Georgia's Republican Governor Opposes "Religious Freedom" Bill on Biblical Grounds

As a number of state legislatures consider enacting religious freedom bills to protect opponents of same-sex marriage, one of the most contentious of the bills has been Georgia's HB 757 which among other things would bar government from taking any adverse action against any person or faith-based organization based wholly or in part on the person or organization believing, speaking or acting in accordance with their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and sexual relations should be reserved to such a union.  The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported yesterday that Georgia's Republican Governor Nathan Deal took a surprisingly strong stand against the legislation:

Amid a growing outcry from powerful corporations over Georgia’s “religious liberty” proposal, Gov. Nathan Deal issued his strongest warning yet to lawmakers who are debating controversial legislation seen as a conservative answer to the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

In stark terms, the Republican said he would reject any measure that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith,” and urged religious conservatives not to feel threatened by the ruling....

Standing in the lobby of a government building after a ribbon-cutting ceremony, he laid out a lengthy condemnation of the measure from a biblical perspective, first noting that he is a Southern Baptist who took religion courses at Mercer University.

“What the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies’ view of the world … We do not have a belief in my way of looking at religion that says we have to discriminate against anybody. If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit.”

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kif Augustine-Adams, Religious Exemptions to Title IX, (February 19, 2016).
• Matthew W. Bourda, Turning the Water to Blood: How Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Drove the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act Out of Touch with Society, (41 T. Marshall L. Rev. Online 160 (2016)).
• Levi Cooper, Legislation for Education: The Munkács Regulations Enacted by Rabbi Tsevi Elimelekh of Dynów, (Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry 30 (2017), Forthcoming).
• Shaun Alberto de Freitas, Religious Associational Rights and Sexual Conduct in South Africa: Towards the Furtherance of the Accommodation of a Diversity of Beliefs, (February 20, 2016).
• Asim Jusic, From Formal Equality to Positive Neutrality to Positive Inferiority (for Some): The European Court of Human Rights’ Limited Influence on Constitutional Changes and Religion in Hungary, (Vienna Journal of International Constitutional Law, Vol. 10, 2016).
• Mohamed A. Arafa, Insights on Divine (Islamic) Law: Islamophobia versus Terrorism, Death Penalty, and Transitional Justice, (CALUMET: Intercultural Law & Humanities Review (Online) 2016).
• Kristine S, Knaplund, Becoming Charitable: Predicting and Encouraging Charitable Bequests in Wills, (77 U. Pitt. L. Rev. (Fall 2015).

From SSRN (Marriage):

• Robin Bradley Kar, Against Marriage Essentialism: A Legal Grounding for Obergefell and Same-Sex Marriage, (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Gregg Strauss, The Positive Right to Marry, (February 24, 2016).
• Kaiponanea T. Matsumura, A Right Not to Marry, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 84, 2016).

Former Employee's Fraud Claim Against Diocese Dismissed

In Simon v. Finn, (MO Cir. Ct., Feb. 16, 2016), a Missouri state trial court dismissed a fraud claim against the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City- St. Joseph brought by Colleen Simon, formerly the director for social ministries of a local parish.  Simon was dismissed after a newspaper article disclosed that she was in a same-sex marriage.  While Simon claimed that she was falsely assured by the Diocese that her same-sex marriage would not impact her employment, the court said:

For the Court to inquire into the knowing falsity of the Diocesan agents’ ... representations to Plaintiff about her sexual orientation relative to her position in the Diocese would impermissibly entangle the Court in matters and decisions purely canonical, since the Court must necessarily examine the religious views and practices of the Diocese in an attempt to perceive the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s reliance on the Diocese’s representations.

However the court permitted Simon to move ahead with her claim that the Diocese violated Missouri law requiring it to furnish any former employee requesting it a letter describing his or her service. It also permitted Simon to move ahead with her wage and hour claim. ADF issued a press release announcing the court's decision.

UPDATE: Catholic Culture reported Feb. 23 that the Diocese and Simon have entered an undisclosed settlement of the wage and hour and the severance letter claims.

South Dakota Legislature Passes Bill On Transgenders In School Restrooms; 3 Other LGBT Bills Pending

This week the South Dakota legislature passed and sent to  Gov. Dennis Daugaard HB 1008 (full text) that provides:

Every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school that is designated for student use and is accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex. In addition, any public school student participating in a school sponsored activity off school premises which includes being in a state of undress in the presence of other students shall use those rooms designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex.

"Biological sex" is defined as "the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person's chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth."  The bill goes on to provide that transgender students are to be provided with reasonable accommodation, which "may include a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom, or the controlled use of a restroom, locker room, or shower room that is designated for use by faculty."

According to the Christian Science Monitor, the governor has not yet decided whether to sign the bill. The Argus Leader reports that the governor will meet both with transgender students and with the bill's sponsors before making a decision.

Human Rights Campaign says that two other anti-LGBT bills have been passed by the full House of Representatives, and another anti-transgender bill has passed through committee. HB 1112 passed by the House voids the current transgender policies of interscholastic activities associations and requires that their future policies determine sex by a student's chromosomes and the sex recorded on the student's birth certificate.

HB 1107 passed by the House bars the state from taking any action against a person because that person acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious or moral belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should be reserved to marriage, or that the terms male and female refer to distinct and immutable biological sexes determined by anatomy and genetics by the time of birth.

Finally, HB 1209 which has recently cleared a House Committee provides:

Any public body ... that accepts any information on a South Dakota birth certificate as official and valid shall accept all information on a South Dakota birth certificate as official and valid in carrying out the public body's legal and official duties.

Justice Scalia's Opinions on Religion Clauses and Religious Issues (Updated)

The media continue to be filled with tributes to Justice Antonin Scalia who died suddenly over the week end. (See prior posting).  Religion News Service and NPR review Justice Scalia's views on religion, the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment and on social issues that have become religious flash points.

Here are links to cases involving issues of religion, religious exercise or religious speech in which Scalia wrote opinions (either majority, concurring or dissenting):

• Edwards v. Aguillard, (1987) (dissenting opinion)
• Employment Division v. Smith, (1990) (majority opinion)
• Lee v. Weisman, (1992) (dissenting opinion)
• Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, (1993) (concurring opinion)
• Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, (1993) (concurring opinion)
• Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, (1994) (dissenting opinion).
• Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, (1995) (opinion of the court)
• City of Boerne v. Flores, (1997) (concurring opinion)
• Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, (2002) (concurring opinion)
• Locke v. Davey, (2004) (dissenting opinion)
• Van Orden v. Perry, (2005) (concurring opinion)
• McCreary County v. ACLU, (2005) (dissenting opinion)
• Elmbrook School District v. Doe, (2014) (dissent to denial of cert.)
• EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., (2015) (majority opinion)

Here are opinions he wrote on issues of abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage:

• Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, (1989) (concurring in part)
• Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, (1990) (concurring opinion)
• Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, (1992) (concurring and dissenting)
• Shenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, (1997) (concurring and dissenting)
• Stenberg v. Carhart, (2000) (dissenting opinion)
• Lawrence v. Texas, (2003) (dissenting opinion)
• Obergefell v. Hodges, (2015) (dissenting opinion)

These lists are almost certainly incomplete.  I invite readers to continue to send along citations to others that should be added.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Adriaan Lanni & Victor Bers, Disqualified Olympians: The Skeptical Greek View of Divine Judges, (Mermerlstein & Holtz, eds., The Divine Courtroom in Comparative Perspective (Brill 2014)).
• Michael A. Helfand, Identifying Substantial Burdens, (University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2016).
• Louis-Léon Christians, Ideologically Oriented Enterprises Faced with the Reconfiguration of Ethics and Spiritual Management, (BYU Law Review, Volume 2014, Issue 3, August 2015).
• Rene Provost, Centaur Jurisprudence: Culture Before the Law, (René Provost ed., Culture in the Domains of Law (Cambridge University Press), Forthcoming).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Amnon Lehavi, Residential Communities in a Heterogeneous Society: The Case of Israel, (in: Private Communities and Urban Governance: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives, A. Lehavi (Ed.), New York: Springer (2016, Forthcoming)).
• Khaled A. Beydoun, Beyond the Paris Attacks: Unveiling the War within French Counterterror Policy, (American University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Maria Elizabeth Marais & Loot J. Pretorius, A Contextual Analysis of the Hate Speech Provisions of the Equality Act, (Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2015).

From SSRN (Same-Sex Marriage):

• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Bargaining for Civil Rights: Lessons from Mrs. Murphy for Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights, (Boston University Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 3, 2015).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Bargaining for Religious Accommodations: Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights After Hobby Lobby, (The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty (Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, Zoë Robinson, eds., Oxford University Press, 2016)).
• Stephen Matthew Feldman, (Same) Sex, Lies, and Democracy: Tradition, Religion, and Substantive Due Process (With an Emphasis on Obergefell v. Hodges), (24 William & Mary Bill of Rights 341 (2015)).
• Yuvraj Joshi, The Respectable Dignity of Obergefell v. Hodges, (California Law Review Circuit, Vol. 6, 2015).

Court Says Enforcement Motion Against Kim Davis Is Moot

A decision by a Kentucky federal district court yesterday may have nearly ended the ongoing legal saga of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis who, until court intervention, refused to allow her office to issue any marriage licenses once same-sex marriage was legalized in the state. (See prior posting.)  As recounted by the court:

On September 3, 2015, the Court held Defendant Kim Davis in contempt.... After remanding Davis to the custody of the United States Marshal’s Service, five of six Rowan County Deputy Clerks told the Court that they would issue marriage licenses in her absence. The next day, multiple same-sex and opposite-sex couples obtained marriage licenses.... Because Davis’ Office issued these licenses, the Court found that she had purged herself of the contempt and ordered her release from custody on September 8, 2015.

However when Davis returned to work, she insisted on modifying the license forms being issued. At that point plaintiffs asked to court to order the deputy clerks to go back to issuing licenses in the original form.  In Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, Feb. 9, 2016), the court held:

Since Plaintiffs filed this Motion, the Court has received numerous Status reports [indicating] ... that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is issuing marriage licenses to individuals eligible to marry as needed.... There has been no indication that Davis has continued to interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses since September 20, 2015.... Moreover, there is every reason to believe that any altered licenses issued between September 14 ... and September 20 ... would be recognized as valid under Kentucky law.... Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request for relief is now moot. The Court will continue to monitor Davis and the Rowan County Clerk’s Office to ensure compliance with its Orders.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release on the decision.

Suit In Nation of Georgia Seeks Marriage Equality

According to yesterday's EurasiaNet, in the Caucasus nation of Georgia for the first time a lawsuit has been filed seeking to legalize same-sex marriage.  Plaintiff Giorgi Tatishvili filed suit in the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of a Georgian law that defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman. The country's influential Orthodox Church which opposes same-sex marriage nevertheless on Sunday called for the government to provide Tatishvili protection, saying that violence against him is likely for bringing the suit. Minority rights activists in Georgia have not supported the lawsuit, fearing that it will increase hostility against and marginalization of the country's LGBT community. Pro-Russian groups have used the specter of legalized same-sex marriage in their opposition to Georgia joining the European Union.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• John D. Moore, The First Amendment Case for Corporate Religious Rights, (16 Nev. L.J. 1 (2015)).
• Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders & Zoe Robinson, The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty, (Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 14 (Feb. 2016)).
• Howard Kislowicz, Developments in Religious Freedom: What Saguenay and Loyola Tell Us -- and Don't -- About the Trinity Western University Law School Cases, ((2016) 72 S.C.L.R. (2d) 75-95).
• Mark Hill QC, Reasonable Accommodation: Faith and Judgment, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2016/07, Feb. 2016).
• Ronan McCrea, Rights, Recourse to the Courts and the Relationship between Religion, Law and State in Europe and the United States, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2016/09, Feb. 2016).
• Jonathan Backer, Thou Shalt Not Electioneer: Religious Nonprofit Political Activity and the Threat 'God PACs' Pose to Democracy and Religion, (114 Mich. L. Rev. 619 (2016)).
• Chad Flanders, Insubstantial Burdens, (June 2015).

From SSRN (Islamic Law):

• Sardar M. A. Waqar Khan Arif, The Legal System of Sultans of Delhi: An Overview, (January 28, 2016).
• Sardar M. A. Waqar Khan Arif, Contractual Stipulations in Muslim Marriage Contract with Reference to Classic Islamic Law and the Case Study of USA,(January 27, 2016).

From SSRN (Same-sex marriage):

• Rodgrick Hickman, Will Love Win Again: When Religious Organizations, Government Subsidies, Adoption and the Establishment Clause Collide?,(February 4, 2016).
• Barbara J. Cox, From One Town's 'Alternative Families' Ordinance to Marriage Equality Nationwide, (California Western Law Review, Vol. 52, 2015).
• Charles E. Colman, About Ned, (129 Harv. L. Rev. F. 128 (2016)).

