Stating there is no “sufficient … doubt” about the validity of a same-sex couple’s marriage from the date of its celebration, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has declined to answer a reported question about whether Maine’s former anti-marriage law delayed the validity of a couple’s marriage licensed in Massachusetts.

The specific issue in Kinney v. Busch was whether Maine’s 1997 anti-marriage law had the effect of making the marriage of a same-sex couple from Maine who married in Massachusetts in 2008 a non-entity until Maine’s equal marriage initiative law went into effect in 2012. Elizabeth Kinney sought a divorce from Tanya Busch in 2013. The question of the effective date of their marriage –when licensed in 2008 or when Maine’s law became effective 2012 – matters to what counts as martial property in the divorce proceedings.

According to Mary L. Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, co-counsel in the case at the Law Court, “the U.S. Supreme Court wiped away any lingering effect of state anti-marriage laws to people who have pending cases or proceedings. The Law Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell to say that there is no “substantial doubt” about the legal question, and quoted that ruling to the effect that: ‘[T]here is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.’ Marriages of same-sex couples lawfully joined are valid – period – and that rule applies to any pending civil case or proceeding.”

Kinney’s divorce attorney, Tammy Ham-Thompson of Farris Law, previously won a trial court ruling that the marriage was valid as of the date it was entered. It was that legal ruling that prompted Busch to seek a report on the legal question from the Law Court. Attorney Ham-Thompson said, “This provides certainty and clarity for the courts, the public and our clients. There is no legal basis for resurrecting Maine’s old anti-marriage and perpetuating its injustices against same-sex couples.”

The Supreme Judicial Court’s order discharges the “report” requesting a legal ruling because the answer to the legal question is already clear.

Nolan Reichl, along with Catherine R. Connors at Pierce Atwood LLP was also appellate counsel and argued the case. Attorney Reichl stated: “We had two strong arguments. First, the Maine law lifting the previous ban provides that marriages must be recognized “for all purposes.” Recognizing a marriage for purposes of divorce means recognizing all of the marriage from when it began. Second, it is black letter law that constitutional rulings in civil cases are retroactively applied to pending cases.

Busch’s argument simply tried to breathe life into a discriminatory ban that Maine voters repealed in 2012 and is the type of law invalidated by the Supreme Court in Obergefell.”

GLAD’s Bonauto noted an amici curiae brief of “Governor John Baldacci and Concerned Maine Lawyers” filed urging the Court to reject the attempt to resurrect Maine’s discriminatory law against same-sex couples. It also explained that an answer was important because the “date of marriage” issue would affect open matters ranging from public benefits like state pensions and social security, to estate, probate and tax issues, to parental rights and child support.

The reported question that was discharged is:

May property acquired between October 14, 2008 and December 29, 2012, by a same-sex couple married in the State of Massachusetts on October 14, 2008, be treated as marital property for the purposes of a divorce action filed on January 18, 2013?

The order was issued on October 13, 2015. The briefs in the case, including briefing on the effect of Obergefell, are available on GLAD’s website.

Today, the Maine Law Court heard oral argument in a pending divorce case between two women on a legal question reported to them for decision from the Maine District Court.  The question is:
May property acquired between October 14, 2008 and December 29, 2012, by a same-sex couple married in the State of Massachusetts on October 14, 2008, be treated as marital property for the purposes of a divorce action filed on January 18, 2013?

Together with the law firm of Pierce Atwood LLP and Farris Law, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders represents Kinney who argues that her marriage was valid in Maine from day one.  Busch counters that argument by pointing to the anti-marriage law enacted in Maine in 1997, prohibiting such marriages, remained in effect until December 29, 2012, the effective date of the Maine voter initiative repealing the old law and allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Kinney’s argument for validity is two-fold.  First, the law Maine voters enacted at the ballot in 2012 specifically accorded recognition to existing marriages validly licensed elsewhere.  When Kinney filed her divorce action in January 2013, the previous bar on recognition had been lifted.  And since the Maine referendum said marriages were to be recognized “for all purposes,” it would be nonsensical to recognize a marriage partially or on some date other than when it was licensed and certified.  Busch counters that this is a retroactive application of the law – something Maine disfavors.  To the contrary, Kinney is applying the law as it exists now to her pending action and in line with the mandate passed by the voters.

Second, while the text of the 2012 law provides the answer to the reported question, there is an additional argument based on the Supreme Court’s June 2015 ruling in Obergefell kont Hodges.  When the Supreme Court announces a new constitutional rule in a civil case, as it did in holding that state marriage bans and recognition bans violate the Constitution, that rule is applied to pending cases like Kinney’s.  Stated another way, constitutional rulings in civil cases are retroactively applied to pending cases. Busch’s argument simply seeks to breathe life into a discriminatory ban that Maine voters repealed in 2012 and which was of a kind that the Supreme Court invalidated this year.  That doubly defunct law can provide no recourse for Busch.

One issue of contention at oral argument today was whether the case is now properly before the Court, or whether these arguments must be advanced after trial.  Maine allows a “report” of a legal issue in certain instances, including where there is an important public issue.  Although Busch’s attorney sought the report, Kinney agrees it is an important question since there is no authoritative answer in Maine to this question, and it can affect open matters ranging from public benefits like state pensions and social security, to estate, probate and tax issues, to parental rights and child support.

Appellate counsel for Kinney include Tammy Ham-Thompson of Farris Law, who also represents Elisabeth in the District Court, Catherine R. Connors and Nolan Riechl of Pierce Atwood LLP, and Mary L. Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.  Attorney Riechl presented oral argument to the Court.

Ou kapab listen to a recording of the argument now at the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s website. The recording will be available for two weeks.

