Legal news this month

Domestic partnerships

On May 13th, "the Minnesota Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill amending the state’s end of life statutes to add domestic partners to the list of individuals who may purse a wrongful death claim and who may make decisions about the disposition of remains."(HRC Back Story) Governor Tim Pawlenty has said that he would veto the legislation. (TwinCities.com) Project 515 has advocated for the legislation. The group takes its name from the number of state laws that discriminate against same-sex couples and their families.

Religious liberty exemption

May marriage commissioners in Canada's province of Saskatchewan claim a religious liberty exemption from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples? The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments this week on the constitutionality of legislation that would confer this exemption, either for all marriage commissioners, or for just those who were commissioners in 2004 (or rather 2005?), when the country's marriage-equality was adopted. (Religion Clause / Regina Leader-Post / CBC News) Law professor John Culhane is among many who object to letting public officials use their offices to carve out exceptions to marriage equality. Culhane has recommended one means of accommodating American marriage license officials who say it violates their religious faith to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (Prop. 8 and the Right to Marry)

The Court's heard a suggestion of a different form of accommodation, suited to the circumstances of the province's marriage commissioners, who perform marriage ceremonies. It involves a "system where couples would submit a form requesting a marriage commissioner and one would be sent to perform their ceremony ... Egale Canada, which advocates for gays and lesbians, said same-sex couples wouldn't face rejection in such a system and marriage commissioners could also be accommodated." (CanadaEast.com) Apparently the proposal would not apply to all couples seeking to marry. If limited to same-sex couples, doesn't the separate method still give state sanction to an administrative quarantine for these couples, and to associated stigma? "Nathan Seckinger of the GBLUR Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity [said that] 'in the end, it doesn't address the deeper concern for us, which is why these people want the right to discriminate against us in the first place.'" (Vancouver Sun)

Perry v. Schwarzenneger

"The Courage Campaign has launched Testimony: Equality On Trial, in which stars reenact the testimony given by the plaintiffs in California's Prop 8 trial ... The Courage Campaign invites supporters of marriage equality to download trial scripts and upload their own reenactments to the Equality On Trial site." (CourageCampaign.org, cross-posted by Freedom to Marry. See also the Prop. 8 Trial Tracker and Wall Street Journal law blog.) "Academy Award-winning actor Marisa Tomei helped the Courage Campaign kick off 'Testimony: Equality on Trial'." (Prop. 8 Trial Tracker)

"ADF attorney Jordan Lorence appeared on Freedom’s Ring with Alan J. Reinach to discuss the Cal. marriage trial in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. | MP3 Audio -13:32 mins" (ADF Alliance Alert)

Marriage equality - Iowa - Gartner v. Newton

"A lesbian couple married in Des Moines last year has filed a lawsuit against two state health department officials, after the department refused to name both women on their daughter’s birth certificate. Heather Lynn Martin Gartner, 38, and Melissa McCoy Gartner, 39, filed the Polk County claim on behalf of their second child, who was born in September ... The Iowa Department of Public Health rejected the couple’s request in March, according to the lawsuit filed in Polk County District Court, on grounds that Melissa had not legally adopted Mackenzie and was not biologically related." (Des Moines Register) "Camilla B. Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal ... who was one of three attorneys to file the lawsuit on behalf of the Gartners and their daughter. [She said,] 'I think this is just an error that will be cleared up shortly. Every other state that has allowed same-sex couples to marry or enter into civil unions has applied the spousal presumption of parentage equally to the children of same-sex couples. So, to my knowledge, this has never happened before'... 'Varnum makes it clear that children of same-sex couples are entitled to birth certificates naming both spouses as their parents — just as children of different-sex couples are entitled to those birth certificates,' Taylor said in reference to the landmark Iowa Supreme Court decision from April 2009." (Iowa Independent. See also LifeSiteNews.com for press statements by a Department of Public Health official.)

Divorce - Rhode Island

On May 4th, the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 7990, which would allow the state to divorce same-sex couples, even though it bars them from marrying. (The Provost Journal)

Divorce

On May 5th, CNN.com reported on the legal obstacles same-sex couples may face if they seek divorce in a state that does not recognize marriage equality.

Greene v. County of Sonoma

Greene v. County of Sonoma et al., complaint, No. SPR-81815 (Cal. Sonoma County Super. Ct. filed Mar. 22, 2010)

The New York Times reports on the horrors the aging plaintiff in this case suffered when a California county agency separated him from his partner following his partner's injury from an accident.

Marriage of transgender partner - Texas

"Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has been asked to weigh-in on whether or not a marriage license can be issued to a couple when one of the partners is transgendered." (Texas Capitol Annex) The El Paso Times links to a request for the opinion by El Paso County Jo Anne Bernal. The Dallas Voice also reports on the request.

Immigration

"The Advocate reports on an immigration reform proposal that is being circulated by the Democratic leadership in Congress. Under the proposal, which could form the basis of an immigration reform bill, U.S. citizens and legal residents would be allowed to sponsor their same-sex partners for residency, ending long-standing discrimination against same-sex couples." (Marriage Equality New York)

super-DOMA - North Carolina

"Sen. Jim Forrester, R-Gaston, has filed a bill [SB 1156] to change the N.C. Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. The bill would provide for a referendum to ratify the constitutional amendment should lawmakers approve it. The bill would recognize 'marriage between a man and a woman' as the only domestic legal union in North Carolina." (05/15/10 TheTimesNews.com)

Developments abroad - Argentina and England

Earlier this month, "Argentina’s lower house passed a marriage equality bill, paving the way for the nation to become the first in Latin America to legalize marriage for same-sex couples ... If the bill passes in the Senate, Argentina would become the first nation in Latin America and would join Canada as the second nation in the Americas to legalize marriage." (05/06/10 GLAADBlog.com)

A gay couple in England is suing the owner of a bed-and-breakfast inn for refusing service on the basis of their sexual orientation. (Mail Online)

