What’s the Harm?
Changes and Challenges in Family Law
Lesson #4: The Future for Families:
Working Effectively to Make the World Better for Families
by Lynn D. Wardle
Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University
Presented at BYU Education Week, August 21, 2009
Welcome
Thanks for coming (back) (How many 3d, 2d, 1st)
Thanks to BYU Education Week for allowing this class
Thanks to the room hosts!
(Recommend Elder Packer’s keynote Devotional Address yesterday,
8/18, defend your families)
Leave 5-10 mins Qs
Resources:
1) Marriage & Family Law Research Project website
http://www.law2.byu.edu/organizations/marriage_family/index.php
(symposia, presentations, draft papers, slides, links)
2) “What’s the Harm? Does legalizing same-sex marriage really harm
individuals, families or society?” (Univ. Press Am. 2008) BYU
Bookstore - Y
3) “Same-Sex Marriage: A Debate (Praeger 2003) BYU Bookstore – N,
try Amazon.com
Some Recent Good news ME Poll (where 100,000+ signatures collected, only 55,087 needed for “people’s veto”
ballot): Poll in April: 49.5% opposed SSM; 47.3% supported SSM.
Source: Peter Cassels, Religious Groups play major role …. (8/18/09_)
NH Poll: “New Hampshire's legislature may have passed a "gay marriage" bill that
the governor signed into law, but that hasn't translated into statewide support, a
new poll says.
“The poll shows that by a margin of 49-41 percent, New Hampshire likely voters
disapprove of the law that made the state the sixth nationwide to legalize
"marriage" for homosexual couples. Ten percent are undecided. The
• poll was conducted by Research 2000 for the liberal blog DailyKos.com, a fact that
conservatives say only adds to the poll result's validity.
• . . . “In the poll, 18- to 29-year-olds supported the law by a margin of 53-39
percent, while 30- to 44-year-olds opposed it, 53-38 percent. That latter
demographic, in fact, had the highest opposition -- higher even than the 60-plus
category (50 percent opposed, 40 percent supportive).
Source: Michael Foust / Baptist Press (7/21/09)
Good News polls, cont’d
IA: “The poll found 61 percent of Iowans would vote for a constitutional limit to prohibit samesex marriage. It found 80 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of independents support an
amendment. Democrats were split — 47 percent for an amendment and 47 percent against it.”
Source: James Q. Lynch, Poll finds resistance to gay marriage (8/18/09)
“In Iowa, a survey of 500 registered voters showed that 67 percent favor of placing a
constitutional amendment on the ballot that would prohibit "gay marriage.“ Source: Michael
Foust / Baptist Press (7/21/09)
CA: Equality California (and other gay groups) will not support amendment to allow SSM in
2009: “But if you look at the poll numbers since November, they really haven’t moved at all.”
(Marc Solomon of EC). Source: Jesse McKinley, Backers of Gay Marriage …, NYT 7/27/09)
“In fact, most public polling shows that support for homosexual marriage has peaked and
retreated significantly from its high water mark.” (Statement of Ron Prentice, Executive
Director, ProtectMarriage.com on Equality California Decision to Pursue a 2012 Election
Repeal of Proposition 8, Aug. 12, 2009)
US: “According to a recent CBS/New York Times poll, support for gay marriage has dropped
nine percentage points from a 42 percent historic high. According to Gallup, only 13 percent
of Americans believe that gay marriage would make us better off, while 48 percent believe it
would be change for the worse.“ Source: KJ Lopez, Winds Shifting (8/1/09 Op-Ed)
POLAND: “ Three quarters of people in Poland are against allowing homosexual couples to wed,
according to a poll by GfK Polonia. 75 per cent of respondents oppose the legalization of
same-sex marriage, while 87 per cent reject allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.”
Angus Reid, Global Monitor (8/5/09)
Lecture #4: The Future for Families:
Working Effectively to Make the World
Better for Families (Aug. 21, 2009)
Outline:
A. Review/finish threats to civil rights from SSM ;
B. Six top family issues in 2009-10 (includes export/import)
C. What can be done? (President Hinckley: Standing for
Something!)
D. How to do it: Stand up, speak up, civic involvement;
patience, charity, courage.
