Current Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

The following list and descriptions of current same-sex marriage litigation was compiled by Liberty Counsel. It is accurate through July 9, 2004.

FEDERAL COURT

Minnesota

• Baker v. IRS (In May 2004, a same-sex couple filed suit in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota challenging as unconstitutional the IRS's refusal to permit them to amend their 2000 tax returns to reflect their status as “married, filing jointly”).

Florida

• Sullivan v. Bush (an unmarried same-sex couple brought suit in U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida challenging state marriage laws and the Federal DOMA as unconstitutional).
• Taylor v. Bush (in response to Sullivan v. Bush, Liberty Counsel commenced a declaratory judgment action in U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida, seeking order declaring marriage laws constitutional).

Massachusetts

• Largess v. SJC (in an effort to invalidate all or a part of the Goodridge decision, Liberty Counsel brought suit in federal court arguing that the Goodridge decision violates the federal guarantee of a republican form of government insofar as the court expressly performed a legislative function in redefining the word “marriage”; the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 29, 2004, that the Federal Guarantee Clause was not violated by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision. A petition will be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review of the case).

Nebraska

• Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning (gay-rights advocacy organization challenged Nebraska's constitutional amendment, which prohibits same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, as unconstitutional; the District Court denied the state's motion to dismiss the case, suggesting that the state constitutional amendment may violate the federal constitutional guarantees, as articulated in Romer v. Evans).

STATE COURT

Alabama

• Same-sex prison inmates who were denied permission to marry filed suit challenging marriage laws. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice to re-file once they are out of prison.

California

• Thomasson v. Newsom, et al. (after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began marrying same-sex couples, Liberty Counsel filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court seeking order that would stop city officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; the judge refused to issue a temporary restraining order; California Supreme Court stayed the case pending outcome of Lockyer and Alfaro).
• Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City of San Francisco, et al. (a second suit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court seeking an order that would stop city officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; it was consolidated into the Thomasson case).
• Lockyer v. City of San Francisco (after Superior Court judges refused to issue a temporary restraining order against city officials, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer commenced action in the Supreme Court, seeking an order declaring that city officials have no authority to violate the marriage laws by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; oral argument was held May 25, with no decision yet).
• Alfaro v. Lewis (private citizens commenced identical action to that of Lockyer in Lockyer; oral argument held May 25).
• Tyler v. County of Los Angeles (a same-sex couple brought writ petition seeking an order compelling city clerk to issue marriage license).
• Woo v. Lockyer (after the California Supreme Court stayed the cases brought against the city of San Francisco and Mayor Newsom, same-sex couples brought suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional).
• City of San Francisco v. Lockyer (after the California Supreme Court stayed the cases brought against the city of San Francisco and Mayor Newsom, the city and county of San Francisco brought its own suit seeking a declaration that the marriage laws are unconstitutional).
• Clinton v. State (after the California Supreme Court stayed the actions against the city of San Francisco and Mayor Newsom, same-sex couples brought another suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional).
• Thomasson v. Davis (in March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, which stated that only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California. That initiative cannot be amended in any fashion without further vote of the people. In October 2003, the legislature passed AB 205, which grants virtually all the rights of marriage, but under the name of domestic partnership. Thomasson v. Davis challenges AB 205 and another bill passed in 2001 that gave significant marital benefits to domestic partners, as violating Proposition 22. Summary judgment hearing scheduled for July 16).
• Knight v. Davis (asserts the same claim against AB 205 as in Thomasson case, but does not assert claim against AB 25. Summary judgment hearing scheduled for July 16).