Recent legal news and commentary

Lewis v. Harris II

Garden State Equality and five other organizations have filed an amicus brief in Lewis v. Harris II to document the nature and extent of harm children suffer because their same-sex parents cannot marry. They also maintain that "no legitimate state purpose" for continued marriage inequality under New Jersey's civil union law can justify such pervasive and profound harm to children. (Garden State Equality press release / Advocate.com)

Religious liberty exemption - Canada

On May 13th, "the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Regina will consider whether marriage commissioners are within their Charter rights to refuse to conduct ceremonies that offend their religious beliefs. While some other provinces have allowed for exemptions since same-sex marriage became legal, this will be the first time that a court will evaluate if that refusal meets the standards of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so it could have ramifications for the rest of the country." (National Post / cross-posted by ADF Alliance Alert)

Perry v. Schwarzenneger

Equality Forum gave law professor John Culhane five minutes for an interview last week with David Boies, one of the attorneys representing the Perry plaintiffs. Boies told Culhane that he expects to "win under rational basis." That is, he expects the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that no legitimate state interest provides a reason for same-sex marriage bans. In Boies' view, the Court can find no legitimate state interest for bans that significantly harm same-sex couples and their children, when lifting them would not in any way harm married, opposite-sex couples and their children. (365Gay.com) LGBT advocacy groups, if allowed to intervene, would have limited the "rational basis" test to the unique circumstances of Prop. 8's adoption - increasing odds that the 9th Circuit could issue a narrow ruling on just Prop. 8. (Prop. 8 and the Right to Marry)

Gill v. OPM

"According to two sources who covered the argument in Gill v. OPM, GLAD's challenge to Section 3 of DoMA (the section barring federal government recognition of same-sex marriages), Judge Joseph Tauro seemed from his questions to be applying a rational basis standard for evaluating DoMA's constitutionality." (hunter of justice)

Out-of-state recognition / adoption

[T]he federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, nor do the vast majority of states, including Pennsylvania. Even with a valid out-of-state marriage license, gay and lesbian couples in those states face uncertainty, extra legal bills and inevitable rebuffs that straight couples avoid ... For some couples, among the most galling problems is trying ensure that both are legally recognized as parents of their children. Many states allow second-parent adoption for same-sex couples, which addresses this situation, but many other states do not." (The Daily Transcript)

Recent news and commentary

Constitutional amendments - New Hampshire

Update on yesterday's post: Voters have not rewarded LetNHVote.com for its campaign to reverse marriage equality in New Hampshire. According to one report, nearly two-thirds of towns and cities in the state either rejected or refused to consider the organization's proposal. (Gay Marriage Watch / updated here)

Shannon Minter on marriage equality and democracy

Shannon Minter is Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. He was lead counsel for same-sex couples in In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2008), and argued against the state constitutionality of Prop. 8 in Strauss v. Horton, 49 Cal. 4th 364 (2009). He was a keynote speaker at a March 3rd symposium of the Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice on “Proposition 8 and Marriage Equality."

"Gay people seek the freedom to marry because that freedom to choose is essential to the principle of equal citizenship that is at the heart of democracy," Minter said. "LGBT people are calling on the court to live up to its democratic ideals by exposing the gap between the ideal of equality and our failure to reach it: that is the essence of democracy ... A majority cannot intentionally create an exception to equal protection without violating the constitution. We will not have democracy as long as the majority treats LGBT people as outsiders rather than as equal citizens with the right to belong or be different as others." (USC Law School News)

Out-of-state recognition - Maryland

Maryland Delegate Don H. Dwyer, Jr., R-Anne Arundel County, announced that he will introduce articles of impeachment against state Attorney General Doug Gansler for his advisory opinion on the validity of out-of-state, same-sex marriages.

Domestic partnerships - Florida

Florida has a super-DOMA amendment (Const. Art. I), and bans adoption by gay and lesbian parents [Fla. Stat. §63.042(3)]. Cases challenging the adoption ban have lately received national media attention. But Florida shows other signs of change over the legal status of same-sex couples. In Kissimmee, a small town north of Orlando, City Commissioner Cheryl Grieb led an effort to join 12 other cities and counties that offer some form of domestic partner benefits to employees. (Item 8.A, Discussion of Domestic Partner Benefits, Kissimmee City Commission Agenda on 03-09-10; for examples, click here.) The Commission has voted to adopt the benefits proposal. "More than 300 business owners in Kissimmee also signed a petition to back the decision." (cfnews13.com; see also Equality Florida and Pam's House Blend)

Religious liberty exemption - UK

Lillian Ladele was a registrar of births, marriages, and deaths for the London Borough of Islington. She considers homosexuality "sinful." She claims that her former employer discriminated against her on religious grounds after she expressed her unwillingness to register civil partnerships. Islington has a "Dignity For All" policy, and a senior Islington official found that accommodating her view represented discrimination against same-sex couples, in violation of the policy. She was disciplined and threatened with dismissal. In Ladele v. London Borough of Islington, [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, the Court of Appeals of England and Wales ruled that her former employer's action did not represent illegal discrimination against her. The Supreme Court having just rejected her appeal, she plans to pursue a remedy with the European Court of Human Rights. (Islington Tribune, cross-posted by Gay Marriage Watch)

Other developments abroad

"On Monday, Judge Felix Gustavo de Igarzabal of Buenos Aires reversed a decision which allowed two gay men to marry at the city's civil registry office on March 3. In his ruling the judge said no marriage took place “because of the absence of the institution’s structural elements,” in this case a man and a woman, and thus declared the act to be invalid." (Catholic News Agency, cross-posted by Gay Marriage Watch)

"Four same-sex couples became the first to marry Thursday in Mexico City under the new marriage equality law." (The Advocate, linking to Los Angeles Times)

Recent news and commentary

Religious liberty exemption - Ireland

The Civil Partnership Bill of 2009 has been referred to a committee of Ireland's Dáil, or House of Representatives. According to an "explanatory memorandum," the bill would "provide an extensive package of rights, obligations and protections for same-sex couples who register as civil partners." It would also establish "a redress scheme for cohabitants and recognition of cohabitant agreements." The Sunday Business Post reports on lobbying by religious officials for a religious liberty exemption. The desired exemption would cover public officials who, for religious reasons, refuse to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. Dermot Ahern, the Minister for Justice, opposes the exemption. He said that "there is no basis for providing a right to discriminate against a class of persons on the grounds of freedom of religion or conscience." He also warned of "unintended consequences" from the proposed exemption, identifying examples of many other services public employees may be entitled to withhold on religious grounds.

