Northern Ireland Appeals Court Says Humanist Wedding Officiants Are Permitted

In In re Laura Smyth, (NI Ct. App., June 28, 2018), the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal held that the General Register Office should have granted a license under the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 to a marriage celebrant to perform a Humanist marriage ceremony for a couple seeking it. Northern Ireland's marriage law has separate provisions for civil marriages and religious marriages. The appeals court held that it would violate the European Convention on Human Rights' conscience protections (Art. 9) and its anti-discrimination provisions (Art. 14) to deny the license.  The Humanist officiant should be licensed under the Section 31 of the Marriage Order. While that provision is usually the basis for appointing a person to solemnize a civil marriage, the Marriage Order should be read to allow the Humanist officiant to conduct a ceremony that includes readings supporting or promoting humanist beliefs. The full text of the decision is not yet available online, but a lengthy court-authorized Summary of Judgment is available. Irish Legal News reports on the decision.

New Jersey Legislature Again Votes To Ban All Marriages For Those Under 18

Yesterday the New Jersey legislature gave final passage to S-427 (full text). The bill prohibits persons under age 18 from entering into a marriage or civil union.  The bill eliminates the provisions in current law that allow persons to marry with parental consent at age 16 or with judicial approval at a younger age.  New Jersey Law Journal says that it is unclear whether Gov. Phil Murray will sign the bill.  Last year then-Governor Christie vetoed a similar bill, saying that without some exceptions it would violate religiously-based customs of some communities. (See prior posting.)

Suit Seeks Recognition of Non-Religious Wedding Officiants

A suit was filed last week by Center for Inquiry, a secular humanist organization, challenging the limits in Michigan law that prevent secular celebrants from officiating at weddings in the state.  CFI among other things trains individuals how to solemnize marriage ceremonies consistent with secular principles.  The complaint (full text) in Center for Inquiry, Inc. v. Lyons, (WD MI, filed 5/31/2018) contends:

Michigan law, Mich. Comp. Laws § 551.7, which allows people to be married by the religious leaders of their choice, while denying these opportunities to plaintiffs, creates a preference for religion over non-religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution....

The complaint also alleges equal protection violations.  CFI issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

No Spousal Privilege When Only Religious Marriage Was Entered

In Springfield, Massachusetts, a state trial court judge has ruled that the ex-wife of Ayyub Abdul-Alim may testify against him in his trial on firearms charges.  As reported by MassLive, the judge held inapplicable here the normal rule that bars a witness from testifying to private conversations with her spouse that occurred during their marriage. The parties were married in an Islamic religious ceremony, but never obtained a state-issued marriage certificate.  The court said:

While the court acknowledges that a marriage between the defendant and Ms. Stewart took place in the religious sense, there is no evidence that this marriage was sanctioned by the state through the fulfillment of the legal requirements.

India Supreme Court Affirms Right To Choose Religion and Marriage Partner

In Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (India Sup. Ct., April 9, 2018), a 3-judge panel of India's Supreme Court, in 61 pages of opinions, set aside a High Court's order that had annulled the marriage of a 26-year old student who had converted to Islam in order to marry. The court strongly affirmed the right of individuals to choose their religious faith and their marriage partner. The court's opinion by Chief Justice Misra said in part

It is obligatory to state here that expression of choice in accord with law is acceptance of individual identity. Curtailment of that expression ... destroy the individualistic entity of a person.  The social values and morals have their space  but they are not above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom.  The said freedom is both a constitutional and a human right. Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible.  Faith of a person is intrinsic to his/her meaningful existence.  To have the freedom of faith is essential to his/her autonomy....

In the case at hand, the father ... may feel that there has been enormous transgression of his right to protect the interest of his daughter but his view point or position cannot be allowed to curtail the fundamental rights of his daughter who, out of her own volition, married the appellant.

A concurring opinion by Justice Chandrachud added:

The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life.... Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe are at the core of constitutional liberty. The Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics. The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity.... Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners. 

One India and The Hindu report on the decision.

India Supreme Court Orders Protection For Inter-Religious Marriages

In Vahini v. Union of India, (India Sup. Ct., March 27, 2018), a 3-judge panel of the India Supreme Court in a 54-page opinion ordered India's central government and its state governments to take various measures to prevent assemblies of Khap Panchayats -- community assemblies that decide to take steps to prevent inter-caste or inter-religious marriages through violence or honor killing. The court ordered state governments to identify areas where honor killings or Khap Pahchayats have been reported in the last 5 years, and take special steps in those areas.  Authorities are to warn against action when they receive a tip.  The court went on:

Despite taking such measures, if the meeting is conducted, the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall personally remain present during the meeting and impress upon the assembly that no decision can be taken to cause any harm to the couple or the family members of the couple, failing which each one participating in the meeting besides the organisers would be personally liable for criminal prosecution. He shall also ensure that video recording of the discussion and participation of the members of the assembly is done on the basis of which the law enforcing machinery can resort to suitable action....

