Author Argues That Advocacy For Gay Rights Is A Religious Issue

While most of the public discussion of gay rights by religious leaders has come from those who believe the expansion of rights for same-sex couples threaten their religious liberty to oppose homosexual conduct, in the current issue of Tikkun Magazine, Jay Michaelson argues that support of LGBT rights is a religious mandate. His article Ten Reasons Why Gay Rights Is a Religious Issue, contends in part that "anti-gay forces are misrepresenting what the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament say, and thus distorting the word of God. This should be of concern to all religionists.... Gay rights is a religious issue because its use as a political wedge issue has distorted church teaching and politicized religion."

California Episcopal Diocese Sues Another Break-Away Parish

The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, California, continues to file lawsuits to reclaim property of break-away parishes. Episcopal Life reported today that the diocese has filed suit in state court against St. Paul's Anglican Church in Visalia, one of the 40 congregations that broke away to affiliate with the more conservative Province of the Southern Cone. The break-away parish is now affiliated with the Anglican Church in North America. The suit was filed after parish members refused to negotiate a return of the properties to the Episcopal Church. The diocese has previously sued four other break-away parishes as well as former bishop, John-David Schofield. (See prior posting.).

Russian Art Museum Curators On Trial For Inciting Religious Hatred

In Russia, the trial of two curators of the Sakharov Museum is coming to an end, and defendants are facing a sentence of up to three years in prison on charges of inciting religious hatred. AP yesterday reported that the charges stem from a 2007 "Forbidden Art" exhibit designed to display works of art that had been banned from major museums in 2006. Among the works of art were several paintings of Jesus. In one, Jesus' disciples were depicted as Mickey Mouse; in another, the crucified Jesus' head was replaced by the Order of Lenin medal. The exhibit closed a few days after it opened when a group of altar boys defaced a number of paintings. The Russian Orthodox Church and religious ultra-nationalist groups pressed prosecutors to file charges against the curators.

Village May Not Charge For Legal Advice To Zoning Applicant

According to today's Hudson Valley Times Herald-Record, a New York state trial court judge has ruled that the village of South Blooming Grove (NY) may not charge a Hasidic Jewish group for legal advice given to it by the village's special counsel about the group's application for zoning approval for use of former resort property in the village. (See prior posting.) The village charged the group $13,000 for past advice, and required another $7500 to continue reviewing its site plan. The group wants to open a yeshiva on former Lake Anne resort property club house. The village opposes the move, arguing in a counter-suit that the resort property is improperly subdivided.

29 State AG's File Amicus Brief Supporting National Day of Prayer

Yesterday, 29 state attorneys general joined together in filing an amicus brief (full text) with the 7th Circuit urging it to find that the National Day of Prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause. In a press release, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott who led the effort said that the district court decision striking down the Day of Prayer statute (see prior posting) also threatens Memorial Day because federal law requests the President to issue a proclamation each year calling on people to use the day to pray for peace. The brief argues that private prayer contemplated by the National Day of Prayer statute is less intrusive than public prayers routinely offered by each branch of the federal government and that there is a long history of prayer proclamations in this country, both at the federal and state levels.

UPDATE: On July 8, sixty-seven members of the US House of Representatives also filed an amicus brief (full text) seeking reversal of the trial court's decision. (ACLJ Release.)

Massachusetts Federal District Court Strikes Down DOMA

In two companion cases today, a Massachusetts federal district judge held Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1 USC Sec. 7) unconstitutional. That section provides that in interpreting any federal statute or regulation, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, (D MA, July 8, 2010), is a suit brought by same-sex couples and survivors of deceased same-sex spouses who were denied various federal marriage-based benefits available to heterosexual couples. The court held that DOMA violates the equal protection clause. It held that it need not decide whether to apply strict scrutiny because the statute lacks a rational basis to support it. In the court's view: "Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves."

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D MA, July 8, 2010), was brought by Massachusetts-- which recognizes same-sex marriage-- contending that DOMA violates the 10th Amendment by intruding on areas of exclusive state authority. It also argued that the law exceeds Congress' Spending Clause powers by forcing the state to discriminate against its own citizens in order to receive federal funds. The court agreed with the challenge holding that DOMA imposes an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds, impermissibly interferes with state domestic relations laws, and regulates Massachusetts "as a state," interfering with its ability to structure its traditional functions. The New York Times reports on today's decisions.

Washington State Pharmacy Board Backs Down On Rules In Pre-Trial Compromise

In 2007, the Washington state Board of Pharmacy adopted a rule requiring pharmacists to fill all prescriptions (including Plan B, the "morning after" contraceptive) even if doing so violates their religious beliefs. In July 2009, the 9th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that the district court had imposed. It remanded the case directing the district court to apply a rational basis standard in adjudicating pharmacists' free exercise challenge to the rule. (See prior posting.) Now as the case was about to go to trial on remand, the state Board of Pharmacy has backed down and negotiated a compromise. In a stipulation (full text) filed yesterday by the parties in Stormans Inc. v. Selecky, the Board told the court that on June 29 it had begun a rule-making proceeding to adopt an amended rule that would permit facilitated referrals for all pharmacies and pharmacists when they are unable or unwilling to fill a prescription for any reason, including conscientious reasons. PubliCola yesterday reporting on these developments quotes Lisa Stone, Executive Director of Legal Voice , who complained that the state had "pulled the rug out from under our clients." Becket Fund issued a release supporting the new rule making, saying that "Americans should not be forced out of their professions solely because of their religious beliefs...."

Egypt's Constitutional Court Freezes Ruling Requiring Coptic Church To Remarry Divorced Men

ANSAmed and AFP reported yesterday that Egypt's Constitutional Court has imposed a temporary freeze on a controversial ruling issued earlier this year by the country's High Administrative Court. That ruling, handed down in May (see prior posting), required the Coptic Christian Church to allow remarriages of divorced men. Coptic Church head Pope Shenouda III however announced that he would excommunicate any Coptic priest who remarries divorced men in violation of Church law.

11th Circuit Upholds Limits on Feeding Large Groups In Parks

In First Vagabonds Church of God v. City of Orlando, (11th Cir., July 6, 2010), the 11th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, reversed the district court (see prior posting) and upheld Orlando, Florida's Large Group Feeding Ordinance against a variety of constitutional attacks. The Ordinance requires a permit to feed more than 25 people in any downtown park, and limits a group to two permits per park in a 12 month period. It was challenged by Food Not Bombs, an activist group that feeds the poor, and by a church that holds Sunday services (including the sharing of food) in a downtown city park. The majority held that the feeding activities do not amount to symbolic expression under the First Amendment because a reasonable observer would not see them as communicative. It rejected a Free Exercise challenge, finding the Ordinance to be a neutral law of general applicability that serves a rational basis. It rejected void-for-vagueness and equal protection challenges. Finally it concluded that the law does not violate the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it does not substantially burden the church's exercise of its religious belief in sharing food during services. Judge Barrett dissented, arguing that the activist group's activities are expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.

State In India Wants To End Prohibition; Ignores Baptist Church In Its Plans

In India, the government of the state of Nagaland is moving to lift a ban on the sale of alcohol that was instituted in 1989 after a campaign led by the state's Baptist Church Council. The ban has mainly encouraged home made liquor and bootlegging rather than reducing the incidence of liquor. Cath News India today reports that the government has not included the Baptist Church in its consultations on repeal. The head of the Nagaland Baptist Church Council Prohibition Committee said: "Christians in Nagaland are prepared to fight for prohibition through any democratic means based on moral and spiritual authority." Some 90% of Nagaland's population of around 2 million are Christians, and most of that number are Baptists.

Hawaii Governor Vetoes Civil Unions Bill; Litigation Planned

Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle yesterday vetoed House Bill 444 that would have given partners in both same-sex and opposite-sex civil unions the same benefits and responsibilities that are enjoyed by married couples. In her veto message (full text) and her statement (full text) accompanying it, Lingle decried the manner in which the legislature's vote on the bill took place (background), and called on the legislature to submit the issue of civil unions to Hawaii's voters. Time, reporting on the veto, indicates that the Hawaii Catholic Conference praised the governor's decision. Now the ACLU and other groups supporting civil unions plan to file suit in state court arguing that Hawaii's state constitution assures LGBT families equal rights and benefits with heterosexual families. (KITV News). (See prior related posting.)

Lawsuit Says Public Utilities In Arizona Town Discriminated Against FLDS Apostates

KSCG-TV News yesterday reported on a lawsuit filed last month by the Attorney General of Arizona against the municipal water and electric companies that furnish utilities to residents of Colorado City, Arizona and its twin community, Hildale, Utah. Land in the towns has traditionally been owned by the United Effort Plan Trust of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). FLDS leaders have encouraged their followers to avoid associating with apostates who they describe as tools of the devil. The complaint (full text) in State of Arizona v. Hildale-Colorado City Utilities, (Maricopa Co.Super. Ct. filed 6/25/2010) alleges that defendants have violated the Arizona Fair Housing Act by discriminatorily denying water service and delaying furnishing electrical service to Ronald Cooke because he was an apostate from the FLDS Church. Cooke, who left the Church at age 18 or 19 returned to Colorado City after suffering serious injuries in an accident and moved into an unfinished home there. He needs water for sanitation and electricity for a medical device he uses. Defendants told Cooke he needed a new building permit for his home before he could receive utilities, while no similar requirement was imposed on FLDS members. The lawsuit also alleges failure to accommodate Cook's medical disability. Cooke has filed a similar lawsuit under the federal Fair Housing Act in federal court as well.

German Magazine Says Catholic Church Is Following Conservatives In Reactions To Abuse Cases

Der Spiegel yesterday carried an analysis of the Vatican's recent actions in priest sexual abuse cases. It argues that there is a power struggle in the Vatican between liberal and conservative forces:

This spring, it looked as though the Catholic Church was finally going to confront charges of sexual abuse head on. Following recent police raids in Belgium, however, the Vatican has once again closed ranks....

The conservatives in the church state see the zero-tolerance policy of US bishops as a means of curtailing the rights of accused priests. By contrast, liberal spirits are pushing to rapidly investigate and refer cases to secular authorities. It currently looks as if the conservatives have regained the upper hand....

German bishops Robert Zollitsch and Reinhard Marx were ... given a dressing down. Benedict reproaches them for not being tender enough with their fellow bishop Walter Mixa when he came under fire amid allegations of violence towards children in his care.

The Holy Father has clearly shown how to treat, in the true Christian spirit, those brothers who have strayed from the flock. He announced that, "following a period of healing and reconciliation," Bishop Mixa, like other retired bishops, would again be available for pastoral duties.

Cath News today however reports that Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is about to release a set of changes to the Church's internal rules for disciplining priests that will extend the canon law statute of limitations for bringing charges against an abusive priest from 10 years after the victim's 18th birthday to 20 years after. It will also for the first time define child pornography as a grave offense subject to the Congregation's jurisdiction.

5th Circuit Upholds Neutrality Policy For Texas Education Agency Staff

In Comer v. Scott, (5th Cir., July 2, 2010), the 5th Circuit upheld a policy of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) that required its staff to remain neutral and refrain from expressing any opinions on curricular matters subject to the jurisdiction of the Texas State Board of Education. TEA's Director of Science, Christina Comer, was fired for forwarding to 36 science teachers and to leaders of science teacher organizations an announcement about an anti-Creationism talk that was being presented in Austin. Comer challenged the neutrality policy as a violation of the Establishment Clause, arguing that the primary effect of the policy was to endorse or advance religion. The court concluded however:

we find it hard to imagine circumstances in which a TEA employee's inability to publicly speak out for or against a potential subject for the Texas curriculum would be construed or perceived as the State's endorsement of a particular religion.

(See prior related posting.)

Iranian Ministry Sets Acceptable Islamic Male Hair Styles

AOL News today reports that for the first time, Iran's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance has issued a catalogue of acceptable "Islamic" male hair styles. Pony tails, spikes and Mohawks are among those forbidden. Flat tops and Elvis style hair are permitted. A more complete list of acceptable styles will be released later this month at the Modesty and Veil Festival in Tehran.

7th Circuit En Banc Interprets Equal Terms Provision of RLUIPA

In River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, Illinois, (7th Cir en banc, July 2, 2010), the 7th Circuit in an en banc decision interpreted the equal terms provision of RLUIPA by creating a modified version of the test used by the 3rd Circuit. The 7th Circuit's test treats a regulation as violating the Equal Terms provision "only if it treats religious assemblies or institutions less well than secular assemblies or institutions that are similarly situated as to the regulatory criteria." The 3rd Circuit's test uses "purposes" instead of "criteria" to decide whether there has been discrimination. The court rejected the broader 11th Circuit test for discrimination under RLUIPA. Applying its new test, the en banc court, as did the 3-judge panel, refused to grant a preliminary injunction to permit a church to relocate from a crowded warehouse to property it purchased in an area near a train station zoned for various commercial uses, but not for religious services. Judge Sykes dissented, suggesting an approach that builds on the 11th Circuit's approach.

Report Focuses On Restrictions Limiting Feeding of Homeless

Last week, the National Coalition for the Homeless announced the release of a new report: A Place at the Table: Prohibitions on Sharing Food with People Experiencing Homelessness. According to the press release:

The report argues that targeting churches, service providers and volunteers by placing restrictions on providing food to homeless people is part of a broader trend toward criminalizing homelessness.

The report focuses on areas such as zoning restrictions, limits on use of public property, food safety laws, and police harassment. The report then sets out examples of innovative food programs and proposes various local, state and national legislative actions to help alleviate hunger.

Two Women Appointed Syariah Judges In Malaysia

In a first for Malaysia, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has appointed two women as Syariah Court judges. Bernama reported Saturday that in mid-May 31-year old Suraya Ramli was appointed to the Syariah court in Territory of Putrajaya, while 39-year old Rafidah Abdul Razak was appointed to the court in Kuala Lumpur. The moves were part of the government's program to transform the Syariah judiciary and to enhance justice in cases involving family and women's rights.

Concern Expressed Over Obama Administration's Use of Term "Freedom of Worship"

Sheila Reports today reviews the concerns being expressed in some quarters about change in phraseology by the Obama administration which is often using the term "freedom of worship" instead of "freedom of religion." The State Department says the terms are interchangeable, but others argue that freedom of worship is a much narrower concept. Both the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have used "freedom of worship" in speeches they have delivered.

ACLU Says Catholic Hospitals Violate Law By Refusing Abortions To Save Mothers' Lives

The ACLU announced last week that it has sent a letter (full text) to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services asking it to investigate situations in which religious hospitals refuse to provide emergency reproductive health care. The letter says that refusal of Catholic hospitals to perform abortions that are necessary to save a pregnant woman's life violate provisions of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, and the Conditions of Participation of Medicare and Medicaid regulations, 42 C.F.R. § 482.13. The letter cited specific cases of refusal of medical care.