New York Law School

Art Leonard Observations

Posts Tagged ‘same-sex marriage’

Iowa Appeals Court Affirms Ruling Against Lesbian’s Brother Attempting to Invalidate Bequest to Her Surviving Partner

Posted on: February 26th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments


David Lance Wilson struck out in his attempt to get the Iowa courts to hold that a provision in his late sister’s will leaving her entire estate to her long-time partner, Susan Woodall Fisher, was automatically revoked when the women allegedly split up nine years before the sister’s death. Affirming a summary judgment ruling by Crawford County District Judge Patrick H. Tott, the Iowa Court of Appeals ruled on February 7 in Estate of Wilson; Wilson v. Fisher, 2018 WL 739248, 2018 Iowa App. LEXIS 155, that Iowa’s Probate Code, Sec. 633.271(1), would only revoke such a bequest if a marriage was dissolved in a court action, but there is no court record of any such proceeding.


Although the court’s ruling was an unexceptionable interpretation of the statute on its face, the factual setting of the case is a bit odd, to say the least. In order to attempt to invoke the revocation statute, David Wilson had to allege in his petition for declaratory judgment that the women had been legally married, a contention that is demonstrably untrue, but which was accepted as an “undisputed fact” for purposes of this case in the responsive pleading filed by the co-executors of the estate, Fisher and John C. Werden, and thus by the court as well, in its opinion by Judge Christopher L. McDonald.


According to Judge McDonald’s summary of the factual allegations, Leslie Wilson and Susan Fisher, same-sex partners, were married in Colorado “sometime before November 6, 1991,” on which date Leslie “executed her last will and testament. Under the will, Susan was to receive Leslie’s entire estate.  Leslie’s brother, David, was listed as the successor beneficiary.”  After Leslie passed away in March 2014, Susan filed an application in the Crawford County District Court for probate of a “foreign probated will.”  District Judge Tott admitted the will into probate, and appointed Fisher and John C. Werden as “personal representatives” of the Iowa estate.  “Susan subsequently filed an election to take under the will as Leslie’s surviving spouse.  In June 2015, the personal representatives executed and recorded a court officer deed conveying an undivided one-half interest in real property owned by Leslie at the time of her death to Susan.”


David showed up six months later, filing his petition in the District Court alleging that Susan and Leslie had “dissolved” their marriage and that they “never cohabitated again and never remarried.” According to David, this dissolution, which involved terminating their relationship and dividing their assets, occurred in 2005.  He was relying on Code Section 633.271(1), titled “Effect of divorce or dissolution,” which states, “If after making a will the testator is divorced or the testator’s marriage is dissolved, all provisions in the will in favor of the testator’s spouse … are revoked by the divorce or dissolution of marriage, unless the will provides otherwise.”  Of course, this provision only applies if there was a marriage to begin with.


In a footnote, the court acknowledged that “same-sex marriages were not recognized in Colorado until October 2014. However, the parties stipulated in their pleadings that ‘Susan … and Leslie … were married in the state of Colorado’ prior to that time.  We need not address the issue of whether the parties were legally married in Colorado because it is immaterial to our resolution of the case.  If they were not legally married under Colorado law, then Iowa Code section 633.271(1)(2016) does not apply, and we would affirm.  Under the analysis used in this opinion, which assumes without deciding they were legally married, we also affirm.”


David sought to persuade the court that because the provision in question states “divorce or dissolution of marriage,” the words “divorce” and “dissolution” must refer to two different things. A “divorce” is obviously a legal proceeding terminating a marriage.  David argued that “dissolution” must, therefore, refer to an informal voluntary termination of a marriage by the parties without involving the courts.  But the court of appeals panel unanimously rejected this argument.


Judge McDonald referred to Chapter 598 of the Iowa code which “expressly defines a ‘dissolution of marriage’ as ‘a termination of the marriage relationship,’” and more specifically to Section 598.1(2), in which, he asserted, “The legislature has expressly directed that the term ‘dissolution of a marriage’ ‘shall be synonymous with the term ‘divorce.’” Thus, the court concluded, “the terms ‘divorced’ and ‘dissolved’ as used in Section 633.271(1) carry the same meaning – the statute uses the terms in the context of marital relations, and the legislature has expressly defined those terms in the context of marital relations to be synonymous.  In Iowa, a divorce or dissolution of a marriage may only be decreed by a court upon evidence ‘that there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonably likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.’”


As to the contention that parties can voluntarily “dissolve” a marriage without involving the courts, McDonald quoted a 1966 Iowa Supreme Court ruling, stating “We know of no such thing as a common law divorce.” McDonald found similar authority under Colorado law.


“It is undisputed that no decree has ever been entered dissolving Susan and Leslie’s marriage. The facts which David argues are in dispute are legally immaterial to the issue of whether Susan and Leslie’s marriage was dissolved.”  Thus, the court affirmed Judge Tott’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the Estate and co-executors, denying David’s request for a declaratory judgment that the bequest to Susan was automatically revoked.


The court also denied David’s request to delay ruling on the co-executors’ motion for summary judgment until he could obtain discovery. Such discovery would be irrelevant to disposition of this motion, because David’s attempt to use the statute to get the bequest to Susan “revoked” must be rejected regardless of which version of the “facts” one accepts, so long as there is no record of any court decree “dissolving” the Fisher-Wilson “marriage.”  And, of course, even if David is correct in asserting that the women split up and divided their assets in 2005, Leslie’s failure to revoke her will would leave the bequest in place in the absence of a valid marriage and a legal divorce.


Aaron W. Ahrendsen of Eich, Werden & Steger, P.C., Carroll, Iowa, represents the co-executors. Bradley J. Nelson of Norelius Nelson Law Firm, Denison, Iowa, represents David.

Foreign and International Courts Issue a Burst of LGBT Rights Rulings

Posted on: January 11th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments


Over the course of just four days, January 8 through 11, 2018, major courts on three continents have issued rulings that will affect the rights of tens of millions of LGBT people. On January 8, the Supreme Court of India ordered reconsideration of the 2014 decision that had restored the country’s law against gay sex, in an Order that quoted extensively from prior rulings critical of the 2014 decision.  On January 9, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights advised Costa Rica – and thus also sixteen other countries in Central and South America that are bound by the American Convention of Human Rights and do not yet have marriage equality – that same-sex couples are entitled to marry and that transgender people are entitled to get legal name changes without having to undergo sex reassignment surgery.  And on January 11, one of the Advocates General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), responding to a request for a preliminary ruling from the Constitutional Court of Romania, advised the ECJ that same-sex spouses of the citizens of member nations must be treated the same as different-sex spouses under the European Union Directive governing movement between states.


India has the second largest population of any country, over 1.3 billion people by the latest estimate. The European Union member countries have more than 500 million residents, and the combined countries within the Inter-American Union have close to a billion people, although some large countries, including Canada and the United States, are not subject to the Inter-American court’s ruling.  But, of course, both Canada and the United States have marriage equality and don’t criminalize consensual gay sex among adults.   This means that within the space of four days courts have potentially expanded LGBTQ rights to an extraordinary proportion of the world’s population, which is currently estimated at about 7.6 billion people, and marriage equality may soon become the norm throughout the Western Hemisphere, with only a few holdouts among states that do not recognize the jurisdiction of the Inter-American court.


The India ruling is yet another step in a complicated and long-running story. In 1860, under British Administration, the Indian Penal Code was adopted including what is now Section 377, providing, “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”  This colonial enactment was carried over into national law when India became independent and self-governing after World War II.  It has been interpreted to outlaw all same-sex oral and anal intercourse. Although infrequently enforced, it has had the same stigmatizing effect as anti-sodomy laws in western societies before the slow process of decriminalization got under way during the second half of the 20th century.


Many LGBTQ people in India rejoiced and went heavily public in celebratory demonstrations in 2009 when the Delhi High Court, responding to a lawsuit filed by the NAZ Foundation, an HIV/AIDS advocacy non-governmental agency, ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional as applied to private consensual adult same-sex intercourse. NAZ Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 111 DRJ 1 (2009). As the government did not initiate an appeal, many saw the lengthy, scholarly ruling as final and definitive.


However, Indian jurisprudence allows for anybody who is offended by a court ruling to ask the nation’s Supreme Court to review it, and a group of religious and social conservatives, led by Suresh Kumar Koushal, a Hindu astrologist, brought their case to the Supreme Court, where a two-judge bench reversed the High Court ruling in 2014, holding that the Constitution of India did not impede the government from maintaining the existing law, and rejecting the High Court’s citation of decisions from other countries (such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling) to support its decision. Koushal v. NAZ Foundation, 1 SCC 1 (2014).  The Supreme Court panel minimized the significance of the issue, claiming that because there were very few homosexuals as a proportion of the population, it was not a matter of great importance.  It also opined that the question of what sexual conduct to outlaw was for the legislature, not the courts, to decide.


