Alabama Supreme Court Narrowly Avoids Confrontation With SCOTUS On Same-Sex Marriage

The Alabama Supreme Court yesterday in Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute, (AL Sup. Ct., March 4, 2016), issued a per curiam order dismissing all pending motions and petitions in a suit that sought to require Alabama probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  However the Order also generated six separate opinions from the 9 justices spanning 170 pages. Three of the opinions were particularly defiant of the U.S. Supreme Court's authority to hand down its Obergefell decision.

Chief Justice Roy Moore who has been in the lead in resisting same-sex marriage in Alabama (see prior posting) wrote the longest and most defiant opinion.  He actually submitted two opinions totaling 106 pages-- one an opinion on why he now decided not to recuse himself, even though he had done so at earlier stages of the case, and the second longer opinion attacking the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision. Explaining why he was willing to concur in the dismissal of the suit, Moore said:

Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court's holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional.

In perhaps his most radical attack, Moore said (at pp. 87-88):

The general principle of blind adherence to United States Supreme Court opinions as "the law of the land" is a dangerous fallacy that is inconsistent with the United States Constitution. Labeling such opinions as "the rule of law" confuses the law itself -- the Constitution -- with an opinion that purports to interpret that document.

Article VI, by its plain terms, binds "the judges in every state" to obedience to the Constitution itself, not to unconstitutional and illegitimate opinions of the United States Supreme Court. Just as the little boy in Hans Christian Andersen's tale pointed out that the Emperor, contrary to the assertions of his courtiers, was actually stark naked, so also the "judges in every state" are entitled to examine Supreme Court opinions to see if they are clothed in the majesty of the law of the Constitution itself rather than in naked propositions of men with no cognizable covering from that document.

Moore also emphasized religious liberty in his attack on the Obergefell majority, saying in part (at pg. 58):

The Obergefell majority, conspicuously overlooking the "essential and historic significance" of the connection between religious liberty and "supreme allegiance to the will of God," failed to appreciate the seriousness of imposing a new sexual-revolution mandate that requires Alabama public officials to disobey the will of God.

Justices Parker and Murdock also wrote defiant concurring opinions, while Justice Shaw's concurring opinion was highly critical of Chief Justice Moore's approach.

Justice Bolin's somewhat temperate concurrence is of particular interest. He said in part:

Although I have many times not agreed with a decision of the United States Supreme Court, or a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court for that matter, I have never criticized an opinion from any court in the manner in which I regrettably do so today. I am, however, able to count to five--and I know that five votes trump four; and, although that does not make it right, it does make it a majority opinion....

The foregoing being said, I am further compelled to concur specially to express my concern, which remains to be determined in future cases, that the Obergefell decision may have emasculated this State's entire statutory licensing scheme governing "marriage" to the point of rendering it incapable of being enforced prospectively.

Al.com reports at length on the decision.

European Court Says Russia Violated Convention In Refusing To Register Same-Sex Unions

In Fedotova and Others v. Russia, (ECHR, July 13, 2021), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Russia violated Article 8 (Respect For Private and Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights when it refused to register the marriage of same-sex couples. The Court said in part:

49.  ... Article 8 ... does not explicitly impose ... an obligation to formally acknowledge same-sex unions. However, it implies the need for striking a fair balance between the competing interests of same-sex couples and of the community as a whole....

54.  The Court notes that the protection of “traditional marriage” stipulated by the amendments to the Russian Constitution in 2020 ... is in principle weighty and legitimate interest, which may have positive effect in strengthening family unions. The Court, however, cannot discern any risks for traditional marriage which the formal acknowledgment of same-sex unions may involve, since it does not prevent different-sex couples from entering marriage, or enjoying the benefits which the marriage gives....

56.  ... [T]he respondent Government have a margin of appreciation to choose the most appropriate form of registration of same-sex unions taking into account its specific social and cultural context (for example, civil partnership, civil union, or civil solidarity act). In the present case they have overstepped that margin, because no legal framework capable of protecting the applicants’ relationships as same-sex couples has been available under domestic law.

According to Euronews, Russian authorities have rejected the Court's judgment, saying that the Court is meddling in the country's internal affairs. 

