Marriage Equality Defeated (for now) in Maine

Andrew Sullivan Misreads the Situation in the Pine Tree State

04 November 2009

A majority of voters in Maine yesterday chose to repeal the state’s law allowing same-sex couples to get married before it even went into effect, the Bangor Daily News reports here.  Following last year’s debacle of Proposition 8 stripping same-sex couples of the right to marry, Maine becomes the second state to have (almost) had equal  state-controlled rights for lesbigay persons only to lose them to the expression of fears or prejudice at the ballot box.

Thus Andrew Sullivan is wrong  to write in his blog that “in Maine, … gays do have equality but may now merely be denied the name.”  Unless he is writing about the abstract moral equality that underlies claims to human rights, or the abstract political equality of persons and citizens ostensibly protected by the U.S. Constitution, Sullivan is simply wrong to assert that  lesbigay people in Maine “have equality,” for several reasons.

First, same-sex couples in Maine are now relegated to state registered domestic partnerships but, unlike California’s domestic partnerships, these are decidely weaker than civil marriages.  The Maine Department of Health and Human Services, has even cautioned in bold print that "[i]t is important to remember that a registered domestic partnership is NOT the same as a marriage and does not entitle partners to rights other than those for which the registry was intended.  This registry is intended to allow individuals to have rights of inheritance as well as the rights to make decisions regarding disposal of their deceased partners remains."

Second, even if Maine attached all the same state-controlled rights, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to domestic partnerships, the voters’ decision to deny marriage to same-sex couples imposes a legal burden on them that different-sex couples don’t face.  When a married couple goes to another state, there is a well established body of interstate marriage recognition law that they can appeal to.  Granted, the “Defense of Marriage Acts” (DOMAs)  adopted in many states make it harder to invoke this body of law successfully.  But same-sex couples in Maine now will face the additional hurdle of having also to argue that their non-marital status should count as a marriage for purposes of this body of law.  Likewise,  if Congress were to repeal the federal DOMA, which Barack Obama has said he supports, then married same-sex couples would automatically be governed by the estimated 1,138 federal laws that make marital status relevant; same-sex couples from Maine, however, would have additionally to try to argue that their domestic partnership, intentionally distinguished from marriage, should nonetheless be treated as a marriage for federal law purposes.

And third, Andrew Sullivan here seems to be making the same volte-face as the California Supreme Court did  this past spring when it upheld Proposition 8 , which stripped same-sex couples in California of the right to marry.  When Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the Court in 2008 in striking down the marriage exclusion as violating the California Constitutionl, the Chief Justice penned eloquent passages about the importance of being included in the institution of “civil marriage” as such for the equality and dignity of lesbigay people.  Yet when he wrote for the same court a year later and upheld California’s pernicious ballot measure, his reasoning seemed to many to hold that this was a sufficiently non-fundamental change to the state constitution – even though it targeted a minority group defined by a suspect classification for deprivation of a fundamental right, the right to marry – because the “sole” effect of Prop 8 was to deny same-sex couples the “designation” of “marriage.”

Andrew Sullivan seemed to appreciate the stakes when the California Supreme Court first invalidated the discriminatory marriage exclusion.  In his blog mere days after the decision, he wrote:

“Equality is equality is equality. And a marriage license is a marriage license is a marriage license. Calling it something else for a few is a way of saying it is something else for the few, and something lesser for the few. There is no way around this, and in many ways, I am grateful that the California court put it so bluntly.”

Nothing has changed about the nature of equality, so it is not apparent to me why Sullivan seems to have changed his mind about equality in Maine.

Posted by Cruz at 7:33 AM | Link | 0 comments

Categories: Maine California Constitution Prop 8 California Supreme Court marriage recognition human rights marriage Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) domestic partnership

LGBT Advocacy Groups Excluded from Suit Challenging Prop 8

"And you just might need a friend"

19 August 2009

Federal court trial judge Vaughn Walker has scheduled trial in the challenge to Proposition 8's ban on California's allowing same-sex couples to marry for January 2010.  See the San Jose Mercury News story here.  He also rejected the attempts of LGBT advocacy groups to intervene to challenge and an anti-gay group to defend Prop 8 as direct parties, indicating that they could instead present their views through amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs.  The City and County of San Francisco was allowed to intervene, but only for limited purposes according to some news accounts.  Let's hope that's enough to ensure the plaintiffs challenging Prop 8 establish an adequate factual basis for their claims.

