Georgia Lawsuit Is Latest To Challenge Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Lambda Legal announced yesterday that it has filed suit in federal district court in Georgia on behalf of three same-sex couples and a widow challenging Georgia's statutory and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. The complaint (full text) in Inniss v. Aderhold, (ND GA, filed 4/22/2014) was filed as a class action and challenges both the ban on same-sex marriage and the non-recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. According to a Washington Post compilation, with the filing of this lawsuit, only four states-- Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota-- have same-sex marriage bans that are not being challenged in court; and a suit is in the offing in South Dakota.

Court Refuses To Bar Enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Law Against Wedding Invitation Designers

In Brush & Nib Studio LC v. City of Phoenix, (AZ Super. Ct., Sept. 19, 2016), an Arizona trial court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Phoenix, Arizona's public accommodation anti-discrimination ordinance against a business that designs custom wedding invitations. Refusing to dismiss on ripeness grounds, the court held that the law does not violate plaintiffs' free speech or free exercise rights. Rejecting plaintiffs' compelled speech argument, the court said in part:

Here, there is nothing about custom wedding invitations made for same-sex couples that is expressive.... The printing of the names of a same-sex couple on an invitation or thank you note does not compel Plaintiffs to convey a government mandated message, such as an endorsement or pledge in favor of same-sex marriages, nor does it convey any message concerning same-sex marriage.... It is absurd to think that the fabricator of a wedding invitation for a same-sex couple has endorsed same-sex marriage merely by creating or printing that invitation. Moreover, there is nothing about the creative process itself, such as a flower or vine or the choice of a particular font or color, that conveys any pledge, endorsement, celebration, or other substantive mandated message by Plaintiffs in regard to same-sex marriage.

Responding to plaintiffs' free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

the sale of wedding invitations free of the names of same-sex couples clearly is not the exercise of religion, and certainly is not a burden on the free exercise of their religion. Nothing about the ordinance has prevented the Plaintiffs from participating in the customs of their religious beliefs or has burdened the practice of their religion in any way.

ADF which represented plaintiffs in the case issued a press release responding to the decision. The press release is accompanied by links to pleadings in the case and to the relevant city ordinances.

Church Synod and Various Clergy Sue Claiming North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Ban Infringes Their Free Exercise Rights

A federal lawsuit with a different twist challenging North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage was filed yesterday. In addition to same-sex couples, the plaintiffs are a religious denomination-- the United Church of Christ-- and individual clergy from UCC, Lutheran, Baptist, Unitarian-Universalist, and Reform Jewish congregations. The complaint (full text) in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper, (WD NC, filed 4/28/2014), claims, among other things, that North Carolina law makes it a criminal offense for a member of the clergy to conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony, and that this infringes the free exercise and expressive associational rights of clergy whose religious teachings and beliefs embrace same-sex marriage. The same-sex couples also assert due process and equal protection claims.  UCC has issued a press release and created a website with additional information on the case. The Charlotte Observer also reports on the case. [Thanks to Don Clark for the lead.]

Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz Praises Indiana RFRA, Says SCOTUS Ruling Upholding Marriage Equality Would Be Illegitimate

Sen. Ted Cruz, the only formally announced candidate so far for the 2016 Presidential race, spoke at Morningside College in Sioux City, Iowa yesterday, focusing on religious liberty and same-sex marriage. According to the Dallas Morning News, Cruz told his audience: "Religious liberty is not some fringe view. It is the basis of this country,"  He praised the recent action of the Indiana legislature in enacting its controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying:

We’re seeing in the news right now a lot of noise because the state of Indiana bravely stood up and passed a law defending religious liberty.

Criticizing Democrats and gay-rights activists, he added:

Because of their partisan desire to mandate gay marriage everywhere in this country, they also want to persecute anyone who has a good faith religious belief that marriage is a holy sacrament, the union of one man and one woman and ordained as a covenant by God.