Suit Challenges North Dakota's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Religion News Service reports that on Friday, a federal lawsuit was filed challenging North Dakota's state constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage.  Up to now, North Dakota had been the last state with an unchallenged gay marriage ban.  The complaint (full text) in Ramsay v. Dalrymple, (D ND, filed 6/6/2014) challenges both the ban on same-sex marriages in the state and the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. It contends that the bans violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment, and that the non-recognition of out-of-state marriages infringes on the fundamental right to travel. According to Freedom To Marry, there are now ongoing court challenges to same-sex marriage bans and/or non-recognition requirements in 31 states and Puerto Rico. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia already have full marriage equality.

Groups Seek Alabama Supreme Court Mandaumus To Stop Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

While Probate Judges in 50 of Alabama's 67 counties have begun to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, opposition to a federal district court's invalidation of the state's same-sex marriage ban has not ended.  The Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program filed a petition (full text) with the Alabama Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking a writ of mandamus ordering county probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or recognize licenses issued to them. The petition argues that fededral court injunctions aimed at the state's attorney general do not bind probate judges. The Supreme Court yesterday issued an order, with two justices filing dissenting opinions, (full text) ordering respondents to file answers by Feb. 18.  Justice Shaw dissenting said: "I would urge restraint and would urge this Court not to interject more confusion into what is already a very confusing situation."  Also yesterday Equality Alabama filed and amicus brief (full text) urging dismissal of the petition. Meanwhile, a Mississippi Ku Klux Klan faction called for support of efforts to defy federal court same-sex marriage rulings.

Albany Episcopal Bishop Defies Parent Body On Same-Sex Marriage Rites

In July, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church passed Resolution B012 Marriage Rites for the Whole Church, which was designed to give local congregational access to all couples wishing to have a same-sex marriage ceremony.  The Resolution stated in part:

[I]n dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority ... holds a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples, and there is a desire to use such rites by same-sex couples in a congregation or worshipping community, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority ... shall invite, as necessary, another bishop of this Church to provide pastoral support to the couple...

Last week, in response to Resolution B012 that is to become effective on Dec. 3, the Bishop of Albany, William Love, who has been an opponent of same-sex marriage, issued a Pastoral Letter (full text) that reads in part as follows:

I cannot in good conscience as a bishop in God’s holy Church agree to what is being asked for in B012. While I respect the authority of General Convention as an institutional body, my ultimate loyalty as a bishop in God’s holy Church is to God....

Until further notice, the trial rites authorized by Resolution B012 of the 79th General Convention of the Episcopal Church shall not be used anywhere in the Diocese of Albany by diocesan clergy (canonically resident or licensed)....

Albany Times-Union reports on the Bishop's action.

Ohio Must Recognize Same-Sex Spouses On Death Certificates

In Obergefell v. Wymyslo, (SD OH, Dec. 23, 2013), an Ohio federal district court today in a 50-page opinion held that despite its statutory and constitutional provisions to the contrary, Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages that were validly performed in other states for purposes of indicating on an Ohio death certificate the deceased's marital status and the identity of the surviving spouse. The court said in part:

... [U]nder the Constitution of the United States, Ohio must recognize valid out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples on Ohio death certificates, just as Ohio recognizes all other out-of-state marriages, if valid in the state performed, and even if not authorized nor validly performed under Ohio law, such as marriages between first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages. 

That is, once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Moreover, as this Court held in its initial Orders this summer and reaffirms today, by treating lawful same-sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, violates the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.... 

The court's decision does not invalidate Ohio's refusal to issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages in the state.  The court says that there is a possibility the state's concerns about same-sex marriage are more compelling in the context of marriage creation than in the context of marriage recognition. Reporting on today's opinion, AP says that Ohio will appeal the decision.

Australia's Highest Court Invalidates Capital Territory's Marriage Equality Law

In Commonwealth of Australia v. Australian Capital Territory, (Australia High Ct., Dec. 12, 2013), Australia's highest court invalidated the Australian Capital Territory's Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 as inconsistent with federal law.  As summarized by the High Court's press release:

Today the High Court decided unanimously that the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013, enacted by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, cannot operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act 1961. The Court held that the federal Parliament has power under the Australian Constitution to legislate with respect to same sex marriage, and that under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the federal Parliament.

The decision comes only 5 days after the Australian Capital Territory's new law took effect. Some 27 same-sex couples got married during that period. According to CNN, those marriages will be annulled.