Posted by Cruz at 12:50 PM | Link | 0 comments

Categories: California Constitution Prop 8 marriage recognition marriage

Marriage Recognition in District of Columbia

"Oh love - like liquid falling/Falling in cascades"

07 April 2009

Not only did the Vermont legislature today open civil marriage to same-sex couples, but the D.C. Council unanimously voted (initially, with a final vote on the legislation to follow) to recognize and honor marriages of same-sex couples lawfully performed in other jurisdictions.  What a week for marriage equality!

Posted by Cruz at 12:47 PM | Link | 0 comments

Categories: marriage recognition marriage District of Columbia

Japan to Recognize Foreign Marriages of Same-Sex Couples

" A legal union, you're rounding third base"

27 March 2009

As reported by the AFP, Japan's justice ministry has issued a directive that will allow Japanese citizens to marry partners of the same-sex in foreign countries that allow this.  So, while Japan is no Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Massachusetts, or Connecticut (all of which allow same-sex couples to marry, but it's now ahead of the vast majority of U.S. states on this issue.

Posted by Cruz at 9:24 PM | Link | 0 comments

Categories: marriage recognition Japan

"Marry Me a Little"

GLAD sues challenging DOMA

03 March 2009

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the interpretation and constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as applied to the various plaintiffs.

The complaint asserts that Section 3 of DOMA, which refuses to recognize any marriage of a same-sex couple even if lawfully entered in some U.S. state or foreign country, violates the equal protection obligations the U.S. Constitution places on the federal government.  The suit is not challenging DOMA or even Section 3 on its face, but only as applied to the plaintiffs to deny them equal benefits under "laws governing benefits for federal employees and retirees, the Internal Revenue Code, the Social Security laws and the laws and regulations governing issuance of passports."  In some cases, the suit alleges, the laws have been interpreted in ways that DOMA does not requirel; where DOMA does require the discrimination at issue, it is unconstitutional, according to the lawsuit.

The suit does not yet specify whether or not the plaintiffs are arguing that the constitutionality of DOMA must be assessed under what the court's term "strict scrutiny," the least deferential form of judicial review.  It could be read as arguing that these applications of DOMA do not even have a "rational basis," the most deferential form of review requiring only that challenged laws have a "rational relationship" to "a legitimate governmental interest."  In particular, the various counts of the complaint conclude that DOMA "creates a classification that treats similarly-situated individuals differently without
justification," and it maintains that Section 3 of DOMA "is motivated by disapproval of gay men
and lesbians and their relationships, an illegitimate federal interest."  (Some of the asserted federal interests are rejected as illegitimate, and others are said either to restate the purpose to discriminate without explaining it or actually to be "subverted" by DOMA.)

It will be interesting to see how this litigation unfolds.  Perhaps it will be the stimulus needed for Congress to repeal at least the federal definition section of DOMA, which as both the complaint in this lawsuit and Bob Barr in recent public pronouncements have concluded, undermines federalism by arrogating to the federal government the power to determine what is a valid marriage outside the immigration and naturalization context.

GLAD is the legal rights organization that litigated and won the Massachusetts case that recognized same-sex couples' right to marry under that state's constitution.

Posted by Cruz at 8:45 AM | Link | 0 comments

Categories: equal protection marriage recognition marriage Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Prop 8 Challenge Scheduled

Oral Argument Date Set

03 February 2009

From the California Supreme Court web site:  "The Supreme Court has announced that an oral argument will be held in the Prop. 8 cases on Thursday, March 5, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The court will issue a written opinion in the cases within 90 days of oral argument."  The arguments will be carried on cable on the California Channel.  The Court's news release is here.