From SmartCILP:

• Eric Rassbach, Are Houses of Worship "House[s]" Under the Third Amendment?, [Abstract], 82 Tennessee Law Review 611-626 (2015).
• Elizabeth Sepper, Free Exercise Lochnerism, 115 Columbia Law Review 1453-1519 (2015).

States In Total Liable For Over $13.6M In Lawyers' Fees In Same-Sex Marriage Case Losses

National Law Journal yesterday reported on its compilation of legal fees that 26 states which unsuccessfully defended same-sex marriage bans have agreed to pay or been ordered by courts to pay to successful plaintiffs.  They total more than $13.6 million (including the later-reported $100,000 settlement with Montana)-- with 6 states each being required to pay over $1 million.  The NLJ also published a chart showing the award or settlement amount by case. Fee petitions are still pending in three states.

NY Appeals Court Upholds Penalty On Wedding Venue That Refused To Host Same-Sex Ceremony

In Matter of Gifford v. McCarthy, (NY App. Div., Jan. 14, 2016), a New York state intermediate appellate court upheld a decision by the State Division of Human Rights imposing compensatory damages of $3000 and a civil fine of $10,000 on a for-profit wedding venue for refusing to host a same-sex marriage ceremony.  Liberty Ridge Farm rents space for, among other things, religious and secular wedding ceremonies and receptions.  One of the farm's owners told Melissa McCarthy that the farm did not host same-sex marriage ceremonies, though apparently it would have been willing to host the reception.  The court held that Liberty Ridge's wedding facilities are a "place of public accommodation" under the NY Human Rights Law and that discrimination against same-sex weddings is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The court went on to reject respondents federal and state free exercise claims, as well as their First Amendment compelled speech and expressive association defenses. It found the Human Rights Law to be a neutral law of general applicability.  The New York state constitution's free exercise clause requires a balancing of interests.  The court said:

While we recognize that the burden placed on the Giffords' right to freely exercise their religion is not inconsequential, it cannot be overlooked that SDHR's determination does not require them to participate in the marriage of a same-sex couple. Indeed, the Giffords are free to adhere to and profess their religious beliefs that same-sex couples should not marry, but they must permit same-sex couples to marry on the premises if they choose to allow opposite-sex couples to do so. To be weighed against the Giffords' interests in adhering to the tenets of their faith is New York's long-recognized, substantial interest in eradicating discrimination....  Balancing these competing interests, we conclude that petitioners failed to show that SDHR's determination constituted an unreasonable interference with the Giffords' religious freedom.

Rejecting respondents' First Amendment compelled speech argument, the court said:

Here, SDHR's determination does not compel the Giffords to endorse, espouse or promote same-sex marriages, nor does it require them to recite or display any message at all. The Giffords remain free to express whatever views they may have on the issue of same-sex marriage. The determination simply requires them to abide by the law and offer the same goods and services to same-sex couples that they offer to other couples. Despite the Giffords' assertion that their direct participation in same-sex wedding ceremonies would "broadcast to all who pass by the Farm" their support for same-sex marriage, reasonable observers would not perceive the Giffords' provision of a venue and services for a same-sex wedding ceremony as an endorsement of same-sex marriage.