Obtaining further review from a larger panel of the Court (which has 26 judges overall) is a time-consuming process, requiring filing “corrective petitions” and persuading a panel of the Court that the issue should be taken up anew. This process has been ongoing at the instance of NAZ Foundation and its supporters, but a new group of plaintiffs emerged in 2016 and initiated a petition directly with the Supreme Court, arguing that recent rulings in other cases by the Court, most notably a later 2014 ruling on the rights of transgender people, National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India 5 SCC 438 (2014), had cast significant doubt on the reasoning of the Koushal decision.  This argument was bolstered last year when a nine-member panel of the Court, ruling on a challenge to a new national genetic identification system, Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 10 SCC 1 (2017), specifically discussed and disparaged the Koushal decision’s treatment of constitutional privacy and the rights of LGBTQ people.


The Court’s January 8 Order in Johar v. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice, Writ Petition No. 76/2016, by a three-judge panel including Chief Justice Dipak Misra, provided an extensive summary of the arguments against the constitutionality of Section 377, quoting extensively from the 2014 transgender and 2017 privacy rulings, particularly those passages critical of the Koushal decision, and granted the petitioners’ request that a larger panel of the Court be convened to reconsider that decision. Interestingly, only the Petitioners were present at the Court’s hearing on January 8, with the argument being presented by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar.  Nobody appeared from the government to oppose the request for reconsideration.  The Order emerged immediately after the hearing.


While the Order does not specifically state that all of the Petitioners’ arguments are correct, after concluding its summary of the arguments and what the Petitioners are seeking, the Court stated, “Taking all the aspects in a cumulative manner, we are of the view, the decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal’s case requires re-consideration. As the question relates to constitutional issues, we think it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench.”


A different Bench of the Court is presently considering the curative petition that was filed by the NAZ Foundation, so there was some speculation in the Indian press that the two cases could be combined before that larger panel. “In the meantime,” wrote the Court, “a copy of the petition be served on the Central Agency so that the Union of India can be represented in the instant matter.  Let the matter be placed before Honorable the Chief Justice of India, on the administrative side, for consideration of the appropriate larger Bench.”


Indian jurisprudence is famous for its slow motion, but there was some optimistic speculation that an opinion from a larger Bench of the Court may emerge later this year. In light of the serious criticisms of the Koushal decision by other Benches of the Court, commentators were optimistic that the Delhi High Court’s original ruling striking down criminalization of consensual gay sex will ultimately prevail, and gay sex will become legal in the world’s second largest country.


The Inter-American Court’s ruling on January 9 came in response to a petition submitted two years ago by Luis Guillermo Solis, the President of Costa Rica, who had run for office on a pledge to expand LGBTQ rights in his Central American country. Opinion Consultiva, OC-24/17 (2017). In the face of legislative intransigence, Solis inquired whether Costa Rica was obligated under the American Convention on Human Rights to let same-sex couples marry.  He also inquired about transgender rights.  The Court, which actually sits in Costa Rica’s capital city, came back with a strong affirmation for LGBTQ rights.  The opinion is initially available only in Spanish. According to translations published in English-language media sources, the court said that governments subject to the Convention “must recognize and guarantee all the rights that are derived from a family bond between people of the same sex,” and that establishing a separate institution for same-sex couples, such as civil unions, was not adequate from the point of view of legal equality.  The governments must “guarantee access to all existing forms of domestic legal systems, including the right to marriage, in order to ensure the protection of all rights of families formed by same-sex couples without discrimination.”


However, recognizing the kind of legislative intransigence encountered in Costa Rica and many other Central and South American countries, where the Roman Catholic Church has a heavy influence on social policy, the court recommended that government pass “temporary decrees” while new legislation is considered.


The Inter-American Court, in common with the European Court of Human Rights, is not empowered directly to order a government to do anything. Compliance requires acquiescence, and sometimes the court has resorted to demanding that governments explain why they have not complied with its rulings.  For example, it took Costa Rica several years to come into compliance with a ruling by the Inter-American Court against bans on the use of in vitro fertilization.


President Solis reacted to the decision by calling for full compliance by the countries of the Inter-American Union. The Tico Times reported on January 10 that he told reporters, “Costa Rica and the other countries that have accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court must fully comply with the court’s opinion, respecting each country’s processing time, jurisdictional and administrative spaces.  Solis pointed out that Costa Rica’s compliance would require a “gradual process,” requiring consultation between the various branches of government and the political parties.


The Court also addressed a question of transgender rights, recognizing as a human right that transgender people should be able to register themselves using the name and sex with which they identify, thus lining up with those countries that have in recent years moved towards recognizing self-declared gender identity without interposing a requirement that the individual document surgical gender confirmation procedures.


Commented Solis, “The court’s opinion ratifies our commitment to guaranteeing people access to the rights they acquire through their personal relations, without any sort of discrimination.” In a formal press release, the government stated: “Love is a human condition that should be respected, without discrimination of any kind.  The State confirms its commitment to comply.”


The countries that are legally bound by rulings of the court include Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam and Uruguay. Some of those countries still penalize gay sex, while others already have marriage equality: Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina.  Litigation over marriage equality is pending in the Supreme Court of Panama.  In Mexico, same-sex couples can marry in several states and the capital district, and all of the states are required to recognize those marriages, while a Supreme Court ruling mandates that lower courts issue orders, called “amparos,” requiring local officials to allow particular same-sex couples (or groups of couples) who obtain the orders to marry.  The Inter-American Court’s ruling may hasten the spread of marriage equality to the remaining Mexican states.


Meanwhile, back in the European Union, Advocate General Melchior Wathelet’s preliminary ruling in the case of Relu Adrian Coman, a Romanian citizen who married Robert Clabourn Hamilton, an American citizen, in Brussels, Belgium, while Coman was living there and working for a European Union agency, may portend a significant advance for marriage equality in Europe. Coman v. Inspectorate General for Immigration, Case C-673/16 (January 11, 2018).  Coman sought to bring his spouse back home to Romania, but the Romanian government was unwilling to issue the kind of spousal visa that is routinely granted when Romanians contract different-sex marriages elsewhere in Europe.  Coman brought his case to the Constitutional Court of Romania, which referred the issue to the European Court of Justice for a determination of what obligation the country might have as a member of the Union.


Such matters are first presented to the office of the Advocate General (of which there are several), for an opinion advising the Court.  If the Court decides to follow the Advocate General’s recommendation, its ruling becomes law throughout the European Union.


In some respects, Wathelet’s opinion is narrow and technical, because it doesn’t address a broad question of rights, but rather the narrower question of interpreting the Directive that guarantees freedom of movement within the European Union, with an eye to breaking down nationality barriers that would inhibit the movement of labor across national lines.   Directive 2004/38 describes the “free movement of persons” as “one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market.”  The Directive supports such freedom by requiring member states to grant freedom of movement to family members of their citizens, and of course a “spouse” is a family member, but the term “spouse” is not generally defined.  When the Directive was adopted in 2004, only two countries in Europe allowed same-sex marriage, but many others had registered partnerships for same-sex couples, so the Directive provides for free movement rights for such partners, but only “if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage.”


In the case of Romania, not only is marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman, but the country’s marriage law specifies that same-sex couples may not marry, and the county provides no registered partnership status for same-sex couples. Thus, the question under EU law is whether the protection for family life and for spousal relationships would extend to same-sex spouses, overriding national law on the question of who is entitled to a residence visa (as opposed to the short-term entry visa of up to three months for tourists and business visitors).  The key to this, it proved, was the established practice both in this Court and the European Court of Human Rights to adjust the definitions of terms in reaction to social developments.


Wathelet quoted an earlier decision stating that “EU law must be interpreted ‘in the light of present day circumstances,’ that is to say, taking the ‘modern reality’ of the Union into account.” This is to avoid the law become static and placing a drag on economic and social development.  Wathelet noted that in a 2001 ruling, reflecting “present day circumstances” at that time, the Court had considered marriage to be “a union between persons of the opposite sex.”  But this does not reflect the “modern reality.”


“In fact,” he wrote, “while at the end of the year 2004 only two Member States allowed marriage between persons of the same sex, 11 more Member States have since amended their legislation to that effect and same-sex marriage will be possible in Austria, too, by 1 January 2019 at the latest. That legal recognition of same-sex marriage does no more than reflect a general development in society with regard to the question.  Statistical investigations confirm it; the authorization of marriage between persons of the same sex in a referendum in Ireland also serves as an illustration.  While different perspectives on the matter still remain, including within the Union, the development nonetheless forms part of a general movement.  In fact, this kind of marriage is now recognized in all continents.  It is not something associated with a specific culture or history; on the contrary, it corresponds to a universal recognition of the diversity of families.”


Wathelet also referred to decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, including those protecting the right of a national of a signatory state to the European Convention on Human Rights to bring a same-sex partner into the country. He also noted that European law now includes a ban on sexual orientation discrimination by Member States, and strong protection both under the European Union’s Charter and under the Human Rights Convention for “family life.”