E. Why we must do it: (for ourselves, families, communities,
nation, opponents,).
Examples: HI & AK 1998, CA 2008, MA parents,
VT/NV - one vote 2009
F. Get “Anxiously Engaged and Actively Involved”
Recent Letter to IA Legislators from
Religious Liberty Experts
Legalizing SSM w/o express accommodation will cause a “sea
change in American law” and diminution of protection for
religions and persons of faith
Two categories of threats
– Under ‘anti-discrimination’ statutes and doctrines
(housing, publica accommodation, small businesses,
religious summer camps, church employees, etc.)
– As unlawful discriminators and face penalties (denied
eligibility for public contracts, access to public lands and
facilities, licenses (professional, business, food, serrvice,
accreditation, tax exempt status, etc.)
Source: Letter to Hon. Chet Culver (Gov. IA) from Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson, et al., July 9, 2009; also
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (2008).
Other examples of losses of civil liberties
(from LDW article for ISFL Conference in Israel
Intolerant anti-religious responses to conflicting loyalties (God and State) re: marriage.
UK: - Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Gen. Sec’y Muslim Council of Britain investigated because said in
interview gays could change with therapy (2006).
-Catholic school forced to retain principal who openly celebrated SSCU.
-Anglican bishop fined for refusing to hire openly gay youth minister.
-New Rules (eff. 2010) forbid churches fire/not hire employees (except clergy) because
of sexual practices.
-Registrars who object to performing SSCUs pressured; one forced to resign; another
harassed, demoted (sued but lost, no religious exemption).
-Pediatrician on adoption panel request to abstain from SSC/P adoptions denied; fired.
SWEDEN: - Pastor Ake Green prosecuted, convicted (SCt finally reversed) because quoted
scriptures against homosexual behavior (prosecutor argued that other versions of the
scriptures were available).
-New SSM law requires churches (at least some) to provide clergy to perform SSM
ceremonies.
IRE: - ICCL warned RC bishops risk prosecution for hate speech for Vatican pamphlet
against homsexual relations.
Source: Lynn D. Wardle, “Marriage and Religious Liberty: Comparative Law Problems and Conflict of Laws
Solutions,” ISFL Regional Conference, Israel, June 7-9, 2009.
>cont’d
Loss Civil Liberties re: Marriage, cont’d
CAN: - BC denied teacher accreditation to Evangelical Free Church of Canada
- BCHRC held Knights Columbus liable for cancelling hall rental when
learned for SS ceremony
-Ont HRTrib gets complaint v. RC diocense for $240,000 + atty fees for dismissing altar-server who was
cohabiting w/ SS partner
US-MA: 12 JPs resign bec told must solemnize SSM as well as trad marr
[A recent poll of Massachusetts residents revealed that 36 percent of voters who oppose gay marriage agreed
with the statement, "If you speak out against gay marriage in Massachusetts you really have to watch your
back because some people may try to hurt you.“
Source: Mark Calli, Is the Gay Marriage Debate Over, Christianity Today, 24 July 2009, citing
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.5075687/apps/s/content.asp?ct=7000219 .]
CA – 24/112 dep cnty clrks in SD asked for exemption (told would be reassigned other jobs 18 w/drew
applications)
-Alameda county granted deputy county clerks (dcc) exemption if note from pastor
-Kern county stopped performing all marriages
-LA county required all employees (DCCs) to perform SSMs
-LA Times: 23 CA counties allowed DCCs accommodate, but 35 counties did not.
-North Coast Care Med. Group v. S.C., 139 P.3d 1 (CA 2008) no exemption for Dr. decline AI lesbian couple
because religion, but (then) OK deny if not m’d.
-After Prop 8 passed, harassment, intimidation, stalking, vandalism, violence, discrimination against
persons, businesses, churches that supported Prop 8.
CN: JPs can refuse to do any marriage (own discretion) but not town clerks.
VT: JPs can refuse to do any marriage but pattern/per se refusal prob illegal
IA: After Varnum Pub H Dept sent ltr all 99 county recorders: MUST do SSM
NM: HRC - Christian photographers liable for not photo SS cere $6,600 fees
Source: Lynn D. Wardle, “Marriage and Religious Liberty . . . .