Religious liberty exemption - D.C.

Mirror of Justice is a blog devoted to Catholic legal theory. Discussion continues there about the recent decision by the D.C. Archdiocese to discontinue eligibility for spousal benefits among employees of Catholic Charities. Law professor Rob Vischer asks whether an alternative to a religious liberty exemption could satisfy an organization like Catholic Charities of D.C.. It's exactly the kind of alternative that law professor John Culhane thought was available.

DOMA - Gill v. OPM

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) represents same-sex couples who are challenging Section 3 of the federal DOMA, which limits recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples. GLAD has started to post firsthand accounts of the harms to married, same-sex couples.

Custody

Renee Harmon and her former partner, Tammy Davis, ended their relationship of 19 years, after Davis gave birth to twins. "Harmon says Davis cut off Harmon's contact with the children, prompting Harmon to sue in Wayne County Circuit Court in a long-shot bid to win joint custody. It's a battle she is prepared to take to the Michigan Supreme Court in an effort to secure joint custody rights for nonbiological, unmarried partners, gay or straight ... The first hurdle for her lawyers will come March 22, when they try to persuade Judge Kathleen McCarthy that Harmon has legal standing to sue." (Citizen-Times, cross-posted by ADF Alliance Alert, and Detroit Free Press) Law professor Nancy Polikoff discusses the case here.


Lisa Miller remains the subject of an arrest warrant, having disappeared with the child she once shared with her former civil union partner, Janet Jenkins. A Vermont family court judge issued the arrest warrant after holding Miller in contempt for failure to comply with a court order to surrender the child to Jenkins, to whom the court transferred permanent custody. LifeSiteNews.com, a Christian news service, reports that "[t]he daughter of ex-lesbian Lisa Miller appeared to have suffered emotional trauma following forced visits with Miller's ex-partner, according to sworn testimony submitted to a Vermont court ... Clinical Therapist Sylvia Haydash, who had two clinical sessions with Isabella and observed her for an hour on another occasion, concluded that the visits were doing serious harm to the child, causing anxiety, renewed bed-wetting, and general psychological regression." To place this testimony in context, I would welcome comment from readers who are following the details of the case.

Recent news and commentary

As same-sex couples in D.C. realized their dreams by marrying, the District's marriage-equality law still has an uncertain future. The U.S. Supreme Court may have opportunity to give proponents of "traditional" marriage what they want - a decision allowing D.C. citizens to vote on the D.C. Marriage Initiative of 2009. The opportunity raised by Chief Justice Robert's decision did not escape notice by LifeSiteNews.com, a news service for evangelical Christians. It also been the subject of comment at SCOTUS Blog and Leonard Link. Given the stakes, I have been preparing a procedural history of the litigation over the initiative.

It will take me more time than I expected to complete the procedural history. As a result, I don't know if I can avoid delays in updating this site. My limitations have an arguably distinguished pedigree, though I would not otherwise compare myself with U.S. presidents. Lyndon Johnson said of Gerald Ford that "he couldn't chew gum and walk straight at the same time." While I am less prone to trip over stairs than Ford, I find myself unable to work on two demanding tasks - more or less at the same time - with equal levels of energy and concentration.

Here's the latest update:

Marriage equality v. religious liberty exemption - D.C.

Upon taking effect, D.C.'s marriage-equality law marks what law professor John Culhane calls a "another milestone on the superhighway to full equality." (Freedom to Marry links to the Washington Post's video coverage of the historic day.) But he also discusses a carefully timed decision by the Archidiocese of D.C. to ban spousal benefits for employees of Catholic Charities - a decision that its former chief operating officer opposes. (Washington Post) Before the law took effect, Catholic Charities had announced that it would end its foster care program in the District, allegedly to avoid the law's requirement that it provide foster care and adoption services equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. (Washington Post) Culhane faulted the latest retrenchment as a "publicity stunt," because Catholic Charities had alternatives to ending spousal benefits. For other examples of alternatives, see letters to D.C. Archbishop Donald Wuerl that I link to here.

Without considering the alternatives, law professor Robert J. Araujo tries to defend the Archdiocese's decision. He finds that, under Church doctrine, granting spousal benefits provides merely a means to an end - the defining goal of promoting "traditional" marriage. The Church would unacceptably risk compromising its identity if it continued offering the benefits - or, presumably, if it reached some other accommodation. To preserve its identity over "traditional" marriage, the Church must deny heath care coverage, and other important benefits, to heterosexual spouses of Catholic Charities employees. That 's an odd position, but, Araujo would claim, it's the inevitable result of the marriage equality law.

One blogger says that it's "hard to spin religious discrimination as a moral principle." The difficulty has not been a deterrent. Sister Anne Flanagan invites comparison between D.C. Catholic Charities with its Chicago counterpart in the era of segregation. (Chicago Tribune) Chicago Catholic Charities refused to follow the city's demand of racial segregation because, she says, doing so would have undermined the Church's identity. Do Catholics agree that the Church's admirable, if uneven,* history of opposing racial segregation provides just the support they need for supporting discrimination against same-sex couples?

(*For example, Catholic schools in Baltimore remained segregated until 1962.)

Domestic partnerships - D.C.

The Washington Post has a revealing article on the incremental strategy that marriage-equality advocates successfully pursued. The strategy involved more than timing introduction of legislation after Obama's election, but before the 2010 election. It also involved adding domestic partner benefits since 1992, when a domestic partnership law was first adopted, until the law became an "all-but-marriage" law. All-but-marriage laws are - by design - inherently unstable, subject to legislative action in favor of marriage equality, or to the epic legal battle over Prop. 8 in the Perry case.