He also contended that adopting a gender-neutral concept of spouse was consistent with the objective of the Directive, “to facilitate that primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States which is directly conferred on citizens of the Union.” Freedom of movement would be impeded if lawfully married individuals could not bring the legal spouses with whom they have established a family relationship with them to return to live in their home country.


Thus, he recommended that the Court answer the questions posed by the Romanian Constitutional Court as follows: that “the term ‘spouse’ applies to a national of a third State of the same sex as the citizen of the European Union to whom he or she is married” for purposes of complying with Directive 2004/38 on freedom of movement.  As applied directly to Mr. Coman’s case, it means that his marriage to an American citizen while Coman was living in Belgium, a European Union country that allows same-sex marriages, gives his spouse a derivative right under the Directive to obtain, automatically, the same kind of spousal visa to enter and live in Romania that would be provided to a different-sex spouse.  Since Hamilton is not a citizen of any European Union Member State, his right is not direct and must be derived from the right of his husband to have Romania respect his marriage and family life, at least to the extent of allowing him to live together with his husband in his home country.


Reflecting the social divisions within the Union, several Eastern European nations – Latvia, Hungary, Poland and Romania – opposed this conclusion, while it was supported by submissions from the Netherlands and the European Commission.




U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition to Review Texas Supreme Court Ruling in Houston Benefits Case

Posted on: December 5th, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

On December 4 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected without explanation a petition from the City of Houston seeking review of the Texas Supreme Court’s June 30 ruling in Pidgeon v. Turner, which had cast doubt on whether the City was obligated under Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 marriage equality ruling, to provide same-sex spouses of Houston employees the same employee benefits offered to different-sex spouses.

A decision by the Supreme Court to deny review of a case is not a ruling on the merits of the case. In this case, it most likely means that there were not at least four members of the Court, the number required under the Court’s rules to grant a petition for review, who thought the Court should intervene in a lawsuit that is ongoing in the state trial court.  The Court’s action should not be construed as a decision approving the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling.  It is consistent with the Court’s tight control of its docket, under which sharply limits the number and type of cases that it takes up for review and rarely inserts itself into a case that has not received a final disposition in the lower courts.

Retired Texas Supreme Court Justice Wallace B. Jefferson and his law firm, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP, filed the petition on behalf of Mayor Sylvester Turner and the City of Houston on September 15, several weeks after Lambda Legal had filed a new federal district court lawsuit on behalf of some Houston employees whose same-sex spouses are receiving benefits and who fear losing them in the state court litigation. Lambda’s suit was quickly dismissed by the federal trial judge as not “ripe” for review because the plaintiffs are receiving their benefits and it was likely, in the judge’s view, that the state trial court would rule that the benefits were legal in light of the current state of the law.

The Texas Supreme Court’s June 30 decision, which reversed a ruling by the Texas Court of Appeals, was not a final disposition of that case, instead sending it back to the trial court in Harris County for a hearing on the original claim by plaintiffs Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, Republican anti-gay activists, that the City had unlawfully extended employee benefits eligibility to same-sex spouses of City employees in 2013.

Pidgeon and Hick first started litigating against the City when then-Mayor Annise Parker extended benefits eligibility by executive action after receiving an opinion from the city attorney about the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26, 2013, ruling, U.S. v. Windsor, which struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Pidgeon and Hicks argued that under Texas statutory and constitutional law at the time, it was illegal for the City to extend the benefits, as the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor decision did not address the constitutionality of state laws banning same-sex marriage.

Pidgeon and Hicks had a plausible argument in 2013, enough to persuade the trial judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the City, which promptly appealed. The Court of Appeals sat on the appeal for a few years, waiting for the storm of marriage equality litigation in Texas and throughout the country to play out.  Less than a year after the Windsor decision, a federal trial judge in San Antonio ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but the state’s appeal languished in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals until after the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Obergefell case on June 26, 2015.  A few days later the 5th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling invalidating the Texas laws banning same-sex marriages.  Then the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the preliminary injunction, instructing the trial court to decide the case in accord with the 5th Circuit’s ruling.  The City then resumed providing the benefits, which it has continued to do.

Undaunted, Pidgeon and Hicks asked the Texas Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred by instructing the trial court to follow the 5th Circuit’s ruling because, as a technical matter, state courts are not bound by federal court of appeals rulings.  They argued, in effect, that the City was still bound to abide by the Texas state law banning recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of public employee benefits, which had never been invalidated in the state courts and, they argued, was technically not declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, whose opinion in Obergefell only directly struck down state marriage bans in the states of the 6th Circuit, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

After lengthy deliberation, the Texas Supreme Court announced in September 2016 that it would not consider Pidgeon and Hicks’ appeal. This prompted a fervent campaign by Governor Greg Abbott and other elected officials to persuade the court to change its mind, stimulating thousands of Texans to flood the court with demands that it reverse the Court of Appeals decision.  The court ultimately bowed to this pressure, granted review, and issued its June 30 decision.

The Texas Supreme Court agreed that the Texas Court of Appeals should not have treated the 5th Circuit’s decision as binding on the trial court, and opined further that the Obergefell decision was just about whether same-sex couples could marry as a question of federal constitutional law, not what benefits they were entitled to if they married.  This was palpably wrong, as shown by another Supreme Court ruling, just days prior, in Pavan v. Smith, a case from Arkansas involving parental names on birth certificates, in which the Court made clear that married same-sex couples are entitled to the “full constellation of rights” that go with marriage under the Obergefell decision.

At present Pidgeon and Hicks’ lawsuit is still pending in the state trial court and the same-sex spouses of Houston employees are receiving their equal benefits, so it is likely that the Supreme Court justices saw no pressing reason to add this case to their docket. Perhaps they agree with the opinion by U.S. District Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore, who, in dismissing Lambda’s lawsuit, in predicted that the state trial court, being bound to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Obergefell and Pavan, will ultimately reject the challenge to the benefits.

N.Y. Appellate Division Upholds Vacating Adoption by Father’s New Boyfriend on Petition by Father’s Husband

Posted on: October 3rd, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

On September 28, 2017, a unanimous five-judge panel of the N.Y. Appellate Division, First Department, held that New York County Family Court Judge Stewart H. Weinstein had properly granted a motion by Han Ming T., the husband of Marco D., to vacate a May 2016 order that had granted an adoption petition by Carlos A., Marco’s boyfriend, to adopt a child conceived through gestational surrogacy using Marco’s sperm at a time when Marco and Han Ming were subsequently deemed to be married.  Ming, who had initiated a divorce proceeding in Florida in which he sought joint custody of the child, then unaware that the adoption petition had been filed in New York, showed that he was entitled to notice of the adoption petition and respect for his parental rights.  Carlos and Marco had failed to inform the Family Court that the status of the child in question was implicated in an ongoing divorce proceeding, so that court had originally granted the adoption unaware that there was a legal impediment as the consent of Ming was lacking. In re Maria-Irene D., 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6713, 2017 WL 4287334, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op 06716.

Marco and Ming, who are both British citizens, entered a formal civil partnership in the U.K. in 2008, which they converted into a legal marriage in 2015. Under British law, their marriage was treated as retroactive to the date of their civil partnership.  Between those two dates they had relocated to the U.S., living in Florida.  In 2013 they undertook to have a child through gestational surrogacy, a process by which an egg is extracted from a donor, fertilized in a petri dish, and then implanted in a surrogate.  Both men contributed sperm for several in vitro fertilization attempts; the one that “took,” using Marco’s sperm, was implanted in the surrogate.  This process was carried out in Missouri, where the child, who was named after the mothers of both men, was born in September 2014.  A Missouri court then terminated any parental rights of the egg donor and the surrogate and designated Marco, the genetic father, as having “sole and exclusive custody” of the child.  “Marco, Ming, and the child returned to Florida, where they lived as a family until October 2015, when Ming returned to the UK to seek employment,” wrote the court.

But evidently the relationship of the men was complicated during that time, because, the court reports, “At some point in or after 2013, Marco entered a relationship with petitioner Carlos A., and they moved to New York with the child after Ming went to the U.K.” Carlos petitioned the New York County Family Court to adopt the child in January 2016.  The adoption papers “disclosed that Marco and Ming were married in 2008, but alleged that they had not lived together continuously since 2012 and that Carlos and Marco have been caring for the child since her birth.  A home study report stated that Marco and Ming legally separated in 2014 and had no children together.”  That Ming had participated in the surrogacy process and that Marco, Ming and the child lived together as a family thereafter were not disclosed to the Family Court in the adoption proceeding.   Neither did Carlos and Marco disclose to that court prior to the adoption order being granted that Ming had filed a divorce action in Florida in March 2016, seeking joint custody of the child.

The Family Court granted the adoption in May 2016. When Ming learned of this, he filed a motion in the Family Court to vacate the adoption “on the ground that relevant facts had not been disclosed to the court and that he was entitled to notice of the adoption and an opportunity to be heard since he had parental rights.”  Judge Weinstein granted Ming’s motion and vacated the adoption, finding that Carlos and Marco made “material misrepresentations” to the court and that Ming was entitled to notice of the proceeding.  Weinstein did leave open the possibility that depending how the divorce proceedings were resolved in Florida, Carlos might later renew his petition to adopt the child.  Carlos moved for re-argument, but the motion was denied, and Carlos and Marco appealed.

The Appellate Division found that the Family Court “providently exercised its discretion in vacating the adoption.” Since the Marco-Ming marriage was retroactive to 2008 under U.K. law, it would be recognized as such under New York law as a matter of comity.  Which meant that the child, born in 2014, was a child of the marriage, “giving rise to the presumption that the child is the legitimate child of both Marco and Ming.”  The court noted Ming’s allegation that they lived together as a family in Florida, and that “the couple took affirmative steps in the U.K. to establish Ming’s parental rights in accordance with U.K. law.”  The court doesn’t explain this further.  Perhaps it refers to their subsequent 2015 marriage, which had retroactive effect under U.K. law to 2008, thus establishing Ming’s parental status, regardless of the Missouri judgement awarding Marco sole and exclusive custody.  (One has to factor into the mix that in 2014 same-sex couples could not marry in Missouri and their U.K. legal status as civil partners when the child was born would have no recognition under Missouri law, so naturally a Missouri court at that time would not recognize Ming as having any legal relationship to the child.)

“The prevailing law at the time the adoption petition was granted does not compel a different result,” said the court. As far as this court was concerned, as a matter of New York law according comity to the retroactive effect of their U.K. marriage, “Marco and Ming were deemed legally married when they embarked on the surrogacy process to have a child together.  Accordingly, the child was born in wedlock, and Ming was entitled to notice of the adoption proceeding.  Under the Court of Appeals’ most recent decision concerning parental standing (Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C., 28 N.Y.3d 1, 39 N.Y.S.3d 89, 61 N.E.3d 488 [2016]), Ming’s claim to have standing as a parent is even stronger.”

The court also found the failure by Carlos and Marco to disclose the Florida divorce proceeding to the Family Court to be “another ground to vacate the adoption,” since an adoption petition requires the petitioner to disclose to the court whether the child is the subject of any other legal proceeding affecting his or her custody or status, and Ming had petitioned for joint custody of the child in the Florida proceeding. Carlos and Marco learned of that proceeding a few months after Carlos’s adoption petition was filed, while that petition was still pending before the Family Court, so they had a duty to bring it to the attention of that court.  Instead, they filed a supplemental affidavit claimed that there had been no change in the child’s circumstances “whatsoever” since the filing of the adoption petition.

Ming is represented by Nina E. Rumbold of Rumbold & Seidelman, LLP (Bronxville). Carlos and Marco are represented by Frederick J. Magovern of Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola.  There is no attorney appointed to represent the child’s interest, a point that Carlos and Marco raised in their appeal but as to which the Appellate Division declined to rule.  The court’s opinion does not report on the current status of Ming’s Florida divorce proceeding.  It is possible that Ming and Marco are still legally married, which perhaps explains why Carlos and Marco are not?


Former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Seeks Reversal of His Old Court’s Opinion

Posted on: September 25th, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

On June 30, the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling claiming that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell marriage equality decision from June 2015 did not necessarily require state and local governments to treat same-sex and different-sex marriages the same for government employee benefits purposes. On September 15, asserting that his old court’s decision was clearly wrong, retired Texas Supreme Court Justice Wallace B. Jefferson and lawyers from his Austin firm, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the ruling.

Jefferson, an African-American Republican, was appointed to the court in 2001 by Governor Rick Perry, who then elevated him in 2004 to the Chief Justice position, where he served until retirement in October 2013. Justice Jefferson was the first African-American to serve on Texas’s highest court.  His law firm was retained by Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner to represent the City in petitioning the Supreme Court for review.

The case arose in 2013 when then-Mayor Annise Parker, an out lesbian and longtime LGBT rights activist, reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act by asking her City Attorney whether the reasoning of that case would require the City of Houston to recognize same-sex marriages of City employees. Although Texas did not allow same-sex marriages then, some City employees had gone out of state to marry and were seeking health care benefits for their spouses under the City’s employee benefits plan.  Parker got the answer she was seeking and ordered an extension of benefits to City employees’ same-sex spouses.

Two local Republican activists, Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, sued the City and Mayor Parker, seeking an injunction against extension of the benefits. They persuaded a state trial judge to issue a preliminary injunction, barring the benefits from going into effect pending the outcome of the litigation.  The court relied on the Texas constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage, which had not yet been challenged in court as of that time.  The City appealed the preliminary injunction.

While the appeal was pending before the Texas Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Obergefell case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which is based in Houston, promptly affirmed a 2014 marriage equality ruling by the federal district court in San Antonio, DeLeon v. Abbott, declaring unconstitutional the Texas same-sex marriage bans that had been the basis for the trial court’s injunction. Then the Texas Court of Appeals issued a ruling reversing the trial court’s preliminary injunction and instructing that court to decide the case consistent with the DeLeon decision.  Pidgeon and Hicks appealed that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court.


After extensively considering the matter, the Texas Supreme Court announced that it would deny review of the Court of Appeals ruling. This outraged Texas Republican leaders, including Governor Abbott, and the state Republican Party went to work encouraging people to bombard the court with communications urging it to reconsider and grant review, and then to reverse the court of appeals.  Perhaps it is not surprising, considering the very political nature of that court, made up entirely of Republican justices (since Texas has not had a Democratic governor since George W. Bush defeated Ann Richards in 1994), that the court succumbed to these demands, reconsidered, and granted review.

On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Pavan v. Smith, a challenge to the refusal by Arkansas officials to list both members of married lesbian couples on birth certificates when one of them gave birth to a child through donor insemination. In that ruling, the Supreme Court made abundantly clear that the Obergefell decision had effectively decided the Pavan case by holding that same-sex couples had the same constitutional rights regarding marriage as different sex couples, extending to the entire “constellation of rights” that went with marriage.  The Supreme Court did not even bother to hold oral argument in the Pavan case, simultaneously granting the petition to review an adverse decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court and issuing a brief memorandum opinion, from which three members of the Court dissented in an argumentative and disingenuous memorandum attributed to recently-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch and signed by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.  The Pavan opinion left no doubt that same-sex and different-sex married couples must be treated the same by government entities under the 14th Amendment.

But it was evidently not clear to a majority of the Texas Supreme Court, which just days later issued its ruling, reversing the court of appeals and sending the case back to the trial court in Houston, with instructions to give Pidgeon and Hicks an opportunity to try to convince the court that the City of Houston was still required to refuse recognition to the marriages of same-sex couples under its benefits plan, relying on the Texas constitutional and statutory ban that was declared unconstitutional by the 5th Circuit. A majority of the Texas Supreme Court clings to the idea that constitutional rulings by the lower federal courts are not binding on the Texas state courts.    The Texas court suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Obergefell could be interpreted narrowly to address solely the question whether states must allow same-sex couples to marry and must recognize same-sex marriages contracted from out of state, but that the Obergefell opinion said nothing directly about what rights must be accorded to same-sex married couples.  This is, as Justice Jefferson’s Petition to the Supreme Court makes clear, blatantly untrue.  It treats the Pavan ruling as if Justice Gorsuch’s dissent was speaking for the Court.

Justice Jefferson’s Petition on behalf of Mayor Turner and the City of Houston makes mincemeat out of the work product of his former colleagues, quoting clear language from Obergefell which, among other things, specifically mentioned health insurance as an example of how the denial of marriage to same-sex couples violated their fundamental right to marry and to be treated equally with different-sex couples.

This case is just as clear as Pavan was, and is likely to receive the same treatment from the U.S. Supreme Court, unless that Court finds some procedural or jurisdictional reason to dismiss the Petition without deciding the question presented by the petitioners: “Did the Supreme Court of Texas correctly decide that Obergefell v. Hodges and Pavan v. Smith ‘did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons,’ regardless of whether their marriages are same-sex or opposite-sex?” Some have suggested that because the Texas Supreme Court was ruling only on the validity of a preliminary injunction, the matter is not procedurally ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review, but any attempt to reinstate the preliminary injunction would directly violate the constitutional rights of Houston City employees in clear violation of the Obergefell ruling.

On a parallel track, Lambda Legal filed a federal district court lawsuit in Houston over the summer on behalf of some married LGBT City employees, seeking a declaratory judgment that they are entitled to the same benefits for their spouses that their straight colleagues get. If the Supreme Court does not grant Justice Jefferson’s Petition, it is likely that the matter can be resolved relatively quickly through Lambda’s case, since the City would eagerly comply with an order by the U.S. District Court to provide equal benefits.  This is, at heart, a dispute between the pro-LGBT Houston Democratic city government and the anti-LGBT Republican state government.



