State Confusion over Issuing Same-sex Marriage Licenses

A Pennsylvania judge last week ordered town clerks to discontinue issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Same-sex marriage is not part of the law in Pennsylvania, yet recent federal Supreme Court decisions have led to confusion in local state offices.  You can read more in a recent article by JURIST.  

This Blog discussed some of the confusion over the proper application of Windsor in previous posts. The federal government is taking steps to clarify some of the uncertainty surrounding Windsor; for instance, JURIST reports the US Department of Labor recently explained that federal employee benefit plans will be available to all legally married couples, even those domiciled in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages. However, as the situation in Pennsylvania illustrates, the impact of Windsor has not yet been clearly delineated. 

JURIST is reporting that it is not yet clear how this Pennsylvania decision will affect same-sex couples who have obtained marriage licenses already in Pennsylvania:

In August lawyers for the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Governor Tom Corbett argued in a legal filing that Hanes' decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is a separation-of-powers violation that "risks causing serious and limitless harm" in Pennsylvania. In July the Pennsylvania Department of Health filed a petition in the Commonwealth Court seeking to stop Hanes from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Also in July the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal lawsuit seeking same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. The Governor's Office of General Counsel wrote to the attorney general in defense of the Pennsylvania statute, arguing that Windsor does not strike down the state's marriage law, but just the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Since the Windsor ruling, courts across the country have been citing the decision.

You can find a list of those situations at JURIST.  It is interesting that the Penn State Law Review requested an article on Windsor in a different context, which I researched, wrote, and published with them.  That article is available for downloading and reading at the Social Science Research Network. 

It seems that the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor has served less to strengthen marriage for all participants regardless of gender, and more to jeopardize its stability among the states.  Fostering family restoration requires strong state definitions and endorsement of marriage and the law of marriage entry. 

Although Pennsylvania law appears to have that type of regulation, it is being challenged on the most local level.

The California Case of Hollingsworth v. Perry and Family Restoration

            The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled (somewhat) on California’s Proposition 8 case in Hollingsworth v. Perry, U.S., No. 12-144, on June 26, 2013.  The High Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case because the proponents of the state ballot initiative defining marriage lacked standing to appeal in the Ninth Circuit despite the fact that their elected representatives would not defend the State’s democratically upheld referendum.  Many experts assume we will see many more challenges to iron out the questions left in the wake of this ruling, but it is worth sorting out a bit more here in the context of family restoration. 

            What this case means is that California’s laws on marriage have not worked to overturn the state laws in all 50 states.  Rather, it seems that the Justices stayed out of state law making.  If the Court had, on the other hand, ruled that California’s Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, that result would have overturned every single state law on marriage throughout the nation.

            In another tight 5-4 opinion, Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, and was joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., determining that the petitioners lacked standing to appeal the district court's order striking down Proposition 8, California's marriage law. When Proposition 8 was initially struck down in 2010 by the U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former attorney general and current governor, Jerry Brown, who were originally defendants in the lawsuit, refused to continue defending the measure on appeal. This left defendant-intervenors Project Marriage and other pro-family groups to defend the law and appeal the ruling. In finding that these citizen groups lack standing to do so the Court’s opinion states:

            Federal courts have authority under the Constitution to answer such questions only if necessary to do so in the course of deciding an actual "case" or "controversy." As used in the Constitution, those words do not include every sort of dispute, but only those "historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process."... This is an essential limit on our power: It ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives. 

            For there to be such a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have "standing," which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit.

            The court vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor. Kennedy would have found standing because the California Supreme Court has a right to interpret its own laws regarding who may intervene to support voter-approved ballot initiatives—a question it previously resolved in petitioners' favor. 

            Effectively the Court decided that it could not decide the big issue: whether the U.S. Constitution forbids the voters of California (or any state) from defining marriage the way they did. The Court also decided that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the appeal before it got to the Supreme Court, didn’t have the authority to decide the issue either, and erased its 2012 decision, which held Prop 8 unconstitutional. That leaves the case in a posture where the federal district court opinion from 2010 issued by now-retired Judge Vaughan Walker is the only opinion left in the case. He declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, but serious legal questions remain, and more litigation may be on the horizon as a result. While the full impact of this decision remains to be seen, it appears that Walker's order is the only ruling in effect; however under California Law a Proposition may be overturned only by an Appellate Court; hence, Proposition 8 may still be valid California law.  Although the state’s governor has ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and an appellate court refused to stay those licenses, a clerk who refuses to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples may not be legally wrong in doing so.  Further legal proceedings will determine what happens to marriage in California, but the Perry decision is limited to California.

