Article Traces Evolution of Obama's Position On Same-Sex Marriage

Today's New York Times Magazine carries a lengthy article titled How the President Got to ‘I Do’ on Same-Sex Marriage. It traces the evolution of President Obama's public position on the issue.

University's Diversity Officer, Demoted For Anti-Gay Marriage Views, Loses Discrimination Lawsuit

In McCaskill v. Galludet University, (D DC, April 14, 2014), the District of Columbia federal district court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet University's former Chief Diversity Officer. The University placed McCaskill on administrative leave and eventually demoted her after it become known that at her church she had signed a petition to get a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the Maryland ballot. The University justified its action on the ground that McCaskill's ability to advocate for her constituents, particularly the university's gay community, had been compromised.  McCaskill brought the suit alleging discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, and political affiliation in violation of D.C.'s Human Rights Act; infliction of emotional distress; and defamation. In rejecting McCaskill's religious discrimination  claim, the court said in part:

Even if Gallaudet knew of her religious convictions or was aware that those convictions motivated her to sign the petition – a fact that remains hazy on the face of the Complaint – there is no factual allegation that her religion somehow prompted her suspension or demotion. ... [A]lthough it may be true that McCaskill signed the petition because she is a Christian ... the university cannot be guilty of discrimination on that basis.

Washington Business Journal reports on the decision.

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Oklahoma Same-Sex Marriage Case

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in  Bishop v. Smith.  An audio recording of the full oral arguments is available from the court's website. In the case, an Oklahoma federal district court held that the provision in the Oklahoma constitution barring same-sex marriage in the state violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  The same 10th Circuit panel heard arguments last week in a case challenging Utah's same-sex marriage ban. (See prior posting.)

Italian Court Orders Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage Performed In New York

In Italy for the first time last Thursday, a court ordered the recognition of a same-sex marriage.  UPI reports that a judge in Grosetto ordered the local registry to record the marriage of two men who were married in a civil ceremony in New York in 2012. The court said that the Italian civil code "contains no reference to sex in relation to the requisites" for marriage. The Italian Bishops' Conference issued a statement saying that the ruling raises serious questions.

TRO Requires Indiana To Recognize One Couple's Same-Sex Marriage

According to the Huffington Post, yesterday in Baskin v. Bogan, (SD IN, April 10, 2014) an Indiana federal district court issued a temporary restraining order requiring the state of Indiana to immediately recognize the same-sex marriage of Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler.  The TRO was granted because Quasney has stage 4 ovarian cancer, and recognition of the marriage that took place in Massachusetts is needed so Sandler can handle her spouse's affairs after her death and access benefits available for a surviving spouse and children of the marriage (who were born to Sandler through reproductive technology). The order comes as part of a case that more broadly challenges Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage. (Links to pleadings.) (See prior related posting.)

10th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Challenge To Utah's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the Utah same-sex marriage case, Kitchen v. Herbert. Audio of the full oral arguments is available online. Equality on Trial has a written summary of the oral arguments. In the case, a Utah federal district court declared Utah's state constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage invalid under the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution. (See prior posting.)

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

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

Quick Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage Sought In North Carolina

The North Carolina ACLU yesterday announced several legal steps it has taken to get a quick ruling on recognition of same-sex marriages in the state. In a case that was initially filed in 2012 and expanded in 2013, plaintiffs this week filed a motion for a preliminary injunction so that a same-sex North Carolina couple married in Massachusetts can get their child who suffers from cerebral palsy on the private health insurance policy of one of the parents (instead of remaining on Medicaid).  Separately, the organization filed a new lawsuit on behalf of three same-sex couples married elsewhere seeking recognition in North Carolina of their marriages. The suit asks for a prompt ruling because one member of each couple has a serious medical condition. AP has more on the legal moves.