Texas Supreme Court Refuses to Dismiss Challenge to Spousal Benefits for Houston City Employees

Posted on: June 30th, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

In a clear misreading of the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling from 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges, especially as elucidated just days ago by that Court in Pavan v. Smith, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously refused on June 30 to dismiss a lawsuit by two disgruntled Houston taxpayers who argue that the city of Houston may not provide employee benefits for the same-sex spouses of its employees. The case is Pidgeon v. Turner, 2017 Tex. LEXIS 654.

Instead, while affirming a ruling by the Texas Court of Appeals that had reversed the preliminary injunction that a Texas trial court issued in 2014 against payment of the benefits, the Texas Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court for it to decide whether the Obergefell decision obligates Houston to provide equal benefits to same-sex spouses of its employees, and also to consider the taxpayers’ argument that the city should be required to “claw back” the value of benefits that were paid prior to the Obergefell decision, on the theory that Texas’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages contracted out-of-state was valid until the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was announced.

In Pavan v. Smith, the Arkansas Supreme Court had ruled that the Obergefell decision did not require the state to treat same-sex spouses the same as different-sex spouses for listing as a parent on the birth certificate of a child born to their spouse. Reversing that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court said: “As we explained [in Obergefell], a State may not ‘exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.’ Indeed, in listing those terms and conditions — the ‘rights, benefits, and responsibilities’ to which same-sex couples, no less than opposite-sex couples, must have access — we expressly identified ‘birth and death certificates.’ That was no accident…”

Thus, the Supreme Court made clear in Pavan, contrary to the Arkansas Supreme Court’s unduly narrow reading of Obergefell, that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits of marriage as different-sex couples. In listing some of the rights and benefits of marriage that same-sex couples had wrongly been denied, the Obergefell court specifically mentioned health insurance, an employee benefit that is at issue in the Texas case.  Thus, to claim that the Obergefell opinion fails to deal with this issue explicitly is totally disingenuous.

And yet, Justice Jeffrey S. Boyd wrote for the Texas Supreme Court in Pidgeon v. Turner, “The Supreme Court held in Obergefell that the Constitution requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they license and recognize opposite-sex marriages, but it did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons, and – unlike the Fifth Circuit in DeLeon – it did not hold that the Texas DOMAs are unconstitutional.” “DeLeon” refers to the Texas marriage equality decision that was issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit a few days after the Obergefell decision, holding that the Texas ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional in light of Obergefell.

Instead of cutting through procedural complications and saving everybody involved lots of wasted time and money through prolonged litigation, the Texas court has now repeated the error of the Arkansas Supreme Court by insisting that the Obergefell ruling does not clearly require “the same” rights, benefits and responsibilities, and, incredibly, cited in support of this point the Supreme Court’s decision on June 26 to grant review of a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Human Rights Commission, which concerns a totally different question: whether a baker has a 1st Amendment right to discriminate against a same-sex couple by refusing an order for a wedding cake in violation of a state anti-discrimination law.  The Supreme Court did not address in Obergefell the question of reconciling a potential clash between anti-discrimination laws and the rights of free exercise of religion and freedom of speech enjoyed by non-governmental entities and individuals.  But the Court most emphatically did address the issue that governmental actors, bound by the 14th Amendment, must accord the same rights to all married couples, whether same-sex or different-sex, and it reiterated that point in Pavan.

The Texas case dates back to 2013, when Houston’s Mayor Annise Parker, an out lesbian, reacted to the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision by extending benefits to the same-sex spouses of Houston city employees who had gone out of state to get married. At the time, Texas had both a state Defense of Marriage Act and a similar constitutional amendment, and Houston had a charter provision limiting municipal employee benefits to legal spouses and children of employees.  Relying on an advisory opinion from the city attorney, Parker concluded that after Windsor it was unconstitutional to refuse to recognize those out-of-state marriages.

Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, Houston taxpayers who identified themselves as devout Christians who did not want their tax money going to subsidize same-sex marriages, filed a lawsuit challenging the benefits extension in December 2013, and refiled in October 2014 after the first case was dismissed for “want of prosecution” while the parties were wrangling about the city’s attempt to remove the case to federal court. Pidgeon and Hicks claimed, based on state and city law, that the benefits extension was “expending significant public funds on an illegal activity.”  They persuaded a local trial judge to issue a preliminary injunction against continued payment of the benefits while the case was pending, and the city appealed.

The Texas Court of Appeals sat on the appeal while marriage equality litigation proceeded both in the federal courts in Texas – the DeLeon v. Perry case – and nationally. Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell on June 26, 2015, the 5th Circuit, affirming a federal district court ruling, held in DeLeon that the Texas laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

Then the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s preliminary injunction in the Pidgeon case and sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to decide the case “consistent with DeLeon.” Pidgeon and Hicks sought to appeal this ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, but were initially turned down by that court.  Then the top Republican elected officials in the state – the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general – and a bunch of other non-parties filed papers with the Supreme Court urging it to change its mind and allow the appeal, which the court eventually agreed to do.

In its June 30 ruling, the court buried itself in procedural complications. Based on its incorrect conclusion that the Obergefell decision, as amplified by the Pavan ruling, does not decide the merits of this case, and further giving credence to the plaintiffs’ argument that Obergefell cannot be construed to have any retroactive effect because “the Supreme Court acknowledged that it was attributing a new meaning to the Fourteenth Amendment based on ‘new insights and societal understandings,”  the court opined that Pidgeon and Hicks should have an opportunity to “develop” their argument before the trial court.  This contention on retroactivity is not the view that has been taken by other courts, including some that have retroactively applied Obergefell to find that cohabiting same-sex couples in states that still have a common law marriage doctrine can be held to have been legally married prior to that ruling.  Indeed, the federal government even gave Windsor retroactive application, allowing same-sex couples to file for tax refunds for earlier years on the basis that the Internal Revenue Service’s refusal to recognize their state-law marriages under DOMA had been unconstitutional.

The Texas Supreme Court agreed with Pidgeon that the Texas Court of Appeals should not have directed the trial court to rule “consistent with DeLeon” because, technically, the state trial courts are not bound by constitutional rulings of the federal courts of appeals, only by U.S. Supreme Court rulings on questions of federal law. DeLeon could be a “persuasive” precedent, but not a “binding” precedent.  This merits a big “so what?”  After all, the real question in this case is whether Obergefell requires that married same-sex couples are entitled to the “same benefits” as different-sex couples from their municipal employer, and the answer to that could not be more clear, especially after Pavan v. Smith.  (Indeed, Justice Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion in Pavan repeats the same mistaken assertion — that Obergefell does not clearly require the “same” rights and benefits which the Court responds to by quoting from Obergefell to the opposite effect – and is just as disingenuous as Justice Boyd’s decision for the Texas court.)

Now the case goes back to the trial court in Houston, where the outcome should be dictated by Pavan v. Smith and Obergefell and the court should dismiss this case. But, since this is taking place in Texas, where contempt for federal law is openly expressed by public officials, who knows how it will turn out?

Same-Sex Marriage Looms for Taiwan after Constitutional Court Ruling

Posted on: May 24th, 2017 by Art Leonard No Comments

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of China (Taiwan) voted overwhelmingly that same-sex couples are entitled to marry, and that anti-gay discrimination violates the Republic’s Constitution. The May 24 ruling was greeted with relative equanimity by legislative leaders, who were ordered by the court to approve legislation to implement this decision by May 24, 2019.  Otherwise, the court said, the decision would go into effect automatically, and same-sex couples would be entitled to marry.  Only two justices dissented, and one abstained.  Press reports we saw differed as to whether the court has 14 or 15 members.  Either way, the majority was overwhelming.

This was the first ruling by an Asian high court to accept marriage equality as a constitutional right, although there might be political and ideological arguments about its significance in relation to the rest of Asia due to the unusual status of Taiwan, which the Peoples’ Republic of China (Mainland China) considers to be part of its country that is just temporarily self-governing and most countries do not recognize it as an independent nation. However, there is no disputing that when this ruling goes into effect, Taiwan will be the first place where same-sex marriages can be performed in Asia with the imprimatur of legally-recognized status.

The opinion, formally called Interpretation No. 748, was released only in Chinese, but the court simultaneously issued an English-language press release summarizing the ruling in detail.

The court was responding to petitions from LGBT rights activist Chia-Wei Chi and the Taipei City Government, seeking a definitive ruling on whether the freedom to marry, protected by Article 22 of the Constitution, was limited by the provisions of Chapter 2 on Marriage of Part IV on Family of the Civil Code, which defines marriage as exclusively a different-sex institution. The court also had to confront the question whether excluding same-sex couples from marriage violated the “people’s right to equality” guaranteed in Article 7 of the constitution.

The court found that both constitutional guarantees – the right to marry and the right to equality – were violated by the ban on same-sex marriage.

