New Jersey Legislature Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill; Veto Expected

In New Jersey yesterday the Assembly gave final legislative approval to a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. However, according to a report by AP, it is expected that Gov. Chris Christie will veto the bill. The bill (full text) earlier this week passed the state Senate by a vote of 24-16, and then passed the lower house yesterday by a vote of 41-33.

9th Circuit Temporarily Stays Injunction That Allowed Same-Sex Marriage In Idaho

In Latta v. Otter, (9th Cir., May 15, 2014), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of a federal district court's order that struck down Idaho's statutory and constitutional same-sex marriage ban. (See prior posting.) The temporary stay will be in place while the 9th Circuit decides whether to grant state and local officials' emergency motion (full text) for a longer stay pending appeal. Idaho Statesman reports on the 9th Circuit's order.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Challenge To California's Proposition 8

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8 that barred same-sex marriage. A video recording of the two hours of argument-- the first half on standing, the second on the merits-- is available from the court's website. Silicon Valley Mercury News reports on the oral arguments, saying that the court "appeared generally inclined to support the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. But how the judges reach that historic conclusion remains quite unpredictable." Scotus blog has an excellent summary of the oral arguments.

Meanwhile leaders of 26 religious groups across the country yesterday issued a letter titled "The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment," in which they affirm their "shared commitment to promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."  Among the groups endorsing the letter are the National Association of Evangelicals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the Orthodox Church in America and the World Sikh Council. (Backgrounder on letter from Catholic Bishops.)

Canadian Tribunal Finds Christian B&B Owners Violated Human Rights Code By Cancelling Reservation For Gay Couple

In Eadie and Thomas v. Riverbend Bed and Breakfast, (BCHRT, July 17, 2012), the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal held that a bed and breakfast in a small Canadian town, and its owners who are members of the Mennonite Brethren Church, violated the sexual orientation discrimination provisions of the  B.C. Human Rights Code when they cancelled a room reservation after learning that it had been made by a same-sex couple.  The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the Human Rights Code conflicts with the freedom of religion provisions of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That issue must be presented to a court.  Instead, the Tribunal is limited to determining whether respondents had a "bona fide and reasonable justification" to discriminate.  The Tribunal Member hearing the case wrote:

I accept that the Molnars [the B&B owners] hold a sincere, personal and core religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and that sex outside of such a marriage,including same-sex sexual relations, is a sin. I also accept that the Molnars sincerely believe that to allow a same-sex couple to stay in a single bed in their home would harm their relationship to their Lord, and that they would not rent a room in their home for a purpose that conflicted with, or was contrary to, their personal religious beliefs....

She concluded, however, that to be acceptable, a justification had to be rationally related to the function or purpose of the bed and breakfast.  Here the policy of restricting rooms with one bed to heterosexual couples was rationally related to the owners' religious beliefs, but not to the B&B's purpose of offering temporary accommodations to the general public. The Tribunal issued a cease and desist order and awarded damages, including $1500 to each of the complainants for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

The Province, reporting on the decision, says that the Molnars stopped operating their bed and breakfast when the complaint was filed against them, and they do not intend to reopen. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Prop 8 Trial Begins Monday With Dispute Over Televising of Proceedings

In San Francisco tomorrow, the federal district court trial challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 barring same-sex marriage begins. (See prior posting.) Invoking a policy change instituted by the Ninth Circuit in December, the district court is permitting limited televising of the trial. Proceedings will be taped by court personnel and will be posted on YouTube at the end of the day. Intent on keeping the taping under the control of court personnel, Chief Judge John Walker rejected an offer by In Session (formerly Court TV) to broadcast the trial live. (The Recorder, 1/7.) Proponents of Proposition 8 are unhappy fearing intimidation of witnesses by same-sex marriage backers. Their appeal to the 9th Circuit of the district court's order permitting televising of the proceedings was denied by the appeals court on Friday. (Mercury News, 1/8.) Proposition 8 backers quickly filed an appeal with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who has given the other side until noon today to respond. (New York Times, 1/9).

UPDATE: Justice Kennedy referred the appeal on broadcasting of the trial to the full court. On Monday the Court stayed the trial court's order thereby temporarily banning streaming of the proceedings to other court houses as well as any wider broadcasting of the proceedings. The stay remains in effect only until Wednesday to giver the Court more time to examine the issue. Justice Breyer dissented urging further consideration of the issue without a stay being imposed. (Order in Dennis v. Kristin, Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2010.) (CBN reports on the Supreme Court's action.)

