One favorable marriage equality ruling was rendered by a state court in Missouri this week. That ruling came on Friday afternoon.
From Freedom To Marry:
Today, October 3, Missouri Circuit Court Judge J. Dale Youngs ruled that marriages between same-sex couples legally performed in other states must be respected in Missouri. The ruling is the 41st ruling in favor of the freedom to marry since June 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the core of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.
The ruling comes just days after an oral argument in the case, Barrier v. Vasterling, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and PROMO, a statewide organization committed to working toward equality for LGBT Missourians. The case involved eight married same-sex couples seeking respect for their marriage where they live, in Missouri. One of the couples, Zuleyma and Arlene, have been together for more than 30 years.
You can read more about this ruling in sfbob's diary
here.
There was no word from the SCOTUS this week with regard to whether or not the justices will take a marriage equality case this term. The next day that we may find out is next Monday. The Court will announce a list of cases (most of them will likely be cert. denials). SCOTUSblog has been keeping interested folks up to date on what is happening at SCOTUS with regard to the marriage equality cases. This paragraph at the end of one of their blog posts pretty much describes the issue/process.
For any member of the public anxious to see the uncertainty end, however, there are no guarantees. In fact, the Court could agree to review the marriage controversy any time up to the middle of January, and still get out a final decision before the end of the current Term, late next June.
And, the Equality Case Files tweet below reminds us that the Windsor and Prop 8 cases were distributed for multiple conferences before being (finally) granted. So, we may have to be patient even though the waiting can be difficult.
Quite a few legal briefs have been filed around the country in various marriage equality cases. You can read analysis of a number of them at Equality On Trial. However, I did want to mention one brief from an Alabama mother who does not want marriage equality legalized because she does not want her son's spouse (although, she does not recognize their marriage) to receive the settlement in his wrongful death suit. It's pretty amazing (not in a good way).
From JMG:
Last month an Alabama woman filed a Supreme Court amicus brief in support of Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. Pat Fancher does not want same-sex marriage to be legalized because if that happens, her former son-in-law would be entitled to the money awarded in the wrongful death suit filed against the trucking company whose driver killed his husband. And God wants her to get that money as today's demand for a summary judgment in Alabama's marriage suit makes very clear.
Here is the story (also from JMG):
Hard said hospital workers refused to provide him any information about Fancher's condition after the accident. A receptionist told him that he was not a member of Fancher's family and that gay marriages were not recognized in Alabama. Hard learned from a hospital orderly that Fancher had died after about a half-hour of trying to get information. A funeral home director later insisted that Fancher's death certificate indicate Fancher was never married, citing state law. "If I can spare one other person that kind of indigity and hurt, I would do it," Hard said after filing his lawsuit. "If I can let people know how this law unjustly and cruelly affects people, I will do it. And ultimately I hope that these laws are overturned so that it now longer can give folks permission to treat Americans as second-class citizens." Hard, 55, who teaches counseling and psychotherapy at Auburn University Montgomery, is also seeking to have Fancher's death certificate changed to say that he was married.
Here is the relevant paragraph in her brief filed in district court in Alabama:
Pat Fancher is the mother of the deceased, David Fancher. Under current Alabama law regarding intestate succession Ms. Fancher is the next of kin and mother to David Fancher. Plaintiff Hard requests in the Prayer for Relief of his Complaint that this Court issue an injunction “without regard” to the state of Alabama’s Marriage Protection Act or the state of Alabama’s Constitutional Provisions regarding the sanctity of marriage. This requested injunction asks this Court to prevent the Executor of David Fancher’s estate from distributing the potential wrongful death proceeds to David Fancher’s mother, Pat Fancher, and give over one half of those proceeds to Paul Hard who alleges a claim to a “spousal share.” This claim is contrary to Alabama state law. It is Defendant Fancher’s opinion that Plaintiff’s requested injunction, if granted, will violate the millennia-old institution of marriage as ordained by God.