Texas Judge Sues Over Right To Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

A county judge in Jack County, Texas has filed suit in a Texas federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent any future enforcement action by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct against him. The complaint (full text) in Umphress v. Hall, (ND TX, filed 3/18/2020) alleges in part:

A few months ago, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued a “public warning” to Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace who recuses herself from officiating at same-sex marriage ceremonies on account of her Christian faith....  The Commission’s interpretation of Canon 4A(1) threatens every judge in Texas who refuses to perform same-sex marriages, as well as those who publicly evince disapproval of same-sex marriage or homosexual conduct in their extra-judicial activities.....

The Court should therefore declare that the First Amendment protects Judge Umphress’s right to conduct his extra-judicial activities in a manner that evinces disapproval of same-sex marriage and homosexual conduct.

Pink News reports on the lawsuit.

New California Poll Probes Views On Same Sex Marriage By Religious Affiliation

On Wednesday, the Public Religion Research Institute released a poll examining religous-based attitudes about same-sex marriage among Californians. (Full text of poll report.) (Full text of questions and percentage responses.) Here are some excerpts from the press release's summary of poll findings:

•If another vote similar to Proposition 8 were held tomorrow, a majority (51%) say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry....

• There are major religious groups on both sides of the debate.... Solid majorities of Latino Catholics and white mainline Protestants say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, while solid majorities of white evangelical Protestants, Latino Protestants, and African American Protestants say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

• An overwhelming majority of Californians, and majorities of all major religious groups except Latino Protestants, say they both favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people from job discrimination and favor allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the military (75% and 69% respectively). A majority (56%) of Californians favor adoption rights for same-sex couples.

• .... A majority of Latino Catholics (57%) say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couple to marry, compared to just 22% of Latino Protestants. The Catholic-Protestant divide in the Latino community is evident across a wide range of public policy issues related to gay and lesbian rights.

• In the wider California religious community, there are also significant Catholic-Protestant differences in the frequency with which each group hears about the issue of homosexuality from their clergy. Protestants are significantly more likely to hear about the issue than Catholics.... Mainline Protestants are the only major religious group that is more likely to hear positive than negative messages about homosexuality from their clergy.

• The messages about homosexuality that Californians hear at their place of worship are correlated with their views on same-sex marriage....

Suit Challenges Requirement of Marriage License For Religious Ceremony

While it might seem that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision last June mooted the many pending cases seeking to make inroads into now invalid bans on same-sex marriage, the Detroit News reported yesterday on a lawsuit that shows this is not universally so.  A year ago, Detroit minister Neil Patrick Carrick filed a lawsuit in Michigan federal district court challenging two Michigan statutes which at that time effectively fined clergy for performing same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) MCL Sec. 551.14  imposes a $500 penalty on any member of the clergy or other person who "knowingly joins any persons in marriage" in violation of Michigan law. MCL Sec. 551.106 provides that : "Any clergyman or magistrate who shall join together in marriage parties who have not delivered to him a properly issued license ... shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor" and fined $100 or sentenced to 90 days in jail.

The complaint (full text) in Carrick v. Snyder, (ED MI, filed 1/12/2015). alleged that these provisions violate the 1st Amendment free exercise and expressive association rights of clergy whose faith and religious beliefs allow them to perform marriages that are not authorized by civil law.  In May 2015, the district court entered an order holding the case in abeyance as the Supreme Court considered the issue of same-sex marriage.  In September, after the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, the district court reactivated the case (Order lifting stay).  While the challenged statutory provisions no longer totally bar same-sex marriages, they still threaten clergy with fines if they "join in marriage" a couple that has not obtained a marriage license.  On December 8, the district court, seeking to avoid the constitutional question, issued an Order (full text) calling for additional briefing on whether these penalties under state law apply to "purely private ceremonies that are not intended to give legal effect to a marriage."

Plaintiff's attorney pointed out the importance of the issue to "elderly or widowed couples who want to marry, but are afraid they will lose their Social Security benefits if they are legally wed."

Maine Voters Reject Same-Sex Marriage

In a referendum yesterday, Maine voters rejected the state's recently-enacted law to permit same-sex marriage. The New York Times reported early Wednesday morning that with 87% of the precincts reporting, 53% of the voters had voted in favor of repeal. The Catholic Church was one of the primary supporters of the repeal referendum. It asked parishes to pass a second collection plate at Sunday Mass to support the repeal effort. The website of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland features a strong rebuke to a group of Catholics who had taken out an ad favoring marriage equality. It also features a Homily (full text) delivered in October, which supports legal recognition of domestic partnerships, but opposes same-sex marriage:

It is not discrimination to call things by their own names. We have different names for different things. A cat is not a dog; an oak tree is not a rose..... It is not discrimination to call one person a husband and another person a wife. It is not discrimination to say that one person is heterosexual and another person is homosexual. It is not discrimination to call the union of a man and a woman marriage and to call the committed relationship of homosexual persons something else -- you pick the word. It is difficult to believe that Maine people, much less Christian people, see no difference between marriage and homosexual unions, even when homosexual unions are perceived as desirable. There remains a difference and the difference should have its own name.