Florida

• Ash v. Forman (same-sex couples brought suit in Broward County challenging the state marriage laws as unconstitutional. The defendant clerk was only one of 3 state senators who voted against Florida's DOMA).
• Berman v. Wilken (on July 2, same-sex couples brought suit in West Palm Beach challenging the state marriage laws as unconstitutional).
• Higgs v. State (same-sex couples brought suit in Key West challenging the state marriage laws as unconstitutional).
• Taylor v. Forman (in response to the Ash case, and in an effort to be involved in defending the marriage laws, Liberty Counsel filed a declaratory judgment action in Key West, seeking order declaring marriage laws constitutional).
• Taylor v. State (in response to the Higgs case, and in an effort to be involved in defending the marriage laws, Liberty Counsel filed a declaratory judgment action in Key West, seeking order declaring marriage laws constitutional).
• Kantaras v. Kantaras (A woman named Linda married another woman, born Margo, who had surgery and hormone treatments, and who changed her name to Michael (“MK”). MK claimed that she was a “man” in order to obtain a marriage license. The trial ruled that gender is primarily determined in your mind rather than by biology or physiology and thus therefore could marry without violating Florida's DOMA. Liberty Counsel is handling an appeal for the mother, Linda. The appeal, which contends that gender must be determined objectively by biology and physiology rather than by mere thoughts, is pending in Florida Court of Appeals. Oral argument was conducted on Feb. 14, 2004).

Indiana

• Morrison v. Saddler (same-sex couples brought suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional; the trial court dismissed the complaint; an appeal is pending).

Massachusetts

• Flynn v. Johnstone (a suit was commenced seeking to invalidate marriage licenses issued to out-of-state same-sex couples in violation of 1913 law.).
• Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Health (suit commenced seeking to invalidate the 1913 law that forbids Massachusetts from marrying a couple if the marriage would not be recognized in their home state).
• Doyle v. SJC (suit commenced in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, requesting the court to stay the implementation of Goodridge decision pending outcome of vote by people on amendment to state constitution; the court denied an immediate stay of the decision, but did set up briefing on the merits of the petition).

New Jersey

• Lewis v. Harris (same-sex couples challenged the marriage laws as unconstitutional; trial court upheld marriage laws, finding no fundamental right to same-sex marriage; appeal pending).
• McCarthy v. Asbury Park (suit seeking order halting Asbury Park from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; stayed pending Lewis).
• Asbury Park v. State (suit seeking order declaring marriage laws unconstitutional; consolidated with McCarthy, stayed pending Lewis).

New Mexico

• After a Sandoval County clerk began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, New Mexico's attorney general obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting her from issuing them. In June, she asked the court to lift the ban. Appeals court refused. Supreme Court of New Mexico has agreed to hear the appeal. State submitted papers on July 6.

New York

• Hebel v. Mayor West (after New Paltz Mayor Jason West solemnized marriages of same-sex couples in violation of law, Liberty Counsel filed suit; the court issued a permanent injunction against West, specifically holding that a public official must follow the law even if he believes them to be unconstitutional).
• State v. West (a Supreme Court judge dismissed misdemeanor charges brought against West, holding he had rebutted presumption of constitutionality of the laws and the state failed to establish legitimate governmental purpose for limiting marriage to the union of one of marriage laws; on appeal).
• Hebel v. Village of New Paltz (after the court entered permanent injunction against Mayor Jason West, the Village Board of Overseers appointed two “marriage officers” who began solemnizing same-sex marriages; opponents brought suit on behalf of Mr. Hebel, a fellow Board member, seeking an injunction against all Village officials and to declare the “marriages” invalid. Court issued order to stop the illegal marriages. Another hearing on extending the temporary order into a permanent one is pending).
• Hernandez v. Robles (same-sex couples challenge marriage laws as unconstitutional; case and intervention motion are pending in New York County).
• Shields v. Madigan (same-sex couples, including mayor of Nyack, challenge marriage laws as unconstitutional; case is pending in Rockland County, with papers fully submitted on petition on June 4).
• Samuels v. State (same-sex couples, including one state legislator, challenge marriage laws as unconstitutional).
• Ithaca 50 v. State (25 same-sex couples challenge marriage laws as unconstitutional; case is pending in Ithaca County).