[
B. Six top family issues in 2009-10
1) Full Faith & Credit cases & DOMA repeal
2) Intimidation, harassment, persecution & abuse
of power to promote the ssm agend
3) SSM & Gay Adoption spread (eroding culture)
4) Continuing quick-fix, first-resort divorce
5) Continuing increase cohabitation & cbow.
6) November 2010 Election!!
1) Exporting & Importing SSM, CU, and LGAds:
Conflicts of Laws (choice of law, and judgmentrecognition) Issues
What happens when a same-sex couple that married in
Massachusetts moves to a state that only recognizes civil
unions, or that forbids both SSM and SSCUs (like UT)?
Such conflicts over importation and exportation of
controversial domestic relationships (called “conflict of
laws”) will dominate future legal arguments about
same-sex marriage.
State Appellate or Federal Court Decisions
Involving Conflicts of Laws Re: Same-Sex
Domestic Relationships, 2000 - 2007
From Jan 2000 to April 2008, 22 federal/state conflicts decisions re: recognition of
SSM/CU/Adopt.
Ten denied recognition.
Nine allowed recognition.
Three split.
Rate of case occurrence is increasing each year!
General US federal and state rules
re: recognition of marriages from
other jurisdictions
General Rule: Marriage valid where performed (S-1), valid everywhere (S-2) – unless it
violates the strong public policy of S-2.
Whether a sister state law violates strong public policy depends on whether it can
overcome the presumption in favor of comity (courtesy/respect) to laws of other
sovereign; public policy exception is narrowly construed.
However, priority for forum policies (lex fori) is a countervailing consideration.
Subjective, ambiguous standards give courts much wiggle room.
Importance of SMAs to cabin judicial manipulation of comity to force recognition.
Importance of federal DOMA (protects right of states to decide for themselves; neutral;
prevents federal substantive law/ choice of law to impose SSM on states ).
DOMA
•
•
Section 2: [State Recognition]
28 U.S.C. 1738C.
•
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be
required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other
State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the
same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".
•
•
Section 3: Federal
1 USCA 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
•
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation,
or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United
States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one
woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the
opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.".
President & Congress (DEM)
Intend to Repeal DOMA
3 pending suits v. DOMA (2 in MA, 1 in CA)
-President Obama’s DOJ is “defending” DOMA.
-DOJ memorandum filed defending DOMA in one suit was criticized by
gays who think President is breaking his promise to them by defending
DOMA.
-So latest DOJ memo said “we think DOMA is discriminatory and
violation of equality, but court should uphold it anyway.”
“On Monday, Obama said he still wants to ditch the Defense of Marriage
Act, calling the law discriminatory even as his administration defended it
in court papers.” (Source: Nicole C. Brambila, State resolution urging
marriage equality … 8/18/09)
“President Obama is sabotaging DOMA while pretending to defend it in
court ….” (Maggie Gallagher, No Justice for Marriage, 8/19/09)
C) What’s the Solution? What can I do? 5 Ideas
1st) Constitutional protection for conjugal marriage and the
marital family (start with state constitutions)
• Three serious reasons why no US Constitutional
protection for marriage and family.
– Context of the Founding Era (not an issue)
– Structure (federalism in family law)
– Difficulty (amendment process)
• Three weak reasons why no state constitutional
amendments in 23 states.
– Politics
– Anti-populist processes
– Lack of citizen interest/initiative
To do: Organize and work for SMAs (and later FMA)
What’s the Solution? What to do?
2d) Explicit Statutory Protections for Rights of Religious
Conscience, and for parents’ rights.
• Constitutional Protects of Freedom of Religion Have
been “judicially interpreted” to very little protection.
• Statutory protections can provide a baseline.