The Blaze reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Nelson Tebbe, Religion and Social Coherentism, (Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 363, 2015).
• Julie A. Nice, Conjuring 'Equal Dignity': Mapping the Constitutional Dialogue to and from Same-Sex Marriage, (31 Civil Rights Litigation Handbook 373 (Steven Saltzman ed. 2015)).
• Laura M. Weinrib, Freedom of Conscience in War Time: World War I and the Civil Liberties Path Not Taken, (Emory Law Journal, Vol. 65, No. 4, Forthcoming).
• Simone Chriss & Danaya C. Wright, After Obergefell v. Hodges: The Continuing Battle Over Equal Rights for Sexual Minorities in the United States, (GenIUS, December 2015, at 18).
• Philip T. Hackney, Charitable Organization Oversight: Rules v. Standards, (Pittsburgh Tax Review, Forthcoming).
• Alan D. Viard, The Basic Economics of Pease and PEP, (Tax Notes, Vol. 146, No. 6, 2015).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Shauna Van Praagh, 'Open House' - 'Portes Ouvertes': Classrooms as Sites of Interfaith Interface, (B. Berger and R. Moon, eds., Religion and the Exercise of Public Authority (forthcoming, 2016, Hart Publishing)).
• David Schneiderman, Multiculturalism in Canadian Constitutional Culture: Domesticating Difference, (January 4, 2016).
• Bina D'Costa, 'You Cannot Hold Two Watermelons in One Hand': Gender Justice and Anti-State Local Security Institutions in Pakistan and Afghanistan, (In Hitoshi Nasu and Kim Rubenstein (eds) Legal Perspectives on Security Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2015), pp. 47-72).
• Sean Davidson, Necessary Questions in Free Religion Cases: Application of 'General Applicability' to the French Veil Case, (Charles University in Prague Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2015/III/2).
• András Koltay, Privacy in Public Places – Celebrities, Suicides, Outsiders, Naked Men and Muslim Veils on the Street, (January 6, 2016).
• Maria Gloria Polimeno, The 2014 Egyptian Constitution: Balancing Leadership with Civil Rights (Al-Wataniyya), (Electronic Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law. Vol. 3 issue 1 p. 1-67 (2015)).
• Mohammad Fadel, Islamic Law and Constitution-Making: The Authoritarian Temptation and the Arab Spring, (Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No. 24/2015).

From SmartCILP:

• Journal of Law & Religion, Vol. 30, No. 2 (June 2015) has recently appeared.

First Same-Sex Marriage Case In China Moves Forward

In China's Hunan Province, a court has accepted jurisdiction for the first time in a case seeking to legalize same-sex marriage in the country.  According to a Reuters report yesterday, plaintiff Sun Wenlin says that last June an official in the Furong district civil affairs bureau rejected his application to marry his same-sex partner. Wenlin argues that China's marriage law protects the freedom to marry and provides for gender equality.

Alabama Chief Justice Tells Probate Judges To Continue Refusing To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is once again seeking to defy federal courts on the issue of same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.)  In March 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court in the Alabama Policy Institute ("API")  case ordered probate judges in the state to discontinue issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal district court orders already holding Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (See prior posting.)  Of course, in June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell decision, finding bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky unconstitutional.  Three days later, the Alabama Supreme Court invited parties in the API case to file briefs addressing the effect of the Obergefell decision on the Alabama order in API.  Subsequently two probate court judges petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for orders protecting their refusals to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  All of these matters remain pending before the Alabama Supreme Court.

Today, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an Administrative Order (full text) addressing what he described as the "confusion and uncertainty" that exists among Alabama probate judges.  He says that "an elementary principle of federal jurisdiction [is that] a judgment only binds the parties to the case before the court," suggesting that technically Obergefell  is not binding on Alabama judges.  He went on:

As Administrative Head of the Unified Judicial System of Alabama, authorized and empowered pursuant to Section 12-2-30(b)(7), Ala. Code 1975, to "take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state," and under Section 12-2-30(b)(8), Ala. Code 1975, to "take any such other, further or additional action as may be necessary for the orderly administration of justice within the state, whether or not enumerated in this section or elsewhere"...

IT IS ORDERED AND DIRECTED THAT: Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect.

AL.com reports on today's order.

Suit Challenges Requirement of Marriage License For Religious Ceremony

While it might seem that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision last June mooted the many pending cases seeking to make inroads into now invalid bans on same-sex marriage, the Detroit News reported yesterday on a lawsuit that shows this is not universally so.  A year ago, Detroit minister Neil Patrick Carrick filed a lawsuit in Michigan federal district court challenging two Michigan statutes which at that time effectively fined clergy for performing same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) MCL Sec. 551.14  imposes a $500 penalty on any member of the clergy or other person who "knowingly joins any persons in marriage" in violation of Michigan law. MCL Sec. 551.106 provides that : "Any clergyman or magistrate who shall join together in marriage parties who have not delivered to him a properly issued license ... shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor" and fined $100 or sentenced to 90 days in jail.

