4th Circuit Invalidates Virginia's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Continuing an unbroken string of victories for marriage equality proponents, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, in a 2-1 decision, struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. This is the second federal appeals court to rule on same-sex marriage bans.  In Bostic v. Schaefer, (4th Cir., July 28, 2014), the majority held:

the Virginia Marriage Laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they prevent same-sex couples from marrying and prohibit Virginia from recognizing same-sex couples’ lawful out-of-state marriages. 

The court added:

We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual’s life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.

As reported by the New York Times, the appeal to the 4th Circuit was carried forward by two court clerks after Virginia's attorney general refused to appeal the district court's decision striking down Virginia's bans. They are expected to seek a stay of the court's decision pending an en banc appeal or a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Alabama Chief Justice Tells Probate Judges To Continue Refusing To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is once again seeking to defy federal courts on the issue of same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  In March 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court in the Alabama Policy Institute ("API")  case ordered probate judges in the state to discontinue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal district court orders already holding Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)  Of course, in June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell decision, finding bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky unconstitutional.  Three days later, the Alabama Supreme Court invited parties in the API case to file briefs addressing the effect of the Obergefell decision on the Alabama order in API.  Subsequently two probate court judges petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for orders protecting their refusals to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  All of these matters remain pending before the Alabama Supreme Court.

Today, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an Administrative Order (full text) addressing what he described as the "confusion and uncertainty" that exists among Alabama probate judges.  He says that "an elementary principle of federal jurisdiction [is that] a judgment only binds the parties to the case before the court," suggesting that technically Obergefell  is not binding on Alabama judges.  He went on:

As Administrative Head of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama, authorized and empowered pursuant to Section 12-2-30(b)(7), Ala. Code 1975, to "take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state," and under Section 12-2-30(b)(8), Ala. Code 1975, to "take any such other, further or additional action as may be necessary for the orderly administration of justice within the state, whether or not enumerated in this section or elsewhere"...

IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT: Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect.

AL.com reports on today's order.

Minnesota Becomes 12th State To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage.

The Minnesota state Senate today, by a vote of 37-30, gave final passage to HF 1054, a bill authorizing same-sex civil marriage in the state.  The House of Representatives passed the bill last week by a vote of 75-59. (Legislative history.)  According to the New York Times, Governor Mark Dayton promised he will sign the bill tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon.  This will make Minnesota the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage.

The new law includes a number of protections for clergy and religious organizations that object to same-sex marriage. It provides that non-profit religious organizations and educational facilities they operate or supervise can take action on the basis of sexual orientation with respect to education, employment, housing and real property, or use of facilities, except as to secular business activities unrelated to the organization's religious or educational purposes. Also these religious and educational institutions may refuse to furnish goods, services, facilities, or accommodations directly related to the solemnization or celebration of a civil marriage that is in violation of the organization's religious beliefs. They may not be subject to any fine, liability or loss of tax exempt status for such refusal. No member of the clergy or other person authorized to solemnize marriages may be subject to liability or any penalty for refusing to solemnize a marriage for any reason.

The bill also changes all references in Minnesota statues from "marriage" to "civil marriage", and assures same-sex couples married in Minnesota that Minnesota courts will be available for any future dissolution of the marriage if the couple has moved to a state that refuses to recognize same-sex marriage and divorce.

Federal Court Upholds Nevada's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In Sevcik v. Sandoval, (D NV, Nov. 26, 2012), a Nevada federal district court upheld against an Equal Protection Clause challenge the constitutionality of Nevada's ban on same-sex marriages. Nevada does recognize same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partnerships, with the parties having most, but not all, of the same rights and responsibilities as do spouses in a marriage. The court concluded that it need apply only rational basis scrutiny to Nevada's state constitutional provisions limiting marriage to heterosexual couples:

Here, there is no indication of any intent to maintain any notion of male or female superiority, but rather, at most, of heterosexual superiority or “heteronormativity” by relegating (mainly) homosexual legal unions to a lesser status....