North Carolina

• Mullinax v. Covington (same-sex coupled filed suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional; suit dismissed; plaintiffs have indicated will not pursue further).

Oregon

• Defense of Marriage Coalition v. Multnomah County (pro-family organization filed suit seeking to stop Multnomah County from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples).
• State ex rel Defense of Marriage Coalition v. Multnomah County (pro-family organization filed suit seeking writ of mandate directing county to comply with the law).
• Defense of Marriage Coalition, et al. v. Benton County (pro-family organization filed suit seeking writ of mandate directing county to cease issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples).
• Li v. Oregon (same-sex couples filed suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional; trial court held denial of equal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional; gave legislature 90 days to remedy violation and gave registrar 30 days to register the same-sex marriage licenses issued by Multnomah County; Court of Appeals stayed that portion of decision requiring registrar to register marriage licenses).
• Nusbaum v. Benton County (heterosexual couple filed suit against Benton County, which has refused to issue any marriage licenses until such time it is permitted to issue same-sex marriage licenses).

Pennsylvania

• Egolf v. Seneca (after same-sex couple who was denied marriage license threatened to sue, individuals brought suit seeking order declaring marriage laws constitutional; defendants have moved to dismiss the case).

Washington

• Anderson v. Sims (same-sex couples brought suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional; motion for summary judgment filed).
• Leskovar v.Greg Michaels (Mayor of Seattle issued an executive order requiring that the city treat same-sex marriages the same as opposite-sex marriages; the lawsuit seeks to compel city officials to comply with state law, which does not permit same-sex marriage; court dismissed case for lack of standing by plaintiffs).

West Virginia

• Link v. King (same-sex couple brought suit in West Virginia Supreme Court challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional; court dismissed the challenge to the state's same-sex marriage laws).

The publisher of this newsletter is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional services, and this publication is not meant to constitute legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional advice. If legal, financial, investment advisory or other professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

The following list and descriptions of current same-sex marriage litigation was compiled by Liberty Counsel. It is accurate through July 9, 2004.

FEDERAL COURT

Minnesota

• Baker v. IRS (In May 2004, a same-sex couple filed suit in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota challenging as unconstitutional the IRS's refusal to permit them to amend their 2000 tax returns to reflect their status as “married, filing jointly”).

Florida

• Sullivan v. Bush (an unmarried same-sex couple brought suit in U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida challenging state marriage laws and the Federal DOMA as unconstitutional).
• Taylor v. Bush (in response to Sullivan v. Bush, Liberty Counsel commenced a declaratory judgment action in U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida, seeking order declaring marriage laws constitutional).

Massachusetts

• Largess v. SJC (in an effort to invalidate all or a part of the Goodridge decision, Liberty Counsel brought suit in federal court arguing that the Goodridge decision violates the federal guarantee of a republican form of government insofar as the court expressly performed a legislative function in redefining the word “marriage”; the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 29, 2004, that the Federal Guarantee Clause was not violated by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision. A petition will be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review of the case).

Nebraska

• Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning (gay-rights advocacy organization challenged Nebraska's constitutional amendment, which prohibits same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, as unconstitutional; the District Court denied the state's motion to dismiss the case, suggesting that the state constitutional amendment may violate the federal constitutional guarantees, as articulated in Romer v. Evans).

STATE COURT

Alabama

• Same-sex prison inmates who were denied permission to marry filed suit challenging marriage laws. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice to re-file once they are out of prison.

