Another House Committee Holds Hearings On Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

Another House committee has held hearings on the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate.  On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled Executive Overreach: The HHS Mandate Versus Religious Liberty. The statements of the committee chairman, and of the four witnesses appearing before the committee are posted on the Judiciary Committee's website. Witnesses were Bishop William Lori; Asma Uddin from the Becket Fund; Dr. Linda Rosenstock, Dean of UCLA's School of Public Health; and Jeanne Monahan of the Family Research Council. In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said in part: "The HHS mandate is a clear violation of religious freedom and a direct attack on the personally held views of many Americans. It is an erosion of religious freedoms." In mid-February, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the same issue. (See prior posting.) Life News reports on Tuesday's hearing.

Baptist Church Sues Illinois Village Over Occupancy Permit

The Chicagoland Baptist Church on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Lansing, Illinois over barriers placed in the way of the issuance of an occupancy permit for the church to use a former VFW meeting hall that it purchased.  Christian Newswire reports on the filing. The complaint (full text) in Chicagoland Baptist Church v. Village of Lansing, Illinois, (ND IL, filed 2/28/2012), claims that: "Although the zoning of the Property at the time of purchase allowed a church as a permitted use as of right, the Church has been unable to hold worship services in the VFW meeting hall because the Village has informed the Church that as a precondition to obtaining an occupancy permit, it must install various cost-prohibitive, unnecessary, legally not require and wasteful systems to the building." The complaint sets out a series of actions by city officials that have thwarted the church's attempt to use the building for its worship. Relying on the 1st and 14th Amendments, as well as the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the church seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction and damages.

Tennessee High Court Allows Abuse Suit Against Diocese To Proceed

In Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Memphis, (TN Sup. Ct., Feb. 27, 2012), the Tennessee Supreme Court, in a clergy sex abuse lawsuit, held that:

the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not necessarily immunize religious institutions from all claims for damages based on negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. Tennessee's courts may address these claims, as long as they can do so using neutral principles of law and can refrain from resolving religious disputes and from relying on religious doctrine....

It also held that plaintiff can pursue a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the diocese of Memphis "as long as the fiduciary relationship is not based on a religious duty or is not inextricably tied to a religious duty...."

The court also held that the fraudulent concealment doctrine may apply to toll the statute of limitations in the case:

the allegation that the Diocese misled Mr. Redwing and his family could be construed to mean that at some point, Mr. Redwing or his family asked the Diocese about its knowledge of Fr. Guthrie's conduct and that the Diocese's response misled them....  The allegations... could, if proven, provide a basis for a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that Mr. Redwing, lacking any basis for suspecting that the Diocese would deceive him, acted with reasonable diligence and, therefore, that he should not be held to have known that the Diocese's conduct caused him injury.

Laos Province Seizes Third Church To Be Used As School

Radio Free Asia reported yesterday that in Laos' southern province of Savannakhet, officials have for the third time since last September seized a Christian church building. All three of the seized churches will be reopened as schools. Authorities have also begun to require Christians who gather even in homes for Sunday services to obtain approval for each Sunday morning's gathering.

Hungarian Parliament Recognizes 18 More Faith Groups

Under Hungary's new Law on Churches passed last month, all churches other than those of 14 traditional faiths, must apply to Parliament if they want formal recognition. (See prior posting.) According to BosNewsLife, Hungary's Parliament on Monday formally recognized an additional 18 faith groups-- the United Methodist Church in Hungary; the Hungarian Pentecostal Church; St. Margaret’s Anglican Episcopal Church; the Transylvanian Congregation; the Seventh-day Adventist Church; the Coptic Orthodox Church of Hungary; the Apostolic Christian Church Nazarene; the Hungarian Society for Krishna Consciousness; the Free Church of the Salvation Army of Hungary; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Jehovah’s Witnesses; two Muslim denominations and five Buddhist religious communities. Formal recognition qualifies the church for tax-free status and government support, and allows a church to collect donations during services and perform pastoral work in jails and hospitals.

