol. 28, Issue 2 (Feb. 2014).

U.S. House Files Memo In Court Supporting DOMA

As previously reported, after the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the U.S. House of Representatives decided to defend the constitutionality of the statute.  New York Law Journal reports that on Monday, lawyers for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives filed a memorandum of law (full text) in one of the cases in which the House is defending DOMA.  The case is Windsor v. United States, (SD NY), in which the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage performed in Canada is seeking to have her marriage recognized for federal estate tax purposes. The memo argues that the court should apply merely rational basis review in assessing the challenge to DOMA, and that the courts should leave any redefinition of marriage to the democratic process. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Air Force Upholds Right of Commander To Refuse To Sign Certificate For Same-Sex Spouse

Stars and Stripes reported yesterday that the Director of the Air Force Review Boards Agency has granted an appeal by an Air Force Colonel who had been disciplined for refusing to sign a "certificate of appreciation" for the same-sex spouse of a master sergeant in his unit who was retiring.  Col. Leland Bohannon refused to sign the certificate because he thought it would signify his personal endorsement of a marriage that violates his religious beliefs.  Eventually the certificate was instead signed by a two-star General.  The retiring master sergeant however filed an Equal Opportunity complaint, and Bohannon was stripped of command of the Air Force Inspection Agency and removed from consideration for a promotion to brigadier general.

In a letter (full text) to members of Congress who had intervened on Bohannon's behalf, the Secretary of the Air Force wrote:

The Director concluded that Colonel Bohannon had the right to exercise his sincerely held religious beliefs and did not unlawfully discriminate when he declined to sign the certificate of appreciation.... The Air Force has a duty to treat people fairly and without discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation and met that duty by having a more senior officer sign the certificate.

The Air Force places a high value on the rights of its members to observe the tenets of their respective religions or to observe no religion at all. The decision on appeal applied current Air Force policy and the law.  It is an example of a situation in which protected, and potentially competing, interests must be carefully examined and resolved.

Free Exercise and Establishment Clause Challenges To NC Marriage Laws Dismissed On Procedural Grounds

In Thigpen v. Cooper, (NC Ct. App., March 5, 2013), a North Carolina state appellate court, without reaching the merits of the claim, dismissed a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that three of the state's marriage statutes are unconstitutional.  Plaintiff claimed that the statutes violate the Establishment Clause by making clergy agents of the state to perform a marriage ceremony; that  they violate free exercise protections because the state requires individuals entering into marriage to participate in a state-prescribed ceremony; and that it is unconstitutional for the state to prohibit members of the clergy from solemnizing the marriage of same-sex couples. (See prior posting.)  The only defendants named were the state of North Carolina and the state Attorney General in his official capacity. The court held that a state is not a "person" for purposes of 42 USC Sec. 1983, the federal statute giving plaintiffs a cause of action to challenge the state laws. It held further that the suit is not properly brought against the attorney general, because he plays no role in enforcing the marriage statutes being challenged.

Texas Supreme Court: State Lacks Standing To Appeal Trial Court's Grant of Same-Sex Divorce

In a 5-3 decision, the Texas Supreme Court yesterday in State of Texas v. Naylor  (TX Sup. Ct., June 19, 2015), held that the state lacks standing to appeal a divorce decree of sorts that had been granted by a trial court to a lesbian couple.  In the case, the couple had been legally married in Massachusetts, but were now Texas residents.  The trial court recognized the problem of issuing a decree since under Texas law the couple's marriage was not recognized.  Instead it issued an order-- pursuant to an agreement of the parties-- which was "intended to be a substitute for ... a valid and subsisting divorce... and is intended to dispose of all economic issues and liabilities as between the parties whether they [are] divorced or not."  After the order was entered, the state of Texas filed a motion to intervene to defend the Texas law that limits divorce actions to opposite-sex couples who are married to one another.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion by Justice Brown held that the state was too late in attempting to intervene as a party since it did not try to do so until after a decree was entered.  It also held that the state did not show grounds to maintain a third-party appeal of the trial court's decision. Justice Boyd filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that the state is in no way bound by the trial court's decree.

Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion (which was joined by Justices Guzman and Devine) concluding:

In my view, the attorney general—constitutionally bound to “represent the State in all suits” has an interest sufficient to intervene to defend Texas law against perceived constitutional attack. His arguments may not prevail, but he should be allowed to make them.