The court observed that the petitioner, Chia-Wei Chi, has been waging a campaign for same-sex marriage for more than thirty years. Although some progress had been made in getting the legislature to consider the issue, after more than ten years of bills being introduced and debated, nothing has been brought to a vote.  The court expressed concern about the frustration induced by this protracted legislative process.  “The representative body is to enact or revise the relevant laws in due time,” said the court.  “Nevertheless, the timetable for such legislative solution is hardly predictable now and yet these petitions involve the protection of people’s fundamental rights.  It is the constitutional duty of this Court to render a binding judicial decision, in time, on issues concerning the safeguarding of constitutional basic values such as the protection of peoples’ constitutional rights and the free democratic constitutional order.”

The court said that the freedom to marry extends both to deciding whether to marry and whom to marry. “Such decisional autonomy is vital to the sound development of personality and safeguarding of human dignity, and therefore is a fundamental right.”  The court insisted that allowing same-sex couples to marry “will not affect the application of the Marriage Chapter to the union of two persons of the opposite sex” and that it would not “alter the social order established upon the existing opposite-sex marriage.”  The court said that the failure of current law to allow same-sex couples to marry “is obviously a gross legislative flaw” and that the current provisions “are incompatible with the spirit and meaning of the freedom of marriage as protected by Article 22 of the Constitution.”

Moving to the equality issue, the court addressed the problem that Article 7, unlike the United States’ equal protection clause, explicitly requires equality “irrespective of sex, religion, class, or party affiliation,” but the court did not see this list as a barrier to protecting equality for gay people (or, it added, people with disabilities). They said that the classifications listed in Article 7 “are only exemplified, neither enumerated nor exhausted.”  In other words, this is a list of “including but not limited to” classifications, and the court saw sexual orientation as a classification governed by the same equality principle.

“Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic that is resistant to change,” wrote the court. “The contributing factors to sexual orientation may include physical and psychological elements, living experience, and the social environment.  Major medical associations have stated that homosexuality is not a disease.  In our country, homosexuals were once denied by social tradition and custom in the past.  As a result, they have long been locked in the closet and suffered various forms of de facto or de jure exclusion or discrimination.  Besides, homosexuals, because of the demographic structure, have been a discrete and insular minority in the society.  Impacted by stereotypes, they have been among those lacking political power for a long time, unable to overturn their legally disadvantaged status through ordinary democratic process.  Accordingly, in determining the constitutionality of different treatment based on sexual orientation, a heightened standard shall be applied.”  This appears to be the equivalent of the U.S. legal concept of a “suspect classification,” one deemed illegitimate in the absence of good justification.

The court rejected any idea that reproductive capacity has anything to do with the freedom to marry, pointing out that different-sex couples may marry even if they are incapable of procreation or unwilling to engage in procreative activities. “Disallowing two persons of the same sex to marry, for the sake of their inability to reproduce, is a different treatment having no apparent rational basis,” wrote the court.  It also rejected the kind of moralistic arguments that are raised by marriage equality opponents, concluding, “Disallowing two persons of the same sex to marry, for the sake of safeguarding basic ethical orders, is a different treatment, also obviously having no rational basis.  Such different treatment is incompatible with the spirit and meaning of the right to equality as protected by Article 7 of the Constitution.”

While the court gave the government two years to make the necessary legislative adjustments to carry out this ruling, it warned that failure to do so would not prevent the decision from going into effect. Upon the two-year anniversary, if not sooner, same-sex couples will be entitled to apply for marriage registration to the usual authorities and to “be accorded the status of a legally recognized couple, and then enjoy the rights and bear the obligations arising on couples.”

Without being able to read and understand the original Chinese text, it is hard to assess whether the ruling leaves much leeway to the legislature to consider alternatives to true marriage equality. In Europe, for example, the Court of Human Rights has been willing to allow countries to adopt registered partnerships or civil unions rather than extending explicit marriage rights to same-sex couples, although that is likely to change as the number of countries having voluntarily legislated for marriage equality has grown to encompass several of the largest countries who are parties to the European Convention on Human Rights.  However, the clear import of the English summary is that same-sex marriages would have to include all the usual legal rights accompanying opposite-sex marriages to meet the equality test the court embraced, in a more explicit way than the U.S. Supreme Court did in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

The local English-language press in Taiwan reported that none of the major parties responded with opposition to the ruling, which was quickly embraced by Premier Lin Chuan, who “ordered Chen Mei-ling, secretary-general of the Executive Yuan, to coordinate the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior and other branches to draft the revision proposal,” according to Cabinet spokesman Hsu Kuo-yung. The cabinet will approve a proposal to submit to the legislature. The two options that seem available are a bill amending existing laws to accommodate same-sex marriages, or a separate same-sex marriage bill.  In terms of timing, it seems possible that marriage equality will go into effect sooner than two years.  Although the current legislative session ends by May 31, the legislature will reconvene for some special sessions during July and August and will resume its regular session thereafter.

Federal Court Upholds Dismissal of Deputy Clerk Who Refused to Process Same-Sex Marriage License

Posted on: December 19th, 2016 by Art Leonard No Comments

A deputy clerk in Harrison County, Indiana, lost her Title VII challenge to her discharge on December 15, when U.S. District Judge Richard L. Young ruled that she was not privileged by her religious beliefs to refuse to process a marriage license application from a same-sex couple. Incidentally, it was Judge Young who ruled in 2014 that Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.  Summers v. Whitis, 2016 WL 7242483, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173222 (S.D. Indiana, Dec. 15, 2016).


Linda Summers worked as a deputy clerk in the Harrison County Clerk’s office, where her elected boss was County Clerk Sally Whitis. Part of Summers’ duties was to process marriage licenses.  This consists of pulling up on the office computer the application that the couple would already have filled out on-line before coming to the Clerk’s Office, verifying that it was complete, collecting a fee, and then printing out the license and recording it in a book.  She did not perform marriages or actually sign licenses.


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago affirmed Judge Young’s ruling striking down the Indiana ban on September 4, 2014.  His injunction was “on hold” while the state sought Supreme Court review.  On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the state’s petition, making the 7th Circuit’s ruling final.  “On that same day,” wrote Judge Young, “the Office of the Indiana Attorney General issued a memorandum to all elected Clerks,” informing them that as soon as the 7th Circuit issued its final mandate to the state, Judge Young’s injunction would go into effect.  “As soon as that mandate is issued – and it could be as early as today – county clerks will be prohibited from denying marriage licenses to same sex couples so long as all other marriage license requirements are met,” said the memorandum.  “It would be advisable to start making necessary preparations to process marriage license applications and issue licenses accordingly.”


Whitis, who was on vacation when this happened, followed up on October 22, sending an email to all her employees, including Summers, informing them that “the Supreme Court has ordered Indiana to proceed with gay marriages. Therefore, it is our duty in the Clerk’s Office to process those applications. The process in Incite2 [the office software] has been modified to accommodate these filings.  Even though it may be against your personal beliefs, we are required by state law to process their applications.  We are only doing the paperwork and not performing their ceremony.  I expect everyone to comply.  Thanks.”


When a same-sex couple came to the office on December 8, 2014, to request their marriage license from Summers, she didn’t notice at first that both were women. Wrote Judge Young, “She went to her computer, opened the Incite system, and pulled up the couple’s application.  She then realized that the individuals requesting the marriage license were both the same sex.  Summers hesitated, unsure what to do.  After a moment, she decided that she could not process the application and motioned for Whitis to come and assist.”


Summers testified: “I told her this is a same-sex marriage license, and I can’t do it. She said, ‘You are not marrying them; you’re just providing them with the license.’  And I said, ‘I don’t feel that way.’  And I said, ‘I can’t do it.’  And she says, you’re required to do it, you have to do it – some of that order.  And I said, ‘I’m sorry.  I can’t do it.’  And she – that’s when she jerked the paper out of my hand and she took it and sat down at her desk and took the couple.’”  Whitis processed the license herself and told told Summers that such a refusal “could not happen again, because it was her job to do those.”


After reviewing the County Personnel Policies, which provide that insubordination “by refusing to perform assigned work or to comply with written or verbal instructions of supervisors” was ground for discharge, Whitis made the decision to discharge Summers and she consulted with the County Attorney. Whitis testified that “Summers’ religious beliefs did not play any part in the decision to terminate her.”


The next day, Summers placed a letter on Whitis’s desk asking that Whitis, as her employer, “accommodate my sincerely held religious belief by not requiring me to perform the task of processing marriage licenses for same sex couples.” Whitis read the letter when she got to work later that morning, and then gave Summers a letter notifying her that she was terminated “due to insubordination, as is defined in the Handbook on page 64.”  Whitis testified that Summers was insubordinate because “she refused to do a task that she was asked to do.”


Summers testified that she identifies as a Christian and could not process marriage licenses for same-sex couples because it was “against God’s law” to do so, and God’s law is “above legal law.” She cited some passages from the Bible in support of her position.  Whitis testified that she did not treat Summers any differently because of her religious beliefs and applied the same policies to her as to all other employees.