Class Action Challenge To Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Stayed As Plaintiffs Intervene In Appeal of Parallel Case

In Harris v. Rainey, (WD VA, March 31, 2014), Virginia federal district judge has cut through the procedural complexity of competing challenges to Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage by staying proceedings in one case while a separate challenge works its way through the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In February, a different Virginia federal district court in Bostic v. Rainey issued a preliminary injunction striking down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage, but stayed the injunction pending appeal. (See prior posting.) Just before the court handed down its decision in Bostic, Virginia's attorney general filed a Notice of Change of Legal Position with the court indicating that he will not defend the constitutionality of Virginia's ban. This However left two clerks of court who were also defendants to carry the case forward. (Attorney General's FAQ page on the case.) However in the Harris case-- a class action on behalf of 14,000 same sex couples filed by the ACLU (links to pleadings)-- no defendant was willing to defend the state's ban. Meanwhile the plaintiffs in Harris petitioned the 4th Circuit for, and on March 14 were granted, the right to intervene as a plaintiffs in the Bostic appeal (Legal Times), despite opposition to their intervening by the original lawyers of plaintiffs in Bostic. They preferred that the Harris plaintiffs merely file an amicus brief. (National Law Journal.) [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Samuel J. Levine, Foreword: Conference on Religious Legal Theory: RLT IV: Expanding the Conversation, (30 Touro L. Rev. 1 (2014)).
• Dallan F. Flake, Image is Everything: Corporate Branding and Religious Accommodation in the Workplace, (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 163, 2014-15).
• Asifa Quraishi-Landes, Rumors of the Sharia Threat are Greatly Exaggerated: What American Judges Really Do with Islamic Family Law in Their Courtrooms, (New York Law School Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 245, 2013).
• John M. A. DiPippa, God and Guns: The Free Exercise of Religion Problems of Regulating Guns in Churches and Other Houses of Worship, (March 21, 2014).
• John M. Breen & Lee J. Strang, The Forgotten Jurisprudential Debate: Catholic Legal Thought's Response to Legal Realism, (March 24, 2014).
• Micah Schwartzman, Religion as a Legal Proxy, (San Diego Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Micah Schwartzman, Religion, Equality, and Public Reason, (Boston University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Yaniv Heled, On Patenting Human Organisms or How the Abortion Wars Feed into the Ownership Fallacy, (Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 36, 2014, Forthcoming).
• Jessica Feinberg, The Survival of Non-Marital Relationship Statuses in the Same-Sex Marriage Era: A Proposal, (Temple Law Review, Vol. 87, Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Affordable Care Act and Religious Freedom):

• Heidi Muller, Hobson's Choice: For-Profit Corporations and the Exercise of Religion, (November 17, 2013).
• Scott Harrington, No Soup for You! Religion in the Post-PPACA Era, (March 18, 2014).
• Zoe Robinson, The Contraception Mandate and the Forgotten Constitutional Question, (Wisconsin Law Review, Forthcoming 2014).
• Toni M. Massaro, Nuts and Seeds: Disclosure of Religious Exemptions, (Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 14-10 (March 2014)).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. law):

• Lotem Perry-Hazan, From the Constitution to the Classroom: Educational Freedom in Antwerp's Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Schools, (Journal of School Choice, 2014, Forthcoming).
• Lotem Perry-Hazan, Court-Led Educational Reforms in Political Third Rails: The Cases of Israeli Haredi Schools' Curricula and Admission Policies, (March 18, 2014).
• Jill Marshall, The Legal Recognition of Personality: Full Face Veils and Permissible Choices, (10 International Journal of Law in Context 64-80 (2014)).
• Robert J. Delahunty, The Returning Warrior and the Limits of Just War Theory, (Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, 2014).

From SmartCILP:

• Mark W. Cordes, The First Amendment and Religion After Hosanna-Tabor, 41 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 299-355 (2014).
• Alvaro Hasani, Compatibility of Democracy and Islam...Or the Lack Thereof: A Closer Look At Whether the "Arab Spring" Was Ever Capable of Culminating Into a Viable Democracy in the Arab World, 15 Scholar 715-743 (2013).
• Ken Matheny, The Disappearance of Labor Unions and the Social Encyclicals of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XIV, 23 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 1-35 (2014).

Suit Challenging Ohio's Refusal to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage Dropped When Couple Gets Family Health Insurance Policy

AP reports that a gay couple in Cleveland on Friday voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit they had filed last month challenging Ohio's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages.  Al Cowger Jr. and Tony Wesley Jr., who were married in New York state in 2012, sued when they were unable to obtain family health insurance coverage for themselves and their adopted daughter through the federal health insurance marketplace. They were initially told that a family policy was not available because Ohio does not recognize their marriage.  However this week they were finally able to obtain a family policy through the Healthcare.gov website. On March 14, the Department of Health and Human Services told insurance companies that starting next year, if they offer policies to opposite-sex spouses, they cannot choose to deny coverage to same-sex spouses.