NY High Court Refuses To Review Case Rejecting Challenge To Marriage Equality Law

Yesterday, the New York Court of Appeals-- the state's highest court-- denied a motion for leave to appeal in New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms v. New York State Senate, (Entry List).  In the case, a state intermediate appeals court in July  rejected a challenge to the state's Marriage Equality Law (which permits same-sex marriage). Plaintiffs had argued that private lobbying of the Republican Conference of the State Senate in favor of the law by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor Andrew Cuomo violated the Open Meetings Act. (See prior posting.) In a statement yesterday after the court's decision, Governor Cuomo said:

New York State has served as a beacon for progressive ideals and this statute is a clear reminder of what this State stands for: equality and justice for all. With the Court’s decision, same-sex couples no longer have to worry that their right to marry could be legally challenged in this State. The freedom to marry in this State is secure for generations to come.

The Legislative Gazette reports on the decision.

Orthodox Church Lays Groundwork For Legal Enforcement of Ban on Church Use For Same-Sex Marriages

The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America last week adopted a statement (full text) titled Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs Regarding Marriage.  It is apparently designed to allow parishes and monasteries to legally enforce restrictions on use of their facilities for same-sex or transgender marriage ceremonies without courts invoking the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to refuse to do so.  The introduction to the statement says in part:

The purpose of that statement was to articulate the basic and fundamental beliefs of the Orthodox Church in America regarding marriage and to do so in terms which could be understood and applied by federal, state, and local governmental officials without the necessity of any probing inquiry or interpretation which might require them to transgress limitations imposed on them by the First Amendment.

The statement says in part that "Marriage can only be between two people whose birth sex is male and female." It then calls for each diocese, parish, institution and monastery to adopt a statement declaring:

The (Name of the Parish/Hall/Facility) is the property of the (Name of the Parish/Institution/Monastery), a non-profit church organization located in (Location). Due to sincerely held religious beliefs, documented in the Biblical, dogmatic and canonical documents of the Orthodox Church, we do not permit the (Name of the Parish/Hall/Facility) to be used for the following purposes: events, services or receptions related to non-Orthodox sacraments (including, but not limited to, baptisms, weddings or funerals); non-Orthodox worship services; and partisan political or social rallies.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Marc O. DeGirolami, Free Exercise by Moonlight, (San Diego Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Twana A. Hassan, A Historical Analysis of the Development of Free Speech Justifications, (March 28, 2015).
• Frank S. Ravitch, Be Careful What You Wish for: Why Hobby Lobby Weakens Religious Freedom, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Robert L. Howse, Joanna Langille & Katie Sykes, Pluralism in Practice: Moral Legislation and the Law of the WTO After Seal Products, (George Washington International Law Review, (2015 Forthcoming)).
• Mark Tushnet, Civil Rights Policy, (April 2, 2015).
• Marc Greendorfer, Brief of Tri Valley Law as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents in Same Sex Marriage Cases Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14-574, (April 2, 2015).
• Scott D. Gerber, Law and Religion in Colonial Connecticut, (55 Am. J. Legal Hist. 205, (April 2015)).
• Christopher McCrudden, Transnational Culture Wars, (I.CON International Journal of Constitutional Law, Forthcoming).
• James M. Oleske, 'State Inaction,' Equal Protection, and Religious Resistance to LGBT Rights, (University of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 87, 2015, Forthcoming).

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

• Michael Ramsden & Luke Marsh, Same Sex Marriage in Hong Kong: The Case for a Constitutional Right, (The International Journal of Human Rights (Volume 19, Issue 1, January 2015, pages 90-103).
• M.B. Hooker, Succession to Muslim Estates in Singapore: Sources of Law and Choice of Law, (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 15, No. 2, article 5, 2014).
• Rebecca French, What Is Buddhist Law?, (Buffalo Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Haider Ala Hamoudi, Wasfi H. Al-Sharaa & Aqeel Al-Dahhan, The Resolution of Disputes in State and Tribal Law in the South of Iraq: Toward a Cooperative Model of Pluralism, (in Negotiating State and Nonstate Law: The Challenges of Global and Local Legal Pluralism (Michael A. Helfand, ed. Cambridge University Press 2015)).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Corri Zoli, Emily Schneider & Courtney Schuster, Armed Conflict and Compliance in Muslim States, 1947-2014: Does Conflict Look Different Under International Humanitarian Law?, 40 North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 679-738 (2015).
• Church & State, April 2015 Issue.