Judge Young noted that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it is unlawful for an employer to discharge any individual because of their religion. According to the most recent Supreme Court precedent from 2015, he found that there are now two elements for a plaintiff to state a potential religious discrimination claim: (1) her religious belief or practice conflicted with an employment requirement, and (2) her need for an accommodation of that religious belief or practice was a motivating factor in the employer’s adverse employment decision.


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


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


Young found support for his conclusion in the ruling by U.S. District Judge David Bunning against Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis last year, and quoted from that decision. Although Davis had tried to rely upon the 1st Amendment rather than Title VII, this would not lead to any different result.


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


Young wrote that Summers’ conflict was with “federal law,” not with “an employment requirement.” “While Whitis may have instructed Summers to process same-sex marriage licenses,” he wrote, “that directive was merely an effort to comply with the Seventh Circuit’s mandate, which expressly forbids the state of Indiana from enforcing its same-sex marriage ban.  In other words, the requirement that Summers process same-sex marriage licenses was one imposed by a federal court and merely implemented by Defendants.” Thus, it could not be the basis for an employment discrimination charge.


“In the end,” wrote Young, “Summers should have put her personal feelings aside and heeded the command of her employer.” While she was free to disagree with the federal courts, “that did not excuse her from complying” with their decisions, and so Whitis and the County were “within their rights” to terminate her employment.


Judge Young was appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate. He was chief judge of the district when he struck down Indiana’s same-sex marriage ban in 2014, and just stepped down from the chief judge position this November.



Arkansas Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Discriminatory Birth Certificate Statutes

Posted on: December 12th, 2016 by Art Leonard No Comments

Although the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling for marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, pockets of resistance remain in the states. The latest manifestation of this phenomenon comes from Arkansas, where the state’s Supreme Court ruled on December 8 by a 4-3 vote that same-sex couples do not enjoy the same constitutional rights as opposite sex couples when it comes to listing parents on birth certificates.  In Smith v. Pavan, 2016 Ark. 437, the majority of the court rejected a constitutional challenge to two Arkansas statutes under which wives of birth mothers are denied equal treatment with husbands of birth mothers in the matter of being listed as parents on birth certificates.  Three members of the court disagreed with the majority to varying extents in separate opinions.


The case was brought by three lesbian couples. Two of the couples, Marisa and Terrah Pavan and Leigh and Jana Jacobs, were married out-of-state and then had a child born in their residential state of Arkansas.  The third couple, Courtney Kassel and Kelly Scott, had a child in Arkansas and married shortly thereafter.  In all three cases, the Department of Health, headed by named-defendant Dr. Nathaniel Smith, refused to list the spouse of the birth mother on the birth certificate, relying on gender-specific Arkansas statutes that provide for listing husbands but not wives of birth mothers.


The women, represented by attorney Cheryl Maples with amicus assistance from the ACLU of Arkansas and the national ACLU LGBT Rights Project, filed suit against Smith. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Davis Fox accepted their argument that Dr. Smith, who was also a named defendant in Wright v. Smith, the Arkansas state court marriage equality case, was bound by the decision in that earlier case, which had struck down as unconstitutional not only the state’s ban on same-sex marriage but also “all other state and local laws and regulations identified in Plaintiff’s complaint or otherwise in existence to the extent they do not recognize same-sex marriages validly contracted outside Arkansas, prohibit otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marrying in Arkansas or deny same-sex married couples the rights, recognition and benefits associated with marriage in the State of Arkansas.”


The case appeared clear to Judge Fox. The final court order issued in Wright v. Smith required that Arkansas treat same-sex marriages as equal to different-sex marriages in all respects under state law, and Smith was precluded from trying to re-litigate that issue in this case.  Smith’s appeal from the trial court’s ruling in Wright v. Smith was pending when the U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling in Obergefell, after which the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed that appeal as moot, ending a stay that it had granted on the trial court’s Order.


Furthermore, Judge Fox found support for his decision in favor of the women in the Obergefell opinion itself, noting that Justice Anthony Kennedy had mentioned “certificates of birth and death” as one of the benefits of same-sex marriage. Kennedy had written:


“The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. . . . The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.”


To Judge Fox, this meant that married same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights of marriage as different sex couples, including the same spousal rights regarding birth certificates.


But a majority of the Arkansas Supreme Court insisted that the Obergefell decision, and the state court Wright decision, had not decided this issue. An opinion by Justice Josephine Linker Hart for four members of the seven-member court insisted that the only questions decided by these prior cases were whether same-sex couples could marry or have their out-of-state marriages recognized.   Viewed this way, the Wright v. Smith decision would not preclude Smith from applying Arkansas statutes to refuse to list the same-sex spouses on birth certificates unless the court were to decide independently that doing so violated the constitutional rights of the spouses.  This the court was unwilling to do.


Since Judge Fox had ordered Smith to issue new birth certificates listing both mothers, and that order had not been stayed, the Supreme Court decided that the case should be treated as a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the statutes. Because the plaintiffs had actually received the birth certificates they sought, any “as applied” challenge was deemed to be moot.


One of the challenged statutes provides that when a child is born to a married woman, her husband will be listed on the birth certificate as the child’s father unless a court has determined either that another man is the child’s biological father, or the mother, the biological father, and her husband have executed affidavits establishing that the husband is not the biological father. The other challenged statute provides that when a child is born to an unmarried woman, only she will be listed on the original birth certificate, but a new birth certificate can be issued listing the biological father if the child is “legitimated” by the biological parents subsequently marrying, or a court determines who is the biological fathers.


The court insisted that both statutes are clearly intended to record historical facts about the biological parents of a child, and that the state has a legitimate reason to want the original birth certificate to correctly list these historical facts. “In our analysis of the statutes presented above,” wrote Justice Hart, “it is the nexus of the biological mother and the biological father of the child that is to be truthfully recorded on the child’s birth certificate.


Quoting from an affidavit submitted by Melinda Allen, the state’s Vital Records Registrar, the court adopted her contention that the recordation of biological parents was “critical” to the department’s “identification of public health trends,” and she asserted that “it can be critical to an individual’s identification of personal health issues and genetic conditions.” She noted that in adoption and surrogacy situations, the biological parents are listed on original birth certificates, which are then “sealed” when new certificates are issued showing adoptive or intended parents, since the state deems it essential that a permanent record of biological parentage be preserved.


Justice Hart said that Judge Fox had “conflated distinct categories of marriage, parental rights, and vital records,” and that the issue in this case was not who can be a parent but rather who must be listed on a birth certificate. “On the record presented,” she wrote, “we cannot say that naming the nonbiological spouse on the birth certificate of the child is an interest of the person so fundamental that the State must accord the interest its respect under either statute.”


As to an equal protection challenge, the court found that the same-sex spouse is not similarly situated to the husband, and “it does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths”. In this case, the majority found, “the challenged classification serves important governmental objectives” – the factual record of biological parentage for the reasons asserted by Melinda Allen in her affidavit.


The court pointed out that there was another statute that might be invoked in this situation, governing intended fathers in cases involving “artificial insemination.” In such cases, if the mother’s husband consented in writing to her insemination with donated sperm, the child would be “deemed the legitimate natural child of the woman and the woman’s husband” and he would be listed on the birth certificate.


At oral argument in this case, counsel for Dr. Smith conceded that this statute violated equal protection, since in this case both the husband and the same-sex spouse of the birth mother were not biologically related to the child, and thus similarly situated.   Smith’s attorney argued that if a case was brought under that statute, the court “could resolve many of the concerns raised by the [women] by amending the wording of the statute,” but Justice Hart rejected this suggestion, insisting that “this court is not a legislative body and it cannot change the wording of the statute.”  Furthermore, since the plaintiffs did not invoke the artificial insemination statute in this case – possibly because they did not have written authorization for the insemination procedure as required by the statute – the trial court did not rule on the statute’s constitutionality, so the issue of its constitutionality was not properly before the court.


In a concluding paragraph, the court “admonished” Judge Fox for having made a public statement that if the Arkansas Supreme Court granted a stay of his order in this case, it would be depriving people of their constitutional rights, and that the court had deprived people of their constitutional rights in a separate matter. “A remark made to gain the attention of the press and to create public clamor undermines ‘public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality,’ not only of this court, but also of the entire judiciary,” wrote Hart, and Fox was formally “admonished” for “his inappropriate comments made while performing the duties of his judicial office.”


Chief Justice Howard Brill, in a separate opinion, agreed with the majority that Obergefell was a narrow holding that same-sex couples have a right to marry, and thus did not directly settle the question of birth certificates. However, he wrote, “The question here is the broader impact of that ruling as it affects birth certificates,” and, he wrote, “The logical extension of Obergefell, mandated by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, is that a same-sex married couple is entitled to a birth certificate on the same basis as an opposite-sex married couple,” because “the right to a birth certificate is a corollary to the right to a marriage license.”  He prefaced his opinion with a quote from the lyrics of Bob Dylan’s song “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” and concluded by arguing that it was up to the legislature to amend the existing laws to come into compliance with Obergefell.  “The times they are a-changin’,” he wrote.  “All three branches of the government must change accordingly.  It is time to heed the call.”