            Though the Wall Street Journal called the combination of the two marriage cases “A Gay Marriage Muddle,” in their June 27^th editorial, media reports can tend to gloss over significant substantive matters involved in these cases.  This can lead to inaccuracy in public understanding, and an authentic corruption of fairness and honesty.  With colleague Dr. Mark Yarhouse, our article on these concerns is available for review and download from SSRN.  

            Religious freedom is harmed by these cases.  The Christian Legal Society filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court explaining why redefining marriage is likely to harm traditional religious believers' ability to live their faith in the public square.  Religious freedom is at stake in this attempt to redefine marriage. Adoption agencies, churches, florists, bakers, photographers and parents are mostly on the losing end when their religious faith conflicts with the elevation of homosexuality in culture. These concerns will only increase after Perry and Windsor.

            Democracy is deeply damaged by the opinion in Perry. That decision effectively denies democracy itself.  It is not simply a liberal or conservative concern, nor a religious issue, nor is it just a marriage issue, and neither is it just a California issue. The High Court’s ruling seems more like a disregard for democracy that affects all Americans. The Court neglected to uphold the public votes of more than seven million California citizens because they could not stand in the place of their elected officials who refused to defend legitimate state laws.  The will of the people has been completely undermined.

            Children were absent in the Perry discussion, but they will bear the brunt of the decision.  The price of redefining marriage is high for children who have already suffered from other social experiments like divorce and cohabitation. Children of same-sex unions are intentionally denied a father or a mother when two adults determine that what they want is more important than what children need.

            The public policy debate will continue.  The case for marriage is about more than a couple’s romantic ties.  That fact is significant for California, and for the nation, because marriage as the foundation for a family remains the best available method for raising children. Family strength and restoration was not assisted by Perry.  All the recent cases ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States can be accessed at the official SCOTUS site. For more information and analysis on both of these marriage cases see the Marriage Law Digest at marriagedebate.com.

            Our next post will discuss the important family law case regarding adoption and Native American families which the Supreme Court also ruled on at the end of June.

The Federal Marriage Challenge of U.S. v. Windsor and Family Restoration

           Family restoration involves stabilizing marriage for the common good.  The single greatest influence that can be presented to the world on the issue of marriage is for each married person to personally live out marriage in all its God-ordained fullness and radiant beauty.  Laws generally reflect that influence of how citizens treat marriage, one way or the other.  Two generations of easy divorce, however, have weakened marriage, effectively making marriage expansion more acceptable.  United States v. Windsor, U.S., No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013), reflects efforts to expand marriage from its original design to accommodate changing cultural tides.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted by Congress in 1996 with two operative sections: Section 2 allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States, and Section 3 provided for a federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" that reflected a legal union between a man and a woman.  Only Section 3 was challenged in United States v. Windsor, and Justice Kennedy writing for the five-justice majority (which included Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer J.J.) ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violated the due process and equal protection principles of the Fifth Amendment.

             The Windsor case actually involved the federal inheritance tax. A lesbian couple, married in Canada in 2008, resided in New York, which in 2009 recognized out of state same-sex marriage (and has since legalized it in 2010). When one of the women died, leaving her estate to her partner, Edith Windsor, because her same-sex marriage was not recognized under federal law (as defined by DOMA), Windsor had to pay estate taxes of over $300,000 on the transfer of the estate.  If their marriage had been recognized under federal law, Windsor could have taken the unlimited marital deduction and received the inheritance free of estate taxes (though estate tax would be due on the remaining estate upon her death).  I have previously researched and analyzed this case, and have published on it at the request of the Penn State Law Review.  That article is available for your review and downloading at the Social Science Research Network (SSRN).

            The ruling in Windsor declared Section 3 of DOMA, defining marriage for federal purposes, unconstitutional.  Because her marriage was recognized in her State of residence the Court reasoned it should be recognized for federal purposes as well.  Windsor will recover the estate taxes she paid, and same-sex couples who are legally married in their State of residence are now entitled to over 1100 federal benefits, rights, and protections. These collateral effects of marriage expansion have been apparent for some time, and I have previously discussed these in an article which is also available for review and downloading from the SSRN. It is still unclear what happens to those federal benefits when same-sex married couples move to a state that doesn't recognize their marriages.

            While the majority acknowledged that Congress sometimes must define marriage for federal purposes, it ruled that Congress could not "seek[] to injure the very class New York seeks to protect."  This is exceptional, in that no State, including New York, recognized same-sex marriage at the time DOMA was enacted by bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Clinton.
 
