What’s the Harm? Changes and Challenges in Family

LawLesson #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

WelcomeThanks 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 same-sex 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 2009F. 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 SSMNM: 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 repeal2) Intimidation, harassment, persecution &

abuse of power to promote the ssm agend3) 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 judgment-recognition) 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 -

2007From 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

jurisdictionsGeneral 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’dRobin 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 Defend the FamilyDefendMarriage.org (UFI) Doha Int’l Institute for

Family Studies & Development

DOMAWatch.org (ADF) Family Resource Council Focus on the Family Heritage Foundation Institute for Marriage & Public Policy National Organization for

MarriageProtectMarriage.com Ruth InstituteWhatstheharm.org 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 EngagedD&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’dAlma 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.

• -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.

WHY do it?

• -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. LEGALIZEDSame-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

YEARSame-Sex

Marriage (US)

Same-Sex Marriage-Equivalent

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 Same-Sex

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: