LGBT rights

A federal judge in Tennessee has issued a preliminary injunction against applying that state's ban on same-sex marriage to three couples married in other states that do recognize same-sex marriage, The Tennessean reports. U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger said the ban "fails to meet constitutional standards under even a minimal review," The Tennessean further reports.

A lawsuit also is planned to challenge the ban "regarding hose who married in other states and live here [in Tennessee, those who want to end those marriages but can’t obtain a divorce, and those denied typical probate proceedings because their spouses died," The Tennessean also reports.

Meanwhile, three news lawsuits have been filed to challenge Indiana's statutory ban on same-sex marriage, the Associated Press reports. One plaintiff had to pay $300,000 more in Indiana inheritance tax after her same-sex spouse died, the AP further reports.

The Indianapolis Star reports that four same-sex couples have filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage. The "lawsuit mirrors the challenge in Kentucky that last month prompted a federal judge to order that state to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere," The Star further reports.

Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage is statutory, not constitutional. A state constitutional ban is under consideration by the legislature, but that measure won't go to voters until at least 2016.

The Detroit Free Press reports on the close of the trial in which plaintiffs are challenging Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. During closing arguments, the plaintiffs' attorney said, "The right to marry is a fundamental right. It should apply regardless of sexual orientation," the Free Press further reports. The defense attorney for the state of Michigan argued that the Michigan voters had decided the issue, and the case "is about science, data, what's best for children," the Free Press also reports. The plaintiffs want to marry and adopt each other's children.

The Detroit Free Press reports on the end nearing in a trial over Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. Closing arguments are slated for today. The trial has focused on "child outcomes of same-sex parenting," the Free Press also reports.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed legislation that would have allowed conservative religious business owners to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples regarding their marriages, such as wedding photography, wedding cakes and flowers, The Washington Post reports. In deciding to veto the legislation, Brewer said, "'I have not heard of one example in Arizona where business owners' religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences,'" The Post reports.

The legislation was created "in response to a ruling by the New Mexico state Supreme Court against a wedding photographer who declined to work for a couple's same-sex wedding," The Post further reports.

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction of Texas' state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the Associated Press reports.

It appears that Judge Orlando Garcia may have applied the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, rational basis, in reaching the decison. According to the AP, Garcia opined: "'Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution. These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex.'"

That means that Garcia didn't even have to find that being LGBT is a classification that would trigger a higher, more protective standard of review.

The Guardian's Cyril Ghosh writes that one downside to the fight to establish same-sex marriage rights in the United States is the demise of civil unions. Most states that had civil unions have phased them out in favor of converting them to marriages, Ghosh says. Civil unions have many advantages, he says: "There are a number of good reasons why both heterosexual and homosexual couples may wish to enter into a civil union instead of a marriage. For example, for many couples, civil unions provide a secular alternative to marriage that aligns with their values. Some may not be ready for a commitment like 'marriage' – a word that's laden with history and tradition. Others may not wish to enter into a marriage contract because they believe the institution carries distinctly religious connotations. They may also see marriage as a patriarchal institution and be ideologically opposed to it. Finally, many couples that have been married and divorced may not be ready to marry again, even though they might want to codify their relationship with their current partners and lovers in some way."

A challenge to Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage and on joint adoption by same-sex couples is going to a bench trial this week, the Detroit Free Press reports: "A key issue in this trial will be whether children raised by same-sex parents fare better or worse in life than children raised by heterosexual parents — or whether there’s no difference in their well-being." The plaintiffs argue that even under the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, rational basis, that there is no reason to deny them the right to get married and adopt children, the Free Press further reports.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer must decide whether to sign legislation that would allow conservative religious business owners to refuse to provide services to same-sex couples regarding their marriages, such as wedding photography, wedding cakes and flowers, The New York Times reports. On one hand, "civil libertarians and gay rights advocates say there is a difference between protections for clergy and houses of worship that do not want to participate in same-sex marriage and the obligations of business owners that serve the general public," The Times further reports. On the other hand, Sarah Warbelow, the state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, told The Times, "'this is not about the freedom of individuals to practice their religion, this is about a license to discriminate against individuals.'"

The chairman of the Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee has declared dead a bill that would have shielded business owners from being forced to service same-sex weddings if that would be against their religious beliefs, the Associated Press reports. The bill, which was passed by the House, would have barred governmental sanctions and anti-discrimination lawsuits in those circumstances.

As I noted in my prior post on this legislation, LGBT-rights advocates criticized the bill for allowing governmental workers to cite their religious beliefs in refusing to provide governmental services to gay couples.