The States are currently in the midst of an intense democratic debate about the novel concept of same-sex marriage, and homosexuals have meaningful political power to protect their interests. At the state level, homosexuals recently prevailed during the 2012 general elections on same-sex marriage ballot measures in the States of Maine, Maryland, and Washington, and they prevailed against a fourth ballot measure that would have prohibited same sex marriage under the Minnesota Constitution. It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of these and other recent democratic victories, that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes such that extraordinary protection from majoritarian processes is appropriate.

Applying rational basis scrutiny, the court concluded that "the protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest."   The court also held that protection of Nevada's public policy is a valid reason for it to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.  AP reporting on the decision says that plaintiffs plan an appeal.

Iowa Supreme Court Invalidates Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Today Iowa joined Connecticut and Massachusetts in recognizing same-sex marriage. In Varnum v. Brien, (IA Sup. Ct., April 3, 2009), the Iowa Supreme Court held that the Iowa statute (IC Sec. 595.2) that limits marriage to unions between opposite-sex partners violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6). Conducting a lengthy analysis of equal protection precedent, the court concluded that "legislative classifications based on sexual orientation must be examined under a heightened level of scrutiny...." Finding that the same-sex marriage ban cannot survive intermediate scrutiny, the court did not need to decide whether a strict scrutiny analysis should be applied instead. Near the end of its opinion, the Court focused on the question of religious opposition to gay marriage:

[We] give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views.
A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

New York Times reports on the decision. Americans United issued a release praising the decision and saying it "has reaffirmed religious liberty." On the other hand, a release from the Traditional Values Coalition complains about judicial activism and warns of possible losses and mandates that it says could be imposed on religious groups.

7th Circuit Invalidates Same-Sex Marriage Bans In Indiana and Wisconsin

Yesterday the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Baskin v. Bogan, (7th Cir., Sept. 4, 2014), affirmed district court decisions striking down same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin. The unanimous opinion, written by Judge Posner in his unquely cogent style, takes on and counters each argument in favor of same-sex marriage bans put forward by each state. He particularly emphasizes the protection-of-children argument on which Indiana relied exclusively:

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction—that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage  because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents. The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny, which is why we can largely elide the more complex analysis found in more closely balanced equal-protection cases.

He derides Indiana's arguments, summarizing them as follows:

Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

Moving to Wisconsin's ban, Judge Posner, quoting (among others) Justice Holmes and John Stuart Mill, counters each of four additional justifications the state puts forward for banning same-sex marriage-- tradition, the need to move cautiously, respect for the democratic process and damage to traditional marriage. Posner describes the last of these as an argument that "allowing [homosexuals] to marry degrades the institution of marriage (as might happen if people were allowed to marry their pets or their sports cars)...."  He summarizes:

the grounds advanced by Indiana and Wisconsin for their discriminatory policies are not only conjectural; they are totally implausible.

As reported by the New York Times, yesterday's decision was handed donw only nine days after the court heard oral arguments in the case.

North Dakota AG Says Non-Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage Allows Issuance of License For Heterosexual Marriage To Same-Sex Spouse

In Letter Opinion 2013-L-06, (ND AG, Dec. 12, 2013), North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem concluded that since the state does not recognize same-sex marriages, a county recorder in North Dakota may issue a marriage license for a heterosexual marriage to an individual who previously entered a valid same-sex marriage in another state, even when the same-sex marriage has not been legally dissolved.  Consistent with this, the Attorney General also ruled that an individual who previously entered a same-sex marriage elsewhere would not be committing a criminal violation in North Dakota by checking the box on the marriage license application indicating that he or she is "Single/Never Married." The Attorney General concluded by stating that it would be inappropriate for him to give a legal opinion on whether the person married in these circumstances would be in violation of another state's bigamy statute if he returns to a state that recognizes both marriages. Forum News Service reports on the AG's opinion letter. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Scotland Announces Consultation On Marriage Bill That Will Introduce Same-Sex Marriage and Other Changes

