Second Suit Filed Against Kentucky Clerk Who Is Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses

As previously reported, earlier this month the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against  Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis who is refusing to issue marriage licences to anyone because of her religious objections to issuing them to same-sex couples. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Davis, who is represented by by the advocacy group Liberty Counsel, did not appear in court at yesterday's scheduled hearing because she has not yet been served with a summons.  Meanwhile a second suit was filed against Davis last Friday by a same-sex couple who were denied a marriage license.  The complaint (full text) in Ermold v. Davis, (ED KY, filed 7/10/2015), alleges that plaintiffs were denied a marriage license  by Davis' office based upon Davis' "understanding of Adam, Eve, and the origins of man as set forth in the Old Testament." The couple's video of their attempt to apply for a license, posted on YouTube, has been viewed over 1.7 million times. The suit has been assigned to U.S. District Judge David Bunning who is also hearing the ACLU challenge.  Bunning says he will probably consolidate the two cases. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Alabama Supreme Court Upholds Preliminary Injunction In Church Election Case

Ex parte Cornell L. Tatum, Sr.,  (AL Sup. Ct., July 10, 2015), is a mandamus action-- essentially an interlocutory appeal-- in a suit in which members of a Baptist Church sued seeking an order to require deacons of the church to abide by a vote of church members ousting them from their positions. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring the deacons from "undertaking any act as a member of [the board] of [the church] including any participation in Deacon
meetings or performing any duties or responsibilities of a deacon while this order is in effect." The deacons petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Alabama Supreme Court in a summary order denied the petition.

While there was no opinion for the court, Justice Parker wrote an opinion concurring specially, saying in part:

I write specially to emphasize that a circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to apply judicial notions of due process to church proceedings when the highest adjudicatory body of a church decides a purely ecclesiastical matter.  Additionally, I write to note that a circuit court may recognize a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of a church concerning a purely ecclesiastical matter and, based on that decision, enjoin persons from taking unauthorized actions on behalf of the church....

Admittedly, however, it is unclear whether the April 20, 2014, vote constituted a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of the church. In a Baptist church, the majority of the congregation is the highest adjudicatory body, unless the church bylaws provide otherwise.... This lack of clarity, however, does not require that this Court grant the petitioners' petition..... The petitioners have not demonstrated that the April 20, 2014, meeting was not a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of the church. Accordingly, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Chief Justice Moore filed a dissenting opinion, arguing in part that "any decision by the circuit court regarding the ability of the petitioners to serve as deacons in the church necessarily requires the court to resolve a number of antecedent issues that are inextricably intertwined with church governance." He added:

A court's involvement in a religious matter is not sanitized merely because the court purports to ratify, rather than annul, a church's decision. What violates church autonomy is not the substance of the court's ultimate determination, but the judiciary's very participation in the intra-church conflict.

Justice Murdock filed a brief dissent based on failure to join necessary parties. 

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Rhona Schuz, The Dangers of Children’s Rights’ Discourse in the Political Arena: The Issue of Religious Male Circumcision as a Test Case, (Cardozo Journal of Law and Gender Vol. 21:347, 2015).
• Rivka Weill, The Power of Understatement in Judicial Decisions, (Annuaire international de justice constitutionnelle (2015, Forthcoming)).
• Kerstin Steiner, Governing Islam: The State, the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) and Islam in Singapore, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 16, No. 1, article 6, 2015).
• Jodok Troy, The Catholic Church and International Relations, (Oxford Handbooks Online, Forthcoming).
• Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Limits on State Regulation of Religious Organizations: Where We Are and Where We Are Going, (Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 1521, July 2015).
• Adam J. Fenton & David Price, Breaking ISIS: Indonesia's Legal Position on the 'Foreign Terrorist Fighters' Threat, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 16, No. 1, Article 2, 2015).
• Jeremy K. Kessler, A War for Liberty: On the Law of Conscientious Objection, (The Cambridge History of World War II, Vol. 3 (Michael Geyer & Adam Tooze eds. 2015).