Perry v. Schwarzenneger

U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero has ordered "several gay rights groups that campaigned against California's 2008 same-sex marriage ban to furnish some internal memos and e-mails to lawyers for the measure's sponsors." (AP)

At an address to the Orange County Equality Coalition, constitutional scholar and law school dean Erin Chemerensky said that Perry plaintiffs have not brought their challenge prematurely - or so a blogger in the audience reports.

Marriage equality legislation / out-state recognition - Maryland

Last week, "Maryland Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee had hearings scheduled on one bill that would legalize gay marriage in Maryland and another that would invalidate a recent attorney general opinion and prohibit the state from recognizing same sex marriages authorized by other states." (AP, cross-posted by Gay Marriage Watch; see also Advocate.com and the Baltimore Sun)

Constitutional amendments - New Hampshire and Iowa

Legislators in New Hampshire and Iowa failed to gain legislative approval of constitutional amendments that would reverse marriage-equality if also adopted by voters. The proposed amendment in Iowa now appears to have died in the current legislative session, even if "proponents haven't given up on trying to force a debate." (Sioux City Journal) New Hampshire Public Radio reports that more than 100 towns will consider an article urging legislators to let citizens vote on an amendment. Proponents of the articles identify the towns here. Their campaign has led to organized opposition. One opponent of Sugar Hill, New Hampshire, claims that "three or four dozen people from area towns started meeting regularly to defeat the articles."

Divorce

TheStar.com reports that a same-sex couple in Indiana will not appeal a ruling that nullifies their marriage but bars a divorce. (cross-posted by Gay Marriage Watch)

Custody

A same-sex couple in Santa Cruz, California, has settled their legal dispute over custody. The mother who gave birth to twins tried to prevent her former partner from claiming parental rights. (NCLR Out for Justice / Santa Cruz Sentinel)

Adoption

The Louisiana Attorney General has requested reconsideration in a 5th Circuit ruling that requires the state to recognize a New York court decree of adoption by gay parents. (AP / Times-Picayune / Lambda Legal press release) The case is Adar v. Smith, No. 09-30036 (5th Cir., Feb. 18, 2010).

Developments abroad

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Poland's government may not discriminate against a man who sought to remain in the home of his deceased partner. (Financial Times, cross-posted by Gay Marriage Watch)

The first gay wedding has taken place in Buenos Aire (Buenos Aires Herald, cross-posted by Gay Marriage Watch), and gay couples have received their first marriage licenses in Mexico City. (Wall Street Journal,CNN, and BBC, cross-posted by Gay Marriage Watch)

Recent news and commentary

Marriage equality legislation - Minnesota

Yesterday in Minnesota, the the House Civil Justice Committee held an informational hearing on the Marriage and Family Protection Act (HF1644), which would reverse the state's DOMA. (The Committee also considered HF0999, on civil unions, and HF1740, on out-of-state recognition.) Blogger Joe Sudbay discusses reported testimony by opponents, including Congressional candidate Barb Davis White, and University of St. Thomas law professor Teresa Stanton Collett. (AMERICAblog Gay)

White, who is African American, thinks that marriage equality supporters have "hijacked" the 1960s civil rights movement. She then hijacks it herself, with incitement to bigotry: "Rosa Parks didn’t move to the front of the bus to support sodomy."

Collett foresees terrible harms against religious liberty, even if it's unclear whether she could identify any examples in marriage-equality states:

"'Churches and religiously affiliated institutions will lose their tax-exempt status,' she said. She claimed that Christian colleges would be forced to house same-sex couples in dorms, social work students would be kicked out of school if they refused to counsel gays and lesbians, politicians would revoke funds from religious organizations, and parents would be arrested for speaking out against homosexuality. (Minnesotan Independent)

(At this site, law professor John Culhane has offered his ideas on the appropriate scope of exemptions for religious organizations.)

Law professor Dale Carpenter also testified:

He argued that marriage is a powerful legal institution that encourages healthy, monogamous relationships — whether gay or straight. "There have been no negative effects on heterosexual families or on children raised in those families," Carpenter testified of the increasing prevalence of gay marriage. "No slippery slope to polygamy or anything else." (Politics in Minnesota)

The bills at issue will not receive a vote in the state House. (WCCO.com)

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services

Marcia Coyle reports for The National Law Journal on the Massachusetts Attorney General's motion for summary judgment in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (D. Mass. Case No. 1:2009-cv-11156, Jul. 8, 2009).

Super-DOMA amendments - West Virginia

In West Virginia, state House Republicans plan to use procedural maneuvers to force a floor vote on HJR 5, a super-DOMA amendment. "[T]he GOP strategy started unsuccessfully Monday." (Charleston Gazette / cross-posted by ADF Alliance Alert) The Family Council of West Virginia will hold a rally on Thusday to urge state legislators to adopt a "marriage protection" amendment.

Termination of marriages involving domestic partners

"Equality California is sponsoring a new bill [AB 2700] introduced last Friday by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) that would create a consolidated form and procedure to dissolve both a civil marriage and domestic partnership." (Equality California press release / cross-posted by Gay Marriage News Watch)

Varnum v. Brien

Last week in the Iowa state Senate, a tax-policy subcommittee rejected provisions of Senate Study Bill 3200 that would have conformed the state's tax code to the requirements of Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009). The issue elicited a response from Danny Carroll, chairman of the the Iowa Family Policy Center Action. Referring to the Varnum Court, Carroll said, "lawmakers should not “bow down to an out-of-control court” by “attempting to sneak through key language changes that would effectively redefine marriage in Iowa." (Gazette Online)

Adoption - Louisiana

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell is expected to appeal the ruling in Adar v. Smith, No. 09-30036 (5th Cir., Feb. 18, 2010), which requires the state to recognize out-of-state adoption decrees. (The Times-Picayune / cross-posted by ADF Alliance Alert)