On Dec. 12, the government of Scotland announced a Consultation, i.e. published for public comment, a bill that would substantially amend Scotland's law on marriage.  The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill would introduce same-sex marriage and the religious registration of civil partnerships. Other changes include ones that would allow non-religious belief bodies, such as the Humanist Society of Scotland, to solemnize marriages in "belief ceremonies." (The Dec. 30 Scotsman reports on this.) The Consultation Paper sets out the proposed changes in detail and seeks comment on them.  Section 12 of the Bill assures that provisions for same-sex marriage do not affect freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the Consultation Paper:

The Lord Advocate (who has responsibility for prosecutions in Scotland) intends, in due course, to publish prosecutorial guidelines on allegations of breach of the peace and threatening or abusive behaviour arising out of opposition to same sex marriage.

The Consultation Paper also deals with treatment of same-sex marriage in schools. The Government plans to introduce a bill in Parliament in 2013.

Japanese Appellate Court Says Failure to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage Is Unconstitutional

In Japan yesterday, the Sapporo High Court-- an intermediate appellate court-- held that Japan's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.  Japan Today reports on the decision:

The Sapporo High Court upheld the lower court's landmark verdict in 2021 that said non-recognition of same-sex marriage violates the right to equality protected under the Constitution but rejected a total of 6 million yen ($40,600) in damages sought by three same-sex couples in Hokkaido against the state for emotional distress.

The plaintiffs said they will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

The ruling, the first by a high court among six lawsuits filed at five district courts questioning the current laws' unacceptance of same-sex marriage, said the provisions violate not only Article 14 on the right to equality but also Article 24, which says marriage shall be only on the mutual consent of "both sexes."

The court stated for the first time that Article 24 can be understood as also guaranteeing marriage between individuals of the same sexes.

The clause did not anticipate same-sex marriages when the Constitution was enacted but "it should be interpreted against the background where respect for individuals is more clearly considered," Presiding Judge Kiyofumi Saito said in handing down the ruling.

Several district (trial level) courts have ruled on the issue, including a ruling yesterday by a district court in Tokyo saying that lack of some sort of recognition of same-sex couples is "a deprivation of a key part of their personal identity." However, the court said that the Diet has many options for recognizing same-sex partnerships.

New York Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage With Lengthy Exemptions For Religious Organizations

Late last night, the New York state Senate voted 33-29 in favor of A8354, the bill passed earlier this month by the state Assembly legalizing same-sex marriage.  Then the Assembly and Senate both passed A8520 which expanded the protections for churches, religious organizations and clergy who object to same-sex marriage.   Gov. Cuomo immediately signed both bills into law. The New York Times has extensive coverage of the politics behind the governor's successful campaign to obtain passage of the legislation, reporting:

The story of how same-sex marriage became legal in New York is about shifting public sentiment and individual lawmakers moved by emotional appeals from gay couples who wish to be wed.

But, behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition.

And it was about a Democratic governor, himself a Catholic, who used the force of his personality and relentlessly strategic mind to persuade conflicted lawmakers to take a historic leap.

The expanded religious protections were an important factor in obtaining final passage.  The protections apply to several categories of organizations and their employees: (1) religious entities, such as churches; (2) "benevolent orders", such as the Knights of Columbus; (3) any non-profit corporation operated, supervised or controlled by a religious corporation; (4) any employee of these organizations.

For these groups, notwithstanding any state or local law or regulation, they are not required to provide accommodations, facilities, goods or services for any marriage ceremony. Nor is any member of the clergy required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.  Refusal to provide facilities or perform a ceremony will not give rise to any civil claim or to any governmental action discriminating against the groups or clergy or imposing a penalty or withholding benefits.  The new law also assures religious organizations that provisions in New York's anti-discrimination law that allow them to favor members of their own religion in employment, sales, rental of housing, admission or other preferences and to take other action to promote their religious principles, are still in effect.