Posted by Cruz at 4:15 PM | Link | 0 comments

Categories: Prop 8 California Supreme Court marriage recognition marriage

Kennard Conundrum?

Meaning of California Supreme Court Justice's Vote Not to Hear Prop 8 Challenges

26 November 2008

The Los Angeles Times has reported here that "legal experts" are puzzled by California Supreme Court Associate Justice Joyce Kennard's statement when the court decided to hear the challenges to Prop 8.  The court's order noted that Justice Kennard "would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate answer to determine Proposition 8's effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8's adoption."

The Times notes that Justice Kennard's "vote against hearing the legal challenges [might have been] procedural -- for example, she might have wanted them to be filed in lower courts first . . . ."  But the paper then curiously claims that "a close reading of the court's one-page order suggests that gay-rights advocates may have lost a usually predictable ally in their effort to overturn Proposition 8."  Perhaps Kennard has already decided she doesn't accept the interpretation of constitutional "revision" advanced by Prop 8's challengers.

To support this interpretation, which I shall call the pessimistic reading of Justice Kennard's statement, the Times reasons as follows:

The order said Kennard would hear a new case to resolve the validity of the 18,000 same-sex marriages "without prejudice" -- a phrase that indicates she was open to arguments on the issue. But she declined to modify her denial of the Proposition 8 challenges with those same words.

But this reading is flawed.

What Justice Kennard said was that she would deny these petitions challenging Prop 8 without prejudice to -- without harming -- the Prop 8 challengers' ability to file new suits about Prop 8's meaning in the California Supreme Court.  A denial of the petition without qualifying language is non-precedential and would leave the parties free to file a new suit making precisely the same arguments in state trial court.  (Legal beagles can find confirmation of this claim in the California Supreme Court's decision in Funeral Directors Association of Los Angeles & Southern California v. Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers of California, 22 Cal. 2d 104, 136 P.2d 785 (1943).)  So, even if the Times is reading the scope of the "without prejudice" caveat correctly, it does not mean that Justice Kennard said she would have voted against the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 on the merits.  Rather, she just didn't vote now to hear the case in the state supreme court originally.

So, while we cannot know what was in Justice Kennard's mind unless she tells us, there is less to support the pessimistic reading than the Times suggested.

On the other hand, there is more to support an optimistic reading than the Times article includes.  As I just explained, Justice Kennard's preferred vote to deny the petition for a writ of mandamus (the technical term for the lawsuit filed in the California Supreme Court by by those challenging Proposition 8) is not a vote on the merits of that argument.  It would not count as an adverse decision against the challengers even if she had a majority to go along with her.  The challengers would be free to re-start a legal challenge to Prop 8 by filing a complaint in the trial court.  Whoever lost would certainly appeal, and whoever lost in the Court of Appeal would ask the state supreme court to hear a further appeal, which it would be free to do even having earlier denied the Prop 8 challengers' petitions.

And it is plausible to think that Justice Kennard had exactly that in mind, rather than a belief that the challengers' argument was wrong.  In a 1999 decision in Senate of the State of California v. Jones (988 P.2d 1089, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 810), a majority of the court considered a case arguing that a proposed Proposition 24 should be struck from the ballot for various constitutional reasons, including a claim that it violated the rule limiting initiatives to a single subject and a claim that it would amount to a "revision" of the state constitution , not a minor "amendment" of it, and so must start in the legislature.  (That is the same sort of revision claim at the heart of the current challenges to Proposition 8.)  The majority ruled that proposed Prop 24 violated the single-subject rule, and it never went before the voters.

Justice Kennard dissented (joined by Justice Janice Rogers Brown), but she did not reach the merits of the single-subject or revision arguments.  She objected to what she called the majority's "hasty decision to declare invalid" that measure.  She thought there would be plenty of time to decide the issue later if need be.