Utah Law Creates Uncertainty In Protections For County Clerks Refusing To Officiate At Same-Sex Marriages

Yesterday's Deseret News reports that in Utah, county clerks are closely examining one provision included in SB 297 titled "Protections for Religious Expression and Beliefs about Marriage, Family, or Sexuality." The law, signed by the governor last month and effective May 12, generally protects religious officials and religious organizations from being required to participate in, or furnish goods or services to, marriage ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs. (The 10th Circuit struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriages last year. See prior posting.) SB 297 also protects individuals holding business or professional licenses from sanctions for expressing their religious views about marriage or sexuality in a nonprofessional setting. However amendments in SB 297 to Utah Code Sec. 17-20-4 for the first time require county clerks to assure a civil marriage official is available. It provides that county clerks shall

establish policies to ensure that the county clerk, or a designee of the county clerk who is willing, is available during business hours to solemnize a legal marriage for which a marriage license has been issued.

Designees do not need to be employees of the clerk's office.  It can be anyone in the county.  According to the Deseret News:

 Offering couples a list of designees seems to be the route many county clerks are going, though the definition of "designee" might be open to interpretation.

Some county officials believe it would allow them to delegate a person of their choosing such as a family member or friend to perform the ceremony on a one-time basis, something county clerks could do until the Legislature took that authority from them 10 years ago.

But that also raises the possibility that if a grandfather, for example, were designated to marry his granddaughter and her fiancé, he would be obligated to marry any couple who asks from then on.   

Court Says Spousal Privilege Does Not Apply To Couple In Civil Union

In Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Clary, (KY Cir. Ct., Sept. 23, 2013), a Kentucky trial court refused to apply the spousal privilege of Kentucky Rule of Evidence 504 to a couple who are parties to a Vermont civil union.  Under the rule, a spouse may refuse to testify, or prevent his or her spouse from testifying, about events occurring after the date of their marriage.  According to the Louisville Courier Journal, prosecutors trying Bobi Jo Clary for murder claim that her partner Geneva Case heard her admit to killing the victim, and saw Clary clean blood out of the victim's van and abandon it. The court explained that it need not decide whether the privilege must be applied to same-sex married couples since here the parties were only in a civil union.  Even though Vermont now recognizes same-sex marriage, the parties to a civil union in Vermont are required to take specified steps to convert the civil union to a marriage even for Vermont to recognize it. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Hong Kong Court: No Protection For Same-Sex Marriage or Civil Unions

In MK v. Government of HKSAR, (HKCFI, Oct. 18, 2019), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ruled that Article 37 of Hong Kong's Basic Law  providing protection for the freedom of marriage applies only to heterosexual marriage.  It also held that the government does not have a duty to provide a legal framework, such as civil unions, as an alternative to protect same-sex couples. JURIST reports on the decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Andrew Koppelman, If Liberals Knew Themselves Better, Conservatives Might Like Them Better, (20 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1201 (2017))
• Graham Polando, Restraining Free Exercise: Protection Orders and Church Attendance, (February 5, 2017).
• B. Jessie Hill, Kingdom Without End? The Inevitable Expansion of Religious Sovereignty Claims, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 20, 2017).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Unpacking the Relationship between Conscience and Access, (Forthcoming, Law, Religion, and Health in the United States, Holly Fernandez Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, Elizabeth Sepper, eds. Cambridge U. Press 2017).
• Sahar F. Aziz, Losing the 'War of Ideas': A Critique of Countering Violent Extremism Programs, (Texas International Law Journal, Forthcoming).
• Christian Turner, Submarine Statutes, (February 8, 2017).
• Mary Anne Case, Forms of Patriarchy in Amoris Laetitia and in the Papacy of Francis, (U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 613 (2017)).
• Claudia E. Haupt, Antidiscrimination in the Legal Profession and the First Amendment: A Partial Defense of Model Rule 8.4(g), (19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law Online (2017 Forthcoming)).
• Gertrude N. Levine & Samuel J. Levine, Internet Ethics, American Law, and Jewish Law: A Comparative Overview (21 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 37 (2016)).