Despite the preventive measures taken by the State Police, if it comes to the notice of the local police that the Khap Panchayat has taken place and it has passed any diktat to take action against a couple/family of an inter-caste or inter-religious marriage (or any other marriage which does not meet their acceptance), the jurisdictional police official shall cause to immediately lodge an F.I.R. under the appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code....

Additionally, immediate steps should be taken to provide security to the couple/family and, if necessary, to remove them to a safe house within the same district or elsewhere keeping in mind their safety and threat perception.

India Today reports on the decision.

Denial of Spousal Health Benefits Because of Religious-Only Ceremony May Violate Equal Protection Clause

In Ali v. Cooper, (ND CA, Jan. 30, 2018), a California federal district court refused to dismiss an equal protection claim by an employee of the Alameda Housing Authority (AHA) after her husband's health insurance coverage was terminated.  The action was taken by the Executive Director (Cooper) and Director of Human Resources (Basta) because the couple were married in a Muslim solemnization ceremony without a civil marriage certificate. Plaintiff claims that the two defendants were motivated by religious animus in singling her out and invoking a rarely used obscure policy to deny coverage. The court said in part:

Plaintiff adequately states a claim for intentional discrimination on the basis of her religion under the Equal Protection Clause against Defendants Cooper and Basta. This claim, however, is inadequately pled against the AHA ... because Plaintiff does not allege that the official marriage-certificate policy itself was motivated by animus, but rather, that the Individual Defendants’ enforcement of the policy against her was motivated by animus....

There may be an argument that Defendant’s marriage-certificate policy might not be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest if it fails to recognize a marriage that lacks a civil certificate but is nevertheless legally valid. At this time, however, Plaintiff has not alleged that her marriage was legally-valid.... Additionally, Plaintiff has not alleged that the marriage-certificate policy burdens a sincerely held religious belief. Thus, at this time, this First Amendment theory is inadequately pled.

Court Rejects Challenge To Permit Denial For Outdoor Weddings

In Epona v. County of Ventura, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126533 (CD CA, Aug. 9, 2017), a California federal district court dismissed a free exercise challenge to the denial of a conditional use permit to Epona Estate  that wants to rent out its premises for outdoor weddings. Plaintiff claimed that the county selectively discriminates against weddings. (See prior related posting.)

Differential Marriage License Requirement For Foreign Born Held Unconstitutional

In Vo v. Gee, (ED LA, Aug. 8, 2017), a Louisiana federal district court granted a permanent injunction, holding unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that treats differently applicants for a marriage license who were born outside the United States from those born in the U.S. or one of its territories.  Under the law a birth certificate must be produced in order to obtain a marriage license, but those born in the U.S. may obtain a waiver of the requirement.  Those born elsewhere, such as the Vietnamese refugee who is plaintiff in the case, are not entitled to the same type of waiver and must also provide a passport or visa.  The court concluded that this violates the Equal Protection clause as well as the substantive due process right to marriage, even though a subsequent Louisiana law allows a judicial waiver of the birth certificate requirement.  Washington Post reports on the decision.

New York Governor Signs Legislation To End Child Marriage

On June 20, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed A05524 raising the minimum age at which a person may marry to 17. (Full text and vote history).  Under the bill, parental consent and court approval is required to issue a marriage license to a person between 17 and 18 years of age. Prior to enactment of this legislation, with court approval an individual as young as 14 years could marry. In a press release on signing the bill, Governor Cuomo said: "This is a major step forward in our efforts to protect children and prevent forced marriages, and I am proud to sign this legislation that puts an end to child marriage in New York once and for all." PIX 11 reports on the new legislation.

Northern Ireland Court Says Humanist Wedding Ceremonies Must Be Recognized

According to Belfast News Letter, on Friday the Belfast, Northern Ireland High Court ruled that Humanist wedding ceremonies must be recognized, and that refusal to do so violates the European Convention on Human Rights.  The ruling came in the high profile planned marriage of football star Eunan O’Kane and model Laura Lacole. Authorities had told them that they would need a separate civil ceremony for legal recognition of their marriage.  The matter may not be finally settled however. Northern Ireland's Attorney General says he plans to appeal the High Court's decision.