Marriage is an absolutely unique and irreplaceable relationship. Other relationships can be loving; other relationships can be committed; other relationships can even be permanent, but still not be marriage, but something else. Marriage is the miracle of the coming together to a man and a woman whose love and commitment is open to overflow to create the new life of a new person.

Puerto Rico Court Upholds Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In one of the few recent victories for opponents of same-sex marriage, the federal district court for the district of Puerto Rico yesterday dismissed a challenge to the Puerto Rico law that recognizes only opposite-gender marriage.  In Conde-Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, (D PR, Oct. 21, 2014), the court held that the Supreme Court's 1972 summary dismissal for want of  a substantial federal question in Baker v. Nelson is binding precedent. (Background.)  Baker involved an appeal of a Minnesota case that found no constitutional protection for same-sex marriage.  Reporting on the Puerto Rico decision, the Washington Post points out that the decision "puts the First Circuit back in play in the national litigation, although every state in the circuit already recognizes same-sex marriage." [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Hawaii Legislature Passes Marriage Equality Bill

Yesterday the Hawaii legislature gave final passage to SB1, the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act which will legalize same-sex marriage as of Dec. 2. One of the 19 representatives voting against the bill in the House was Rep. Jo Jordan, the first openly gay state legislator to vote against same-sex marriage.  She told Honolulu Magazine that her objections were in part based on a concern that the religious exemptions in the bill are too narrow.  The bill protects clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages or civil unions, and allows any religious organization or nonprofit that is "operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious organization" to refuse to provide goods, services or facilities for civil unions or marriages that are in violation of the organization's religious beliefs. According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Gov. Neil Abercrombie has said he will sign the bill.  It is expected that he will do so today, beating Illinois to become the 15th state to legalize same-sex marriage.  The Illinois legislature passed marriage equality legislation last week (see prior posting), but Gov. Pat Quinn does not plan to sign it until Nov. 20. Shortly after the bill passed in Hawaii, President Obama issued a statement congratulating the legislature on its action, and saying that this made him even prouder to have been born in Hawaii.

Same-Sex Marriage Proponents Win 4 Out of 4 Yesterday

In four states yesterday, voters approved of same-sex marriage.  In Washington state (official results), voters passed Referendum Measure 74 by a vote of 51.79% for approval, and 41.21% for rejection. The referendum approved the same-sex marriage law that the legislature passed earlier this year. Seattle Times reports on the measure.

In a Maryland referendum, voters approved (official results) the Civil Marriage Protection Act that had been enacted earlier this year by the state legislature. The vote on the referendum, Question 06, was 51.9% for the law, and 48.1% against the law. Washington Post reports on the vote.

In Maine, with 75% of the precincts reporting, it appears that voters have approved Question 1, authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The vote so far is 53% in favor and 47% opposed. (Results). Boston Globe reports on the vote.

In Minnesota (official results), voters defeated a state constitutional amendment that would have provided that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. With almost 99% of the precincts reporting, only 47.65% voted in favor of the amendment. Duluth News Tribune reports on the vote.

Ballot Measure Results: Issues on Gay Marriage, Abortion and Stem Cells [UPDATED]

In yesterday's election, six ballot measures were of particular interest to some religious groups. In 3 states, bans on gay marriage were approved. In two states, abortion restrictions were defeated. In Michigan final results show passage of a proposed expansion of permitted stem cell research. The Secretary of State's website this morning is reporting different results than are tne news media:

• California's Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage passed by nearly 52% with most votes counted.
• Florida Marriage Amendment banning same-sex marriage passed by 62%.
• Arizona Proposition 102 banning same-sex marriage passed by 56.5%.
• Michigan proposal 08-102 to permit human and embryonic stem cell research, subject to various restrictions, passed by a 53% vote (99% of precincts reporting) according to reports by CNN and the Detroit Free Press . Earlier returns from the Secretary of State's office showing different results are just now being updated by that office.
• South Dakota's Initiated Measure 11 to prohibit abortions except where there is risk to life or substantial and irreversible health risk, or reported rape or incest, defeated by a 55% vote.
• Colorado Amendment 48 defining "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization, defeated by 73% (with 87% of precincts reporting) (CNN report).