The new law does not create exemptions for individuals with religious objections who own private businesses that offer their facilities for weddings to refuse to make them available for same-sex ceremonies.

Maine Is 5th State To Permit Gay Marriage; New Hampshire Bill Sent To Governor

Maine yesterday became the 5th state to authorize same-sex marriage as Gov. John Baldacci signed LD 1020, "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom." The Brunswick (ME) Times Record reports that the bill moved quickly through the state legislature. Last Thursday the State Senate approved it by a vote of 21-14, the House followed on Tuesday with an 89-57 vote, and the Senate gave its final approval yesterday by a vote of 21-13. While authorizing same-sex marriage, the new law goes on to provide:

This Part does not authorize any court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution's religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage within that particular religious faith's tradition as guaranteed by the Maine Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.

AP reports that opponents of the new law say they will challenge it through a statewide referendum. Seacoast Online says that Rev. Bob Emerich of the Jeremiah Project in Plymouth (ME) will be working with the Portland Catholic diocese and other groups to obtain the 55,087 signatures needed to get a referendum measure on the statewide ballot.

Later yesterday, the New Hampshire legislature also passed a bill permitting same-sex marriage. (CNN). HB 436 provides however that:

Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.

The state Senate last week approved the bill by a vote of 13-11. Yesterday the House approved it by a vote of 178-167. The Concord Monitor says that it is unclear whether or not Gov. John Lynch will veto the bill. In the past he has said that his personal views are opposed to same-sex marriage.

President Obama Says He Supports Same-Sex Marriage

ABC News reports that in an interview recorded today, President Barack Obama told ABC News' Robin Roberts that he now supports same-sex marriage. Obama said in part:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

The President added that this is his personal position, but that he still supports the right of individual states to decide whether or not they will recognize same-sex marriages.

UPDATE: The New York Times reports that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney today reiterated his position opposing same-sex marriage and at least some types of civil unions:

"My view is the same as it’s been from the beginning," Mr. Romney told a CBS affiliate in Denver. "I don’t favor civil unions if it’s identical to marriage, and I don’t favor marriage between people of the same gender." Asked why he opposed civil unions, in particular, he explained that in many cases they represent marriage by a different name for gay couples.

Dissent In Washington DOMA Case Argues Establishment Clause

Yesterday, in Andersen v. King County (WA. Sup. Ct., July 26, 2006), the Washington state Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision with six different opinions upheld its Defense of Marriage Act against challenges under various provisions of the state constitution. (New York Times coverage.) The dissenting opinion of Justice Bobb J. Bridge contains an interesting anti-establishment argument. Justice Bridge argues that DOMA is "clearly an unconstitutional foray into state-sanctioned religious belief":

What we ought not to address is marriage as the sacrament or religious rite--an area into which the State is not entitled to intrude at all and which is governed by articles of faith.... As succinctly put by amici ...: "To ban gay civil marriage because some, but not all, religions disfavor it, reflects an impermissible State religious establishment."... After all, we permit civil divorce though many religions prohibit it--why such fierce protection of marriage at its beginning but not its end?...

To many, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages are contrary to religious teachings. But none of the plaintiffs in the cases before us today seek acceptance of same-sex marriage within a particular religious community. They seek access to civil marriage. Some churches and religious organizations may refuse to solemnize same-sex unions, and that is their right in the free exercise of religion under our constitution. A religious or moral objection to same-sex marriage is not, however, a legitimate state interest that can support the DOMA....