• Cover SSM and Adoption by SSC/Ps
To do: Organize and work for statutory protection of
rights of conscience
Statutory Protection of Rights, cont’d
Robin Fretwell Wilson et al proposal:
No individual, no religious or denominations organization, and no charitable or educational
organization which is operated, supervised, or controlled by or connected with a religious
organization, shall be liable, penalized, or denied benefits under the laws of this state,
including but not limited to laws regarding employment discrimination, housing, public
accommodations, licensing, government contracts or grants, or tax-exempt status, for refusing
to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges related to the
solemnization of any marriage, for refusing to solemnize any marriage, or for refusing to treat
as valid any marriage, if such providing, solemnizing, or treating as valid would cause such
individuals or organizations to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, provided that
a) a refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges
related to the solemnization of any marriage shall not be protected under this section where (i)
a party to the marriage is unable to obtain any similar services, accommodations, advantages,
facilities, goods, or privileges elsewhere, and (ii) such inability to obtainn similar services,
accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges elsewhere constitutes a substantial
hardship; and
b) no government employee may refuse to assist in the solemnization of any marriage under this
section if another government employee is not available and willing to do so.
What’s the Solution? What to do?
3rd) Get Informed
Some potential source:
Alliance Defense Fund
DefendMarriage.org (UFI)
DOMAWatch.org (ADF)
Focus on the Family
Institute for Marriage & Public Policy
ProtectMarriage.com
Whatstheharm.org
Defend the Family
Doha Int’l Institute for Family
Studies & Development
Family Resource Council
Heritage Foundation
National Organization for Marriage
Ruth Institute
Others? (your suggestions)
Organize and read to get informed and share information with others
of similar values
What’s the Solution? What to do?
4th) Let your voice be heard respectfully and regularly
Write letters (emails) and leave phone for to government officials
(President, Senator, Congressman, Governor, state senator,
state representative, county officials, mayor, city council
representative, and keep writing regularly.
Write letters to the editor of you newspapers, TV & radio stations
re: their policies, positions, editorials, news coverage.
Discuss the issues appropriately with neighbors, friends, family,
class-mates, co-workers, etc.
At meetings of candidates (precinct meetings, caucuses) ask
questions about their policies and votes.
Organize and work to get fair information
disseminated
What’s the Solution? What to do?
5th) Support, recruit, provide good candidates
Attend meetings of candidates (precinct meetings, caucuses) and
ask candidates questions about their policies and votes.
Recruit good persons to be candidates when none are running
Be willing to help good candidates with some of your time and $
Consider becoming a candidate for appropriate positions
Organize and work to get fair information
disseminated
D. How to do it?
D. Do it with patience, charity, courage.
If we get angry, we have lost the battle.
Speak with a “public voice” addressing “public
interests/ morality” not “private
morality/interests”
Be Anxiously Engaged
D&C 58:26-29
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all
things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their
own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men
do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.
29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with
doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.
Alma 37:34
34 Teach them to never be weary of good works, but to be meek and lowly in heart; for such
shall find rest to their souls.
D&C 6:33-34, 36
33 Fear not to do good, my sons, for whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye also reap; therefore, if ye
sow good ye shall also reap good for your reward.
34 Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are
built upon my rock, they cannot prevail.
Be Anxiously Engaged, cont’d
Alma 60:10-11
10 And now, my beloved brethren--for ye ought to be beloved; yea, and ye ought to
have stirred yourselves more diligently for the welfare and the freedom of this
people; but behold, ye have neglected them insomuch that the blood of thousands
shall come upon your heads for vengeance; yea, for known unto God were all their
cries, and all their sufferings-11 Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the
exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold,
if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain.
Matthew 5:13-16 (compare 3 Nephi 12:13-16: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto
you to be . . .”)
13 ¶ Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it
be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden
under foot of men.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it
giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify
your Father which is in heaven.
A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D.
Foster A “Culture of Humility”
To have a culture of humility you must deliberately cultivate
respect for expression of differing points of view.
1) Know what your own worldview is.
2) Be open to understanding the worldview of others – be willing
to listen to and to describe back other’s worldviews, not
necessarily to agree with them, but to understand.
3) Value diversity. You cannot have diversity in a group if you do
not have and allow for the expression of different world views.
4) Recognize that our similarities stabilize us, & our differences
enrich us.
5) Begin all discussions of controversial topics by first finding
what you agree on. Then move on to explore and explain
different perspectives and positions.
WHY do it?
• -One of our responsibilities as parents, citizens, and especially
scholars is to warn of dangers
• My experience at book camp, Ft. Knox, KY 1970 – stand and other will also
• - Elie Wiesel, Night: “Moishe the Beadle”
• Elie Wiesel, Nobel Acceptance Speech: “I swore never to be silent . .