California

• Thomasson v. Newsom, et al. (after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began marrying same-sex couples, Liberty Counsel filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court seeking order that would stop city officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; the judge refused to issue a temporary restraining order; California Supreme Court stayed the case pending outcome of Lockyer and Alfaro).
• Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City of San Francisco, et al. (a second suit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court seeking an order that would stop city officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; it was consolidated into the Thomasson case).
• Lockyer v. City of San Francisco (after Superior Court judges refused to issue a temporary restraining order against city officials, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer commenced action in the Supreme Court, seeking an order declaring that city officials have no authority to violate the marriage laws by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; oral argument was held May 25, with no decision yet).
• Alfaro v. Lewis (private citizens commenced identical action to that of Lockyer in Lockyer; oral argument held May 25).
• Tyler v. County of Los Angeles (a same-sex couple brought writ petition seeking an order compelling city clerk to issue marriage license).
• Woo v. Lockyer (after the California Supreme Court stayed the cases brought against the city of San Francisco and Mayor Newsom, same-sex couples brought suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional).
• City of San Francisco v. Lockyer (after the California Supreme Court stayed the cases brought against the city of San Francisco and Mayor Newsom, the city and county of San Francisco brought its own suit seeking a declaration that the marriage laws are unconstitutional).
• Clinton v. State (after the California Supreme Court stayed the actions against the city of San Francisco and Mayor Newsom, same-sex couples brought another suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional).
• Thomasson v. Davis (in March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, which stated that only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California. That initiative cannot be amended in any fashion without further vote of the people. In October 2003, the legislature passed AB 205, which grants virtually all the rights of marriage, but under the name of domestic partnership. Thomasson v. Davis challenges AB 205 and another bill passed in 2001 that gave significant marital benefits to domestic partners, as violating Proposition 22. Summary judgment hearing scheduled for July 16).
• Knight v. Davis (asserts the same claim against AB 205 as in Thomasson case, but does not assert claim against AB 25. Summary judgment hearing scheduled for July 16).

Florida

• Ash v. Forman (same-sex couples brought suit in Broward County challenging the state marriage laws as unconstitutional. The defendant clerk was only one of 3 state senators who voted against Florida's DOMA).
• Berman v. Wilken (on July 2, same-sex couples brought suit in West Palm Beach challenging the state marriage laws as unconstitutional).
• Higgs v. State (same-sex couples brought suit in Key West challenging the state marriage laws as unconstitutional).
• Taylor v. Forman (in response to the Ash case, and in an effort to be involved in defending the marriage laws, Liberty Counsel filed a declaratory judgment action in Key West, seeking order declaring marriage laws constitutional).
• Taylor v. State (in response to the Higgs case, and in an effort to be involved in defending the marriage laws, Liberty Counsel filed a declaratory judgment action in Key West, seeking order declaring marriage laws constitutional).
• Kantaras v. Kantaras (A woman named Linda married another woman, born Margo, who had surgery and hormone treatments, and who changed her name to Michael (“MK”). MK claimed that she was a “man” in order to obtain a marriage license. The trial ruled that gender is primarily determined in your mind rather than by biology or physiology and thus therefore could marry without violating Florida's DOMA. Liberty Counsel is handling an appeal for the mother, Linda. The appeal, which contends that gender must be determined objectively by biology and physiology rather than by mere thoughts, is pending in Florida Court of Appeals. Oral argument was conducted on Feb. 14, 2004).

Indiana

• Morrison v. Saddler (same-sex couples brought suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional; the trial court dismissed the complaint; an appeal is pending).

Massachusetts

• Flynn v. Johnstone (a suit was commenced seeking to invalidate marriage licenses issued to out-of-state same-sex couples in violation of 1913 law.).
• Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Health (suit commenced seeking to invalidate the 1913 law that forbids Massachusetts from marrying a couple if the marriage would not be recognized in their home state).
• Doyle v. SJC (suit commenced in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, requesting the court to stay the implementation of Goodridge decision pending outcome of vote by people on amendment to state constitution; the court denied an immediate stay of the decision, but did set up briefing on the merits of the petition).

New Jersey

• Lewis v. Harris (same-sex couples challenged the marriage laws as unconstitutional; trial court upheld marriage laws, finding no fundamental right to same-sex marriage; appeal pending).
• McCarthy v. Asbury Park (suit seeking order halting Asbury Park from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; stayed pending Lewis).
• Asbury Park v. State (suit seeking order declaring marriage laws unconstitutional; consolidated with McCarthy, stayed pending Lewis).