N.J. Governor Conditionally Vetoes Total Ban On Marriage of Minors, Citing Religious Traditions

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on May 11 vetoed Assembly Bill 3091 which would have placed an absolute ban on issuing of marriage or civil union licenses to persons under 18 years of age. His Conditional Veto message (full text) sent the bill back with recommendations for reconsideration.  the message said in part:

New Jersey law currently permits the issuance of these licenses to 16 and 17 year-olds with parental consent and to persons below age 16 with both parental consent and judicial approval....

I am recommending that this bill be amended so that a marriage license no longer be issued for a person under the age of 16.

I also would require judicial approval for the issuance of a marriage license to persons who are age 16 and 17....

An exclusion without exceptions would violate the cultures and traditions of some communities in New Jersey based on religious traditions. Judicial oversight would permit consideration of these factors in the 16 and 17 year old timeframe.

According to Politico, "almost 3,500 marriages involving at least one partner under 18 took place in New Jersey from 1995 to 2012. Of those, 163 involved at least one spouse 15 or younger. Most were religious arranged marriages."

4th Circuit Upholds City Policy Requiring Civil Marriage Certificate To Get Spousal Health Care

In Abdus-Shahid v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, (4th Cir., Jan. 4, 2017), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Baltimore's policy of requiring city employees to submit proof of their recorded civil marriage certificate to establish a spouse as eligible for health insurance coverage. Plaintiff, a civil engineer employed by the city's Department of Transportation married his wife in an Islamic religious ceremony. They did not obtain a civil marriage license, claiming that to do so would be contrary to their religious beliefs.  The court rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment free exercise claim, as well as his state constitutional and Title VII claims.

Kyrgyzstan Criminalizes Religious Marriage of Minors

According to Interfax, in Kyrgyzstan last week, President Almazbek Atambayev signed amendments to the country's Family and Criminal Codes banning religious consecration of marriages involving minors.  The new law makes it a criminal offense to enter into marriage with a minor and extends criminal punishment of 3 to 5 years in prison to both clergy and parents who participate in the religious marriage ceremony.  In recent years, increasing numbers of young girls in Kyrgyzstan have been married off in Muslim religious ceremonies, even though the marriage cannot be legally registered.

European Court Rules On Jurisdiction In Annulment Action By Third Party

Last week, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued an interpretation of European Council regulations on judicial cooperation in civil matters in the context of an extremely unusual annulment action.  Edyta Mikołajczyk (EM) is heir to the estate of Zdzisława Czarnecka (ZC), first wife of Stefan Czarnecki (SC).  SC died apparently in 2012. ZC died in 1999.  SC had remarried in 1956, to Marie Louise Czarnecka (MLC). In a suit in Poland, EM brought an action to annul SC's second marriage to MLC, claiming that SC's first marriage to ZC had not been dissolved at the time of his marriage to MLC.  If successful, this would presumably mean that EM stands to inherit a larger portion of SC's estate than otherwise.  In Mikołajczyk v. Czarnecka, (CJEU, Oct. 13, 2016), the Court of Justice held that its regulation on recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters applies to an action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party following the death of one of the spouses.  However, the Court of Justice went on to hold that under the jurisdictional provisions of the regulation, the annulment action should have been brought in France, where SC and MLC had lived, and not in Poland where EM resides. Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

Israel's Rabbinical Courts Grapple With Unrealistic Marriage Contract Terms

In Israel, an interesting contract question is being increasingly faced by state rabbinical courts that have jurisdiction over divorce actions. Traditional Jewish marriage ceremonies involve the husband signing a ketubah, or Jewish wedding contract.  The traditional form of the ketubah  includes the pledge of a sum of money which must be paid to the wife upon the husband's death or upon divorce. (Background.) Again traditionally the amount was set at "200 zuz" which has been seen as equating to around $750 (US).  However it has become a custom in Israel for grooms to demonstrate their love for their bride by inflating the amount in the ketubah by large multiples.  That is background to this report yesterday from JTA on a request from Jerusalem's regional rabbinical court to the Chief Rabbinate to limit the practice by capping the amount that can be set out in the ketubah to 1 million Israeli shekels ($264,000 US):

The unusual request earlier this month follows a divorce in which a man’s ex-wife demanded he pay her 555,555 shekels — approximately $145,000 — because that was the sum he pledged to pay on his ketubah.... Her ex-husband argued that he made the pledge as a testament of his love and appreciation for her, not thinking it would be legally binding.....  

Many grooms pledge sums they cannot afford, attaching many zeros to the number 18 – which is associated with life because of Jewish numerology – or the 555,555 figure, which is especially popular among Sephardic Jews who believe it is lucky. The custom of reading out the ketubah to the wedding guests adds incentive to name high figures, which the court defined as unrealistic.