. . We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the
victim. Silence encourages the tormentor . . . .” We too must speak
up and get involved.”
• - President Gordon B. Hinckley, Standing for Something:
•
“We go to great lengths to preserve historical buildings and
sites in our cities. We need to apply the same fervor to preserving
the most ancient and sacred of institutions – the family.
• -Elie Wiesel
•
“There is so much to be done, there is so much that can be
done. One person – a Raoul Wallenberg, an Albert Schweitzer, a
Martin Luther King, Jr. – one person of integrity can make a
difference, a different of life and death.”
• -President Gordon B, Hinckley wrote:
•
“What we desperately need today on all fronts . . . are leaders,
men and women who are willing to stand for something. We need
people . . . who are willing to stand up for decency, truth, integrity,
morality, and law and order . . . even when it is unpopular to do so
– perhaps especially when it is unpopular to do so.”
• “We cannot effect a turnaround in a day or a month or a year. But
with enough effort, we can begin a turnaround within a generation, and
accomplish wonders within two generations – a period of time that is not
very long in the history of humanity.
Conclusions:
Be of Good cheer!!
We live in the “best of times” despite the
adversity and challenges.
We have a great opportunity to “stand for
something.”
By becoming informed and by speaking up
appropriately, courageously respectfully,
and by refusing to be intimidated or
coerced into silence we can make a huge
difference.
Thanks for coming!
Humor
Extras
I. Summary of (/191) & States (/50) w/ SSM/CUs :
A. LEGALIZED
Same-Sex Marriage Legal: Seven(7)* Nations and Six (6) USA States: The
Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa,* Norway & Sweden (US: MA,
CN, IA, VT, ME & NH [CA-overturned, ME ‘people’s veto’ pending])
Same-Sex Unions Equivalent to Marriage Legal in Thirteen Nations and Five US
States: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, France, Germany,
Luxembourg, Slovenia, South Africa*, Andorra, Switzerland, UK, New Zealand (US:
CA, NJ, OR, WA, NV) (CUs replaced by SSM in VT, CN, NH)
Global (US) Progress of Same-Sex Marriage, and Marriage
Equivalent Civil Unions or Partnerships, 1985-2009
YEAR
Same-Sex
Marriage (US)
Same-Sex MarriageEquivalent
Unions/Partners (US)
1985
0
0
1990
0
1
1995
0
3
2000
0
6 (1)
2005
3 (1)
13 (3)
2007
5 (1)
15 (6)
2009Au
7 (6)
13 (5)
B. U.S. States & Nations Prohibiting
Same-Sex Marriage/Unions
Same-Sex Marriage Prohibited by law or appellate court decision in Forty-two States:
(All but MA, CN, IA, VT, ME, NH, NM, RI & VT)
Same-Sex Marriage Prohibited by State Constitutional Amendment in Thirty (30)
States:
(AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, ID, KY, KS, LA MI, MS, MO, MN, NB, NV,
ND, OH, OK, OR, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VI, & WI)
Same-Sex Civil Unions Equivalent to Marriage Prohibited by State Constitution
Amendment in Nineteen (19) USA States
(AL, AR, FL, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MI, NB, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, VI, WI)
Thirty-seven (37) of 191 Sovereign Nations (19%) Have Constitutional Provisions
Declaring Marriage = Union of Man and Woman: (Armenia (art. 32), Azerbaijan
(art. 34), Belarus (art. 32), Brazil (art. 226), Bulgaria (art. 46), Burkina Faso (art.
23), Cambodia (art. 45), Cameroon (art. 16), China (art. 49), Columbia (art. 42),
Cuba (art. 43), Ecuador (art. 33), Eritrea (art. 22), Ethiopia (art. 34), Gambia (art.