From SSRN (Focus on individuals):

• Andrew Koppelman, Kent Greenawalt, Defender of the Faith, (Texas Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Michael John DeBoer, Justice Brent E. Dickson, State Constitutional Interpretation, and the Religion Provisions of the Indiana Constitution, (Indiana Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2016).

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

• Shital Prakash Kharat, Effect of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 – Judicial Response, (February 6, 2017).
• Grant Robert Hooper, From the Magna Carta to Bentham to Modern Australian Judicial Review: Themes of Practicality and Spirituality, (Australian Institute of Administrative Law (AIAL) Forum, Vol. 84, pp. 22-44, 2016).

From SSRN (LGBT Rights):

• Reva Siegel, Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Consensus, Conflict, and Constitutional Culture, (February 9, 2017).
• Susan Frelich Appleton, Obergefell's Liberties: All in the Family, (Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 77, No. 5, 2016).
• Malcolm Langford, Revisiting Joslin v. New Zealand: Same-Sex Marriage in Polarised Times, (E. Brems and E. Desmet, Integrated Human Rights in Practice: Rewriting Human Rights Decisions (Edward Elgar, 2017)).
• Katherine Pratt, The Tax Definition of 'Medical Care': A Critique of the Startling IRS Arguments in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner, (23 Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 313 (2016)).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Squaring Faith and Sexuality: Religious Institutions and the Unique Challenge of Sports, (Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 34, No. 385, 2016).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, The Nonsense About Bathrooms: How Purported Concerns over Safety Block LGBT Nondiscrimination Laws and Obscure Real Religious Liberty Concerns, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2017).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Michael J. Churgin, Is Religion Different? Is There a Thumb on the Scale in Refugee Convention Appellate Court Adjudication in the United States? Some Preliminary Thoughts, [Abstract], 51 Texas International Law Journal 213-228 (2016).
• David L. Hudson, Jr. & Emily H. Harvey, Dissecting The Hybrid Rights Exception: Should It Be Expanded or Rejected?, [Abstract], 38 University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review 449-475 (2016).
• Hon. Gail T. Kulick, Tadd M. Johnson, Rebecca St. George, & Emily Segar-Johnson, From Dysfunction and Polarization to Legislation: Native American Religious Freedom Rights and Minnesota Autopsy Law, 42 Mitchell Hamline Law Reveiw 1699-1721 (2016).
• Law, Religion and the Family Unit After Hobby Lobby: A Tribute to Professor Harry Krause, 2016 University of Illinois Law Review 1227-1808.
• Symposium: Law and Religion In an Increasingly Polarized America,(Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vo. 20, No. 4, 2017).
• Symposium on Religious Liberty and Christian Higher Education, (Two Kingdoms Network, Concordia University, 2017). The Symposium, among others, includes Howard M. Friedman, The Future of Religious Liberty.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• François Foret, Democratic Representation and Religion. Differences and Convergences between the European Parliament and the US House of Representatives, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2014/58 (2014)).
• Paul T. Babie, Private Property in Post Secular Law: An Introductory Foray, (2013 University of Queensland Law Journal 32 (2) p238).
• D. Brian Dennison, The Resonance of Christian Political Conceptions within International Humanitarian Law, (Uganda's Paper Series on International Humanitarian Law, 2013).
• Ryan M. Hrobak & Robin Fretwell Wilson, Emergency Contraceptives or 'Abortion-Inducing' Drugs? Empowering Women to Make Informed Decisions, (Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 71, Issue 2, 2014).
• Brett G. Scharffs, Our Fractured Attitude Towards Corporate Conscience, (March 12, 2014).
• Sarah Schiesz, Hezbollah: Before and after the Syrian War, (May 12, 2014).
• Samuel Wolf Calhoune, Justice Lewis F. Powell's Baffling Vote in Roe v. Wade, (71 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 925 ( 2014).
• Meg Mary Margaret Penrose, Unbreakable Vows: Same-Sex Marriage and the Fundamental Right to Divorce, (58 Villanova Law Review 169 (2013)).
• Muhammad Munir, The Law of Khul' in Islamic Law and the Legal System of Pakistan: The Sunnah of the Prophet or Judicial Ijtihad?, (May 24, 2014).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Mark Goldfeder, The Adoption of Children In Judaism and In Israel; A Conceptual and Practical Review, 22 Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law 321-353 (2014).
• Daniel Ross Goodman, Ethical Falsehood: Towards A Moral Values Paradigm In False-Speech Adjudication, [Abstract], 55 South Texas Law Review 71-112 (2013).
• Austin R. Nimocks, History and Recent Developments in Same-Sex Marriage Litigation, Federalist Society State Courts Project White Paper (May 28, 2014).
• Brian J. Grim, Greg Clark & Robert Edward Snyder, Is Religious Freedom Good for Business?: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis, 10 Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, Article 4, 2014.