            The Court struck down the part of the federal marriage law defining the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman for the purpose of interpreting and administering all federal laws and programs. Without Section 3, the federal government will not be able to define marriage for its own federal policies and federal laws; it must accept whatever states decide about same-sex marriage. See the helpful discussion at CitizenLink.

            Justice Kennedy's opinion is challenging to sort through with greatly varied reasoning, heavy on emotional appeal, used stigmatizing labels, sometimes pejorative adjectives, and is quite vague in some parts. As in his other big opinions from past years (Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans), Kennedy might have left both his fellow justices (at least on the conservative side) and legal analysts guessing what arguments he intended to make and what the effect his opinion will have in future cases. One of the primary purposes of a Supreme Court decision is not only to decide the precise dispute involved in the case, but also to explain the law in a way that gives guidance to lower courts and attorneys who may have to deal with similar types of cases in the future. The Windsor opinion, on the other hand, may have created a bonanza for law professors who thrive on writing law review articles about the hidden meanings of Supreme Court decisions.  It is indeed the first time the High Court has invalidated a federal law defining or enforcing the definition of marriage.  It did so without any thoughtful consideration of whether male-female marital unions might be distinctive and whether they should or should not deserve any special, unique legal status for the common good.

            The dissents in Windsor are generally focused on a lack of Court authority for the ruling. The Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case nor authority to overturn Section 3 of DOMA, according to Justice Scalia, and his dissent (like his dissents in Lawrence and Romer) dissects the majority's reasoning, but also offers a chilling warning. He essentially charges the majority of deliberately using language and reasoning that sets up a future case or controversy that could allow those same five justices to take the step they did not take this time, of forcing same-sex marriage on all 50 states.  For now, however, the ruling did not create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The opinion clarifies that only same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized in their home state may obtain federal benefits such as the unlimited marital deduction, immigration claims, and other federal advantages.  Justice Kennedy's opinion made this boundary explicit: "This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages." Windsor, 26.

            This case, though about a federal law, is clearly very important to states, though nothing was changed regarding state laws.  State representatives may wish to secure and shore-up their state laws on marriage.  Within hours of last week's marriage rulings, in fact, Governor Mike Pence of Indiana issued a statement calling upon the General Assembly to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot for the people of Indiana to vote on next November.
  
            Marriage stabilization is the beginning of family restoration for the common good.  Your marriage and mine are the single greatest influences that can be presented to the world on the significance of marital oneness.  Laws on marriage generally reflect how citizens treat marriage, and how society views it and wishes its lawmakers to treat it.  United States v. Windsor is historic in a national turn from marriage's original design to accommodate changing cultural tides, rather than maintaining a solid foundation for present and future posterity.


            The next post will consider the California case of Hollingsworth v. Perry and how the Supreme Court's opinion in that matter affects family restoration.

 

Recent Supreme Court Rulings and Family Restoration

       Summer for law professors and law students always brings so many events away from classes, from summer internships and clerkships, to conferences and presentations, to overseas opportunities, to special family time, to bar exam preparation, to invitations and plans for the upcoming academic year.  On top of all that, the Supreme Court generally hands down a few critical decisions at the end of June, and this year was no exception.  My excellent graduate assistant Elizabeth Oklevitch has been working in the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York and doing an excellent job of regularly handling our previously arranged posts to FamilyRestoration while I have been away from the office.  Indeed, when the three major family law cases were handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States last week I was on the other side of the world.  

            In general, while the mainstream media has reported on some aspects of these cases, they often fail to note the deeper substance of the matters involved.  More particularly, as the decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry, (California's Proposition 8 Case on the voters' referendum defining marriage;), U.S. v. Windsor (the federal Defense of Marriage Act case challenging the definition of marriage), and Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (regarding the adoption of a Native American child under the Indian Child Welfare Act) were all highly charged socially, publicly, and emotionally and very rigorously litigated, it is critical to understand how each case relates to families and family law, and more particularly to family restoration. As I am finally having an opportunity to read each of these cases, our posts at FamilyRestoration over the next several days will attempt to clarify these cases, and help discern how they each relate to family restoration. 

            The results rendered in each case were partly expected, and partly unexpected, and each deserves deeper analysis in the family law and restoration context. In these posts we will summarize what happened, and lay out considerations for the short and long term effects of each case.  God has not abandoned marriage, children, or the family to whims of the High Court, or to the political leanings of just one member of the court (as each ruling was a 5-4 decision), but is already at work in the midst, as C.S. Lewis speaks through a dejected but ultimately royal Shasta in The Horse and His Boy that somehow "He is at the back of everything."  These posts will attempt to analyze these cases more substantively as they relate to you and your family.