Texas Refuses To Reschedule State Basketball Tourney Times For Jewish Team

JTA reports that the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools ruled yesterday that it will not reschedule the state basketball semi-finals to accommodate Sabbath observance by the team of the Robert M. Beren Academy of Houston, a Jewish day school. Currently Beren is scheduled to play Dallas Covenant on Friday night in one of the two semifinal games, with the finals scheduled for 2 p.m. the next day. Beren's head of school, Rabbi Harry Sinoff, said: "Just as TAPPS doesn’t schedule games on Sunday in deference to Christian teams, we expected that as a Jewish team, there would be grounds for a scheduling change."

UPDATE: CNN reported March 1 that TAPPS, threatened with the filing of a lawsuit to obtain a TRO if they did not, has rescheduled the Friday playoffs for Friday afternoon. Also it will rescheduled the finals to 8 p.m. Saturday if the Beren Academy team ends up in them.

Dismissal of Harassment Charge Characterized By Critics As Acceptance of Sharia Defense

The Huffington Post reported yesterday on the storm of controversy around the Internet over a ruling by Pennsylvania state trial court judge Mark Martin dismissing a harassment charge that had been brought against a Muslim man who, during a Halloween parade, apparently attacked an atheist who was marching in the parade dressed as "Zombie Muhammad." According to the National Review, Ernest Perce, wore a “Zombie Mohammed” costume and pretended to walk among the dead, in the company of an associate who was the “Zombie Pope”.  Muslim immigrant Talag Elbayomy, attempted to pull the sign off of Perce. His attorney argued that Elbayomy thought it was a crime to insult the prophet Mohammed and acted to set an example for his children who were with him.

According to the National Review's transcript, the judge ruled from the bench:

I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.... I can’t believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn’t step forward sooner to try and intervene....

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is... “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge.

The furor over the decision however stems from other remarks by the judge chastising Perce for wearing the costume.  The court said in part:

I have a copy of the Koran here, and I would challenge you, sir, to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammed arose and walked among the dead.... Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus....

.... It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did....

Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca..... Then what you have done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. 

The ruling is being described by some as the judge's accepting a shariah defense to violation of Pennsylvania law. Apparently Perce [corrected] has received hundreds of death threats since the ruling was handed down.

County Employees Required To Attend Constitution Course Tinged With Religion

In Carroll County, Maryland, questions have been raised about County Council last week requiring county employees to attend a seminar on the Maryland constitution led by a conservative Christian minister. The Baltimore Sun last week reported that the seminar was to be led by pastor David Whitney, speaking for the Institute on the Constitution. The Institute's description of its Maryland Constitution Course says: "As the student becomes familiar with the content of our State’s Constitution, it is our belief that the student will gain an understanding of the foundational principles and Biblical worldview of Maryland’s founders."

In India Protesters Demand Dropping Charges Against Religious Procession Displaying Swords

In the Indian city of Rajkot, a number of Hindu organizations, supported by both the Congress and BJP parties, have launched demonstrations to protest the arrest by local police of 37 people who displayed swords in a procession last week celebrating the Hindu festival of Maha Shivratri (The Night of Shiva). Express India today reports that the 37 were charged under the Indian Arms Act 1959.  The protesters say, however, that the procession, with its display of swords, is a 30-year old tradition for celebration of the religious festival. So far, local authorities have refused demands that the charges be withdrawn.

Santorum Elaborates His Church-State Views

Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum spoke at length about church-state issues yesterday on the ABC News program This Week (full transcript). Here is the relevant part of George Stephanopoulos' interview  with Santorum:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have also spoken out about the issue of religion in politics, and early in the campaign, you talked about John F. Kennedy's famous speech to the Baptist ministers in Houston back in 1960. Here is what you had to say....

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SANTORUM: Earlier (ph) in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech. (END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: That speech has been read, as you know, by millions of Americans. Its themes were echoed in part by Mitt Romney in the last campaign. Why did it make you throw up?

SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, "I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute." I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.

This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith. It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent (ph) at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. People of faith, people of no faith, and be able to bring their ideas, to bring their passions into the public square and have it out. James Madison— ...

... [T]o say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can't come to the public square and argue against it, but now we're going to turn around and say we're going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We got a lot of questions on this on Facebook and Twitter, and I want to play one.... What should we do with all the non-Christians in this country? If I do not hold this belief, which I do not, how does he plan on representing me?

SANTORUM: Yes, I just said. I mean, that's the whole point that upset me about Kennedy's speech. Come into the public square. I want, you know, there are people I disagree with. Come to my town hall meetings, as people have done, and disagree with me and let's have a discussion. Let's air your ideas, let's bring them in, let's explain why you believe what you believe and what you think is best for the country. People of faith, people of no faith, people of different faith, that's what America is all about, it's bringing that diversity into and challenge of the different ideas that motivate people in our country. That's what makes America work. And what we're seeing, what we saw in Kennedy's speech is just the opposite, and that's what was upsetting about it.

Lawsuit Challenges Sukkah As Fire Hazard

The New York Post reported yesterday on a state court lawsuit filed by a couple who live on the 5th floor of Manhattan's Trump Place Condominiums against third-floor resident Zev Geller over  the Sukkah that Geller builds each year on his terrace for the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. Plaintiffs Thomas Tagliani and Leslie Lucas say the Sukkah is a fire hazard, particularly because Geller regularly barbecues next to it.  Geller says he has researched the city's fire code and found that Sukkahs are not regulated by it.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Robert C. Blitt, Whither Secular Bear: The Russian Orthodox Church’s Strengthening Influence on Russia's Domestic and Foreign Policy, (Fides Et Libertas: The Journal of the International Religious Liberty Association, p. 89, 2011).
• Samuel James Rascoff, Establishing Official Islam? The Law and Strategy of Counter-Radicalization, (Stanford Law Review, Vol. 64, p. 125, 2012).
• Lyman P. Q. Johnson, Debarring Faithless Corporate and Religious Fiduciaries in Bankruptcy, (American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review, Vol. 19, p. 523, 2011).
• Inazu, John D., Virtual Assembly, (Cornell Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Jonah Perlin, Religion as a Conversation Starter: What Liberal Religious Political Advocates Add to the Debate About Religion’s Place in Legal and Political Discourse, (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 100, No. 1, p. 331, 2011).
• Hans-Martien Ten Napel Th.D., Finishing the Work Begun by the French Revolution: A Critical Analysis of the Dutch Supreme Court Judgment on the Political Reformed Party and Passive Female Suffrage, (European Public Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2011).
• Hans-Martien Ten Napel Th.D. and Florian H. Karim Theissen, The Judicial Protection of Religious Symbols in Europe’s Public Educational Institutions: Thank God for Canada and South Africa, (Muslim World Journal of Human Rights, Vol. VIII, No. 1, pp. 1-24, 2011).
• Mark Strasser, Funeral Protests, Privacy, and the Constitution: What is Next after Phelps?, (American University Law Review, Vol. 61, pp. 279-326, 2011).
• W. Wat Hopkins, Snyder v. Phelps and the Unfortunate Death of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress as a Speech-Based Tort, (January 25, 2012). 

From SmartCILP:

• Ken I. Kersch, Beyond Originalism: Conservative Declarationism and Constitutional Redemption, 71 Maryland Law Review 229-282 (2011).
• Samuel Levine, Rethinking Self-Incrimination, Voluntariness, and Coercion, Through a Perspective of Jewish Law and Legal Theory, 12 Journal of Law and Society 72-92 (2010 & 2011).
• Asifa Quraishi, What If Sharia Weren't the Enemy?: Rethinking International Women's Rights Advocacy on Islamic Law, 22 Columbia Journal of Gender & Law 173-249 (2011).
• Salma Taman, The Concept of Corporate Social Responsibility in Islamic Law, [Abstract], 21 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 481-508 (2011).

Search Warrant For FLDS Compound Based On Hoax Tip Does Not Invalidate Conviction

A Texas state appeals court has refused to suppress evidence or quash an indictment of Lehi Barlow Jeffs, a member of the FLDS Church, who was charged with, and pleaded "no contest" to, sexually assaulting a child. In Jeffs v. State of Texas, (TX App., Feb. 24, 2012), the court rejected Jeffs complaint that the 2008 search warrant that allowed police to go onto the FLDS Yearning for Zion Ranch was based on a hoax telephone call. The woman caller claimed she was 16-years old, pregnant, abused and wanted to leave the ranch but was afraid to do so. Authorities thought the call was genuine. Among the claims rejected by the court was the contention that the widely publicized search of YFZ Ranch violated Jeffs religious freedom as protected by the Free Exercise clause and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (See prior related posting.)

Court Says Evidentiary Hearing Needed On Christian Group's Use Of School Publicity Channels

In Owasso Kids for Christ v. Owasso Public Schools, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23000 (ND OK, Feb. 23, 2012), Owassso Kids for Christ (OKFC), a Christian group that wants to share its religious message with students and parents, sued complaining that they were not give the same access as other community organizations for distributing flyers and posting information in the Owasso, Oklahoma public schools. The court held first that an individual plaintiff in the lawsuit, one of the founders of OKFC, has standing to bring a civil rights claim on behalf of OKFC which is an unincorporated association. Moving to the merits of plaintiffs' claim for a preliminary injunction, the court held that the fact the school system has issued a new viewpoint-neutral policy on access to the flyer distribution program, bulletin board, open house events, and for the posting of signs on School property does not automatically dispose of plaintiffs' free speech claim. There is at least a question of whether the new policy is in fact being applied in a viewpoint-neutral manner.

The court went on to hold that an evidentiary hearing will be required if the parties do not reach a settlement:

The evidence submitted by the parties is insufficient for the Court to determine whether the public address system, bulletin board, open house events, and the posting of signs on school property constitute designated public fora or nonpublic fora.... [Plaintiff] has also not shown ... that she was denied access to the speech fora because of the religious nature of her speech. The Court reserves factual findings on these issues, because the record is insufficient for the Court to determine [Plaintiff's] likelihood of success on the merits as to these speech fora.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Low v. McGinness, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20428 (ED CA, Feb. 16, 2012), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a claim by a Muslim  prisoner that while he was a pre-trial detainee his request for a copy of the Qur'an and Islamic prayer literature was denied. The magistrate recommended that plaintiff's claim that he was denied a halal diet be dismissed, but with an opportunity to amend.

In Lindsay v. Earlston, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20627 (MD PA, Feb. 17, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20720, Jan. 13, 2012) and dismissed free exercise and RLUIPA claims by a Nation of Islam inmate who complained, among other things, of disparaging remarks made about African-American inmates with dreadlocks; a one-time mistaken refusal to show a video of Minister Louis Farrakhan; refusal to videotape NOI meetings for airing on the institutional channel; and refusal for NOI inmates to participate in a fast and feast separate from other Muslim inmates.

Miles v. Moore, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21641 (ED VA, Feb. 21, 2012) is a case on remand from the 4th Circuit which ordered the district court to evaluate whether a prison policy limiting the periods during which an inmate could be added to a pass list to attend religious services is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest. The district court ordered defendants to file a motion setting out their position on this issue and also denied a motion to disqualify the state attorney general's office from representing the prison chaplain.

In Evans v. Somers, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20890 (ED NC, Feb. 17, 2012), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed an inmate's challenge to a disciplinary action against him after he was observed nude in his cell.  Plaintiff argued that he was nude because he was  performing Ghusl, ceremonial washing before Jum'ah prayer. However he was observed nude outside the time period permitted by prison regulations for performing Ghusl.

In Vigil v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21090 (D CO, Feb. 21, 2012) a Colorado federal district court adopted in part a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20934, Jan. 24, 2012) and refused to dismiss an inmate's claim that RLUIPA requires recognition of his "Judeo-Christianity" as a faith group and that he should be permitted to participate in accompanying Jewish and Christian practices, including Communion.

In Gee v. Fischer, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21279 (ND NY, Feb. 21, 2012), a New York federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21280, Jan. 23, 2012) and refused to dismiss an inmate's claim that the prison system's hiring only of Sunni Muslim clergy, and its failure to hire Shi'i clergy and to provide Shi'i Friday Prayer Services, violate his free exercise and equal protection rights.

In Milhouse v. Bledsoe, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22704 (MD PA, Feb. 23, 2012), a Pennsylvania federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed when special management unit inmates were precluded from attending or listening to group religious services, and when components of the special meal at the end of Ramadan were served to non-Muslim inmates as well, thus detracting from the special nature of the meal.

In Fard v. Arpaio, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22919 (D AZ, Feb. 22, 2012), an Arizona federal district court  dismissed, with leave to amend, an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were violated when, during a morning check, a detention officer spoke loudly to him and threatened him while he was praying next to his bed.

In Abdul-Mateen v. Phipps, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23216 (WD VA, Feb. 22, 2012), a Virginia federal district court permitted a Muslim inmate to move ahead with various of his claims that his rights under RLUIPA were infringed when officials refused to change his medication schedule to make it consistent with rules relating to the Ramadan fast.

Break-Away Churches Want Court To Reconsider Personal Property Ruling

Last month, a Virginia court held that all the property of seven break-away Episcopal congregations belong to The Episcopal Church's Diocese of Virginia. (See prior posting.) While the court's opinion devoted most of its discussion to the real property of the churches, the decision also held that personal property of the churches follows disposition of the real property.  On Feb. 22, the break-away congregations filed a motion (full text) seeking reconsideration of the court's ruling on personal property-- In re: Multicircuit Episcopal Church Litigation, (Cnty. Cir. Ct., motion filed 2/22/2012). The churches contend that the court's ruling violates rights and the intentions of donors to the congregations. Fairfax City Patch reports on the filing of the motion.

District Judge Defies 2nd Circuit On Scope of Injunction Permitting Churches To Use School Buildings

The tug-of-war between New York federal district court Judge Loretta Preska and the Second Circuit over use of New York City school buildings by churches has gotten more complicated. As previously reported, on Feb. 16 Judge Preska issued a temporary restraining order against the New York City Board of Education in Bronx Household of Faith v. New York City Board of Education, a suit that most observers had assumed was concluded. Even though the 2nd Circuit had upheld the Board's policy of excluding churches from using school buildings after hours for worship services, Judge Preska said that that the 2nd Circuit's decision only dealt with the free speech issue, and that Bronx Household of Faith still had a free exercise claim on which it was likely to succeed. The next day, the 2nd Circuit issued an order limiting the district court's TRO only to enforcement of the regulations against Bronx Household of Faith. (See prior posting.) The court said: "The district court’s finding that Bronx Household has shown likelihood of success on the merits of its case does not justify enjoining the Board from enforcing its order against non-parties."  Both Judge Preska and the 2nd Circuit promised that their orders would be followed up by full opinions.

Yesterday Judge Preska issued the promised opinion (51 pages). In Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York, (SD NY, Feb. 24, 2012), Judge Preska enjoined the Board of Education "from enforcing Ch. Reg. D-180 § I.Q so as to deny Plaintiffs' application or the application of any similarly-situated individual or entity to rent space in the Board's public schools for morning meetings that include religious worship."  In a footnote, Judge Preska explained:

The Court is, of course, aware of the Court of Appeals' order applying the temporary restraining order only to named Plaintiff Bronx Household of Faith. With respect, however, if a rule is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional as to all similarly-situated parties. Defendants obviously recognized this in permitting many non-party congregations to meet during nonschool hours during the pendency of the prior injunctions. Also, the Court of Appeals made no suggestion in any of the three full opinions it issued heretofore that the prior injunctions extended only to the named Plaintiffs. Thus, with respect, this order extends to the Bronx Household of Faith and, in addition, to any similarly-situated party.

In explaining why Bronx Household of Faith is likely to succeed on the merits, Judge Preska concluded that the Board's regulation is not a neutral rule of general applicability because it targets religious conduct. This triggers strict scrutiny-- a standard the court found was not met.  The court held that allowing religious services during non-school hours does not violate the Establishment Clause.  She also found that the rule excessively entangles the government in religion because of the way in which the Board of Education investigates whether a church will be engaging in "religious worship services".

New York City plans an immediate appeal of Judge Preska's decision. (Business Week).

Suit Challenges City Council's Invocation Policy

A lawsuit has been filed against the city of Ontario, California challenging city council's practice of opening its sessions with prayer.  The complaint (full text) in Inland Oversight Committee v. City of Ontario, (CD CA, filed 2/6/2012), alleges that more than 75% of the invocations were offered in the name of Jesus, while less than 10% were offered by individuals of non-Christian faiths. The suit claims that this violates the establishment clause as well as provisions of the California constitution. Friday's Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports on the lawsuit.

Maryland Legislature Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill; Governor Will Sign It

WBAL-TV reports that the Maryland legislature yesterday gave final passage to House Bill 438, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which legalizes same-sex marriage in Maryland. A statement issued by the Governor immediately after the bill's passage made clear that he will sign the bill. The state Senate passed the bill yesterday by a vote of 25-22, following passage last week in the House of Delegates by a vote of 72-67. When effective, this will make Maryland the 8th state to recognize same-sex marriage.

The bill provides that clergy may not be required to perform marriage ceremonies that violate their free exercise rights. It also provides a religious organization, or any nonprofit institution supervised or controlled by a religion organization, "may not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual ... related to:  (1) the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs; or (2) the promotion of marriage through any social or religious programs or services, in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs, unless State or federal funds are received for that specific program or service." The bill also contains a non-severability clause, calling for invalidation of the entire law if any part or application of it is found unconstitutional.

In the hard-fought debate in the legislature, opponents raised numerous issues, including a concern that the bill would threaten Mothers Day and Fathers Day.  Opponents promise to seek a referendum on the bill and placed language in it attempting to assure that it would not become effective until after a referendum on it.

U.S. Officials Condemn Iran's Sentence of Pastor For Apostasy

CNN reports that the White House and the State Department have both condemned the death sentence that has been handed down by an Iranian court against Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, an Iranian Christian charged with apostasy for leaving Islam. A statement (full text) issued by the White House press secretary yesterday reads in part:

The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms reports that Iranian authorities’ reaffirmed a death sentence for Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani for the sole reason of his refusal to recant his Christian faith.  This action is yet another shocking breach of Iran’s international obligations, its own constitution, and stated religious values.

In its release (full text), the State Department, calling for Nadarkhani's immediate release, said in part:

The United States is deeply concerned by reports that a provincial court has renewed the execution order for Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. Mr. Nadarkhani is facing a death sentence on charges of apostasy and has refused to recant his Christian faith. Such government persecution for simply following one’s faith is common in Iran, where followers of many religious traditions face harsh treatment and severe violations of their religious freedom. We have also witnessed a dramatic increase in the arrest of adherents to the Baha’i Faith recently, as well as an increase in repression of freedom of expression in all forms.