Recent news and commentary

Divorce - Texas

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott seeks to intervene in a same-sex divorce case in Austin, now that the judge has granted the divorce petition. Judge Scott Jenkins appears to have relied on petitioner's argument that he has the authority to divorce the couple under the the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. Abbott said that "[a] divorce is an ending or a termination of a valid legal marriage. In this instance there was no valid legal marriage recognized by the state of Texas. Texas can't have a faulty precedent on the books that validates an illegal law. (Houston Chronicle) Abbott claims that voidance of the marriage represents the only alternative to divorce that Texas law recognizes. With voidance, "the parties can achieve a legal termination of their Massachusetts marriage, through an enforceable judgment." (Austin Statesman) Austin News Station KXAN interviewed Angelique Naylor, who petitioned for divorce from her wife, and Naylor's attorney. (linked at Boston Edge and Dallas Voice)

Varnum v. Brien

Republican gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts wants Iowa voters to vote against three state Supreme Court justices in this fall's retention election. "Roberts notes that the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien [763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009)] – in which the court struck down the state’s law restricting marriage to one man and one woman – is one of the primary reasons why he opposes retaining the justices who are up for retention next year." (The Iowa Republican) Republican state legislators have introduced several bills on the state judiciary. One would outlaw the use of precedent; another would require election of judges. The Iowa Independent calls this legislation "the GOP's war" on the state judiciary. In an interview by Iowa Public Radio, Chief Justice Marsha Turnus defended the state's merit-based selection of judges. She said that voters should decide retention according to whether judges fairly and impartially discharge their duties. "[O]ur judges are chosen on the basis of their professional qualifications, their integrity, and their ability to do the job. If we go to political elections it would change the entire nature of judiciary." (Iowa Independent)

Religious liberty exemption - D.C.

Before D.C. enacted its marriage equality law, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington demanded an exemption allowing religious organizations, like Catholic Charities, to deny married, same-sex couples foster care and other public services it provides. But as law professor Nancy Polikoff observed at the time, the D.C. Human Rights Act already bars discrimination based on marriage or sexual orientation. "What Catholic Charities seeks," she said, "is immunity from existing civil rights laws that predate marriage equality by decades and will continue to exist regardless of whether same-sex couples are allowed to marry in the District of Columbia." Now the Diocese has announced that Catholic Charities will end its D.C. foster care program to avoid placement with married, same-sex couples. (Washington Post)

Out-of-state recognition

Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler has been preparing a legal opinion on recognition of out-of-state, same-sex marriages. He appears likely to interpret Maryland law in favor of recognition. One legislator tried - and failed - to gain approval of a bill that would preclude such an opinion. (The Maryland Reporter) Another legislator has sent a letter to a state prosecutor with a threat of impeachment charges against Gansler. He accuses Gansler of taking “sides on an issue where he potentially intends to abuse the power of his office to usurp the authority of the General Assembly and circumvent Maryland’s High Court regarding Maryland’s current marriage law." (Examiner)

Related news

Justice Carlos Moreno dissented in Strauss v. Horton, 49 Cal. 4th 364 (2009). He determined that Prop. 8 would fundamentally change the state constitution by denying same-sex couples equal protection and a constitutional right to marry, and was therefore an invalid attempt to revise the constitution. Bob Egelko of the San Francisco reports what Moreno said during an interview:

"It's of great concern to me that certain basic rights, such as equal protection, the right to privacy and other fundamental rights, can be subject to change by simple majority vote," Moreno said in an interview last week while preparing to accept a gay-rights group's Equality Leadership Award. [See his prepared remarks at the Equality California gala.]

"Majority rule is nice in concept, but I think there has to be some kind of restraint on that to fulfill the larger purpose of our democracy."

Roundup of recent news and commentary

Perry case

USA Today reports on how Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission may reveal a "turning point" in the Supreme Court's "caustic ideological divide." The same majority of five Supreme Court Justices in Citizens United also overruled Judge Vaugn Walker's decision to allow a trial broadcast. USA Today does not consider the implication for the Perry case if it reaches the Supreme Court. But several LGBT legal advocacy groups have been weighing the risk of an adverse Supreme Court ruling from the outset - whatever speculation surrounds Anthony Kennedy's susceptibility as a "swing" vote. They recently asked Judge Walker to rule for the Perry plaintiffs on broad and narrow grounds. In an amici brief, these organizations agree that all constitutional bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. But they argue that, even if the bans are constitutional, Prop. 8 is not.

The Washington Times includes this comment in its report on the case: "Jordan Lorence, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which helped defend Proposition 8, said factual testimony about the suffering caused by Proposition 8 may be compelling to a committee of elected legislators, or the voters, but it's irrelevant in a federal legal proceeding — or at least it should be. "

Constitutional amendments

Virginia Delegate David Englin, D-Alexandria has re-introduced a resoultion (HJ 55) to repeal the state's super-DOMA amendment. (WTOP.com) Equality Virginia "knows that it may be a long-term struggle to persuade Virginia to recognize relationships other than a marriage between a man and a woman."

Religious liberty exemption

Not surprisingly, the Alliance Defense Fund opposes California legislation (SB 906 ) that would expressly recognize First Amendment protection of clergy for refusal to solemnize a same-sex marriage. (Baptist Post, cross-posted at ADF Alliance Alert.) State Senator Mark Leno appears to have introduced the bill as a means to pre-empt an objection Prop. 8 proponents raised, if a measure to repeal Prop. 8 qualifies for the ballot. The objection was that unless voters adopted Prop. 8, clergy would be "forced" to perform weddings for same-sex couples.

"Mike Johnson, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund — which opposes ‘gay marriage’ — said Leno’s bill avoids the real issues that have been raised by concerned Christians. ‘This deceptively-named bill is another attempt to confine the liberty argument to a very narrow area. ADF has religious liberty concerns that are far wider,’ Johnson told Baptist Press. 'Leno’s bill is a Trojan horse that does nothing to protect religious institutions or other agencies of the church from being forced to violate their religious beliefs. In fact, it further restricts church liberty and independence by giving the government greater power to define the church and its mission.'"

