Bloomberg reports on the plans of Utah governmental officials to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block same-sex marriages. A federal district court has ruled that Utah's ban on same-sex nuptials violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, but the Tenth Circuit ruled against holding the trial court in abeyance while Utah appeals the decision.
The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge Timothy Black ruled today that Ohio's 9-year-old ban on same-sex marriage cannot extend to refusing to recognize valid same-sex marriages from other states on death certificates. The ruling is likely to have a broader impact than just on death certificates because of the judge's sweeping language. According to the AP, the judge reasoned: "'The question presented is whether a state can do what the federal government cannot — i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples ... simply because the majority of the voters don't like homosexuality (or at least didn't in 2004). Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no."'
A federal judge struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage as violative of LGBT couples' rights to due process and equal protection, the AP reports. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby's ruling could prime the issue for the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while ruling this year that a ban on federal benefits for gay couples is unconstitutional, did not address whether there is a fundamental right for same-sex couples to get married in the United States.
Republican-red Indiana is seeking to ban same-sex marriage in its constitution; lawmakers must approve the proposed constitutional amendment a second time before sending it to voters, the Associated Press reports. But "polls have shown increasing numbers of Indiana voters oppose a constitutional ban even though most still oppose gay marriage," the AP reports. Moreover, at least two lawmakers who voted for the amendment in 2011 now say they won't vote for it again.
Opponents cite the amendment for a proposed ban on civil unions and employee benefits for same-sex couples.
In a ruling today, the New Mexico Supreme Court has made that state the 17th in the state to allow same-sax marriage. “'All rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples,"' the court said, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
Judge Timothy Black, a federal district judge in Ohio, questioned the authority of state officials to refuse to recognize same-sex unions entered in other states, the Associated Press reports. Black heard arguments this week on a narrower question than other same-sex marriage lawsuits: not on whether Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage ban can stand, but on whether same-sex marriages from other states must be recognized on Ohio death certificates.
A Texas judge blocked the city of Houston from providing benefits to the same-sex spouses of Houston city employees---but it's pending another court hearing next month, LGBTQ Nation reports. The lawsuit was filed by Harris County Republican chair Jared Woodfill. Houston Mayor Annise Parker decided to extend benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees. The plaintiffs claims that Parker violated the Houston city-charter ban on domestic partner benefits, the state Defense of Marriage Act and the Texas Constitution, LGBTQ Nation further reports.
While New Jersey has authorized same-sex marriage through court action, Democrats in the New Jersey Senate were hoping to codify same-sex marriage by statute. But The Newark Star-Ledger reports "Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg said Sunday that she decided to follow the advice of Lambda Legal, a gay rights law group, to take the bill off the agenda." Lambda Legal disfavored the religious exemptions in the now-pulled legislation.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australia's High Court "has cleared the way for a federal law on same-sex marriage, even though it struck down the ACT law providing for them." The court reasoned that the word marriage in the constitution is not restricted to opposite-sex unions. The court held that the Federal Parliament could change a law that restricts marriage to unions between men and women. "It was thought that if ever the Federal Parliament did legislate for same-sex marriage it would invite a constitutional challenge on the basis that the word 'marriage' in the Constitution meant only unions between a man and a woman," the newspaper further reports.
Even though same-sex marriage has been authorized in New Jersey in court decisions, "key Senate Democrats" are seeking to codify the court decisions, The Newark Star-Ledger reports. Legislators want to protect the right to same-sex marriage from being removed by future courts. For example, state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), told the newspaper that one of the rationales for the court decision to legalize same-sex marriage was that "gay couples in civil unions would be denied federal benefits because they were not married. If the federal government gave them benefits, Lesniak said, the rationale for the decision could be undercut, which is why it needs to be written into law."
Lawyer and Legal Journalist