Expressing concern over what the Supreme Court might rule this June in the same-sex marriage cases before it, he told his audience:

The first thing and I think the most important thing every one of us can do, is pray. Lift up in prayer.

Cruz said that if the Court legalizes same-sex marriage, he will urge Congress to pass legislation stripping courts of jurisdiction over the issue. He said that a ruling by the Court legalizing same-sex marriage would be "fundamentally illegitimate."  Cruz favors a Constitutional amendment that would leave the issue to the states.

Top 10 Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments For 2012

Here are my nominations for the 2012 Top Ten Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments:

1.  The long-simmering tensions between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Obama Administration took on a greater focus when in May some 40 Catholic institutions, in 12 lawsuits, filed challenges to the Obama administration's mandate that health insurance policies include contraceptive coverage. Other suits followed. The Administration had granted a one-year moratorium to non-profit institutions, while it worked unsuccessfully to produce a compromise that might be acceptable to religiously affiliated non-profit institutions. Meanwhile, for-profit companies owned by Catholics and conservative Christians also filed an avalanche of suits seeking conscience exemptions from the mandate.

2.  The battle between religious conservatives and advocates of marriage equality continued to rage on numerous fronts.  Each side saw some victories and some defeats, but proponents of marriage equality had a good year.  Legislatures in Washington and Maryland approved same-sex marriage. In November, voters in 4 states also indicated approval of same-sex marriage, but earlier in the year North Carolina voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage.. The 9th Circuit in a narrow opinion struck down California's Proposition 8, and the Supreme Court has agreed to review that decision. The Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the 1st Circuit, the 2nd Circuit and a California federal district court. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the 2nd Circuit case. Same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Hawaii were upheld by federal district courts.

 3.  Mitt Romney lost the Presidential election, but his Mormon religious faith was not an important issue in the campaign. Indeed, Romney's activities as a lay Mormon pastor were used to his advantage at the Republican Convention.

4. The Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC adopted the "ministerial exception" doctrine for employment discrimination cases, finding it to be constitutionally-based.

5.  Egypt has struggled to draft and adopt a new constitution.  The role the new constitution will provide for Sharia law in the country has been one of the central issues in debates on the document.

6.  A 17-year long struggle by the New York City Board of Education to bar churches from renting out school buildings on weekends for church services, even though the buildings are available to other community groups, was revived by a federal district judge. Most observers had thought that a 2011 decision by the 2nd Circuit had ended the dispute in favor of the Board of Education, but the court held that the 2nd Circuit had not passed on the Bronx Household of Faith's free exercise and establishment clause claims. The district court's vindication of the free exercise claim is now on appeal.

7.  An online video promoting the obscure movie "Innocence of Muslims" triggers demonstrations against American embassies in the Muslim world. The video leads to an unusual set of legal proceedings-- litigation involving probation violations by the producer, attempt by an actress in the movie to have it removed from YouTube, and in abstentia convictions in Egypt.

8.  New questions are raised around the world regarding ritual circumcision of young boys by Muslims and Jews. Germany's Bundestag confirmed the legality of religious circumcision after a Cologne district court held that parents lack the right to decide that their young sons should be circumcised for non-medical reasons. Ritual circumcision is also questioned in Australia and Norway. Meanwhile, in the United States some Orthodox Jewish groups sue challenging the New York City health department's new regulation requiring informed consent from parents when a Jewish religious circumcision involves use of the oral suction technique (metzitzah b'peh).

9.  The court martial trial of accused Fort Hood mass shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan is delayed as the question of his right to wear a beard for religious reasons at his trial is litigated.  In December, an appeals court held there was insufficient evidence to show that the beard materially interfered with the court martial proceedings. It also ordered court martial judge Gregory Gross removed from the case for the appearance of bias.