            Today's post begins that analysis with some basic generalities that come out of these three cases as a whole.  Here is a brief Top 10 Overview: 

1.      The Supreme Court of the United States redefined marriage for federal purposes by changing one aspect of an important federal law, DOMA, to include marriage expansion for same-sex couples (more on this is the next post). 

2.      The marriage laws of all 50 states were not changed by any of the three cases.  The High Court did not strike down any state's marriage laws, and did not strike down DOMA's provision protecting State's laws on marriage.  Your State's laws on marriage remain intact.  Nothing will be different in your local family court. 38 States hold one view of marriage and 12 States hold another.

3.      California continues to face a conundrum within its own family laws as the state still has its domestic partnership laws, Proposition 8, and the holding of J. Vaughn Walker's District Court all sitting side by side on the books.  The Supreme Court of the United States settled nothing in regard to any of these laws either.  What has changed is that California's Governor has issued an order that marriage licenses be issued to same-sex couples.  See more.  It is not unlikely that a town clerk may refuse to obey that order in light of the legal conundrum that remains in the state, beginning litigation all over again (more on that in a future post).

4.      The Supreme Court of the United States did not find a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  Although oral arguments and briefs laid out the best point of view for redefining marriage before the Court, those claims did not persuade justices to strike down state marriage laws or create a new federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The Court did not declare same-sex marriage to be a federal civil right, and it did not rule to protect same-sex marriage as the Constitution protects race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity.

5.      Children and their best interests were not a factor in the recent decisions.  They can still be intentionally denied a father or a mother, or be removed from an otherwise stable environment.  The focus of each case was on the rights of adults.  

6.      The critical role of man-woman marriage is not diminished by these rulings. The essential need for children to have both a married mother and father is not lessened by the opinions.

7.      Religious freedom is still entangled and endangered in the battle to expand marriage and deconstruct the family.  Adoption agencies, churches, florists, bakers, photographers, and parents remain subject to state laws on marriage.

8.      American culture remains confused about marriage and family.  God's design for marriage, sexuality, the family, and parenting remains the moral compass for law and culture.  Your marriage and your family remain the most important component of a strong society.

9.      Adoption was protected as the legal formation of a family, particularly when that family was never formed, even though the federal code contains protections against the deconstruction of Native American families (more on this in a future post).

10.  The debate will continue over marriage expansion and family deconstruction.

            Family restoration remains a daunting task in light of each of these rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States.  That is why it is all the more true that you and I have a new opportunity to shine light on a confused culture.  Recommit your efforts to your own marriage, your own children, and your own family.  Damage may not be able to be undone, but you can begin anew by placing the interests of those you love above you own interests.  

            Our next posts will discuss the federal case, U.S. v. Windsor, more in detail; then the California case, Hollingsworth v. Perry; then Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.  It is important to understand the rulings in each case, and how they affect your family, and family restoration.

Marriage Before the Supreme Court

The oral arguments are over and now marriage is before the Supreme Court of the United States, in two separate but related cases that will make a difference in the direction of marriage in America. Perry v. Hollingsworth, the California Proposition 8 challenge to voters' ability to define marriage for their state, and Windsor v. U.S., the New York same-sex union case that is challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act regarding a federal definition of marriage, will both likely have profound effects on the future direction of marriage. You can listen to the oral arguments here.

I have joined several law professors in an amicus brief to the High Court in Perry on behalf of four different organizations of black pastors and faith based groups, asking the Court to uphold California's definition of marriage. You can view that here. And I have also joined several law professors in another brief in Windsor and you can view that here. These cases could potentially redefine marriage for every state, regardless of current state law or state constitutional provisions. Several briefs have been filed in the Windsor case. See the Jurist.org article at http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/02/three-briefs-filed-with-supreme-court-in-case-challenging-doma.php

Though the federal government is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant in Perry, the Proposition 8 case, the Obama administration filed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its brief, the U.S. Department of Justice asked the court to strike down California's marriage law as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You can find that brief here.

Last month the Illinois Senate approved same sex marriage, noting that the state will recognize same sex marriage and afford it full faith and credit regardless of the federal rule in DOMA. See it at http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/02/illinois-senate-approves-same-sex-marriage-bill.php.

The United Kingdom has also set out a plan for "equal marriage," outlining a proposal for marriage to be available to any parties who wish to enter into such a union. Read more about that at http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/9585.aspx . To read the text of the proposed legislation read here. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0126/cbill_2012-20130126_en_6.htm#sch6-pt2 In France citizens are protesting the French president's plan to legalize same sex marriage to allow couples to adopt and conceive children, stating that they "have nothing against different ways of living, but we think a child must grow up with a mother and a father." Meanwhile, an individual has filed a lawsuit to be married to his donkey: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/does-the-law-love-an-ass/ .