Developments In Missouri and Michigan On Same-Sex Marriage Recognition

Here is an update on the rapidly moving developments in two states relating to recognition of same-sex marriages.

In Missouri, where a suit seeking to require the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is pending, last November the governor in Executive Order 13-14 directed the state Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns from same-sex couples who are legally married in other states. This led in February to the filing of articles of impeachment (full text) against the Democratic governor by a Republican lawmaker. (See prior posting.)  In January 2014 a lawsuit was filed seeking a declaratory judgment that the Executive Order is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement.  The complaint (full text) in Messer v. Nixon, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 1/14/2014) contends that the executive order is inconsistent with Missouri Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 33 that provides the only marriages that will be recognized in the state are ones between a man and a woman. Now, as the April 15 filing date for tax returns approaches,  PoliticMO reports that plaintiffs in the lawsuit last Wednesday filed a motion asking the court to grant a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of the Executive Order.

In Michigan, a federal district court earlier this month struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The next day, the 6th Circuit granted a stay of the order, pending appeal. However in the hours in between, some 300 same-sex couples married. (See prior posting.) In an announcement today (full text), U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would recognize these 300 marriages for purposes of eligibility for federal benefits.  He said in part:

The Governor of Michigan has made clear that the marriages that took place on Saturday were lawful and valid when entered into, although Michigan will not extend state rights and benefits tied to these marriages pending further legal proceedings.  For purposes of federal law, as I announced in January with respect to similarly situated same-sex couples in Utah, these Michigan couples will not be asked to wait for further resolution in the courts before they may seek federal benefits to which they are entitled.

District Court Invalidates Michigan Ban on Same-Sex Marriage; 6th Circuit Stays Order

In DeBoer v. Snyder, (ED MI, March 21, 2014), a Michigan federal district court held that Michigan's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.  The case began as a constitutional challenge to Michigan's adoption laws which only allow single persons or married couples to adopt.  Plaintiffs were a same-sex couple who were precluded from marrying under Michigan law.  The court invited plaintiffs to amend their complaint to challenge the Michigan Marriage Amendment which the court saw as the underlying reason plaintiffs could not jointly adopt children. Plaintiffs did so, and the court held a two-week trial, largely devoted to expert testimony about whether children raised by heterosexual parents did better than those raised by same-sex couples. The court's opinion discusses the expert testimony at length, ultimately concluding that the state has no rational basis for preventing same-sex couples from marrying. ACLU of Michigan issued a press release announcing the decision.

Ten minutes after the district court's March 21 opinion was handed down, Michigan state attorney general Bill Schuette filed an emergency motion asking the 6th Circuit to stay the district court's order, pending appeal. (Detroit Free Press.) On March 22, the 6th Circuit issued an order directing plaintiffs to respond by March 25, and a second order temporarily staying the district court's judgment until March 26 "to allow a more reasoned consideration of the motion."

Meanwhile, clerk's offices in four Michigan counties opened Saturday morning to allow same-sex couples to obtain licenses, and, according to AP, over 300 licenses were issued before the 6th Circuit called a halt to their issuance by its stay.  The attorney general's office declined to say whether the state would recognize these marriages, saying "the courts will have to sort it out."

Court Grants Stay Pending Appeal In Kentucky Same-Sex Marriage Case

In Love v. Beshear, (WD KY, March 19, 2014), a Kentucky federal district court granted a stay pending appeal to the 6th Circuit of its prior decision requiring recognition of same-sex marriages validly performed in other states. Previously the court had stayed its order only until March 20. (See prior posting.)  The state argued that failure to extend the stay would result in "chaos."  In granting the further stay pending appeal, the court found persuasive arguments on both sides, but said that it was strongly influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court's action in granting a stay in the Utah same-sex marriage case.  The district court said in part:

Perhaps it is difficult for Plaintiffs to understand how rights won can be delayed. It is a truth that our judicial system can act with stunning quickness, as this Court has; and then with sometimes maddening slowness. One judge may decide a case, but ultimately others have a final say. It is the entire process, however, which gives our judicial system and our judges such high credibility and acceptance.... It is best that these momentous changes occur upon full review, rather than risk premature implementation or confusing changes. That does not serve anyone well.