10.  In the wake of Congress' reorganization of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in late 2011, developments demonstrated internal divisions and conflicts in the Commission. The pressure of expiring terms of 5 Commissioners led to early release of USCIRF's annual report and to a public statement by 5 of the Commissioners charging that the report wrongly reflected the votes of Commissioners on the status of Turkey.  Meanwhile a former USCIRF staff member sued alleging anti-Muslim bias against her.  In an unrelated case, a different employee was sentenced to prison for embezzling USCIRF funds. And Muslim groups criticized one of the new Commissioners, claiming he is anti-Muslim.

Some of my picks were rather obvious candidates for inclusion, while others may surprise some readers. A number of the top developments continue trends reflected in last year's list.  You may also find it interesting to compare two other "Top 10" lists: Religion Newswriters 2012 Top 10 Religion Stories and Blog from the Capital's Top Religious Liberty Stories of 2012. I invite you to post your comments or disagreements with my choices this year.

New Poll Shows Americans Favor Same-Sex Marriages, But Want To Protect Religious Objectors

Yesterday AP-GfK announced the release of their latest poll (full poll results) which asks respondents about their views on same-sex marriage and abortion rights. In the poll, 35% favor same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose. Respondents are divided 48% to 48% on how the Supreme Court should rule in its pending same-sex marriage cases. By 50% to 46%, respondents favor religious exemptions to the requirement to issue same-sex marriage licences for officials who object to doing so.  By 57% to 39%, respondents favor exemptions for wedding related businesses who object to providing services for same-sex couples. Finally poll showed a 51% to 45% margin favoring legalized abortion in most or all cases.

State Court Invalidates Arkansas Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

In Wright v. State of Arkansas, (AR Cir. Ct., May 9, 2014), an Arkansas state trial court held that Arkansas' state constitutional and legislative bans on same-sex marriage violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The suit was brought by 12 same-sex couples seeking to marry in Arkansas and 8 couples who have married in states allowing same-sex marriage who want their marriages recognized in Arkansas.  In striking down the state ban, the court added:

It has been over forty years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice. The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it.

According to USA Today, while state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel personally supports same-sex marriage, his office said after the ruling:

in keeping with the Attorney General's obligation to defend the state constitution, we will appeal. We will request that Judge Piazza issue a stay of his ruling so as not to create confusion or uncertainty about the law while the Supreme Court considers the matter.

  [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Developments In Marriage Equality Cases: Louisiana and South Dakota

There were two developments yesterday in the array of cases challenging same-sex marriage bans.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for direct review of a trial court decision in Robicheaux v. Devin, (Docket No. 14-596, cert. before judgment denied, Jan. 12, 2015) (Order List). The district court upheld Louisiana's same-sex marriage ban and the 5th Circuit last week heard oral arguments in the case. (See prior posting.)

Also yesterday in Rosenbrahn v. Daugaard, (D SD, Jan. 12, 2015), a federal district court held that  South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.  However, the court stayed its injunction pending appeal to the 8th Circuit. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog reporting on the decision said:

Although most of Judge Schreier’s reasons for nullifying the South Dakota ban on Monday were familiar from other decisions, she was among the first to reject what has been a more recent claim by state officials: that is, that marriage is a domestic relations matter, and that federal courts have no jurisdiction over such matters.  There is such an exception, the Sioux Falls judge found, but that it does not go so far as to bar new constitutional claims against same-sex marriage bans.

Following the district court's decision, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley reacted in a press release, saying in part: "It remains the State’s position that the institution of marriage should be defined by the voters of South Dakota and not the federal courts."

Two Decisions Follow On Illinois Legalization Of Same-Sex Marriage

As previously reported, last month Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, effective June 1, 2014. There have now been two follow-up judicial developments. As reported by Illinois Review, yesterday, with the backing of all parties, an Illinois state trial court judge dismissed as moot the complaint in Darby v. Orr, a suit filed last year by the ACLU and Lambda Legal challenging the constitutionality of Illinois' previous prohibition of same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, in Lee v. Orr, (ND IL, Dec. 10, 2013), an Illinois federal district court issued an opinion in a class action lawsuit granting a temporary injunction allowing  individuals in same-sex relationships who need to marry before to June 1, 2014 due to a life-threatening illness of one or both parties the right to do so. The court said:

The putative subclass of medically critical plaintiffs here are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the provisions of the current Illinois law that deny them the right to marry based solely on their sexual orientation, as applied, violates their constitutional right to equal protection.