In her separate opinion, Justice Rhonda K. Wood joined the court in reversing the case on the ground of “prudential-mootness” because the plaintiff couples had received their revised birth certificates on the order of Judge Fox. At the same time, she wrote, “I encourage the legislature to address the relevant birth certificate statutes in the upcoming session to avoid a plethora of litigation and confusion for the courts.”  She pointed out that this litigation had actually stimulated the Health Department to modify its procedures, noting that Allen’s affidavit stated that the department “will issue birth certificates listing both same-sex parents if the hospital submits documentation reflecting that fact,” although the parties disputed at oral argument about how consistently this new policy was being implemented.  She also noted Smith’s concession at the oral argument that the artificial insemination statute, as written, violated equal protection, and that if the department administers it appropriately, “any legal challenge in this regard would be moot.”  Judge Wood emphasized the fluidity of the situation on the ground and the likelihood that things had changed since Allen made her affidavit.  This, to her, would justify the court as treating the appeal as moot and sending the case back to the circuit court for a new hearing to determine the current facts, which might make it unnecessary to issue a constitutional ruling.  However, departing from the majority, she wrote that in her view, “states cannot constitutionally deny same-sex couples the benefits to marital status, which include equal access to birth certificates,” and suggested that the legislature should amend the statute to comply with this conclusion.


Justice Paul Danielson dissented totally from the majority opinion, stating that he would affirm Judge Fox’s ruling, agreeing that Smith and Obergefell settled the matter and the statutes as written were clearly unconstitutional.


Justices Wood and Danielson dissented from the majority’s admonishment of Judge Fox. Justice Wood merely stated that she had not “participated” in the majority’s decision to admonish the judge. Justice Danielson wrote at length, arguing that the admonishment violated Judge Fox’s constitutional free speech rights, quoting a U.S. Supreme Court decision stating that “the operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges [are] matters of the utmost public concern.” The Supreme Court “has cautioned against repressing speech under the guise of promoting public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary,” wrote Danielson.  “In short,” he concluded, “the fact that members of this court have personally taken offense to the circuit judge’s remarks is not a sufficient basis for suggesting that those remarks violate our disciplinary rules.”

No, Donald Trump Can’t Repeal Marriage Equality

Posted on: November 11th, 2016 by Art Leonard No Comments

Some panicky LGBT people have been calling the LGBT legal and political organizations to ask whether they should accelerate their wedding plans to marry before Donald Trump takes office, and many are expressing concern that the marriage equality victory, won in the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015, after so much hard work and heartache, is now in danger of being reversed, and that their own same-sex marriages might become invalid.


Although nobody can predict the future with absolute certainty, it is highly unlikely that the marriage equality decision will be reversed, and it is an absolute certainty that Trump as president will not have the authority to reverse it on his own or even with the connivance of Congress.  Furthermore, there is good legal authority to conclude that a valid marriage, once contracted, can only be ended by a divorce or by the death of one of the spouses, not by executive fiat or legislative action.


The Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, voting 5-4, that same-sex couples have a right to marry as part of the liberty guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, bolstered by the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.  A ruling on a constitutional right by the U.S. Supreme Court can only be changed in one of two ways: a constitutional amendment, or an overruling by the Supreme Court in a later case.  Once a case is decided and the Court sends its mandate out to the lower court from which the case was appealed, the losing party can file a petition seeking a rehearing, but such a petition has to be filed quickly and the Court almost always denies them.  We are now 18 months out from the Obergefell ruling.  It is final, done, no longer open to reconsideration by the Court.  And the President has no power to “repeal” or “overrule” it by himself.  Neither does Congress.


During the campaign, Donald Trump did not threaten to try to repeal or reverse the ruling on his own. He said he thought the question of marriage should have been left to the states, so he disagreed with the Court’s decision, and he said he would consider appointing new justices to the Supreme Court who would vote to overrule it.


Trump can’t appoint a new justice to the Court until there is a vacancy.  There is one now, due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last winter and the refusal by the Senate to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to replace him.  But Justice Scalia dissented in the Obergefell case, so replacing him with a conservative judge would not change the outcome.  The five-member majority in Obergefell – Justices Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the Court’s opinion), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan – are all still there.  And there is no case now pending before the Court that would provide a vehicle for overruling Obergefell v. Hodges.  And any marriage equality opponent thinking strategically would be waiting until one of those majority justices leaves before attempting to launch a legal challenge.


What about the constitutional amendment route?  That is not going to happen.  Trump’s election doesn’t affect that at all, since the President plays no role in amending the Constitution.  Article V makes it so difficult to pass an amendment that our 240-year-old Constitution has picked up only 27 amendments, ten of them being the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791, and the most recent one, adopted in 1992, a quarter century ago, requiring that any pay raise that Congress votes for itself cannot go into effect until after the next House of Representatives election.  In order to propose a new amendment, at least 2/3 of each house of Congress has to approve it, and then it has to be ratified by at least ¾ of the states.  Alternatively, 2/3 of the states can apply to Congress to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments, but any amendments proposed would still require ratification by ¾ of the states.


By the time the Supreme Court decided Obergefell in 2015, popular opinion polls showed that a clear majority of the public supported marriage equality, and that margin of support only increases over time, as polling in the early marriage equality states such as Massachusetts has shown.  Amendments to the Constitution can only pass with overwhelming public support.  There is no overwhelming public support to abolish same-sex marriage.  That effort is now the province mainly of far-right-wing cranks and religious fanatics.  And as long as the Democrats hold more than 1/3 of the seats in the Senate, it is highly unlikely that a Marriage Amendment would get the necessary 2/3 vote in that chamber.  Indeed, the Democrats hold enough seats in that House, in combination with some more moderate Republicans, to block it in that chamber as well.  So, marriage equality opponents, forget about passing a Marriage Amendment.


The alternative, of course, is for opponents to set up a lawsuit raising the question and to get it to the Supreme Court after Trump (or a successor) has had an opportunity to appoint somebody to replace a member of the Obergefell majority.   That majority includes the three oldest members of the Court, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer, so it is possible Trump will have that opportunity before the end of a four-year term.   Even then, however, an overruling is highly unlikely.


First, a case presenting the question has to come to the Court, and the issue of marriage equality has to be central to that case.  The Court may be presented over the next few years with cases that involving marriage equality in some way.  They already have a petition to review the Colorado marriage cake case, presenting the claim that a baker’s 1st Amendment rights are violated by fining him under a state anti-discrimination law for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but I’m not sure such a case, even if the Supreme Court decided to hear it, would provide a vehicle for overruling Obergefell.  More likely, a challenge would come from some state deciding to provoke a lawsuit by denying equal treatment for some benefit to a married same-sex couples. But it’s not enough just to petition the Court, because the Court has complete discretion about whether to accept a case for review, and it takes four Justices to grant such a petition.  By the time they get such a petition AFTER a change of membership has reduced the Obergefell majority, perhaps several years from now, same-sex marriage will be such a settled issue, with so many tens of thousands of same-sex couples married throughout the country, that it seems highly unlikely that even four members of the Court would be motivated to reopen the issue.


Furthermore, the Court normally embraces a concept called “stare decisis,” a Latin term meaning standing by what has been decided.  They are very reluctant to overrule themselves, especially when a decision has been embraced by society and incorporated into the everyday lives of many people.  When they do overrule a prior decision, it is usually in the direction of realizing that the old decision wrongly denied a constitutional claim or adopted an incorrect and harmful interpretation of a statute.   The Court resists attempts to get it to cut back rights that it previously recognized.


In the course of litigating about LGBT rights, the Court has twice overruled past decisions.  In 2003, the Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) when it decided that the constitution protected people engaged in consensual gay sex from criminal prosecution, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).  Indeed, the Court said that Bowers was wrong when it was decided.  The second time, it overruled Baker v. Nelson (1972) when it held that same-sex couples have a right to marry.  Baker, however, was a one-sentence decision stating that the issue of same-sex marriage did not present a “substantial federal question.”  In both cases, overruling involved a determination that the prior case had wrongly failed to recognize a constitutional right, so the new decision marked an expansion of liberty and equality. The Court is unlikely to overrule a case in order to contract liberty or deny equality.


As to the validity of existing same-sex marriages, when Californians passed Proposition 8 in 2008 after several thousand same-sex couples had married in that state, the California Supreme Court ruled that although Prop 8 was validly enacted, it could not retroactively “un-marry” all those couples.  Their marriages would continue to be valid and recognized by the state.  It is unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would take a different position regarding existing same-sex marriages if it were to overrule Obergefell.  That would raise daunting due process and equal protection questions.


Trump’s taking office does not present a direct and present threat to marriage equality.  It does present many other threats, including the loss of pro-LGBT executive orders and the likely abandonment by federal agencies of the position that sex discrimination laws protect LGBT people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.  But those are other issues….