It's unclear why Johnson thinks express recognition of the clergy's First Amendment right somehow risks redefining the church. He refers to a civil union case in New Mexico that involves initial failure of a First Amendment defense by Christian evangelical photographers. ADF represents the photographers. (New Mexico, of course, doesn't recognize civil unions.) He appears to think that the mission of the "church" extends to wedding services by individual evangelicals.

A spokesman for the California Southern Baptist Convention also told the Baptist Press that the Convention doesn't support Leno's bill, even though the SF Chronicle reported that it did.

Roundup of recent news and commentary

Perry case

Law professor Nan Hunter comments on the February 3rd brief by the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. She says that the brief represents "a different strategy than the one Boies and Olson have pursued, as it would give "the court a way to rule for the plaintiffs without invalidating other states' laws" - and thus a way to lower the risk of U.S. Supreme Court review. The different strategy has been "a persistent bone of contention, since the beginning of the case, between the lgbt groups - which are worried about attempting to win such a sweeping decision from the current U.S. Supreme Court - and Olson/Boies litigation team."

Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute (FRI) offers his "Take on the Prop. 8 Trial." (cross-posted at ADF Alliance Alert) He advertises himself as "[a]s the man every homosexual ‘loves to hate.’" He has been the subject of investigation by the American Psychology Association. (I am new to the contoversy surrounding him.) Although he says that he was not called to testify in the trial, he claims that "[a]mazingly enough, FRI has solid empirical evidence that ... there are real harms associated with homosexuality and homosexual marriage." He then tries to explain why the evidence has been neglected - alleged fear of offending gays and lesbians - and favors "animus" instead: "Animus toward those who seek to corrupt society and seduce children is a good thing." He disparages testimony by psychologist Michael Lamb. Lamb testified that Psychology Reports is not a scientific publication, even though Cameron and a colleague have published in it.

Marriage equality

In the Iowa state House, a proposed super-DOMA amendment, HJR 2001, has been referred to the State Goverment Committee. If approved, its supporters would be able to launch the equivalent of a Prop. 8 campaign to overturn overturn Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009). "Lobbyists" for the bill include the state Christian Alliance, Family Policy Action Center, and Catholic Conference. Republican Representatives in the Iowa state House will try to bring the measure out of committee if the committee doesn't approve it. (02/04/10 Iowa Independent)

Restore Equality is a coalition that seeks an initiative on California's 2010 ballot to repeal the constitutional amendment that Prop. 8 added. Love Honor Cherish, a coalition member, has already cleared more than one proposed initiative for petition signatures. I don't know which one Restore Equality targets as the object of its plan this weekend to collect 100,000 signatures.

Religious liberty exemption

The Saskatchewan provincial government in Canada has proposed a law to exempt marriage commissioners from licensing same-sex marriages for religious reasons. It has asked the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to rule on the constitutionality of the legislation. The Court has not identified a date for hearing the case. "Most of the arguments on both sides hinge on the Charter of Rights — with some contending the marriage commissioners’ religious rights are being infringed, while those opposed to the proposed law say the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation is paramount." (01/14/10 Regina-Post)

Other news

"Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled 'Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences.' On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled 'Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?'" (02/03/10 press release)

California state Senator Mark Leno introduces legislation to reaffirm First Amendment protection of clergy performing marriages

01/27/10 press release by California state Senator Mark Leno:

SB 906, the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act, reaffirms the freedom members of clergy have to make faith-based decisions regarding which marriages they solemnize. It reaffirms the principles of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with respect to California’s marriage laws.

The legislation has the support of Equality California and California Council of Churches IMPACT. Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle reports a favorable response from a spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention of California. This kind of political support matters.

It may take at least two more years for a final ruling in the Perry case. Voters will have opportunity to reconsider Prop. 8 if a measure for its repeal reaches the ballot this year or in 2012. As Egelko points out, "[t]he threat of churches losing their tax-exempt status for refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies was prominent in the campaign in favor of Prop. 8." Enactment of SB 906 would remove this cause of contention.

Opponents of Prop. 8's repeal would, of course, find the proposed reaffirmation of the First Amendment no answer to other concerns. The Catholic Church might, for example, claim that if voters repealed Prop. 8, the state may later enact marriage-equality, "forcing" Catholic Charities to provide services to same-sex couples. Under the state Unruh Civil Rights Act, a religious organization licensed to provide social services can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But that fact would not deter the Catholic Church from raising this religious-liberty objection, any more than the D.C. Human Rights Act deterred the D.C. Archdiocese from raising the same obection when the D.C. Council prepared to approve marriage equality legislation.

Adoption of SB 906 would require marriage-equality opponents to show how marriage equality imperils other forms of religious liberty than the kind obviously implicated in religious solemnization of marriage. In fact, they would have to show why other types of religious discrimination against same-sex couples requires exemption from the state civil rights act. If a Southern Baptist Convention continues to support SB 906, wouldn't they find it harder to craft the required arguments for voters?

02/1/10 update

Bill would let clergy refuse to marry gays, 02/01/10 SF Chronicle

"We heard through the Prop. 8 debate great concern from certain clergy that their freedom of religion could be infringed upon and their tax-exempt status revoked," said the bill's author, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. "We want to clarify that by putting the constitutional guarantee of the First Amendment, freedom of religion, into statute."

New Mexico District Court judge rules against wedding photographer who refused to photograph same-sex commitment ceremony

Elaine Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock, mem. op. (N.M. 2nd Dist. 2008-06632 Dec. 11, 2009) [permanent link here]

In September 2006, Elaine Huguenin, of Elaine Photography, refused Ms. Willock's request to photograph her civil same-sex commitment ceremony, even though Huguenin and her husband devote their New Mexico business to photographing "traditional" weddings and graduations. Although she hired another photographer, Willock filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission, alleging that Elaine Photography represents a public accomodation under the state anti-discrimination law, and that the business had discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation. The Commission ruled in favor of Willock. Elaine Photography appealed the ruling to New Mexico's Second Judicial District Court. The Court has just issued summary judgment against the business, finding, among other things, that the Commission's decision does not abridge her free exercise of religion, or her free speech, under the Frist Amendment.