From SSRN (European law):

• Jonathan Rose, Clergy and the Abuse of Legal Procedure in Medieval England, (July 4, 2015).
• Nicole Martin, Are British Muslims Alienated from Mainstream Politics by Islamophobia And British Foreign Policy?, (July 1, 2015).
• Myriam Hunter-Henin, Living Together in an Age of Religious Diversity: Lessons from Baby Loup and SAS, Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 2015, 1-25.
• Myriam Hunter-Henin, Religion, Children and Employment: The Baby Loup Case, (International Comparative Law Quarterly, July 2015).

From SSRN (Marriage):

• Joshua White, Here Comes the Groom...(s)?. (June 19, 2015).
• Charles R. Calleros, Marriage Equality on the Arc of Civil Rights History: A Broad Historical Narrative, (Michigan State Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Catherine E. Smith, Lauren Fontana, Susannah William Pollvogt & Tanya Washington, Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges, (March 9, 2015).

From SmartCILP:

• Mahmood Chandia & Kartina A. Choong, The Conflation of Ethnicity and Religion in Malaysia: A Reflection, [Abstract], 23 Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law 353-376 (2015).
• Umar F. Moghul &Samir H.K. Safar-Aly,  Green Sukuk: The Introduction of Islam's Environmental Ethics to Contemporary Islamic Finance, 27 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 1-60 (2014).
• Intisar A. Rabb, "Reasonable Doubt" in Islamic Law, 40 Yale Journal of International Law 41-94 (2015).

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Jehovah v. Clarke, (4th Cir., July 9, 2014), the 4th Circuit reversed a Virginia federal district court's dismissal of free exercise and RLUIPA claims by an inmate who had a sincere belief in his own version of Christianity based on a version of the Bible he had written. He complained about policies banning consumption of wine during communion, inability to obtain a job that allows him to observe his "Old Jewish" and "New Christic" Sabbaths, and his cell assignment with anti-Christians and unbelievers.

In Harris v. State, 2015 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 282 (NV App., June 2, 2015), a Nevada appeals court affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's complaint that he was required to give up his medically-necessary low-sodium diet during Ramadan in order to receive Ramadan meals.

In Robinson v. Landry, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87025 (D ME, July 6, 2015), a Maine federal district court dismissed because of mootness and unavailability of damages as relief, a Native American inmate's complaint growing out of failure to return his medicine bag, denial of smudge materials, and lack of access to Native American services.

In Ryidu-X v. Maryland Division of Corrections, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87683 (D MD, July 6, 2015), a Maryland federal district court held that the brief inability of an inmate to access the prison commissary using his religious name despite a settlement agreement allowing him to do so did not amount to a violation of constitutional magnitude.

In Daywitt v. Minnesota, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87552 (D MN, July 6, 2015), a Minnesota federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87951, June 17, 2015) and permitted plaintiff, an Orthodox Jew who was civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program to move ahead with his suit for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the ban on his wearing a suit coat as required by his religious beliefs. His complaint regarding a ban on wearing a yarmulke was dismissed as moot since the policy had been changed. Damage claims against officials were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds.

In Trotter v. Ramsey, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89106 (WD TN, July 9, 2015), a Tennessee federal district court upheld the requirement that all inmate religious services be supervised by an outside religious leader or staff and dismissed a complaint by an inmate who was an approved group Bible study leader that on two occasions he was not allowed to hold Sabbath/Advent Bible study.

Final Accommodation Rules Adopted For Religious Objectors To ACA Contraceptive Coverage

The Obama Administration on Friday released final rules on accommodating religious objections to the Affordable Care Act requirement for health insurance coverage of contraceptive services. (Full text of Rules and accompanying release). The final rules, which provide for the insurer or policy administrator to provide contraceptive coverage directly when the employer objects to providing coverage, apply to any non-profit that holds itself out as a religious organization and has religious objections to covering some or all contraceptive items or services.

The accommodation also applies to any closely-held for-profit business entity where "the organization’s highest governing body (such as its board of directors...) has adopted a resolution or similar action, under the organization’s applicable rules of governance and consistent with state law, establishing that it objects to covering some or all of the contraceptive services on account of the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs." The final rules define a closely-held entity as one whose shares or ownership interests are not publicly traded and where more than 50% in value of its ownership interests is owned directly or indirectly (e.g. through a corporation or trust) by 5 or fewer individuals or families.

On the important question of the type of notice an objecting non-profit or closely-held business must furnish, the final rules carry forward the procedures currently in place. As summarized by the adopting Release:

These final regulations continue to allow eligible organizations to choose between using EBSA Form 700 [and furnishing it directly to the insurer or third party administrator] or the alternative process consistent with the Wheaton interim order. The alternative process provides that an eligible organization may notify HHS in writing of its religious objection to covering all or a subset of contraceptive services. The notice must include the name of the eligible organization and the basis on which it qualifies for an accommodation; its objection based on sincerely held religious beliefs....; the plan name and type...; and the name and contact information for any of the plan’s third party administrators and health insurance issuers.

Health Affairs Blog has more on the new rules. A Friday press release from the Becket Fund continues to express strong opposition to the Final Rules. [Thanks to Mark Scarberry via Religionlaw for the lead.]

Pope In Bolivia Calls For Dramatic Economic and Social Reform

Yesterday, in a speech that CBS News called "one of the most significant ... of his papacy," Pope Francis called for dramatic economic and social change.  Addressing the 2nd World Meeting of Popular Movements (full text of remarks) in Bolivia, he said in part:

Do we realize that something is wrong in a world where there are so many farmworkers without land, so many families without a home, so many laborers without rights, so many persons whose dignity is not respected?

Do we realize that something is wrong where so many senseless wars are being fought and acts of fratricidal violence are taking place on our very doorstep? Do we realize something is wrong when the soil, water, air and living creatures of our world are under constant threat? 

So let’s not be afraid to say it: we need change; we want change. In your letters and in our meetings, you have mentioned the many forms of exclusion and injustice which you experience in the workplace, in neighborhoods and throughout the land..... Yet there is an invisible thread joining every one of those forms of exclusion: can we recognize it? These are not isolated issues. I wonder whether we can see that these destructive realities are part of a system which has become global. Do we realize that that system has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature?....

Time, my brothers and sisters, seems to be running out.... Today, the scientific community realizes what the poor have long told us: harm, perhaps irreversible harm, is being done to the ecosystem. The earth, entire peoples and individual persons are being brutally punished. And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what [one of the first theologians of the Church,] Basil of Caesarea, called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules.... The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home. [Sister and mother earth.]

AG Says U.S. Government Benefit Programs Will Recognize Same-Sex Spouses In All States

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced yesterday that the Supreme Court's marriage equality decision will be applied across the federal government.  She said in part:

[C]ritical programs for veterans and elderly and disabled Americans, which previously could not give effect to the marriages of couples living in states that did not recognize those marriages, will now provide federal recognition for all marriages nationwide....  Just over a year ago, Attorney General Holder announced that agencies across the federal government had implemented the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision by treating married same-sex couples the same as married opposite-sex couples to the greatest extent possible under the law as it then stood.  With the Supreme Court’s new ruling that the Constitution requires marriage equality, we have now taken the further step of ensuring that all federal benefits will be available equally to married couples in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the US Territorie

Ontario Court Upholds Law Society's Refusal To Accredit Christian Law School

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, (ON Super. Ct., July 2, 2015), a 3-judge panel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the decision of the Law Society of Upper Canada to deny accreditation to the law school which Trinity Western University (TWU)-- an evangelical Christian school-- plans to open.  The Law Society's denial was based on TWU's Community Covenant that all students are required to sign, and in particular the Covenant's ban on "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."

According to the court, the Law Society "was essentially asked to approve and accept students from an institution that engaged in discrimination against persons
who did not share the religious beliefs that were held by TWU, and the student body that it prefers to have at its institution." The court went on:

In exercising its mandate to advance the cause of justice, to maintain the rule of law, and to act in the public interest, the [Law Society] was entitled to balance the applicants’ rights to freedom of religion with the equality rights of its future members, who include members from two historically disadvantaged minorities (LGBTQ persons and women). It was entitled to consider the impact on those equality rights of accrediting TWU’s law school, and thereby appear to give recognition and approval to institutional discrimination against those same minorities. Condoning discrimination can be ever much as harmful as the act of discrimination itself.

Mondaq summarizes the decision.

Employee Who Refused Work In Unit Performing Abortions Loses Title VII Suit

In Montgomery v. Cook County, (ND IL, July 1, 2015), an Illinois federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a medical center employee who was fired after she refused an assignment change that would require her to spend half her time in the reproductive health unit of the Planned Parenthood facility at which she was employed.  She objected on religious grounds to work in the unit that performed abortions, and said she understood from the time she was hired that this concern would be respected. The court held that plaintiff had not alleged facts showing that she was fired "because of" her religious beliefs.  The court conceded that "even if an employer does not intentionally discriminate against an employee, an employer may still be liable under Title VII for failure to accommodate the religious needs of its employees." However here, according to the court:

[Plaintiff] failed to allege any facts regarding whether a request to accommodate [her] beliefs was made... and whether Defendants tried to accommodate [them].... Based on these allegations, I cannot reasonably infer that Defendants failed to try to accommodate Plaintiff's religious beliefs to keep her employed.

It thus dismissed the discrimination claim without prejudice.

The court also rejected Plaintiff's retaliation claim, holding: "Plaintiff has neither plead that she engaged in protected activity nor alleged a substantial link between any protected expression and her termination."

Decision Is Step Toward Success For Group Seeking To Erect Eruv In The Hamptons

In Suffolk County, New York, a Jewish group seeking to construct an eruv in parts of three towns in the Hamptons moved a step closer to succeeding when a state trial court judge ruled last week that the Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals improperly invoked the local sign ordinance to prevent the construction.  New York Jewish Week reports:

Acting Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Joseph Farneti ruled June 30 that the board was wrong when it affirmed a town inspector’s opinion that lechis are signs that fall within the town’s sign ordinance. Lechis are wooden or plastic strips affixed to telephone and utility poles to form the boundaries of an eruv, within which observant Jews may carry items on the Sabbath. The association had sought to put 28 of them on 15 poles.

Such a finding is “irrational and unreasonable in that it does not comport with the sign ordinance’s intent,” the judge wrote. “The Court finds that the boundaries are invisible as the lechis are not discernable. … Neither drivers nor casual observers would be able to differentiate the poles which have lechis attached from the other poles.”

Farneti added: “It is well-settled that, while religious institutions are not exempt from local zoning laws, greater flexibility is required in evaluating an application for a religious use and every effort to accommodate the religious use must be made.”

The East End Eruv Association has been litigating in state and federal courts since 2011 in an attempt to get approval. (See prior posting.)

Negligent Supervision Claim Against Diocese By Sex-Abuse Victim Can Proceed

In John Doe 200 v. Diocese of Raleigh, (NC App., July 7, 2015), a North Carolina appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not require dismissal of a sex-abuse victim's negligent supervision claims against the Catholic Diocese of Raleigh. The court held:

Were we to adopt the Diocese Defendants’ argument ..., then the First Amendment would, as a practical matter, serve as a complete shield to tort liability for religious organizations in the sexual abuse context except in those cases in which the plaintiff specifically alleged prior sexual assaults by the cleric at issue. We do not believe the First Amendment requires such a result.... Neutral principles of law allow a civil court to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claim that the Diocese Defendants knew or should have known of the danger posed by Sepulveda [a priest] to Plaintiff because of his sexual attraction to minors.

The court however reached a different conclusion on plaintiff's claim that the Diocese should have required the offending priest to undergo STD testing and should have provided the results to plaintiff:

This claim seeks to impose liability based on the Diocese Defendants’ alleged failure to exercise their authority over a priest stemming from an oath of obedience taken by him pursuant to the church’s canon law. As such, this claim directly “challenges church actions involving religious doctrine and practice” and cannot be adjudicated without entangling a secular court in ecclesiastical matters. 

St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese Victims Want Bankruptcy Court To Order Distribution of Video Urging Claimants To File

In the bankruptcy reorganization proceedings of the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, August 3 is the deadline for sex abuse victims to file claims.  Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reports that in a motion filed June 29 (full text), the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (representing victim claimants) presented the bankruptcy court with a seven-minute video urging victims to come forward before the deadline. The motion asks the court to order the Archdiocese to deliver written notice to each parish asking it to play the video after each Mass on the July 11-12 weekend, requesting each parish to post the video (or a link to it) on its website, and ordering the Archdiocese to post the video on its own website. The Archdiocese in its response to the motion (full text) says there has already been adequate notice and the video has already received extensive distribution by the media. The response (full text) of the committee representing individual parishes adds that "Parishes could view the
order and request as implicating First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, " The bankruptcy court will hold a hearing on the motion today.

Cert. Filed In Religious Non-Profit Contraceptive Coverage Compromise

A petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (full text) was filed yesterday in Houston Baptist University v. Burwell.  In the case, brought by three religiously affiliated colleges, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama administration's rules that allow religious non-profits to opt out of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate by certifying their religious opposition and either notifying their insurer or plan administrator of their opposition, or furnishing the government with the name and contact information for their insurer or administrator. (See prior posting.) A Becket Fund press release announcing the filing of the petition says that three other petitions challenging the non-profit accommodation have already been filed with the Court.

Cannabis Church Sues Under Indiana's New RFRA

In a move foreshadowed two months ago (see prior posting), in Indiana the First Church of Cannabis has filed suit invoking the state's recently-enacted RFRA in an attempt to shield the Church, its founder and two of its members from prosecution for possession of marijuana.  The complaint (full text) in First Church of Cannabis, Inc. v. State of Indiana, (IN Cir. Ct., filed 7/8/2015), alleges that cannabis is the sacrament of the Church, and laws punishing possession of marijuana and visiting a place where marijuana is used substantially burden plaintiffs' exercise of religion. The Indianapolis Star reports that more than 100 people attended the Church's second service yesterday evening, but because of prosecution threats it is not using cannabis at its services until it is successful in its lawsuit. According to WTHR News, Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry complained:

Our office and police agencies have serious public safety issues we have to address every single day. I am beyond frustrated that we are having to devote valuable time and resources to this matter solely because of an ill-advised and unnecessary law enacted by our legislature, The act serves no purpose, no purpose whatsoever, other than political posturing.

Oklahoma Governor Opposes 10 Commandments Holding

As previously reported, last week the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a controversial Ten Commandments monument on the statehouse grounds violates the state constitution.  Yesterday, in response, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin issued a statement (full text) resisting the holding. She said:

The Ten Commandments monument was built to recognize and honor the historical significance of the Commandments in our state’s and nation’s systems of laws. The monument was built and maintained with private dollars. It is virtually identical to a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol which the United States Supreme Court ruled to be permissible.  It is a privately funded tribute to historical events, not a taxpayer funded endorsement of any religion, as some have alleged.

Nevertheless, last week the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Oklahoma’s Ten Commandments monument was impermissible. Their decision was deeply disturbing to many in our Legislature, many in the general public, and to me.

Oklahoma is a state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions. However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government. At this time, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, with my support, has filed a petition requesting a rehearing of the Ten Commandments case. Additionally, our Legislature has signaled its support for pursuing changes to our state Constitution that will make it clear the Ten Commandments monument is legally permissible. If legislative efforts are successful, the people of Oklahoma will get to vote on the issue. 

During this process, which will involve both legal appeals and potential legislative and constitutional changes, the Ten Commandments monument will remain on the Capitol grounds.

Kansas Governor Shields Clergy and Religious Social Service Groups That Object To Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued Executive Order 15-05 (full text) protecting clergy, religious leaders and religious organizations that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from adverse action by the state. It prohibits the state government from taking any discriminatory action against any individual clergy or religious leader who declines on religious or moral grounds to perform, solemnize, or facilitate a same-sex marriage.  It similarly bars discriminatory action against any religious organization that refuses to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration or recognition of any same-sex marriage.

Finally the Executive Order provides that the state may not take discriminatory action against a religious organization that provides social services or charitable services because the organization acts upon sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman. Discriminatory action includes denial of tax exemptions or benefits, denial of state grants or contracts, and denial of licensing or accreditation.

The governor issued a press release announcing the Executive Order. Washington Post reports on the governor's action. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

NY Lawsuit Seeks To End Pre-Yom Kippur Practice of Kaparot

Monday's New York Daily News reported on a state court lawsuit filed by a group of Brooklyn residents against four rabbis, a number of Hasidic congregations and the city of New York seeking to stop the annual pre-Yom Kippur practice of Kaparot.  The ritual practice that involves the slaughter of chickens has become common in recent years in Hasidic neighborhoods in Crown Heights and Boro Park. A group called Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos says the practice involves both animal cruelty and substantial public health risks.  Plaintiffs charge that New York authorities are not only not enforcing health and animal cruelty laws, but are abetting violations by blocking off streets and sidewalks so the ritual can take place. An affidavit filed by lawyers in the case says in part:

Ten years ago, Kaporos only occurred in several small alleys and a handful of synagogue parking lots. However, every year it has increased in size and scope. Today, Kaporos has become an overwhelming event that has spiraled out of control. .. (into) a carnival like atmosphere of bloody violence. Clearly this event is now motivated by money and profits, and not by religious redemption.

According to Courthouse News Service:

The complaint alleges that kaporos violates six sections of New York City health codes, four sections of New York state agricultural statutes, and various other laws and regulations. The 19-count complaint names New York City, the NYPD, and nearly 20 other religious leaders and congregations as defendants.

 Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind says that plaintiffs' depictions of the ritual are inaccurate.

Conscience Rights of Clerks and Judges Become An Issue After Supreme Court's Marriage Equality Ruling

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage, issues continue to arise regarding the right of state and county officials to refuse on personal religious grounds to issue licenses or perform weddings.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that in Hood County, Texas, County Clerk Katie Lang last week initially refused to issue a marriage license to Joe Stapleton and Jim Cato. On Monday the couple filed a federal lawsuit and less than two hours later Lang's office agreed to issue the couple a marriage license.  However the couple's lawyer says the lawsuit will proceed unless Lang agrees to issue licenses in the future to all couples, gay and straight.

According to the Toledo Blade, in Toledo, Ohio on Monday a same-sex couple who were issued a marriage license ran into delays when they went to the office of the judge on duty to perform marriages for that day.  Municipal Court Judge C. Allen McConnell's bailiff told them that McConnell does not do "these types of marriages." However, after a 45-minute wait, another judge, William M. Connelly, Jr., performed the ceremony for them.

In Kentucky, court clerk Casey Davis who objects on religious grounds to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples has come up with a creative suggestion. Davis wants state law amended so couples can obtain marriage licenses online.  AP reports that Davis has asked Gov. Steve Beshear to call a special session of the legislature to amend the law to allow the online procedure.  According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Beshear for cost reasons has rejected the idea of a special legislative session on marriage issues, even though House Speaker Greg Stumbo favors it.

Milwaukee Archdiocese Seeks Supreme Court Review In Bankruptcy Decision

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, yesterday a petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Listecki v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that $55 million held by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in a perpetual care trust fund for maintaining Catholic cemeteries is potentially available in the Archdiocese's bankruptcy to satisfy claims of clergy sex abuse victims. (See prior posting.)

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Challenge To Big Mountain Jesus Statue

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (video of full arguments) in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Weber. In the case, a Montana federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's renewal of  of a Special Use Permit issued to the Knights of Columbus to allow the organization to continue to maintain a statue of Jesus near a ski slope on Montana's Big Mountain. The trial court found that the statue has lost its religious connotation. (See prior posting.) AP reports on yesterday's arguments.