The court's decision was contingent on the parties agreeing on a satisfactory implementation method.  They have done so.  As announced by the ACLU,  the court finalized its order yesterday adopting a procedure that allows same-sex couples to marry before June 1 if they provide a doctor’s certification stating that one of them has a life-threatening illness. Still pending in the case is the broader attempt by plaintiffs to speed up the same-sex marriage implementation date for everyone.

New Mexico Supreme Court Validates Same-Sex Marriages

In Griego v. Oliver, (NM Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2013), the New Mexico Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry.  New Mexico is the only state whose laws do not explicitly either permit or prohibit same-sex marriage. (See prior related posting.)  However in its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that "the statutory scheme reflects a legislative intent to prohibit same-gender marriages."  It went on to hold that this prohibition is unconstitutional:

We conclude that the purpose of New Mexico marriage laws is to bring stability and order to the legal relationship of committed couples by defining their rights and responsibilities as to one another, their children if they choose to raise children together, and their property. Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the governmental interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage or to the purposes we have identified. Therefore, barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution. We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law.

In reaching its decision, the court added:

Although this question arouses sincerely-felt religious beliefs both in favor of and against same-gender marriages, our analysis does not and cannot depend on religious doctrine without violating the Constitution.... Our holding will not interfere with the religious freedom of religious organizations or clergy because (1) no religious organization will have to change its policies to accommodate same-gender couples, and (2) no religious clergy will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

Bloomberg News reports on the decision which makes New Mexico the 17th state to recognize same-sex marriage. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Navy Chaplains May Perform Same-Sex Marriages

Navy Times reported yesterday that Navy Chief of Chaplains Rear Adm. Mark Tidd has issued a memo allowing Navy chaplains to officiate at same-sex marriage and civil union ceremonies. The memo was issued as part of the updated training guidance to implement the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  The memo reads in part:

Consistent with the tenets of his or her religious organization, a chaplain may officiate a same-sex, civil marriage: if it is conducted in accordance with a state that permits same-sex marriage or union; and if that chaplain is, according to the applicable state and local laws, otherwise fully certified to officiate that state’s marriages.... [I]f the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then base facilities may normally be used to celebrate the marriage. This is true for purely religious services (e.g., a chaplain blessing a union) or a traditional wedding (e.g., a chaplain both blessing and conducting the ceremony).

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Todd Aikin says that the memo violates the Defense of Marriage Act.

Supreme Court Grants Review In 6th Circuit Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in four same-sex marriage cases from the Sixth Circuit: Obergefell v. James (Ohio); Tanco v. Haslam  (Tennessee); DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan); and Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky). (Order List). In a consolidated opinion, the 6th Circuit in a 2-1 decision upheld the same-sex marriage bans in the four states. (See prior posting.) In granting review, the Supreme Court defined the questions to be argued:

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

More Legal Maneuvering Against Same-Sex Marriage In Alabama As U.S. Supreme Court's Decision Nears

With the U.S. Supreme Court less than a month away from finally settling the issue, legal sparring over same-sex marriage continues in Alabama. Two groups that had secured from the Alabama Supreme Court a writ of mandamus ordering Probate Court judges around the state to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples (see prior posting) filed a "Motion for Clarification and Reaffirmation of the Court's Orders Upholding and Enforcing Alabama's Marriage Laws".  The motion and supporting memorandum of law (full text) in Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., filed 6/2/2015), asked the state Supreme Court to reaffirm its order in light of intervening U.S. federal district court decisions (see prior posting) granting a preliminary injunction (which the district court then stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision) barring all Alabama probate judges from refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the motion which said in part: "The Alabama Supreme Court’s prior mandamus Order, and perhaps its disposition of this motion, should send a message that any ruling by Judge Granade or even the United States Supreme Court inventing a right to same-sex 'marriage'a under the U.S. Constitution is illegitimate."