Some legal scholars have claimed that the case involves a same-sex "union" and sole business proprietors whose religious liberty has been infringed. (In fact, New Mexico does not recognize civil unions.) They have also claimed that it reveals a fundamental conflict between religious liberty and marriage equality. For further discussion, see this post by law professor John Culhane, in which he references another post by law professor Dale Carpenter.)

Elaine Photography will appeal the Court's ruling, with the Alliance Defense Fund as counsel.

12/22/09 Leonard Link, by law professor Arthur Leonard:

Plaintiffs complained that the NM Human Rights Act was not "neutral" with respect to religion because it exempted religious institutions from having to comply with the sexual orientation non-discrimination provision, but provided no such exemption for religious individuals. Consequently, they challenged the constitutionality of the act, arguing that New Mexico had no compelling interest sufficient to justify such an abridgement of religious freedom. [Judge] Malott rejected this argument, finding that the act was perfectly neutral with respect to religion, and was not intended to discriminate on grounds of religion. But even if a compelling interest were needed to justify it, he found one: the state's desire to stamp out discrimination by businesses offering goods and services to the public.

UK Court of Appeal: No Discrimination In Requring Official To Register Civil Partnerships

12/16/09 Religion Clause, by law professor Howard M. Friedman:

In Ladele v. London Borough of Islington, (EWCA, Dec. 15, 2009), the Court of Appeals of England and Wales agreed with Britain's Employment Appeals Tribunal (see prior posting) that a Christian marriage registrar was not subjected to illegal discrimination when she was disciplined and threatened with dismissal for refusing to register same-sex civil partnerships.

12/17/09 hunter of justice, by law professor Nan Hunter:

I am in basic agreement with this decision. In my view, public employees have a duty to serve the public, not merely a portion of the public. However, if offices can be organized so that religious objectors can be transferred or otherwise assigned to jobs that do not involve issuing licenses to the public, that seems a pragmatic and reasonable result.

D.C. Council Gives Final Passage to Same-Sex Marriage Bill

12/15/09 Human Rights Campaign Press Release:

The D.C. Council voted today 11 to 2 to give final approval to the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 [engrossed version]. The vote recognizing same-sex marriage was the second in two weeks for the Council, which approved the bill in an initial vote on December 1, 2009 by the same margin. Since last July, D.C. law has recognized marriages by same-sex couples from other jurisdictions, including foreign countries. The new legislation would permit same-sex couples to marry in D.C. itself while ensuring that clergy and religious organizations would not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities or goods for the solemnization of a same-sex marriage. The legislation now goes to the desk of Mayor Fenty, who has said he will sign it. The law would take effect at the conclusion of the Congressional review period, which lasts for 30 legislative days following the Mayor’s signature.

12/15/09 WordinEdgewise, by law professor John Culhane:

Expect marriage equality to be realized in D.C. by late January. We needed this boost to end the year, after stinging losses in Maine, New York, California (the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Prop 8), and — let’s face it — New Jersey. Taking the year in full: Equality has expanded from one lonely state to six. Not bad. In fact, I’m elated.

12/15/09 Volokh Conspiracy, by law professor Dale Carpenter:

Opponents have a few options at this point, but none of them seem likely to work in the near term ... If I’m right about the near-term prospects, marriage should be secure in the city ... D.C. will also be another test of the theory that, at least without expansive exemptions for religious objectors, there will significant erosion of religious liberty.

My comment on the engrossed version:

A last-minute change affects a religious-liberty exemption. The change removes the implication that same-sex marriage has been expressly targeted for permitted religious discrimination. The amended language in this respect conforms to its counterpart in such marriage equality laws as New Hampshire's:

“Sec. 1283. EQUAL ACCESS TO MARRIAGE. –

. . .

“(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious society, or a nonprofit organization that is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, or goods for a purpose related to the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage, or the promotion of same-sex marriage through religious programs, counseling, courses, or retreats, that is in violation of the religious society’s beliefs. A refusal to provide services, accommodations, facilities, or goods in accordance with this subsection shall not create any civil claim or cause of action, or result in a District action to penalize or withhold benefits from the religious society or nonprofit organization that is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious society.”

12/15/09 NY Times:

“The City Council’s action today is not the final word,” said Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., and chairman of a group called Stand4MarriageDC.

Mr. Jackson said he would lobby Congress to intervene, but he acknowledged that such a move threatened to upset some of his local supporters, who may be put off by the prospect of subverting local autonomy in Washington.

The city’s Board of Elections and Ethics decided not to hold a referendum on the legalized same-sex marriage, and Mr. Jackson’s group is challenging that decision in court on Jan. 6. [See my post on the lawsuit. This article reports Council Member David Catania's latest comment on the lawsuit.]

Religious liberty exemptions in the amended NJ marriage-equality legislation - at odds with the state's anit-discrimination law?

New Jersey Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act, S.1967, amended 12/07/09

As a result of yesterday's hearing, the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee amended marriage-equality legislation to provide the following religious liberty exemptions:

Sec.5

...

b. No religious society, institution or organization in this State serving a particular faith or denomination shall be compelled to provide space, services, advantages, goods, or privileges related to the solemnization, celebration or promotion of marriage if such solemnization, celebration or promotion of marriage is in violation of the beliefs of such religious society, institution or organization.

c. No civil claim or cause of action against any religious society, institution or organization, or any employee thereof, shall arise out of any refusal to provide space, services, advantages, goods, or privileges pursuant to this section. No State action to penalize or withhold benefits from any such religious society, institution or organization, or any employee thereof, shall result from any refusal to provide space, services, advantages, goods, or privileges pursuant to this section.

d. Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the effect of section 2 of P.L.1979, c.428 (C.18A:35-4.7). [This law allows parents to exempt their children from public school lessons involving "health, family life education, or sex education" if in conflict with the parents' religious beliefs.]