The complaint (full text) in Carrick v. Snyder, (ED MI, filed 1/12/2015). alleged that these provisions violate the 1st Amendment free exercise and expressive association rights of clergy whose faith and religious beliefs allow them to perform marriages that are not authorized by civil law.  In May 2015, the district court entered an order holding the case in abeyance as the Supreme Court considered the issue of same-sex marriage.  In September, after the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision, the district court reactivated the case (Order lifting stay).  While the challenged statutory provisions no longer totally bar same-sex marriages, they still threaten clergy with fines if they "join in marriage" a couple that has not obtained a marriage license.  On December 8, the district court, seeking to avoid the constitutional question, issued an Order (full text) calling for additional briefing on whether these penalties under state law apply to "purely private ceremonies that are not intended to give legal effect to a marriage."

Plaintiff's attorney pointed out the importance of the issue to "elderly or widowed couples who want to marry, but are afraid they will lose their Social Security benefits if they are legally wed."

Happy New Year 2016 !

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year 2016!  It is difficult to believe that I have been blogging on Religion Clause for over ten years, and have posted over 18,000 stories.  As I have been reminded, this means that for those who rely on Religion Clause as a resource, there are many who do not remember the time when there was not a central source for keeping current on church-state and religious liberty developments.

Last year was important.  Issues surrounding same-sex marriage and responses to it riveted the attention of much of the U.S. population.  The challenge by religious non-profits to the Obamacare regulations on contraceptive coverage brought to the fore the question of whether courts must give complete deference to assertions by individuals and groups that their religious exercise has been substantially burdened.  The Supreme Court gave unusual attention to civil rights claims by prisoners, including their religious freedom claims.  Increasing concern about ISIS-inspired terrorism tempted some-- including some seeking the highest office in the land-- to question whether America's traditional welcome to all religious believers (and non-believers) is as firmly established as we had once believed.

Religion Clause has attempted to provide the raw materials-- as objectively as possible-- so that readers can make informed judgments on the difficult policy decisions facing us.  And I have continued to cover parallel issues arising outside the United States in order to give additional perspective.

2016 promises to be an equally challenging year.  Many of the high profile issues of last year will remain with us.  In addition there will likely be some new ones.  How will religion factor into the Presidential race?  What are the implications of establishment clause and free exercise clashes being increasingly handled by well-funded advocacy groups that are repeat players before the courts, legislatures and local government officials?  Will transgender rights be the next battle in the culture wars that will become a religious as well as a civil rights issue?

And then there is often a "sleeper"-- an issue that becomes unexpectedly dominant.  My nomination for that in 2016 is the question of whether the retirement plans of many religiously-affiliated healthcare organizations will, as the 3rd Circuit recently held, be found not to qualify for the "church plan" exemption from ERISA on which they have relied.  Many of these plans will be underfunded by tens or hundreds of millions of dollars if they are required to comply with ERISA.  What kind of financial risk will that pose to them?  Many of these healthcare organizations have complicated relationships with a diocese or other church body of their denomination.  Will liability for underfunding, or for non-compliance with other ERISA requirements, jeopardize assets of the affiliated church bodies?

As we enter 2016, I want to again thank all of you who read Religion Clause-- both long-time followers and those who have discovered the blog more recently. Religion Clause's established format of neutrality, broad coverage and links to extensive primary source material has produced a loyal readership.  Often Religion Clause carries a story well before mainstream media feature it. The world of social media continues to evolve.  Increasing numbers of readers follow Religion Clause on Twitter or Facebook, and perhaps in other ways as well.  Meanwhile, the ability to comment on postings, while available, apparently has little attraction to readers-- other than the occasional spammer who evades my anti-spam efforts.  I am always eager to receive suggestions of other formats that would be useful.

And thanks to all of you who send me leads or corrections. Your input is important in maintaining completeness and accuracy. I read all of your e-mails and comments and appreciate receiving them, even though time constraints often prevent me from replying individually. Normally when I blog on a story sent to me by a reader, I mention the sender. If you do not want to be mentioned, I will be happy to honor that request if you let me know when sending me information.

I continue to be pleased that my regular readers span the political and religious spectrum and include a large number of law school faculty, journalists, clergy, governmental agency personnel, and others working professionally dealing with church-state relations and religious liberty concerns.  I encourage you to recommend Religion Clause to colleagues and friends who might find it of interest.

Finally, I remind you that the Religion Clause sidebar contains links to a wealth of resources.  If you find broken links on the sidebar, please let me know.

Best wishes for 2016!  Feel free to contact me by e-mail (religionclause@gmail.com) or through comments to this or other posts throughout the year.