New directions for marriage are ahead; the question is whether they will foster family restoration, or family deconstruction.

Strengthen and Protect Marriage because Marriage Strengthens and Protects Us

Protecting and strengthening marriage is important because marriage strengthens and protects us.  The work of The Alliance Defending Freedom, a network of attorneys protecting freedom and family, is important to liberty and freedom in America.  Marriage is one of those liberties.  Watch this video to see how marriage is being undermined –  by our own government – and what Alliance Defending Freedom is doing, with your help, to strengthen and protect marriage in our nation. The Battle to Defend Marriage is Far From Over You've already heard about the increasing attacks on marriage in our nation. But did you know that same-sex activists have launched more than 20 lawsuits against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in an attempt to force their redefinition of marriage on you? Congress enacted DOMA because marriage serves an essential public purpose — to legally attach mothers and fathers to their children and to each other. Despite the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society, the Obama Administration is siding with these activists by refusing to defend DOMA in the courts. Alliance Defending Freedom and our allies have stepped in to fight for marriage on your behalf, and will be defending one of the most important marriage cases in history before the U.S. Supreme Court this March. ©Alliance Defending Freedom

Family Restoration Means Marriage Stability - Not Marriage Expansion

Marriage as the foundation for strong families has been under incredible stress for a few decades in the form of what is largely known as family breakdown, but now it faces some high profile challenges, despite the express democratic and judicial process.

The President and Department of Justice unilaterally decided that they would no longer execute the laws of the United States and will no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which this blog discussed earlier, overstepping basic constitutional principles of authority.

A new Institute of Marriage and Public Policy (iMAPP) policy brief by William C. Duncan concludes the majority of courts, as well as the majority of Americans, have rejected the idea that same-sex marriage is a right. For a summary of court decisions over the last decade, click here or go to www.marriagedebate.com.   

Rhodes Island (see http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText11/HouseText11/H5012.pdf) Maryland, and Hawaii intend to sign into law new legislation to endorse same sex unions (see http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/02/other_states_may_extend_rights.html).

The majority of residents in most jurisdictions see the harmful consequences of marriage expansion for family stability.  Opponents in Rhode Island understand that protection for those opposing same sex marriage for religious reasons are inadequate, noting that a marriage counselor will not have the personal or professional freedom to refuse to work with same sex couples.

Despite the fact that 90 percent of the states protect marriage as the union only between one man and one woman, the Obama administration has chosen to please advocates of same sex interests, abandoning its duty to the American people. This decision could impact every pending marriage case, including the current legal effort to defend California's Proposition 8, and will have serious ramifications for the future of marriage in America.

Concern for family stability is important for most Americans because restoring strong families to our society will determine the future of the nation.  Where marriage has been expanded toward same sex unions a domino effect of further cultural and societal breakdown seems to follow. 

Read more about this research at Lynne Marie Kohm, The Collateral Effects of Civil Unions on Family Law, 11 Widener J. Pub. L. 451 (2002); and Lynne Marie Kohm, Megan Lindsey, and William Catoe, International Examination of Same Sex Parent Adoption, 5 Regent U. J. Int'l L. 237 (2007)(presented at the International Family Law Society European Regional Conference, Chester, England, July 2007).

Defense of Marriage Act - Suddenly Unconstitutional?

The United States Justice Department has just announced today that it will no longer defend the federal law on marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),  in legal challanges, by order of the President, according to a New York Times article.  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?_r=1&hp
In fact, the Justice Department sent this letter to Speaker Boehner by way of notice of these new events.http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/23/attorney-general-declares-doma-unconstitutional/.

This move is unprecedented - and impossible.  DOMA — the 1996 law voted on by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton - allows states to define marriage and not afford legal recognition to out of state same sex marriages, civil unions, nor domestic partnerships.  The Justice Department, however, is required to defend federal legislation when constitutionally challenged.  Such a law cannot be unilaterally disabled, and determined unconstitutional, but must be adjudicated to be unconstitutional only after an evidentiary showing and a judicial determination.  No legal challenge to date has held DOMA to be unconstitutional, and a President has no executive authority to do so.

This sudden move does not favor family restoration, but marriage deconstruction, and will not stand as authority in any way.

For more info see Obama Administration Will No Longer Defend Ban on Gay Marriage in Court.

[Thanks to the many contributors of this piece including Scott Lambert, Eric Welsh, and Myung Hee Park.]