IRS Adopts Final Rules Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages For Tax Purposes

Yesterday the Internal Revenue Service published in the Federal Register a release (full text) adopting final rules recognizing same-sex marriages for federal tax purposes. The new rules provide in part:

[A] marriage of two individuals is recognized for federal tax purposes if the marriage is recognized by the state, possession, or territory of the United States in which the marriage is entered into, regardless of domicile....

Two individuals who enter into a relationship denominated as marriage under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction are recognized as married for federal tax purposes if the relationship would be recognized as marriage under the laws of at least one state, possession, or territory of the United States....

The terms spouse, husband, and wife do not include individuals who have entered into a registered domestic partnership, civil union, or other similar formal relationship not denominated as a marriage under the law of the state, possession, or territory of the United States where such relationship was entered into....

Supreme Court Denies Stay of Florida Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court late yesterday afternoon denied an application for a stay in a Florida same-sex marriage case while the decision is on appeal to the 11th Circuit.  The Supreme Court's order (full text) in Armstrong v. Brenner, (Dec. 19, 2014) results in a district court decision handed down in August taking effect on January 5. (See prior related posting.)  Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented from the Court's action.  SCOTUSblog reports on the Court's action.

Ethics Complaints Are Newest Tool In Wars Over Same-Sex Marriage

Legal ethics complaints appear to have become the most recent weapon in the culture wars.  After the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a series of complaints with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (see prior posting), an ally of Moore's has turned the tables.  On July 28, Alabama attorney Trent Garmon and his wife Holly filed a complaint against Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, over Cohen's comments attacking Moore for Moore's actions opposing same-sex marriage.  As reported by AL.com, the complaint alleges that Cohen's statements violated Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.2 that provides;

A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, 

Cohen's comments included a statement that Alabama "elected [Moore] to be a judge, not a pastor;" Cohen called Moore a demagogue and the "Ayatollah of Alabama," and said he is unfit for office.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Sarah Beresford, Seeking Secularism: Resisting Religiosity in Marriage and Divorce- A Comparative Study of England and America, (Web JCLI, Vol. 3, 2011).
• Girjesh Shukla, Law, Religion and State: Constitutional Discourse and Judicial Interpretation, (2011).
• Howard Kislowicz, Richard Haigh and Adrienne Ng, Calculations of Conscience: The Costs and Benefits of Religious and Conscientious Freedom, (Alberta Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2011).
• David Bilchitz, Should Religious Associations Be Entitled to Discriminate?, (South African Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 2, 2011).
• Mariana Ardila Trujillo, Hacia La Resolución De Los Conflictos Entre La Protección De La Diversidad Cultural Y El Reconocimiento De Los Derechos De Las Mujeres (Toward the Conflict’s Resolution between the Protection of the Cultural Diversity and the Recognition of the Women´s Rights), (Revista Derecho del Estado, No. 26, 2011).
• Alejandro Rosas Martinez, Algunas Implicaciones Jurídicas Del Matrimonio Entre Personas Del Mismo Sexo En La Ciudad De México (Some Juridical Implications of the Same Sex Persons Marriage at México City), (Revista Derecho del Estado, No. 26, 2011).
• Sara Weinrib, An Exemption for Sincere Believers: The Challenge of Alberta versus Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, (McGill Law Journal, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 719-750, 2011).
• Mark Strasser, Same-Sex Marriage and the Right to Privacy, (Journal of Law and Family Studies, Vol. 13, pp. 117-150, 2011).
• Wladimyr Mattos Albano, The Constitutional Immunity to Temples of Any Cult in the Municipalities and Their Interpretation, (Revista Brasileira de Direito Tributário e Finanças Públicas, Vol. 4, No. 22, p. 25, 2010).

From bepress:

• Anke I. Bouzenita, The Principle of Neutrality and “Islamic International Law” (Siyar), Global Jurist: Vol. 11: Iss. 1 (Advances), Article 4 (2011).