[R]eligious restrictions on the institution of marriage have never governed civil marriage in this country, nor would it be constitutionally permissible for them to do so. For example, historically many religions have strictly forbidden marriage outside of the denomination, but these churches could not prevent interdenominational civil marriages because "marriage was [ultimately] a state matter, not subject to . . . religious restrictions."... This court cannot endorse the use of state law to impose religious sensibilities or religiously-based moral codes on others' most intimate life decisions.... The DOMA reflects a religious viewpoint; religious doctrine should not govern state regulation of civil marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage Developments In Kansas, West Virginia, Alaska

Developments relating to same-sex marriages have been moving rapidly in Kansas.  Last Wednesday, Chief Judge Kevin Moriarty of the state's 10th judicial district (Johnson County) issued Administrative Order No. 14-11 (Oct. 8, 2014), instructing the clerk of the court, as well as all deputy clerks, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, on Friday (Oct. 10) Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt filed a petition (full text) for issuance of a writ of mandamus to stop the Johnson County order from taking effect, and asking the Kansas Supreme Court to decide the issue. (Press release; Memorandum in Support of Petition). Before the state Supreme Court could act, one same-sex couple in Johnson County were married. (Kansas Equality Coalition statement.) However a few hours later, in State of Kansas v. Moriarty, (KA Sup. Ct., Oct. 10, 2014), the state Supreme Court issued a stay of Judge Moriary's order "in the interest of establishing statewide consistency." It set oral arguments for Nov. 6, but said that applications for same-sex marriage licenses may continue to be accepted. As pointed out by KCTV 5 News, the November hearing date is two days after the general election.

Meanwhile in West Virginia, on Thursday (Oct. 9) state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey issued a statement (full text) saying in part:

In the upcoming days, we will now seek to bring to a close the pending litigation over West Virginia’s marriage laws, consistent with the Fourth Circuit’s now-binding decision.... [However] only the State Registrar may alter state marriage forms, and the Secretary of State’s Office has authority over marriage celebrants and their ability to solemnize marriages.  While we will take steps to seek to end the litigation, the conclusion of the lawsuit cannot and will not alone effectuate the Fourth Circuit’s mandate.

AP reports that after the Attorney General's statement, State Registrar Gary Thompson sent a letter to clerks in all 55 West Virginia counties setting out new protocols for marriage licenses allowing for same-sex marriages. At least one couple was issued a license on Friday.

And in Alaska yesterday, a federal court declared its ban on same-sex marriages to be in violation of the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses.  As reported by Think Progress, the decision in Hamby v. Parnell, (D AK, Oct. 12, 2014), came just two days after the court heard oral arguments in the case. However, according to KTUU News, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell issued a statement Sunday saying that he would appeal the decision.

Court Moves To Invalidate Mississippi's Law For Recusal By County Clerks Who Object To Same-Sex Marriage

In a decision issued yesterday, a Mississippi federal district court took the first step toward issuing an injunction that would have the effect of preventing county clerks in Mississippi from relying on the provisions in Mississippi HB 1523 that allow them to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  The decision came in an attempt to reopen and expand the injunction issued by the federal district court in 2015 baring enforcement of Mississippi's statutory and constitutional provisions barring same-sex marriage.

In Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, (SD MS, June 27, 2016), the court explained:

The constitutional violation this case addressed in 2014 and 2015 was whether the Fourteenth Amendment permitted a State to treat same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples with respect to the issuance and recognition of marriage licenses.

Today’s motion concerns the same issue. In HB 1523 § 3(8)(a), the State is permitting the differential treatment to be carried out by individual clerks.***

Section 3(8)(a) is a significant change sufficient to reopen this case and reconsider the language of the Permanent Injunction....  The undersigned, though, is not persuaded that the 81 non-party Circuit Clerks are presently bound by the Permanent Injunction.... [T]he better course of action is to ensure that the remaining 81 Circuit Clerks have received actual notice of a Permanent Injunction that binds them before they are held accountable for it. The parties shall confer on an appropriate procedure for providing that notice....

