Alliance Defending Freedom: It’s days away: The Supreme Court’s marriage decision is expected to come down on June 29.
Legislative Gazette: “Brian Raum, an attorney for the defendant, the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Arizona-based legal group, claimed since marriage is recognized as a man and woman in New York state, the common law marriage precedent does not apply. Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal, who argued the marriage recognition in the cases on behalf of same-sex couples, argued that it does apply.”
Joanna L. Grossman writing at FindLaw: “The plaintiffs in these cases(a group of Westchester taxpayers in one case, and a group of New York State taxpayers represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, in the other) claimed that the governmental directives are illegal because, they say, they are inconsistent with New York state law. Two same-sex couples who are legally married in another jurisdiction were permitted to intervene in the case to defend the directives.”
Catholic Courier: “‘State and local officials should not use marriage laws from outside jurisdictions to subvert the legislature,’ ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum said in a statement. ‘We are disappointed that the court did not address the real issue in this case: whether New York law requires the recognition of same-sex “marriages” from outside the state. In New York, the only relationship recognized as marriage is the committed union of a man and a woman.’”
RocNow.com: “‘In New York, the only relationship recognized as marriage is the committed union of a man and a woman,’ the group’s counsel, Brian Raum, said in a statement. ‘State and local officials should not attempt to use marriage laws from outside jurisdictions to place their political agendas ahead of the law.’”
Outcome Buffalo: “The ruling comes in cases in which Lambda Legal intervened on behalf of two married same-sex couples after the Alliance Defense Fund, an antigay legal group, tried to do away with longstanding New York law recognizing out-of-state marriages.”
New York’s highest court did not address the central issue in a ruling Thursday on two lawsuits that challenged the state’s attempt to recognize out-of-state same-sex “marriages” by state and county officials, say attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund who brought the suits.
Associated Press: “The lawsuit challenged the granting of those benefits by the state Civil Service Department and Westchester County, and was upheld in a lower court. The lower court’s ruling was challenged by the Alliance Defense Fund, which has challenged similar decisions nationwide.”
USA Today (AP): “New York’s top court on Thursday rejected a Christian legal group’s challenge to some government benefits provided to same-sex couples legally married elsewhere and now living in New York . . . There was no immediate comment from the Alliance Defense Fund or Empire State Pride Agenda, a leading advocate for gay rights in New York.”
“New York’s top court today upheld the rights of Westchester County and the state to legally extend benefits to same-sex couples married in other states . . . The Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz. argued that since same-sex marriage is not legal in New York, state and local governments should not extend equal benefits to gay couples . . . The Court of Appeals rejected the challenges by the Alliance Defense Fund, but was split on their reasons why.”