Area attorney Sarah Ivy addresses questions on the impact of Friday's Supreme Court ruling on churches, employers and more.
Now that Friday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, many questions may remain for folks on both sides of the issue.
To learn more about what Friday's ruling may mean -- and what questions remain unanswered -- PennLive reached out to attorney Sarah K. Ivy, a 1998 Dickinson School of Law graduate who practices with the McNees, Wallace and Nurrick law firm in the area of employer benefits, including how they relate to same-sex partners.
"There are a lot of positives resulting from the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage," Ivy said. "However, there is likely going to be a great deal of litigation to resolve some of the uncertainties left in the ruling's wake."
Here is what Ivy had to say in a Q & A with PennLive:
Q: Can anyone get married within the U.S. now?
A: The Supreme Court's ruling appears to indicate that anyone can get married anywhere in the United States. However, there are already a few states (Mississippi and Louisiana) pushing back and delaying the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses until the Supreme Court issues an official mandate announcing that the ruling has taken effect. (Typically, a ruling by the Supreme Court takes effect within 25 days after the ruling is issued). A legislator in Utah has drafted legislation that would end the state's issuance of marriage licenses altogether.
Further, same-sex couples might not be able to get married everywhere, as some churches, temples and other religious institutions are likely to seek religious exemptions from the Supreme Court ruling. It not clear whether these religious exemptions will stand up under the Constitution, but in states where gay marriage is already legal, some churches and religious leaders have retained the freedom to reject same-sex vows.
Q: What does this ruling mean to churches that may object to same-sex marriage? Will they have to perform the ceremony and recognize those marriages?
A: See above. The answer to this question is unclear. Again, most states that allowed gay marriages before the Supreme Court's ruling also provided religious exemptions. In addition, the 1st Amendment guarantees people the right to free expression, which could include expressing objections to same-sex marriage by not providing marriage services. The extent to which services can be denied and by whom will likely depend on future challenges to the law and more court rulings.
Q: Are businesses affected by the law, such as wedding planners and florists who may object, or other businesses that may not want to serve same-sex couples in some way?
A: We have already seen instances where a business has refused to provide services to same-sex couples and in those cases, the couples won because the court held it illegal to deny services to someone based on sexual orientation. The effect of the Supreme Court's ruling on this issue is unclear at this time. It is likely that future lawsuits will influence business owners and couples seeking services related to same-sex wedding ceremonies.
Q: Would companies that are faith-based, like some hospitals and colleges, be forced to provide spousal health-care benefits for same-sex couples?
A: Companies with religious objections or religious-based employers could choose not to offer benefits to spouses altogether. Or they could self-insure and attempt to offer benefits to only straight spouses, but they run a high risk of discrimination lawsuits. (See response to next question).
Q. Would everyone who provides spousal benefits provide them for same-sex couples?
A: Among other things, the decision will have the following effect on employer health and welfare plans:
- Public sector employers (state and local governments) will be required to recognize same-sex spouses and treat them the same as opposite-sex spouses if spousal benefits are offered. (There is no requirement that employers offer spousal benefits, however).
- Private employers will not be required to recognize same-sex spouses, nor provide equal treatment, however, employers refusing to recognize same-sex spouses could face discrimination lawsuits.
- With this decision, to the extent state insurance law requires coverage of same-sex spouses when spousal coverage is offered, a plan will not be able to purchase insured coverage that excludes same-sex spouses.
- Self-insured plans in the private sector are not required to comply with state and local laws affecting plan administration (i.e., ERISA preempts these laws) and, therefore, sponsors of those plans will have more flexibility in deciding whether to offer coverage to same-sex spouses. However, self-insured plan sponsors that don't offer benefits to same-sex spouses, may still be at increased risk of claims of discrimination (as noted above).
Where employers are required to offer same-sex spousal benefits on the same terms as those offered to opposite-sex spouses, we may see employers eliminating spousal coverage altogether.
It is worth noting that we could see an end to domestic partner benefits now that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. Domestic partner benefits were added primarily to provide coverage to same-sex domestic partners. Some employers extend domestic partner benefits to opposite sex domestic partners. Now, with the Supreme Court's ruling, employers may find it less administratively burdensome and more economical to eliminate domestic partner coverage and offer coverage only to married couples.
Q: What about parenthood? If one partner has a child, are there assumed parental rights with the other? How is divorce law affected?
A: According to Debra Cantor, a member of McNees Wallace & Nurick's Family Law Group, there are portions of the Divorce Code which will need to be changed as part of the law.
For example, for purposes of the termination of alimony or as a complete bar to alimony, cohabitation is defined as cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex who is not a member of the family within the degrees of consanguinity. This will need to be amended or changed under the new ruling.
With respect to parental rights, we do not believe that anyone will automatically become the parent of a child. In order to assume parenthood, some formal mechanism will likely need to occur. Just because someone marries does not somehow mean their new spouse is the parent of their child. However, if a same sex couple was married in a different state and had a child there, I believe all states will need to recognize the marriage and the parenthood established in that state.
There will be a lot of things which will arise with this new ruling and I expect that family lawyers, the bench and the legislature will need to adjust a bit to make our statutes comply with the law.