County Judge Upholds TN Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Tennessee law case summary on same-sex marriage family law from the Court of Appeals.

Frederick Michael Borman v.  Larry Kevin Pyles-Borman – Tennessee divorce same sex marriage

In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court decided Varnum v. Brien, in which the Iowa high court held that the state’s prohibition against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.  Therefore, staring in 2009, same-sex couples were allowed to marry in the Hawkeye State.  And since Iowa has no residency requirement for marriage licenses, couples residing in other states are allowed to marry there.

On August 13, 2010, Frederick Michael Borman and Larry Kevin Pyles-Borman were married in Iowa.   Both men were residents of Rockwood, Tennessee, at the time of their marriage.

In 2014, Frederick decided he wanted to be divorced.  This presented a problem, since both he and Larry were still residents of Tennessee.  Iowa, like most states, imposes a residency requirement for persons seeking a divorce in the state.  As a Tennessee judge later succinctly worded it, “you do not have to be a resident of Iowa to be married there, but you do have to be a resident of Iowa to be divorced there.”

Frederick went to court in Tennessee before that judge, Roane County Circuit Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr., and asked for the right to be divorced in Tennessee.  The Tennessee Constitution, however, does not allow individuals of the same sex to be married.  In addition, Tennessee law provides that the state does not recognize same sex marriages from other states.  Such a marriage is void and unenforceable in Tennessee.

The plaintiff argued that this anti-recognition provision of Tennessee law violated the U.S. Constitution.  In particular, he argued that it violated Equal Protection because it treats valid same-sex marriages as a special class singled out for disadvantage, with no legitimate basis.  He also argued that it violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because it declared a valid Iowa marriage to be void and unenforceable in Tennessee.

Judge Simmons turned first to the Equal Protection argument.  After examining some of the relevant precedents, the Judge noted that the anti-recognition laws did not single out only same-sex marriages.   For example, an out-of-state marriage within a prohibited degree of relationship, or a second marriage before the dissolution of a first marriage, would also be subject to non-recognition in Tennessee.

The court agreed that marriage was a fundamental right.  However, neither the Tennessee Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court had ever decided that this fundamental right extended beyond the traditional definition of marriage, the judge reasoned.

Judge Simmons also noted that the definition of marriage should be the prerogative of each State.  Neither the Federal Government nor another state should be able to dictate to Tennessee this traditional responsibility.

The State of Tennessee had filed a brief in the case, and Judge Simmons agreed with the State’s position that there was a rational basis for the distinction between traditional and same-sex marriages, in that it reflected the considered judgment of the voters of the state, as reflected in the State Constitution.

Judge Simmons then turned to the Full Faith and Credit argument.  That clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the other states.  However, Judge Simmons noted that this clause has never been construed in such a way that one state must apply another state’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.  In this case, he found that Iowa law was so diametrically opposed to Tennessee’s laws and public policy, that Tennessee was not required under the Constitution to give full faith and credit to the Iowa marriage.

For these reasons, Judge Simmons held that the Tennessee laws in question did not violate the U.S. Constitution.

No. 2014CV36 (Roane County, TN, Circuit Court Aug. 5, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see the Marriage category in this blog.