Montana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Challenged

According to Lambda Legal, as of last week only 3 states which do not allow same-sex marriage had no litigation challenging the ban pending.  Now that has dropped to two.  The ACLU of Montana announced yesterday the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of four same-sex couples seeking to marry in Montana or to have their out-of-state same-sex marriage recognized in Montana. The complaint (full text) in Rolando v. Fox, (D MT, filed 5/21/2014), asks the court to declare that Montana's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. With the filing of this lawsuit, only North and South Dakota have marriage equality bans with no litigation pending.

Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment to Romanian Constitution Fails

In Romania, voters have failed to approve a proposed constitutional amendment that would have enshrined a ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution.  As reported by the Washington Post and Reuters, the two-day referendum failed to generate the 30% turnout needed for passage of the measure.  Only 20.4% of the voters cast ballots for the measure that was backed by the Social Democrat Party and the Orthodox church. According to the Post:

The referendum itself did not give voters a choice to vote in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, but only whether the constitutional definition of a “family” should continue to be gender-neutral. Either way, the result would not have had an immediate legal impact, but may have prevented possible future court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union.

But as a growing number of government critics urged Romanians to boycott the vote, the same-sex marriage referendum also became a de facto confidence vote over the Social Democratic government. The ruling party has repeatedly shocked domestic and international observers with corruption scandals and attempts to disrupt the rule of law that triggered large protests across the country.

Cert. Petitions Filed In Oklahoma and Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Following quickly on the heels of Utah's Aug. 5 certiorari petition to the U.S. Supreme Court (see prior posting), certiorari petitions have been filed in two more same-sex marriage cases:

A petition (full text) was filed Aug. 6 in Smith v. Bishop, a case in which the 10th Circuit held that Oklahoma's ban on granting licences for same-sex marriages performed in the state is unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the petition, Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog points out that this is the longest-running federal court challenge to same-sex marriage bans, having been filed in 2004.

On Aug. 8, a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed in Rainey v. Bostic. In the case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the petition, Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog comments that: "The Virginia case has special symbolic significance, because that is the state that produced the case of Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court in 1967 struck down a state law barring marriage by couples of different races."

Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Complicates Prior Estate Planning Devices

A New York Times article six years ago reported on the use of adult adoption as an estate planning tool for same-sex couples who were prohibited by law from marrying.  The technique allows a same-sex partner to share as a beneficiary in a family trust to which the person would not be entitled if not a family member. Last week the Doylestown-Buckingham-New Britain Patch reported on how this kind of arrangement has fared as same-sex marriage becomes legal in many states. Bill Novak and Norman MacArthur are a same-sex couple who have been together for more than 50 years and were registered as domestic partners in New York City. When they moved to Pennsylvania, their lawyer advised them to use the adoption strategy for estate planning purposes.  So in 2000, Novak adopted MacArthur.  But now that same-sex marriage is permitted in Pennsylvania, the two would like to marry.  However this required vacating the adoption decree.  In a precedent-setting decision on May 14, the Orphans Court of Bucks County  granted their Petition to Vacate, and the couple applied for and received a marriage license the same day.  They expect to actually marry soon.

Firing Clerk Who Refused To Process Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Did Not Violate Title VII

In Summers v. Whitis, (SD IN, Dec. 15, 2016), an Indiana federal district court held that an Indiana County Clerk did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when she fired a deputy clerk who refused, on religious grounds, to process marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The court held:

Here, the court finds no objective conflict between Summers’ duties as a deputy clerk and her religious opposition to same-sex marriage. When it came to marriage licenses, Summers’ job merely required her to process the licenses by entering data and handing out information. Specifically, she had to pull up the application, verify that certain information was correct, collect a statutory fee, print a form, and record the license in a book for public record. At bottom, she was simply tasked with certifying–on  behalf of the state of Indiana, not on her own behalf– that the couple was qualified to marry under Indiana law. The duties were purely administrative.