The briefs in the case, including briefing on the effect of Obergefell, are available here.

Maine adopte yon lwa dènye kri ki klarifye kiyès ki yon paran legal – kit se sou entansyon pou elve yon timoun, maryaj oswa konsidere yon timoun kòm pwòp pitit ou, swen ak responsablite alontèm, oswa jenetik. Toulede chanm lejislati Maine yo te vote nan dat 30 jen pou anile veto Gouvènè LePage la pou yo te ka pase LD 1017/SP 358, "Lwa sou Parante Maine," an lwa. Li pral antre an vigè 1ye jiyè 2016.

Lwa sa a ki gen yon gwo enpak bay priyorite a responsablite paran yo ak estabilite pou jèn ak timoun yo.

Nou konnen fòm fanmi yo divès: fanm selibatè ki akouche plis pase 40% timoun Ozetazini chak ane epi koup menm sèks (ak moun LGBT) pami moun ki itilize repwodiksyon ak asistans medikal ak aranjman pou pote yon enfant jestasyonèl pou fè epi nouri pwochen jenerasyon an.

Moun LGBT endividyèl yo, koup menm sèks yo ansanm ak pitit nou yo se pami moun ki pral benefisye anpil de lejislasyon dènye kri sa a.

Paske lalwa a pa anreta parapò ak reyalite lavi familyal la, dosye GLAD la toujou prezante ka tris sou pwoteksyon relasyon paran-pitit nan fanmi ki pa gen lyen matrimonyal oswa jenetik, oubyen viktwa ki louvri nouvo chemen pou vin paran, tankou titèl ansanm, paran de facto ak adopsyon ansanm. Litij kontwovèsyal "gaykan an pran tout" sou kiyès ki yon "paran" ka deranje relasyon etabli ke timoun yo konte sou yo.

Lwa sa a ki gen yon gwo enpak bay priyorite a responsablite paran yo ak estabilite pou jèn ak timoun yo.

Komisyon Konseye sou Lwa Fanmi an (FLAC), yon gwoup nonmen pa lejislatif la ki rekòmande mizajou pou lwa fanmi Maine yo, te chwazi avoka GLAD Mary Bonauto, ansanm ak avoka Margaret Lavoie, Brenda Buchanan, Judith Berry, Juliet Holmes-Smith ak travayè sosyal Frank Brooks pou sèvi nan yon soukomite redaksyon pou mete ajou lwa Maine yo sou parante. Ko-prezide pa Jij Wayne Douglas ak anplwaye jidisyè Diane Kenty, komite redaksyon an te fè anpil konsiltasyon e avèk dezan efò te elabore yon pwojè lwa ke FLAC te apwouve epi soumèt bay lejislati a.

Paske lalwa a an reta parapò ak reyalite lavi familyal la, dosye GLAD la toujou prezante ka tris sou pwoteksyon relasyon paran-pitit nan fanmi ki pa gen lyen matrimonyal oswa jenetik, oubyen viktwa ki louvri nouvo chemen pou vin paran, tankou titèl ansanm, paran de facto ak adopsyon ansanm.

Anba nouvo lwa a, tout timoun dwe gen menm dwa yo devan lalwa san yo pa konsidere eta sivil oswa sèks paran yo oswa sikonstans nesans timoun nan. Li rekonèt eksplisitman ke pou prezève yon relasyon paran-pitit ki deja egziste, tribinal yo ka deklare ke yon timoun gen plis pase de paran. Akòz atansyon yo mete sou prezève relasyon ki deja egziste yo, yon moun ki gen yon relasyon jenetik ak yon timoun pa toujou ka ranplase yon paran ki deja egziste sou baz jenetik sèlman.

Lalwa a fòmalize tou relasyon legal paran-pitit nan fanmi selibatè osi byen ke nan fanmi ki gen paran marye ak fanmi ki pa marye. Li klarifye epi konfime baz ki egziste deja pou patènite - nesans, adopsyon, rekonesans volontè patènite, jijman sou patènite jenetik ak jijman sou patènite de facto. Li rekonèt yon prezompsyon patènite pou koup marye ak koup ki pa marye, epi an sa ki konsène koup ki pa marye, li egzije responsablite paran demontre nan men moun k ap chèche patènite ki baze sou konsèp "kenbe tèt ou kòm paran" ki itilize nan kèk lòt eta. Li rekonèt tou patènite timoun ki fèt nan paran ki itilize repwodiksyon asisté medikalman ak akò pòtè jestasyonèl.

Sa a se premye lwa nan Maine ki adrese kesyon parante pa repwodiksyon asisté. Tankou nan anpil lòt eta, paran ki gen entansyon an oswa paran ki itilize yon donatè ze, espèm oswa anbriyon se paran timoun nan, epi nan Maine sa a vre kit paran ki gen entansyon an marye oswa ou pa.

Lalwa egzije yon "konsantman" fòmèl pou etabli parante legal nan kontèks sa a, epi yon moun ki bay ovul, espèm oswa anbriyon an ka yon paran lè tout pati yo dakò alekri. Li etabli tou egzijans strik pou moun ki pote jèstasyonèl ak akò sou moun ki pote jèstasyonèl. Lè yo respekte estanda sa yo, parante legal la vin pou paran ki gen entansyon yo epi non pa pou moun ki pote jèstasyonèl la. Lalwa pèmèt tou matènite pou ranplase "tradisyonèl" nan kontèks limite. Yon jij ka deklare parante legal anvan oswa apre nesans timoun nan.

Moun LGBT endividyèl yo, koup menm sèks yo ansanm ak pitit nou yo se pami moun ki pral benefisye anpil de lejislasyon dènye kri sa a.