Louisville Courier-Journal reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

South Carolina Divorce Action Challenges Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

A suit filed last week in Family Court in Greenville, South Carolina could be the vehicle for testing the constitutionality of South Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. According to WYFF News, Cathy Swicegood is seeking a divorce from her same-sex partner of 13 years, claiming that the pair should be treated as married under South Carolina's statute that recognizes common law marriages entered prior to 2011. (Background.) In order to succeed, Swicegood will need the court to declare that South Carolina laws treating same-sex marriages as void are unconstitutional. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Narrow Injunction Requires Tennessee To Recognize Marriages of 3 Same-Sex Couples

As reported by SCOTUSblog, on Friday a Tennessee federal district court issued a narrow preliminary injunction requiring Tennessee to recognize the same-sex marriages of the three couples who are plaintiffs in the case and who were married in states where such marriages are legal.  In Tanco v. Haslam, (MD TN, March 14, 2014), the court said in part:

Currently, all relevant federal authority indicates that the plaintiffs in this case are indeed likely to prevail on their claims that the Anti-Recognition Laws are unconstitutional. That said, by the time that this court is asked to render a final judgment, it may be that other federal courts will have reached a different interpretation that favors the defendants’ position. By the same token, it may be that federal courts will continue uniformly to strike down anti-recognition laws, state same-sex marriage bans, and other laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. The impact of future decisions, which are forthcoming as the result of continuing litigation in other federal trial and appellate courts across the country, will inevitably influence the ultimate disposition of this case.

Suit Seeks Florida Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages

In Florida on Wednesday, eight same-sex couples who were married in other states filed a federal lawsuit seeking to require Florida to recognize their marriages. The complaint (full text) in Grimsley and Albu v. Scott, (ND FL, filed 3/12/2014) contends that the refusal to do so violates the due process and equal protection clauses. ACLU announced the filing of the lawsuit. A state court lawsuit seeking to require Florida to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is already pending. (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges Indiana's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

The Indianapolis Star reports that last Friday a lawsuit was filed in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's statutory ban on same-sex marriages and on recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. In a press release, state Attorney General Greg Zoeller said:

As Indiana's Attorney General I will represent our state and defend our statute now and on any appeal to the best of my skill and ability, as I swore an oath to do.  As state government’s lawyer, I must defend the state’s authority to define marriage at the state level within Indiana’s borders.  People of goodwill have sincere differences of opinion on the marriage definition, but I hope Hoosiers can remain civil to each other as this legal question is litigated in the federal court.

Meanwhile the state legislature effectively delayed until at least 2016 any vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the state. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Fired Gay Catholic School Vice-Principal Sues

Last Friday, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Seattle, Washington by a former Catholic high school vice-principal Mark Zmuda who was fired after he married his same-sex partner last December.  According to The Guardian, the suit alleges violation of Washington's law against discrimination, breach of implied contract, wrongful termination, violation of the consumer protection act, and tortious interference.  The Guardian reports:

Zmuda does not dispute that he signed an employment contract that required him to uphold Catholic teachings. However, his complaint claims that the school misrepresented its employment environment as being one of inclusion and anti-discrimination both on its website and in its employee handbook.

The school's president, Sister Mary Tracey knew earlier on that Zmuda is gay. He complied with her request not to bring his partner to school events. After the marriage, Sister Mary told Zmuda that if he would divorce his husband, the school would pay the costs of a commitment ceremony in place of a wedding, and would allow him to keep his job. The school is seeking dismissal of the suit on the basis of its 1st Amendment right to make its own decisions on matters of faith and doctrine.

Suit Challenges Wyoming Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

National Center for Lesbian Rights announced yesterday that it has filed a state court lawsuit challenging Wyoming's statutory ban on same-sex marriage and the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Unlike a number of other states, Wyoming's same-sex marriage ban is found only in state statutes, and is not embodied in the state constitution.  Also the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions is merely a practice that is not supported by specific statutory provisions.   The complaint (full text) in Courage v. Wyoming, (WY Dist. Ct., filed 3/5/2014), alleges that the statutory ban on same-sex marriage and the practice of refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Wyoming state Constitution.  It also alleges that the practice of refusing to recognize out-of-state same sex marriages violates Wyoming statutory provision (Sec. 20-1-111) that provides: "All marriage contracts which are valid by the laws of the country in which contracted are valid in this state." Unlike suits filed recently in other states, this lawsuit does not contain claims that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the federal constitution. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]