To be clear, Summers did not perform marriage ceremonies or personally sign marriage licenses or certificates. She was not required to attend ceremonies, say congratulations, offer a blessing, or pray with couples. Her employer did not make her express religious approval or condone any particular marriage. Summers remained free to practice her Christian faith and attend church services. She was even free to maintain her belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Thus, she was not forced to “choose between [her] religious convictions and [her] job.”...

... [T]he court does not question the sincerity of Summers’ beliefs. She maintains that “it’s not God’s law to have [same-sex couples] marry,” ... and has pointed to select verses from the Bible in support. That is fine; she has every right to believe that. However, that belief, no matter how sincerely espoused, does not objectively conflict with the purely administrative duty to process marriage licenses. Summers’ desire to avoid handling forms related to activities of which she personally disapproves is not protected by federal law. Title VII is not a license for employees to  perform only those duties that meet their private approval.

The court held, alternatively, that any religious conflict was with federal law, not with an employment requirement.

In Illinois Challenge To Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Court Allows Further Proceedings On Equal Protection and Due Process Challenges

In Darby v. Orr, (IL Cir. Ct., Sept. 27, 2013), an Illinois state trial court gave a substantial victory to proponents of same-sex marriage in the state.  First the court held that the same-sex marriage ban is not facially neutral and that plaintiffs have alleged facts which, if proven at trial, would establish that they belong to a suspect or quasi-suspect class protected by the state constitution's equal protection clause.  It also allowed plaintiffs to move ahead on their due process challenge, holding that "the present case allows the Illinois courts to consider, for the first time, whether the concept of choice as an aspect of the fundamental right to marry ... might apply to same-sex couples seeking to marry." The court however dismissed plaintiffs claims that the same-sex marriage ban amounts to unconstitutional sex discrimination, violates the right to privacy protected by the state constitution and violates the special legislation ban in the state constitution. The Chicago Tribune reports on the decision.

Catholic, Orthodox Jewish Spokesmen React To New York's Marriage Equality Law

New York last week enacted legislation permitting same-sex marriage despite particularly strong opposition from some religious groups, including Catholic and Orthodox Jewish organizations.  (See prior posting).  Here are statements that those two groups have now issued in reaction to the new law:

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, Catholic Bishop of Brooklyn, said in a press release:

Today, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have deconstructed the single most important institution in human history. Republicans and Democrats alike succumbed to powerful political elites and have passed legislation that will undermine our families and as a consequence, our society.....

In light of these disturbing developments and in protest for this decision, I have asked all Catholic schools to refuse any distinction or honors bestowed upon them this year by the governor or any member of the legislature who voted to support this legislation. Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration.

The above request is intended as a protest of the corrupt political process in New York State. More than half of all New Yorkers oppose this legislation. Yet, the governor and the state legislature have demonized people of faith, whether they be Muslims, Jews, or Christians, and identified them as bigots and prejudiced, and voted in favor of same-sex “marriage.” It is mystifying that this bill would be passed on the last day of an extended session under the cover of darkness.

However a statement signed by all the bishops of New York state was considerably milder in tone. It said in part:

The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled.

We strongly uphold the Catholic Church’s clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves.

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America issued a statement saying:

Consistent with our tradition and Jewish religious principles, we oppose the redefinition of marriage and the state sanction of same sex marriages. We opposed this legislation and believe it is a mistake to enact it in New York. We do note however that the legislation, as enacted, includes robust protections of religious liberties for organizations including synagogues, schools and social service agencies. For that at least, we are grateful. Just as we, in a democratic, pluralistic society do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others, same sex marriage, now the law in New York, must not infringe on anyone's religious liberties.