With one critical exception, these exemptions resemble those the D.C. Council provided in its recently adopted legislation [Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 (Bill 18-482, as revised November 10th; enrolled version not online].

Like the D.C. Council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, the NJ Senate Judiciary Committee decided to extend the exemptions to religious organizations even if they followed the contested example of a NJ religious organization and rented their wedding facilities to heterosexual couples, but not same-sex couples. But with respect to services of religious organizations that "promote marriage," the D.C. Council Judiciary Committee limited their exemptions to just "religious programs, counseling, courses, or retreats." The NJ Senate Judiciary Committee does not limit the scope of its exemptions in this way. As a result, a NJ religious organization would be free to deny same-sex couples any service "related to the promotion of marriage" - unless the state's public accommodation law (N.J.S.A. 10:1-5, described here) protects the right of gays and lesbians to receive that service.

Latest advocacy by legal scholars for religious-liberty exemptions in marriage-equality legislation

12/05/09 Mirror of Justice - entry by law professor Rick Garnett:

Since the publication of Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts in 2008, co-editor Robin Fretwell Wilson and several other legal scholars have advocated for religious-liberty exemptions in marriage-equality legislation. They typically time their advocacy letters to coincide with an impending vote by a state legislative committee. (See my compilation of the letters here, and a recent critical review of the book.) As the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to vote on marriage-equality legislation, these scholars have sent their exemption recommendations to the Committee's Chair.

The two letters Garnett references in his post have password protections, but you can find them linked in this related post by law professor Michael J. Perry.

Compromise Uncertain on D.C.'s' Marriage Equality Legislation: The Manhattan Declaration

11/23/09 DCist Blog:

I recently prepared a summary of an attempt by the D.C. Council to accommodate objections by the Archdiocese of Washington to its proposed marriage-equality law (last revised on November 10th). Blogger Martin Austermuhle questions whether Archbishop Donald Wuerl is prepared for a compromise of the kind that D.C. Council members David Catania and Phil Mendelson have suggested to Wuerl. Wuerl appeared to Austermule to have sounded a conciliatory tone in his November 17th Washington Post editorial, although a coalition of advocacy organizations have called Wuerl's arguments in the editorial "defective." At any rate, Austermuhle says,

only a day later, Wuerl appeared at a press conference announcing the Manhattan Declaration, an ecumenical statement outlining Christian opposition to same-sex marriage and threatening civil disobedience to any laws legalizing it. "[Nor] will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family," stated the declaration.

Until now I have reserved judgment on the controversial Manhattan Declaration, whose signers include Alliance Defense Fund President, Alan Sears. I would welcome reader comment on its implications for marriage-equality legislation and litigation. It appears not just likely, but intended to portray marriage equality as a grave threat to religious liberty. Some social conservatives, such as David Blankenhorn, acknowledge that the marriage-equality movement has made sufficient progress to warrant a compromise over perceived conflicts with religious liberty. Far from making any such concession, the Manhattan Declaration's signers expect to rely on the alleged conflict as a continuing means of undermining public support for marriage equality - a strategy that has succeeded in California's Yes on 8 and Maine's Yes on Question 1 campaigns.

D.C. Council Chairman seeks compromise over objections by Archdiocese of Washington to marriage-equality bill

11/20/09 Washington Post:

Some D.C. Council members and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton are reaching out to the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington to see whether they can find a compromise so the Church will not end its social services contracts with the city if the council legalizes same-sex marriage. [See the version of the legislation as revised November 10th.] After a week of heated rhetoric, District officials said Thursday that they see a way for Catholic Charities to continue operating programs with city money while assuring that the organization's gay and heterosexual employees would be treated equally if they got married.

Law professor Nancy Polikoff questions whether Catholic Charities would be required to extend spousal benefits to gay and lesbian employees, even when, as widely expected, the D.C. Council adopts marriage-equality legislation at its December 1st meeting. (If Catholic Charities self-insures, she believes that neither the marriage-equality bill, nor existing law in D.C., would require the organization to provide health care benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.) Moreover, the District's Human Rights Act already prohibits sexual-orientation discrimination in the kind of public services Catholic Charities provides. So Polikoff considers it a "red herring" for the Archdiocese to object that the marriage-equality bill would create a ban on this form of discrimination.

Responding to the Archdiocese's objections and a Washington Post editorial by Archbishop Donald Wuerl, a coalition of 12 organizations has submitted a November 20th letter to Vincent Gray, Chairman of the D.C.. The coalition includes the ACLU and the local Gay and Lesbian Activists. The coalition recommends that the Archdiocese of Washington follow the policy of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, which allows employees to "designate one person - any person - as an additional beneficiary." The coalition also recommends further amendment of the bill, and claims that Catholic Charities already have a legal obligation to extend spousal benefits to its same-sex employees.

Gray has asked two other Council members to consider how to accommodate the Archdiocese. They are David Catania, a key author of the marriage-equality bill, and Phil Mendelson, chairman of the committee that recently held hearings on the legislation and revised it. In their November 18th letter to Wuerl, they offer examples of how the Archidocese might offer spousal benefits to gay and lesbian employees without recognizing their marriages. However, like the advocacy coalition, they maintain that the Human Rights Act bars Catholic Charities from denying its services to same-sex couples. They express readiness to consider an amendment that will answer the Archdiocese's concerns, "while ensuring that District funds are not used [by Catholic Charities] in a manner inconsistent with the Human Rights Act."

11/24/09 DC Agenda:

A spokesperson for the Archdiocese said she was making inquires over the Archdiocese’s reaction to the San Francisco-Georgetown compromise proposal and the assertion by the 12 groups that Catholic Charities is already bound by law to provide benefits to same-sex partners of its employees.