No one has argued that the Permanent Injunction is invalid, but the briefing now suggests that it lacks all necessary parties. Judicial economy may be served by an Amended Permanent Injunction which enjoins § 263A of the Mississippi Constitution and Mississippi Code § 93-1-1(2), incorporates appropriate language from Rule 65, and clarifies that the persons it binds must issue marriage licenses “on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.” Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2605....

The point of adding Obergefell’s language is simple: the Supreme Court’s ruling will be enforced. Obergefell “is the law of the land and, consequently, the law of this circuit.” 791 F.3d at 627. Mississippi’s elected officials may disagree with Obergefell, of course, and may express that disagreement as they see fit – by advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, for example. But the marriage license issue will not be adjudicated anew after every legislative session. And the judiciary will remain vigilant whenever a named party to an injunction is accused of circumventing that injunction, directly or indirectly.

BuzzFeed reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Will Review 2 Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in two same-sex marriage cases. (Order List.) The first of the cases is Hollingsworth v. Perry, (Docket No. 12-144, cert. granted 12/7/2012).  In the case, decided by the 9th Circuit under the caption Perry v. Brown, the appeals court in a 2-1 decision struck down California's Proposition 8 that eliminated the right-- previously created by the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the state constitution-- for same-sex couples to marry. Judge Reinhardt, in an opinion joined by Judge Hawkins, held that even though California may not have had the obligation to grant same-sex couples the right to marry, once it did, it could not take that right away without some legitimate reason for doing so. Here there was no legitimate reason. (See prior posting.) En banc review was denied, but in a decision generating dissenting and responding opinions. (See prior posting.) The certiorari petition (full text), however frames the issue more broadly:

Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Scotus blog has links to the 9th Circuit opinion and all the filings with the Supreme Court in the case.

The second case in which the Supreme Court granted review is United States v. Windsor, (Docket No. 12-307, cert. granted 12.7/2012).  In the case, the 2nd Circuit in a 2-1 decision held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment. In a suit by the surviving spouse of a lesbian couple who was denied the spousal deduction under the federal estate tax law, the majority held that it must apply heightened (intermediate level) scrutiny because homosexuals are a quasi-suspect classification. (See prior posting.) The petition for certiorari (full text)-- which was filed before the 2nd Circuit came down with its decision-- defines the question presented as:

Does Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act,  1 U.S.C. § 7, which defines the term “marriage” for all purposes under federal law as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,”  deprive same-sex couples  who are lawfully married under the laws of their states (such as New York) of the equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

Scotus blog has links to the 2nd Circuit opinion and all the filings with the Supreme Court in the case.

Press coverage of the Supreme Court's action today included the New York Times, Yahoo! News, and Wall Street Journal.

UPDATE: See follow-up post- "More On Yesterday's Same-Sex Marriage Cases Cert. Grant- Standing".

Will A Supreme Court Decision Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Apply To Tribal Governments?

Today's New York Times carries an article titled Among the Navajos, a Renewed Debate About Gay Marriage.  The two largest Indian tribes-- the Navajo Nation and the Cherokee Nation-- ban same sex marriage, though at least ten smaller tribes have legalized same-sex unions.  The national debate on the issue is causing some Navajos to consider repealing a 2005 tribal law--  the Dine Marriage Act-- which prohibits same-sex unions on the Navajo reservation. The Times article quotes an expert as saying that even if the Supreme Court decides that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, this will not affect tribal bans. That conclusion is based on the principle that tribes were not signatories to the Constitution and are not bound by it. The Times article, however, fails to mention the Indian Civil Rights Act which does bind tribal governments.  25 USC Sec. 1302 provides in part:

No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law....

Thus the invalidation of same-sex marriage bans on either 14th Amendment equal protection of due process grounds would appear to demand a similar result under Section 1302.