See prior posting for links to texts of the ballot measures.

UPDATE: Also of relevance is the passage by an almost 57% vote (89% of counties reporting) of a ballot measure in Arkansas prohibiting adoptions or foster parenting by unmarried couples. Its backers were primarily concerned with barring adoptions by same-sex couples, though the amendment also covers heterosexual couples.

Kansas Governor Shields Clergy and Religious Social Service Groups That Object To Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued Executive Order 15-05 (full text) protecting clergy, religious leaders and religious organizations that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from adverse action by the state. It prohibits the state government from taking any discriminatory action against any individual clergy or religious leader who declines on religious or moral grounds to perform, solemnize, or facilitate a same-sex marriage.  It similarly bars discriminatory action against any religious organization that refuses to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration or recognition of any same-sex marriage.

Finally the Executive Order provides that the state may not take discriminatory action against a religious organization that provides social services or charitable services because the organization acts upon sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman. Discriminatory action includes denial of tax exemptions or benefits, denial of state grants or contracts, and denial of licensing or accreditation.

The governor issued a press release announcing the Executive Order. Washington Post reports on the governor's action. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

10th Circuit Says Utah's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

In Kitchen v. Herbert, (10th Cir., June 25, 2014), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage, but stayed its mandate pending disposition of any appeal. The majority summarized its 66-page opinion:

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.

Among the justifications rejected by the court was Utah's argument that allowing same-sex marriage "would create the potential for religious-related strife."  Judge Kelly dissenting in part argued that there is no fundamental right to same-gender marriage.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the decision. In a statement released yesterday, the Utah attorney general's office says it will file a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review.

California Prisons and Chaplains Deal With Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

AP reported yesterday that California prison officials are trying to determine the impact on prisons and prison chaplains of the California Supreme Court's ruling earlier this year legalizing same-sex marriage. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in the midst of drafting new regulations on the subject, has decided that the same rules will apply that govern opposite-sex marriage. Inmates will be able to marry, but, for safety and security concerns, marriages between fellow inmates will not be allowed. Last year, California became the first state to allow conjugal visits and overnight stays for inmates with outside same-sex partners. Department lawyers also recommend that prison chaplains stop performing weddings for all inmates and leave that task to outsiders so chaplains who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds are not in the position of performing ceremonies only for some.

DC Council Holds Hearing On Same-Sex Marriage Proposal

Last week, the District of Columbia Council, Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, held a hearing on the proposed Religious Freedom & Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 which would allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the District of Columbia. (A video of the hearing is available online.) Under the bill, no clergy would be required to solemnize a marriage if it violated the clergy person's free exercise of religion. No religious organization is required to make facilities or services available for a marriage that is in violation of the group's religious beliefs unless the group makes the facilities available to the general public. The Pilot yesterday reported on written testimony submitted at the hearing by the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. The Archdiocese urged broader religious exemptions, including exemptions for religious groups that provide services or rent space to those outside the group's faith. The Archdiocese warned that under the current bill, organizations that oppose same-sex marriages for religious reasons but serve the community could be denied government contracts or access to government facilities. It also claimed that under the bill, doctors, social workers and child-care workers opposed to same-sex marriage could have their licenses revoked, employers could be sued for not providing benefits to same-sex couples and religious colleges could have their accreditation revoked. (See prior related posting.)

India's Supreme Court Refuses to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

In Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, (Sup. Ct. India, Oct. 17, 2023), a 5-judge bench of India's Supreme Court, in 4 opinions spanning 366 pages, refused to recognize same-sex marriages, but called on the government to study and implement further rights for same-sex couples. As summarized by BBC News:

The petitioners had argued that not being able to marry violated their constitutional rights and made them "second-class citizens".

They had suggested that the court could just replace "man" and "woman" with "spouse" in the Special Marriage Act - which allows marriage between people from different religions, castes and countries - to include same-sex unions.

The government and religious leaders had strongly opposed the petitions. The government had insisted that only parliament could discuss the socio-legal issue of marriage and argued that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to "chaos" in society.

On Tuesday, the judges agreed with the government, saying that only parliament could make law and the judges could only interpret them.

They accepted Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's proposal on behalf of the government to set up a committee, headed by the country's top bureaucrat, to consider "granting queer couples" rights and privileges available to heterosexual couples.