From SmartCILP:

• Barbara Oomen, Between Rights Talk and Bible Speak: The Implementation of Equal Treatment Legislation in Orthodox Reformed Communities in the Netherlands, [Abstract], 33 Human Rights Quarterly 175-200 (2011).
• Frederick V. Perry, The Corporate Governance of Islamic Banks: A Better Way of Doing Business?, 19 Michigan State Journal of International Law 251-277 (2011).

Australian Government Survey By Mail Favors Same-Sex Marriage

The Australian Bureau of Statistics yesterday released the results of its national postal survey on whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex marriage.  (Press release; full survey results).  61.6% of respondents voted "yes"; 38.4% voted "no".  The press release expanded on the data:

All states and territories recorded a majority Yes response. Of the 150 Federal Electoral Divisions, 133 recorded a majority Yes response, and 17 Federal Electoral Divisions recorded a majority No response.

12,727,920 million people participated in the voluntary survey – representing 79.5 per cent of the more than 16 million eligible Australians.

CNN reports that celebrations broke out across Australia after the results were announced.  (See prior related posting.)

Religious Conservatives Around The World Object To Valentine's Day

Today is Valentine's Day-- a celebration that has become increasingly popular around the world.  As in past years, conservative religious authorities in some countries continue to express their opposition to the occasion. In Coimbatore, India, members of the All India Youth Federation have petitioned police for protection, according to yesterday's Deccan Chronicle. The group says that every year, religious parties and other protesters gather in city parks and elsewhere where young people meet, and try to catch them and force them to marry in public places.

In Indonesia, according to today's Tengri News, the country's largest Muslim organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama, says it does not want to ban Valentine's Day, but it should not be celebrated by teenagers. The Head of the conservative Islamic Defenders Front went further and declared the day "haram" (forbidden) for Muslims, saying it reflects the culture of "infidels."

According to OnIslam, in Pakistan, the head of Jammat-e-Islami, the country’s largest Islamic party, said: "We are going to observe February 14 as Hijab Day in all over the country, especially in the educational institutions in order to show to the world that the people of Pakistan totally reject this custom, which is a direct attack on the culture of modesty."

Meanwhile, according to Chicago's Daily Herald, in Illinois, supporters of same-sex marriage hope that the state Senate will use today to pass and send to the House a bill permitting same-sex marriage.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Marshall Thompson, Tortured Morals: The Illegality and Immorality of the Enhanced Interrogation Program from an LDS Perspective, (April 10, 2013).
• Patrick M. Garry and John P. Garry, The Establishment Clause and the Making of a New Secularism: A Review Essay on Church, State and the Crisis in American Secularism by Bruce Ledewitz, (Duquesne University Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2013).
• Brian Michael McCall, The Church and the Usurers: Unprofitable Lending for the Modern Economy, (April 10, 2013).
• Donna Carol Litman and Steven H. Resnicoff, Jewish and American Inheritance Law: Commonalities, Clashes, and Estate Planning Consequences,(in L. Moscovits (ed.), Jewish Law Association Studies XXII (2012)). 
• Robert K. Vischer, Do For-Profit Businesses Have Free Exercise Rights?, (Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 2013, Forthcoming).
• Douglas Laycock and Thomas C. Berg, Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, (99 Virginia Law Review In Brief (2013)).
• Mark D. Rosen, Religious Institutions, Liberal States, and the Political Architecture of Overlapping Spheres, (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming).
• James David Nelson, Conscience, Incorporated, (April 8, 2013).
• Nelson Robert Lund, Same-Sex Marriage in the Courts of Law and Reason, (Engage: The Journal of the Federalist Society's Practice Groups, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 34-35, February 2013).
• Gianluca Parolin, (Re)Arrangement of State/Sharī'ah Relations in Egypt's Constitutional Transition (April 15, 2013). NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 13-15.
• Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Plausibility of Personhood, (74 Ohio State Law Journal 14 (2012)).
• Nina J. Crimm, What Could Globalization Mean for Domestic Islamic-Socio-Political Activism?, (36 Fordham International Law Journal 600 (Symposium Issue, 2013).
• François-Xavier Licari, L'Arbitrage Rabbinique, Entre Droit Talmudique Et Droit Des Nations (Rabbinic Arbitration, Between Talmudic Law and the Law of the Gentiles), (Revue de l'arbitrage 2013, pp. 57-120).