27), Honduras (art. 112), Japan (art. 24), Latvia (art. 110 – Dec. 2005), Lithuania
(art. 31), Malawi (art. 22), Moldova (art. 18), Serbia (art. 62), Somalia (art. 2.7),
Suriname (art. 35), Swaziland Constitution (art. 27), Tajikistan (art. 33),
Turkmenistan (art. 25), Uganda (art. 31), Ukraine (art. 51), Venezuela (art. 77),
Vietnam (art. 64). See also Mongolia (art. 16), Hong Kong Bill of Rights of 1991
(art. 19). (E.g., Article 110 of the Constitution of Latvia now reads: “The State
shall protect and support marriage—a union between a man and a woman,…”)
III. Adoption by Same-Sex Couples & Partners
Status of Law in USA (August 19, 2009) re:
Adoption of Children by Gay and Lesbian Couples & Partners
21 States and DC have statutes or appellate court rulings on whether same-sex couples/partners can
adopt; seven other states have other legal developments that strongly suggest what the result
will be; so in a total of 28 states + DC the issue is largely resolved. The issue is undecided in 22
states.
Adoption by homosexual individual not barred per se in most states.
Prohibited = 9 (AL, AR, FL, KY, MS, NE, OH, UT, WI)
Probably Prohibited = 1 (OK)
Total Prohibited or Probably Prohibited = 10 states
Allowed = 13 (CA, CO, CN, DC, IL, IN, ME, MA, NH, NH, NY, PA & VT)
Probably Allowed = 6 (IA, NC, NV, OR, TN, WA)
Total Allowed or Probably Allowed = 18 states + DC (19)
Undecided = 22 (AL, AZ, DE, GA, HI, ID, KS, LA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MN, NM, ND, RI, SC, SD,
TX, VA, WV, WY)
The policy varies according to which branch of government took the initiative. As of 2006: In 11/16 sts where
the courts had acted first allowed lesbigay adoption; In 4/5 states where a legislature acted first to address
the issue, the rule adopted has barred lesbigay adoption.
Ten Court Rulings Mandating Same-Sex
Marriage
Hawaii:; Baehr v. Miicke, 196 WL 694235 (Haw. Cir. Ct. 1996), or remand from Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 67 (Haw.
1993), rev’d by constitutional amendment (1998).
Alaska: Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN-95-6562, 1998 WL 88743 at 6 (Alaska. Super. Ct., Feb. 27, 1998)
reversed by constitutional amendment (1998).
Massachusetts: Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 943, 959 Mass. 2003); In re Opinion of
the Justices to the Senate, 802 N.E.2d 565, 569-71 (Mass. 2004).
Oregon: Li v. State, 2004 WL 1258167 (Or. Cir. April 20, 2004), rev’d, 110 P.3d 91 (Ore. 2005).
Washington: Andersen v. King County, 2004 WL 1738447 *3,4,11 (Wash. Super. 2004) and Castle v. State,
2004 WL 1985215, *11 (Wash.Super. Sep 07, 2004), rev’d Andersen v. King County 138 P.3d963 (Wn. 2006).
Maryland: Deane v. Conway, Case No. 24-C-04-005390 (Cir. Crt. Balt. City, Md. Jan. 20, 2006), available at
http://www.baltocts.state.md.us/civil/highlighted_trials/Memorandum.pdf , rev’d Conaway v. Deane 932 A.2d 571
(Md. 2007).
New York: Hernandez v. Robles, 794 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y.Sup., Feb. 4, 2005) rev’d Hernandez v. Robles 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y.
2006).
California:In re Coordination Proceeding, Special Title [Rule 1550(c)] Marriage Cases, No. 4365, 2005 WL 583129 (Cal.
Super. Crt. San. Fran., Mar. 14, 2005), aff’d In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (Calif. 2008).
Two Court Rulings Mandating Legalization of Same-Sex
Unions Equal to Marriage
Vermont: Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (marr-equiv SSUs).
New Jersey: Lewis v. Harris, 908 A.wd 196 (N.J. 2006) (marr-equiv SSUs).
Eleven Constitutional Doctrines Invoked to Mandate
Same-Sex Marriage or Unions
Eleven Constitutional Doctrines Invoked to Mandate SameSex Marriage, Strike SMAs and DOMAs, etc.
Eleven Constitutional Doctrines Invoked to
Mandate Same-Sex Marriage or Unions
-Equal Protection
-Substantive Due Process Privacy
-Substantive Due Process Right to Marry
-Substantive Due Process Right of Association
-Substantive Due Process Right to Expression
-Privileges & Immunities
-Full Faith & Credit
-Bill of Attainder
-Establishment of Religion
-Freedom of Religion
-Arbitrary and Irrational
Resources: