Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, February 20, 2009
West Virginia Proponents of Marriage Amendment Create Controversy
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
D.C. Catholic Charities Ends New Spousal Benefits To Avoid Recognizing Same-Sex Partners
Monday, September 11, 2017
South African Court Reconciles Marriage Law With Gender Identity Change Statute
The government argued that in such cases, a gender change should not be able to be registered since it would result in a same-sex marriage, which the law does not recognize. In one of the cases, the government had instead cancelled the couple's marriage record and insisted that they enter a civil union. The court however, disagreed concluding that the couples must be allowed to register the gender reassignment and remain married. Refusing to do this, the court said, violates the rights under the South African Constitution to administrative justice and to equality and human dignity. GroundUp reports on the decision.
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
Court Invalidates Kentucky's Same-Sex Marriage Ban; Stays Order
in America even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted.
Wednesday, June 07, 2023
European Court: Ukraine Violates Human Rights Convention by Denying Legal Recognition to Same-Sex Couples
In Maymulakhin & Markiv v. Ukraine, (ECHR, June 1, 2023), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that Ukraine violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) by denying any form of legal recognition to same-sex couples. The Court said in part:
While the Court has to date not interpreted Article 8 of the Convention as imposing a positive obligation on the States Parties to make marriage available to same-sex couples, it has confirmed that in accordance with their positive obligations under that provision, the member States are required to provide a legal framework allowing same‑sex couples to be granted adequate recognition and protection of their relationship.... The Court has also held that Contracting States enjoy a more extensive margin of appreciation in determining the exact nature of the legal regime to be made available to same sex couples....
The Court ordered Ukraine to pay the two petitioners 5032 Euros each as damages and to pay 4000 Euros for costs and attorney's fees.
The Court also issued a press release (PDF download link) summarizing its decision.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Probate Judge Asks Alabama Supreme Court To Protect His Refusal To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licences
The jailing of Kentucky Clerk Kimberly B. Davis puts at immediate risk the liberty interest of all faithful and religiously sincere public officials in Alabama whose office has responsibility for making decisions as to whether to give sanction and honor to homosexual relationships to include the issuance of a license to engage in sodomy. These officers need this Court's declaration that their sincerely held religious beliefs do not disqualify them from holding their office.Last March, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering Probate Court judges around the state to discontinue the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, (See prior posting.) Judge Williams emergency motion was technically filed as a motion in that case, captioned in the motion as Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel Alabama Policy Institute v. King (Case No. 1140460). .
Friday, January 16, 2015
Michigan Must Recognize Same-Sex Mariages Entered Before Stay of District Court's Order
once a marriage has been solemnized pursuant to a validly issued marriage license, the authorizing state cannot withdraw the status that it has awarded, even if the couples had no right to demand to be married in the first place.The court however stayed the effectiveness of its injunction for 21 days to allow an appeal to the 6th Circuit. Christian Science Monitor reports on the decision.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
California Governor Signs Law Excusing Objecting Clergy From Performing Same-Sex Weddings
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Some Scottish Religious Groups Want To Be Able To Perform Same-Sex Marriages
Wednesday, February 07, 2018
California Baker May Refuse To Create Cake For Same-Sex Wedding
The Unruh Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, as well as sexual orientation.The bakery had arranged to refer orders from same-sex couples to a competing bakery that has no objections. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Miller, (CA Super., Feb. 5, 2018), the court said in part:
The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence....
No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.
The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.The Bakersfield Californian reports on the decision.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
New Jersey Supreme Court Refuses Stay of Decision Allowing Same-Sex Marriage
The State's statutory scheme effectively denies committed same-sex partners in New Jersey the ability to receive federal benefits now afforded to married partners.Bergen County Record reports on the decision.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
New York Files Amicus Brief Arguing Federal DOMA Is Unconstitutional
By refusing to recognize for federal purposes marriages that are valid under state law, DOMA intrudes on matters historically within the control of the States, and undermines and denigrates New York’s law designed to ensure equality of same-sex and different-sex married couples. Thus DOMA threatens basic principles of federalism. Moreover, it classifies and determines access to rights, benefits, and protections based on sexual orientation, and also based on sex.
For each of these reasons, considered separately or together, DOMA should be subjected to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and it cannot withstand such scrutiny.Yesterday's New York Law Journal has more on the background of the case.
Friday, October 18, 2013
French Constitutional Council Rejects Mayors' Attempt To Avoid Performing Same-Sex Marriages
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Proponents Drop Oregon Conscience Initiative After Losing Challenge To Ballot Title
Current Oregon law provides protection to religious institutions and clergy for choosing nonparticipation in same sex ceremonies. But the law discriminates against individuals of faith who wish to choose nonparticipation. A Jewish pianist or a Christian violinist who may not want to participate in a same sex ceremony based on deeply held religious beliefs is currently subject to government penalties and civil actions....
The intent of IP52 is to end this religious discrimination in Oregon by providing individuals of faith with protection equal under the law to that of religious clergy. But the certified ballot title does not acceptably state this. Indeed, it stages it as intolerant instead of protecting equal rights of conscience..... Thus, we have resolved to suspend IP52 and, instead, back an enforcement lawsuit that will be filed shortly in Oregon on behalf of individuals of faith in expressive professions who are currently being coerced to violate their faiths....[Thanks to James Oleske via Religionlaw for the lead.]
Saturday, December 07, 2013
Colorado Civil Rights Commission Initial Decision Holds Bakery Violated Law In Refusing Cake For Same-Sex Wedding
The ALJ also rejected respondents' claims that requiring them to prepare the cake would violate their free speech and free exercise rights protected by the U.S. and Colorado constitutions. The ALJ held that this would not amount to compelled speech, saying that the bakery owner "was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage." Also any impact on free speech "is 'plainly incidental' to the government's right to regulate objectionable conduct." The ALJ rejected respondents' free exercise claim, finding that the anti-discrimination law is neutral and of general applicability.
The ALJ's initial decision may be appealed to the full Civil Rights Commission (Commn. Rule 10.13), and from their to the state court of appeals (C.R.S. Sec. 24-24-307). The ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. Fox News and AP report on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Quick Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage Sought In North Carolina
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Maryland AG Says Same-Sex Marriages From Other States May Be Recognized
While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction. In light of Maryland's developing public policy concerning intimate same sex relationships, the Court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition.Three Catholic Archbishops of Maryland issued a joint statement (full text) criticizing the ruling. Today's Baltimore Sun reports on developments.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Washington Supreme Court Says Florist's Refusal To Sell For Same-Sex Wedding Violated State Law
Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We therefore hold that the conduct for which Stutzman [the florist shop owner] was cited and fined in this case-refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Ingersoll and Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding-constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the WLAD. We also hold that the WLAD may be enforced against Stutzman because it does not infringe any constitutional protection. As applied in this case, the WLAD does not compel speech or association. And assuming that it substantially burdens Stutzman's religious free exercise, the WLAD does not violate her right to religious free exercise under either the First Amendment or article I, section 11 [of the state constitution] because it is a neutral, generally applicable law that serves our state government's compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.A press release from ADF says that florist Barronelle Stutzman will seek U.S. Supreme Court review in the case. Links to pleadings and court rulings in the case can also be found on ADF's case page. (See prior related posting.) Tri-City Herald reports on the decision.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Alabama Same-Sex Marriage Developments: A Second Decision and Defiance
Meanwhile, on Jan. 27 Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore sent a letter to the state's governor urging defiance of the federal court's decisions. In his letter (full text) to Gov. Robert Bentley, Moore said in part:
I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them. I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and Constitution of Alabama. Moreover, I note that "United States district court decisions are not controlling authority in this Court."... As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.
... Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority.According to AL.com, the governor issued a statement after the release of Moore's letter, saying in part:
The people of Alabama voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between man and woman. As governor, I must uphold the Constitution. I am disappointed in Friday's ruling, and I will continue to oppose this ruling. The Federal government must not infringe on the rights of states.In 2003, Roy Moore ,in his first term as Alabama Chief Justice, gained national attention by his fight against removal of a large Ten Commandments monument that he had place in the Alabama Judicial Building.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Recent Articles of Interest
- Meital Pinto, The Absence of the Right to Culture of Minorities Within Minorities in Israel: A Tale of a Cultural Dissent Case, (4 Laws 579–601 (2015)).
- Janne Elisabeth Nijman, Grotius’ Imago Dei Anthropology: Grounding Ius Naturae et Gentium, (Martti Koskenniemi, Monica GarcÃa-Salmones, and Paolo Amoroso (Eds.), International law and Religion (Forthcoming)).
- Eric Heinze, Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship, (in Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship, Oxford University Press, February 2016).
- Darryl Li, Jihad in a World of Sovereigns: Law, Violence, and Islam in the Bosnia Crisis, (Law and Social Inquiry, 2015).
- Christopher R. Hoyt, Income Tax Deductions for Charitable Bequests of IRD, (September 24, 2015).
- James M. Donovan, Half-Baked: The Demand by For-Profit Businesses for Religious Exemptions from Selling to Same-Sex Couples, (Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 49, 2015).
- Patrick Talbot, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty Clashes in the U.S., After Obergefell v. Hodges: (An American Constitutional Challenge), (Anthology on Religious Freedom by Center of Ethics and Socio-Religiosity Studies Petra Christian University (PCU), Forthcoming).
- Anthony C. Infanti, Victims of Our Own Success: The Perils of Obergefell and Windsor, (Ohio State Law Journal Furthermore, Forthcoming).
- Peter Nicolas, Obergefell's Squandered Potential, (California Law Review Circuit, 2015 Forthcoming).