The panel of three rabbinical judges ... reviewing the divorce case in question was divided, with one judge ruling in favor of the ex-wife’s demand. But his colleagues were of the opinion that the ex-husband should not be made to pay the full sum[, and] finally awarded the woman the equivalent of $31,600 from her ex-husband, or 120,000 shekels.

2016 Republican Platform on Marriage, Family and Society

Yesterday the Republican Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the fourth in a series of posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with moral values and religious liberty. Note that the excerpt continues after the jump. Here is the Platform section titled Marriage, Family and Society:

Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. Its daily lessons — cooperation, patience, mutual respect, responsibility, self-reliance — are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic. Strong families, depending upon God and one another, advance the cause of liberty by lessening the need for government in their daily lives. Conversely, as we have learned over the last five decades, the loss of faith and family life leads to greater dependence upon government. That is why Republicans formulate public policy, from taxation to education, from healthcare to welfare, with attention to the needs and strengths of the family.

New York Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit To Declare Muslim Marriage Valid

In Jackson K v. Parisa G, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1487 (NY Sup Ct New York County, April 8, 2016), a New York state trial court refused to dismiss a suit by plaintiff who believed he had validly married defendant in an elaborate Iranian Islamic ceremony in New York, attended by 200 guests, even though the couple did not obtain a New York marriage license.  Alternatively plaintiff sought damages for fraud and conversion of a $25,000 engagement ring. A 20-minute ceremony was performed by Ms. Sholeh Sham, who now says she is not a member of the clergy and had no authority to marry the couple. Plaintiff however claims the marriage was valid under NY Domestic Relations Law Sec. 12 that validates marriages solemnized "in the manner heretofore used and practiced" by a particular religious denomination. The court said in part:

The court need not decide at this point whether it is possible for the court to determine the validity of the purported marriage on neutral principles. The ultimate issue is whether the ceremony meets the requirements set forth in DRL §12. Plaintiff argues that, in Defendant's denomination, no particular religious leader must solemnize a wedding ceremony. Under New York law, an officiant at a religious wedding ceremony need not be limited to a traditional concept of a member of the clergy or a minister ordained by a religious order..... Whether Ms. Shams was qualified to solemnize the marriage is an issue of fact....

The court also allowed plaintiff to move ahead with his claim of fraud, saying:

Here, the complaint includes detailed allegations to the effect that the Defendant accepted Plaintiff's marriage proposal and engagement ring on July 29, 2009...; that the Defendant told him that her family wanted to select the wedding  officiant to be certain that the marriage would be recognized in the Islamic Republic of Iran and valid under Iranian law.... 

... Plaintiff alleges that Defendant convinced him that Ms. Shams was authorized to marry them at the time she officiated at the September 4, 2010 Ceremony, and that they were actually married on September 4, 2010. Only after years of purported marriage did Defendant tell Plaintiff they were not married.

SSI Benefit Formula Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In Herron v. Social Security Administration, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50343 (ED VA, April 14, 2016), a Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51224, March 10, 2016) and dismissed a free exercise and other constitutional challenges to the manner in which SSI benefits are computed.  Under Social Security rules, if an SSI recipient lives in the same household as his or her spouse, a portion of the spouse's income may be attributed to the SSI recipient in computing benefits.  Plaintiff Bridget Herron claimed that this rule requires her to live with her fiance before (or without) marriage, in violation of her religious beliefs, in order to avoid a reduction in benefits.

As to Herron's allegation that the SSA [Social Security Administration] policies interfere with the free exercise of her religious beliefs, the SSA determines benefits based on income, and the policies were not "undertaken for religious reasons." ... If Herron wishes to marry in accordance with her religious beliefs, the SSA's policies do not prevent her from doing so. Because Herron fails to allege facts sufficient to challenge the rationality of the SSA's policies, she fails to plausibly allege the elements of a violation of her constitutional rights as to her right to marry and her right to the free exercise of her religious beliefs.

The court also concluded that Herron had not exhausted her administrative remedies.

Challenge To Ban On Marriage Ceremonies Without License Dismissed For Lack of Standing

In Carrick v. Snyder, (ED MI, Feb. 10, 2016), a Michigan federal district court dismissed for lack of standing a minister's First Amendment challenge to Michigan statutes that impose civil and criminal sanctions on anyone authorized to perform a marriage ceremony who does so for a couple who have not obtained a marriage license. (See prior related posting.) The court held that plaintiff had not alleged any actual intent to perform marriage ceremonies for couples without licenses.  According to the court:

plaintiff asserts an entirely hypothetical injury where he or unspecified others will not marry unspecified couples or groups because they might face hypothetical penalties from the state of Michigan.