So, on the optimistic reading, Justice Kennard would deny the petitions challenging Prop 8 because she saw no need to "rush to decision" (to quote her Jones dissent again) about whether Prop 8 was an invalid revision or a valid amendment to the state constitution.  The "without prejudice" qualification could have reflected a view that for the already married same-sex couples, there was an important reason for the California Supreme Court to decide whether they were affected without waiting for litigation to work its way up through the state court system – to remove any uncertainty about the validity of those marriages.  (On this view, Kennard's statement could also be evidence that she's leaning toward holding that Prop 8 would, if valid, operate purely prospectively and not touch the existing marriages.)

Granted, Jones was a pre-election review case where the court set itself an even tighter schedule than it did when it decided to hear the challenges to Prop 8.  But the reasons Kennard wanted the court to delay there could also be applicable here:  "this challenge to Proposition [8] presents issues that are close and difficult, and because there has been inadequate time to give these issues the thoughtful attention and deliberation they deserve."

So, we really are left trying to read tea leaves, but the leaves don't tilt against the challenges to Proposition 8 the way the LA Times suggested.

Posted by Cruz at 1:31 PM | Link | 0 comments

Categories: Prop 8 California Supreme Court marriage recognition marriage

Marriage & Equality Rights to Return to California Supreme Court

Court grants review in challenges to Prop 8

19 November 2008

As widely expected, the California Supreme Court issued an order (here) indicating that it would decide whether Prop 8 is invalid as a revision of the state constitution.  In addition, the court will determine whether it is invalid as a violation of separation of powers principles (an argument made in the petition filed by Gloria Allred) and whether or not Prop 8 has any effect on same-sex couples married before the election.  Also no huge surprise, the court denied the requests for a preliminary stay of Prop 8.  The court has set an expedited schedule for briefing, which will be completed in January.

Posted by Cruz at 2:45 PM | Link | 0 comments

Categories: equal protection Prop 8 California Supreme Court marriage recognition marriage

Californians Enshrine Discrimination in Constitution

Prop 8 passage ensures questions

05 November 2008

The Los Angeles Times has reported that Proposition 8, which eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, is ahead, 52% to 48%.  Almost 95% of California's voting precincts have been counted, and the counties with significant measures of votes outstanding voted heavily in favor of Prop 8.

This assures that a new round of legal questions will have to be confronted.  Was the measure merely an amendment to the constitution, or was it a qualitatively deeper "revision,"?  If it amounts to a revision, then the measure was procedurally irregular and void, for revisions must originate in the state legislature with a 2/3 vote of each house before going to the voters.  Prop 8, in contrasts, got on the ballot via initiative (registered voters signing petitions).

What is the fate in California of existing marriages?  Does Proposition 8 operate prospectively only, effectively "grandfathering" in the estimated 16,000 same-sex couples who married between mid-June and the passage of Prop 8 last night?  Even if it bars, California from continuing to treat those couples as married, it probably (though this remains to be worked out) would not stop other states from recognizing the pre-Prop 8 marriages.  States such as Massachusetts, which allows same-sex couples to marry civilly, or New York, which doesn't itself marry same-sex couples but recognizes their validly entered marriages from other jurisdictions, are likely free to continue recognizing these marriages.  I have sometimes described the quasi-retroactive view of Prop 8 as akin to a forced divorce, but it is probably more like a legal blind spot on the part of California; these marriages were validly entered, the parties have not divorced, so even though California will no longer treat them as marriages, others states most likely will be able to.

Posted by Cruz at 7:07 AM | Link | 2 comments

Categories: Prop 8 marriage recognition marriage

"I Want to Be a Part of It, New York, New York"

28 May 2008

As reported by the New York Times, the Governor of New York has directed all state agencies to recognize marriages lawfully entered by same-sex couples in other jurisdictions.  This would include the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Massachusetts, and very soon California.  New York joins Rhode Island in recognizing such lawful marriages.  This development might lead to further pressure for New York to pass legislation opening civil marriage to same-sex couples.

Posted by Cruz at 7:32 PM | Link | 0 comments

Categories: marriage recognition marriage