LGBT rights

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.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the India Supreme Court upheld a "153-year-old colonial-era law that criminalizes gay sex, leaving it up to lawmakers to amend the legislation in a setback for homosexual rights in the world’s second-most populous country."

Niranjan Sahoo, an analyst with the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, told Bloomberg: '“Indian society is largely conservative, feudal, and lawmakers have the same values. So any proposal of this nature with radical consequences won’t see the light of day.”'

The two-judge panel said that the law was constitutional. However, an appeal to a five-judge panel is planned.

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."

The Pennsyvlania Supreme Court has been asked to allow a Montgomery County clerk to once again issue licenses to same-sex couples, The Legal Intelligencer reports. The clerk, D. Bruce Hanes, argues that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court should have considered the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage when it ordered him to stop issuing licenses, The Legal further reports.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby of the District of Utah heard oral arguments yesterday on a lawsuit challenging that state's ban on same-sex marriage, the Salt Lake Tribune reports. Shelby said the constitutionality of the ban will turn on whether the copules are "seeking a new right or establishing access to an existing, fundamental right to state-sanctioned marriages," The Tribune further reports.

State attorneys argue that the plaintiffs are seeking to establish a new right and the ban should get rational basis scrutiny "to determine if Utah’s law promotes a legitimate government interest in supporting responsible procreation and the 'gold standard' of two biological parents for child rearing," according to The Tribune.

In contrast, the plaintiffs’ attorney "advocated a heightened-scrutiny standard, which would recognize same-sex couples as an unprotected class such as racial minorities or women."

In the view of state attorneys, the lawsuit is aimed at establishing a new right, one that no other federal court has recognized. In the view of attorneys representing the plaintiffs, it is about gaining access to the fundamental right to chose whom to love and marry.

Even though a trial date has been set in the first case in which plaintiffs are challenging Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage, Governor Tom Corbett's administration is appealing to the Third Circuit on the applicability of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Baker v. Nelson, on the Pennsylvania case, The Legal Intelligencer's Saranac Hale Spencer reports. In 1971, the Supreme Court upheld a five-page Minnesota Supreme Court opinion that the federal Constitution does not protect a fundamental right for same-sex couples to get married for "'want of a substantial federal question,'" according to SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston. The Supreme Court has not yet declared if there is a fundamental right for same-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, however, rejected the idea that Baker still has precedential value: "'The Supreme Court has decided several cases since Baker which demonstrate that it no longer views constitutional challenges based on sex or sexual identity classifications as unsubstantial,'" The Legal reports.

The Connecticut Supreme Court is considering whether petitioner Charlotte Stacey is entitled to loss of consortium even though she was not married to her female domestic partner, who allegedly died from medical malpractice, The Hartford Courtant reports. While Connecticut only allows loss of consortium for legally married spouses, Stacey argues that her constitutional rights were violated because she and her deceased partner wanted to be married but could not wed until the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state law banning same-sex matrimony was unconstitutional, The Courant further reports. Oral arguments in the case were held this week.

Almost two-thirds of Croatian voters approved a change to their constitution to define marriage as a "union of a man and woman," Voice of America reports. The move was initiated by Roman Catholic groups and "90 percent of the population of 4.4 million say they are Catholic," according to Voice of America.  Turnout was 37 percent, Voice of America also reports.

The flip side of the national movement to establish same-sex marriage in the United States is the right to dissolve same-sex unions. The Associated Press reports on how estranged couples in "nonrecognition states would have to move back to the state where they were married and establish residency in order to get divorced — an option that can be unworkable in many cases."

James Esseks, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the AP that the right to end marriage is just as important as the right to enter them. '"Part of that system is creating a predictable, regularized way of dealing with the reality that relationships sometimes end,' [Esseks] said. 'Those are the times people are the worst to each other, and that's why we have divorce courts. There's got to be an adult in the room."'

The AP further profiles a Mississippi case in which that state's Attorney General's office filed a motion to intervene because a same-sex couple married in California is seeking to have a divorce recognized by Mississippi's family courts.

A federal judge rejected a same-sex couple's lawsuit seeking to establish the right to marry in Louisiana on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, The Washington Blade reports. Only Louisiana Attorney General James Caldwell was named as a defendant and his office has not denied plaintiffs the recognition of their marriage, The Blade reports. The plaintiffs intend to refile their case.

"Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, said the plaintiffs would be in a stronger position in the case if they sought recognition and then alleged in their amended complaint that the recognition was denied," The Blade further reports.