Justice Devine also filed a separate dissent reaching the merits and concluding that the Texas ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional.  Thus, since the parties were not married, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the divorce action. Dallas Morning News reports on the decision. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

New Zealand Rights Tribunal Upholds Church's Exclusion of Man From Clergy Because of Same-Sex Relationship

In Gay and Lesbian Clergy Anti-Discrimination Society, Inc. v. Bishop of Aukland, (NZ Human Rts. Rev. Trib., Oct, 17, 2013), the New Zealand Human Rights Review Tribunal rejected a claim by a man seeking to enter the ordained ministry of the Anglican Church that his rejection violated the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993.  The Bishop of Auckland refused to allow Eugene Sisneros to enter the preliminary discernment process because Sisneros was in an unmarried same-sex relationship.  Sisneros claimed that this amounted to illegal discrimination on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation.  The Tribunal held, however, that the exception in Sec. 39(1) of the Act precluded the discrimination claim. Sec. 39(1) provides that:

Nothing in section 38 shall apply where the authorisation or qualification is needed for, or facilitates engagement in, a profession or calling for the purposes of an organised religion and is limited to one sex or to persons of that religious belief so as to comply with the doctrines or rules or established customs of that religion.

In concluding that the exemption applied, the Tribunal said:

it is clear that the purpose of s 39(1) was (in the present context) to preserve the institutional autonomy of organised religions in relation to their decisions concerning the appointment of clergy and ministers. The plaintiff’s interpretation would entirely negate that purpose. The Anglican Church would be required to ordain priests who taught that the right ordering of sexual relationships can only occur within a Christian marriage (defined by the Formularies as a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman) but who themselves did not “live” that doctrine.  Ministers would not be exemplars, nor would they be bound by submission to the Constitution of the Church or by their declaration of allegiance to its doctrine and Formularies. This would undermine in the most fundamental way the religious autonomy of the Church, its right to be selective about those who will serve as the very embodiment of its message and its voice to the faithful.

Last Friday's New Zealand Herald reported on the decision.  [Thanks to Eric Rassbach for the lead.]

South Dakota Legislature Passes Bill On Transgenders In School Restrooms; 3 Other LGBT Bills Pending

This week the South Dakota legislature passed and sent to  Gov. Dennis Daugaard HB 1008 (full text) that provides:

Every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school that is designated for student use and is accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex. In addition, any public school student participating in a school sponsored activity off school premises which includes being in a state of undress in the presence of other students shall use those rooms designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex.

"Biological sex" is defined as "the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person's chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth."  The bill goes on to provide that transgender students are to be provided with reasonable accommodation, which "may include a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom, or the controlled use of a restroom, locker room, or shower room that is designated for use by faculty."

According to the Christian Science Monitor, the governor has not yet decided whether to sign the bill. The Argus Leader reports that the governor will meet both with transgender students and with the bill's sponsors before making a decision.

Human Rights Campaign says that two other anti-LGBT bills have been passed by the full House of Representatives, and another anti-transgender bill has passed through committee. HB 1112 passed by the House voids the current transgender policies of interscholastic activities associations and requires that their future policies determine sex by a student's chromosomes and the sex recorded on the student's birth certificate.

HB 1107 passed by the House bars the state from taking any action against a person because that person acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious or moral belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should be reserved to marriage, or that the terms male and female refer to distinct and immutable biological sexes determined by anatomy and genetics by the time of birth.

Finally, HB 1209 which has recently cleared a House Committee provides:

Any public body ... that accepts any information on a South Dakota birth certificate as official and valid shall accept all information on a South Dakota birth certificate as official and valid in carrying out the public body's legal and official duties.

Mississippi Legislature Sends Governor Broad "Freedom of Conscience" Bill

The Mississippi Legislature today gave final passage to H.B. 1523 (full text) and (adopted amendment). Titled Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 32-17 House by a vote of 69-44.

The statute, one of the broadest to date enacted by states, protects three separate beliefs if held on religious or moral grounds: (1) marriage is a union of one man and one woman; (2) sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage; and (3) gender is an immutable characteristic determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.

The statute protects from any kind of adverse state action a religious organization that on one of these bases refuses to solemnize a marriage or refuses to provide services, accommodations, goods or facilities for a marriage.  It also allows religious organizations to use these beliefs in making employment decisions or decisions regarding the sale, rental or occupancy of housing facilities, or in providing adoption or foster care services.

The statute protects from adverse government action any adoptive or foster parents who guide or raise a child consistent with these beliefs.  It protects any person who refuses provide counseling or fertility services or treatment because of these beliefs (except for emergency medical treatment).

The statute goes on to protect anyone who refuses to provide specific kinds of wedding-related services because of these beliefs, including photography, wedding planning, printing, floral arrangements, dress making, hall or limousine rental or jewelry sales and services.  It also protects any person who imposes sex-specific policies based on these beliefs on students or employees or regarding access to rest rooms, locker rooms and showers.

The statute goes on to protect state employees who speak out on these issues in their private capacity or in the workplace to the extent other political, moral or religious beliefs can be expressed. It allows county clerks to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licences consistent with these beliefs, and allows judges and others to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

According to CBS News, Republican Gov. Phil Bryant so far refuses to say whether or not he will sign the bill into law.

Plaintiffs Awarded Attorneys' Fees In Suit Against County Clerk Kim Davis

In Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, July 21, 2017) a Kentucky federal district court awarded $224,703 in attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiffs who previously obtained a preliminary injunction against Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis.  Davis, citing her religious beliefs, stopped issuing marriage licenses entirely in order to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples.  The court yesterday held that plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees because they were the “prevailing party” --they obtained a preliminary injunction that granted the relief they sought. The ultimate dismissal of the case after a change in the law rendered it moot did not change this conclusion.  The court, in a 50-page opinion, said in part:

In this case, the Plaintiffs “prevailed by every measure of victory.” The relief Plaintiffs obtained—the ability to secure marriage licenses and marry—was “preliminary” in name only. It is not the “fleeting” success that fails to establish prevailing-party status.  After the Court obtained compliance with the Preliminary Injunction Orders, Plaintiffs received marriage licenses. And once the plaintiff-couples received their marriage licenses, their rights were not subject to revocation….

... Couples continued to receive marriage licenses after the Kentucky General Assembly amended the law – albeit, on a form Davis felt more comfortable with. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction success materially altered their legal relationship with Davis, and that court-ordered change was enduring and irrevocable. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs “prevailed” within the meaning of § 1988 and are entitled to attorneys’ fees.

The court also held that the state of Kentucky, not Rowan County, is liable for the attorneys’ fees. AP reporting on the decision says Davis plans to appeal, but the state of Kentucky has not yet decided whether it will appeal the ruling. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Maine Bill Would Separate Clergy's Role In Marriages From Legal Recognition

A bill has been introduced into the Maine legislature that would separate the religious role of clergy in performing marriage ceremonies from the legal recognition of marriage. The bill, LD 779, titled An Act to Remove Clergy as Signatories on Marriage Licenses, was introduced by a legislator on behalf of Rev. Mark Rustin, a Congregationalist minister, who says that he does not want to be an agent for the state of Maine. The bill calls for the legal aspect of the marriage contract to be carried out by lawyers, justices, judges or notaries. Today's Village Soup Times reports that Rev. Rustin is concerned that the present role of clergy places them in a difficult position when they need help a couple get through a divorce. Also, he said, that sometimes older couples want the clergy’s blessing to live together, but do not want a legal marriage contract because they will then lose Social Security benefits. Some people think the bill will also impact the issue of same-sex marriages.

Kim Davis' Case Continues to Defy Finality

The controversy surrounding Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage license to same-sex couples is not over.  As previously reported, after being released from custody on contempt charges, Davis allowed others in her office to issue licenses, but only with revised wording. On Nov. 13, outgoing Governor Steven Beshear filed a response (full text) with the federal district court that had held Davis in contempt stating that:

those altered licenses are not fully consistent with Kentucky statute, but such deviations do not render the marriages ineffective.  Thus, the Third-Party Defendants have and will continue  to  recognize  as  valid  those  marriages  solemnized  pursuant  to  the  altered licenses for purposes of the governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities conveyed by the Executive Branch agencies over which Governor Beshear exercises supervisory control.

This led the ACLU to file a motion (full text) on Nov. 20 urging to court to require licenses to be issued in their original unaltered form, stating:

As Governor Beshear has now recognized, Davis’ actions have created considerable uncertainty regarding the legality of the altered marriage licenses.  They impose significant and ongoing harm on Rowan County couples who are legally eligible to marry but now face doubt and fear that a marriage solemnized pursuant to an altered marriage license could be held invalid at some unknown time in the future. And Davis’ actions effectively brand the altered licenses with a stamp of animus against gay people. This Court can and should eliminate the uncertainty and harm by enforcing its prior orders....

Meanwhile, accordidng to the Nov. 6 International Business Times, Republican Kentucky Gov.-elect Matt Bevin says that when he is sworn in on Dec. 8, he will issue an executive order removing county clerks' names from state marriage licenses, hoping that this will resolve the problem.

Challenge To North Carolina Marriage Laws Dismissed

According to the Greensboro (NC) News & Record, a North Carolina state trial court judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed last year by 11 clergy challenging the state's requirement that marriages be solemnized by clergy or a magistrate.  The complaint claimed 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. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs say they will appeal the decision.