Howard M. Friedman

Top Ten Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2015

Each year in December I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  This year was rich with possibilities, and some of my picks actually arose in a broader context but have will have an important impact on religious liberty claims or church-state challenges.  So here are my Top Ten picks.  I welcome readers' comments since I am sure that not everyone will agree with all the choices.

1. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the Constitution requires marriage equality, striking down state laws that bar same-sex marriages.
   
   
2. The battle continues over the adequacy of the Obama administration's accommodation for religious non-profits that object to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the issue this term after granting certiorari in seven cases.
   
   
3. Some states expand RFRA laws to protect objectors to same-sex marriage. Indiana's law provokes particular controversy forcing the legislature to backtrack. Meanwhile around the country some Christian-owned businesses continue to refuse to provide services they see as furthering same sex marriage or LGBT rights, while Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis garners national attention for her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
   
   
4. The U.S. Supreme Court becomes active on prisoners' rights issues, including claims for religious accommodation by inmates.  The Supreme Court gives RLUIPA a broad interpretation in Holt v. Hobbs.  It also interprets the "three strikes" provision that limits indigent prisoner litigation; hears oral arguments in a case on maximum fee payments by indigent prisoners litigating multiple cases; and grants certiorari on a question of exhausting administrative remedies before suing.
   
   
5. The rise of ISIL creates questions about the proper label to apply to the struggle against jihadists.  The dispute centers over the use of terminology such as "the war against radical Islam" that could be misinterpreted to suggest the U.S. is broadly at war with all Muslims.
   
   
6. The Supreme Court interprets the elements of Title VII employment discrimination claims (including claims for accommodation of religious practices) in Abercrombie & Fitch (employer motives) and Mach Mining (EEOC conciliation requirement).
   
   
7. The expression of virulent anti-Muslim sentiment raises free speech and anti-discrimination issues in cases involving anti-Muslim bus ads and a business seeking to create a "Muslim free zone."
   
   
8. The EEOC rules that discrimination on basis of sexual orientation is barred by the "sex discrimination" ban in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
   
   
9. The Supreme Court holds that specialty license plates  are government speech, thus impacting the many cases on license plates with religious themes or symbols.
   
   
10. The successful referendum to overturn Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance positions the battle over transgender rights as next struggle between conservative religious groups and civil rights advocates.

Kentucky's New Governor Eliminates County Clerks' Names From Marriage License Forms

Kentucky's new Republican governor, Matt Bevin, fulfilled a campaign promise yesterday (press release) by issuing Executive Order 2015-048 instructing the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives to distribute to all County Clerks a marriage license form that no longer includes the name of the County Clerk on it. Instead the form merely calls for the name and title of the issuing official-- who might be a deputy clerk.  The change was in response to the widely-followed resistance of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis who refused on religious grounds to allow her office to authorize same-sex marriage licenses. (See prior posting.) In a press release, Liberty Counsel call the new form "a clear, simple accommodation on behalf of Kim Davis and all Kentucky clerks."

Slovenia Rejects Same-Sex Marriage In Referendum

In a referendum in the central European nation of Slovenia yesterday, voters by a margin of 63% to 37% rejected same-sex marriage.  Politco reports that the overall voter turnout for the referendum was only 35.6%.  This defeat of a bill passed by Parliament last March returns the country to its old rules that allow civil partnership but not adoption of children by same-sex couples. [Thanks to Paul de Mello for the lead.]

Catholic School Violates Mass. Law By Refusing To Hire Applicant Who Is In A Same-Sex Marriage

In Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy, (MA Super. Ct., Dec. 16, 2015), a Massachusetts state trial court held that a Catholic women's preparatory school unlawfully discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender in violation of 21 MGL Chap. 151B when it withdrew an offer of employment as Food Services Director to Matthew Barrett after it discovered he was a spouse in a same-sex marriage.  The school said that same-sex marriage is inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.  In finding a statutory violation, the court rejected the school's argument that it came within the statutory exemption for religious organizations in Sec. 1(5) of the statute, because that exemption is limited to organizations that limit membership, enrollment, admission, or participation to members of the same religion. The court held that this limitation takes precedence over seemingly broader exemptive language for religious organizations in Sec. 4(18).  It also held that imposing these anti-discrimination provisions on the school did not violate the school's right of expressive association.  Finally the court rejected the school's reliance on the "ministerial exception" doctrine, concluding that Barrett would not be considered a minister "under any version of this doctrine." The Advocate reports on the decision.