Interposition Ordered By Alabama Chief Justice On Same-Sex Marriage

Interposition-- a doctrine rarely seen since the early days of the civil rights movement-- seems to be close to reappearing in Alabama's response to federal court same-sex marriage decisions.  As previously reported, on Jan. 27 Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore sent a letter to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley urging defiance at least of lower federal court decisions validating same-sex marriage in the state.  With the U.S. Supreme Court's order earlier today refusing to stay a federal district court order in Strange v. Searcy invalidating the state's same-sex marriage ban, same-sex marriages began in some Alabama counties.  But as reported by the New York Times, at least 50 of Alabama's 67 county probate courts were not issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

The confusion stems in part from an Administrative Order issued yesterday by Alabama Chief Justice Moore providing in part:

To ensure the orderly administration of justice within the State of Alabama, to alleviate a situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the State, and to harmonize the administration of justice between the Alabama judicial branch and the federal courts in Alabama:

Effective immediately, no Probate Judge of the State of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama Probate Judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent with Article 1, Section 36.03, of the Alabama Constitution or § 30-1-19, Ala. Code 1975.

Should any Probate Judge of this state fail to follow the Constitution and statutes of Alabama as stated, it would be the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer of the State of Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley....

However, in response Gov. Bentley issued a statement saying in part:

This issue has created confusion with conflicting direction for Probate Judges in Alabama. Probate Judges have a unique responsibility in our state, and I support them. I will not take any action against Probate Judges, which would only serve to further complicate this issue.

 Earlier today, plaintiffs in the Searcy case filed a motion with an Alabama federal district court asking it to hold in contempt the Probate Court judge in Mobile County who, without explanation, has not opened the court's marriage license division today. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead on part of this post.]

UPDATE: In a Feb. 9 opinion (full text), the district court refused to hold the Probate Judge in contempt since the injunction did not directly order him to do anything.

Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In Whitewood v. Wolf, (MD PA, May 20, 2014), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that the Pennsylvania's prohibition of same-sex marriage and its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages validly entered elsewhere violate the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The court concluded that "the fundamental right to marry is a personal right to be exercised by the individual" and rejected "Defendants’ contention that concepts of history and tradition dictate that same-sex marriage is excluded from the fundamental right to marry."  In its lengthy equal protection analysis, the court concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation are quasi-suspect and applied intermediate scrutiny to find that Pennsylvania had not shown that the ban on same-sex marriage is substantially related to an important governmental interest.

The Washington Post reports that immediately after the court's ruling, same-sex couples hurried to obtain marriage licenses, fearing that Gov. Tom Corbett would appeal the ruling. County offices remained open late in Philadelphia to issue licenses, and the Pittsburgh office is taking marriage license applications online.  Pennsylvania has a 3-day waiting period after issuance of a license before a person can marry, unless a court waives the waiting period. The Governor's office said it was studying the court's ruling. The Governor defended the state's ban in court after the state's attorney general refused to do so.

UPDATE: On May 21, Gov. Tom Corbett announced that the state will not appeal the court's decision.

ACLU Moves To Challenge Several Same-Sex Marriage Bans

The ACLU yesterday announced a broad initiative to obtain a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, in the wake of the Court's dismissal on standing grounds of the California Proposition 8 appeal. The organization said in part:

Even before today's announcement of the ACLU's federal marriage lawsuits, there were seven cases with federal marriage claims pending all around the country. Today we are adding three more cases to this mix in order to ensure that strong, well-resourced cases are presented to the federal appeals courts most likely to give the issue a fair hearing.

One of the new cases is Whitewood v. Corbett, (MD PA, filed 7/9/2013) (full text of complaint) challenging Pennsylvania's refusal to permit same-sex marriages or recognize same-sex marriages from other states. In North Carolina, the ACLU is asking North Carolina's Attorney General to allow plaintiffs to add an additional claim challenging the state's same-sex marriage ban to an already pending lawsuit challenging the state's ban on second parent adoptions. (ACLU- NC press release). Finally, the Virginia ACLU announced a planned lawsuit, to be brought with Lambda Legal, challenging constitutional and statutory bans in Virginia on same-sex marriage.