New Mexico

• After a Sandoval County clerk began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, New Mexico's attorney general obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting her from issuing them. In June, she asked the court to lift the ban. Appeals court refused. Supreme Court of New Mexico has agreed to hear the appeal. State submitted papers on July 6.

New York

• Hebel v. Mayor West (after New Paltz Mayor Jason West solemnized marriages of same-sex couples in violation of law, Liberty Counsel filed suit; the court issued a permanent injunction against West, specifically holding that a public official must follow the law even if he believes them to be unconstitutional).
• State v. West (a Supreme Court judge dismissed misdemeanor charges brought against West, holding he had rebutted presumption of constitutionality of the laws and the state failed to establish legitimate governmental purpose for limiting marriage to the union of one of marriage laws; on appeal).
• Hebel v. Village of New Paltz (after the court entered permanent injunction against Mayor Jason West, the Village Board of Overseers appointed two “marriage officers” who began solemnizing same-sex marriages; opponents brought suit on behalf of Mr. Hebel, a fellow Board member, seeking an injunction against all Village officials and to declare the “marriages” invalid. Court issued order to stop the illegal marriages. Another hearing on extending the temporary order into a permanent one is pending).
• Hernandez v. Robles (same-sex couples challenge marriage laws as unconstitutional; case and intervention motion are pending in New York County).
• Shields v. Madigan (same-sex couples, including mayor of Nyack, challenge marriage laws as unconstitutional; case is pending in Rockland County, with papers fully submitted on petition on June 4).
• Samuels v. State (same-sex couples, including one state legislator, challenge marriage laws as unconstitutional).
• Ithaca 50 v. State (25 same-sex couples challenge marriage laws as unconstitutional; case is pending in Ithaca County).

North Carolina

• Mullinax v. Covington (same-sex coupled filed suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional; suit dismissed; plaintiffs have indicated will not pursue further).

Oregon

• Defense of Marriage Coalition v. Multnomah County (pro-family organization filed suit seeking to stop Multnomah County from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples).
• State ex rel Defense of Marriage Coalition v. Multnomah County (pro-family organization filed suit seeking writ of mandate directing county to comply with the law).
• Defense of Marriage Coalition, et al. v. Benton County (pro-family organization filed suit seeking writ of mandate directing county to cease issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples).
• Li v. Oregon (same-sex couples filed suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional; trial court held denial of equal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional; gave legislature 90 days to remedy violation and gave registrar 30 days to register the same-sex marriage licenses issued by Multnomah County; Court of Appeals stayed that portion of decision requiring registrar to register marriage licenses).
• Nusbaum v. Benton County (heterosexual couple filed suit against Benton County, which has refused to issue any marriage licenses until such time it is permitted to issue same-sex marriage licenses).

Pennsylvania

• Egolf v. Seneca (after same-sex couple who was denied marriage license threatened to sue, individuals brought suit seeking order declaring marriage laws constitutional; defendants have moved to dismiss the case).

Washington

• Anderson v. Sims (same-sex couples brought suit challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional; motion for summary judgment filed).
• Leskovar v.Greg Michaels (Mayor of Seattle issued an executive order requiring that the city treat same-sex marriages the same as opposite-sex marriages; the lawsuit seeks to compel city officials to comply with state law, which does not permit same-sex marriage; court dismissed case for lack of standing by plaintiffs).

West Virginia

• Link v. King (same-sex couple brought suit in West Virginia Supreme Court challenging marriage laws as unconstitutional; court dismissed the challenge to the state's same-sex marriage laws).

The publisher of this newsletter is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional services, and this publication is not meant to constitute legal, accounting, financial, investment advisory or other professional advice. If legal, financial, investment advisory or other professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.