Farmers' Market's Exclusion of Vendor Over Same-Sex Marriages Views Is Challenged

A suit was filed on Wednesday in a Michigan federal district court challenging on 1st and 14th Amendment grounds the City of East Lansing's Vendor Guidelines for its Farmers' Market. The complaint (full text) in Country Mill Farms, LLC v. City of East Lansing, (WD MI, filed 5/31/2017), claims that the city modified its Guidelines to target Country Mill Farms because its owner, Stephen Tennes, shared on Facebook his Catholic belief opposing same-sex marriage.  Tennes posted that while his Farm hosts weddings, it only hosts those that conform to his belief that marriage is a sacramental union between one man and one woman. Following this post, city officials unsuccessfully attempted to pressure Country Mill to end its participation in the Farmer's Market.  When that was unsuccessful, the city changed its Guidelines to require all Farmers' Market participants to abide by the city's Civil Rights Ordinance both while at the market and as a general business practice.  The complaint also alleges that this is an attempt by the city to extend the reach of its ordinances beyond its borders in violation of the Michigan Home Rule City Act.  ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• John R. Morss, The International Legal Status of the Vatican/Holy See Complex, (Forthcoming, European Journal of International Law).
• Rex Ahdar, Solemnisation of Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom, (Ecclesiastical Law Journal / Volume 16 / Issue 03 / September 2014, pp 283 - 305).
• Richard Moon, Conscientious Objections by Civil Servants: The Case of Marriage Commissioners and Same Sex Civil Marriages, (June 30, 2015).
• Stephen D, Sugarman, Is It Unconstitutional to Prohibit Faith-Based Schools from Becoming Charter Schools?, (July 21, 2015).
• Geoffrey Brahm Levey, Secularism as Proto-Multiculturalism: The Case of Australia, (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2015/56, July 2015).
• Nadia N. Sawicki, Mandating Disclosure of Religious Limitations on Medical Practice, (Loyola University Chicago School of Law Research Paper No. 2015-016 (July 2015)).
• Harlan Grant Cohen, Zivotofsky II's Two Visions for Foreign Relations Law, (109 AJIL Unbound 10 (2015)).
• C. Christine Fair, Sharia, Piety and Maslak: Support for Sectarian Violence in Pakistan, (July 20, 2015).

Alabama Supreme Court Affirms Suspension of Chief Justice Over Defiance of Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, a specially composed panel of judges sitting as the Supreme Court of Alabama unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspending Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore for the remainder of his term. Six judges joined in the court's opinion, while one judge concurred only in the result. In Moore v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, (AL Sup. Ct., April 19, 2017), the court in a 66-page opinion agreed that Moore violated various provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics when he issued directions to Alabama judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite federal court decisions and orders to the contrary, including the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision.  AL.com reports that Moore remains defiant

Chinese Court In First Ruling of Its Kind Rejects Same-Sex Marriage

A court in China yesterday ruled that same-sex marriages are not legal.  As reported by the New York Times, this is the first case of its kind adjudicated in China.  In a decision handed down a few hours after the hearing, the court upheld a decision by the civil affairs bureau in Changsha, Hunan Province, to deny Sun Wenlin and Hu Mingliang a marriage license.  The two men plan an appeal.

Proposed Oklahoma Bill Would Eliminate Marriage Licenses

Oklahoma State Representative Todd Russ has introduced a bill into the Oklahoma legislature that would create a unique response to federal decisions requiring the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  As reported by KSWO News, his bill would do away with marriage licenses.  Instead, under HB 1125 couples may be married in a religious ceremony, after which the member of the clergy performing the ceremony would file a "certificate of marriage" with the clerk of court.  Individuals who do not want to be married in a religious ceremony could file an "affidavit of common law marriage" with the clerk of court. Under the bill, judges would no longer be able to perform marriage ceremonies. The bill retains current language limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, even though the 10th Circuit has invalidated that limitation. (See prior posting.)  Rep. Russ sees the bill as restoring marriage "to what it was supposed to be and was originally a holy matrimony and a very solemn and spiritual vow."  Any progress of the bill through the legislature may be followed here.

Texas AG Cleared of Ethics Charges Over Reaction To Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Texas Tribune reports that in an Aug. 3 notice, the State Bar of Texas announced that it is dismissing an ethics complaint signed by over 200 Texas lawyers claiming that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton "violated his own official oath of office" last summer when he issued an Opinion and statement on the right of public officials to assert religious objections to issuing marriage licenses or performing same-sex marriages. According to the notice: "The Chief Disciplinary Counsel has determined that there is no just cause to believe that [Paxton] has committed professional misconduct."

Oregon AG Investigating Bakery's Refusal To Provide Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

The Oregon Attorney General's civil enforcement office has opened an investigation into a baker who refused to furnish a wedding cake for a lesbian couple's marriage.  According to today's New York Daily News, Aaron Klein, the owner of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, Oregon, says he was following his strong religious beliefs in deciding not to be a part of a same-sex marriage. Oregon's Equality Act of 2007 bars sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations.

Top Ten Religious Liberty and Church-State Developments of 2016

Each year in December, I attempt to pick the most important church-state and religious liberty developments of the past year.  This was a busy year, and a number of the important developments amounted to themes that spanned many months.  So here are my Top Ten picks for the rather chaotic year that is currently coming to an end. I welcome e-mail comment from those who disagree with my choices.

1. The unexpected death of Justice Scalia leaves the Supreme Court split on important issues, including the challenges to the Obamacare contraceptive coverage mandate.

2. Religion plays unusual roles in the Presidential election contest.  Donald Trump raises issues of Muslim immigration, repeal of the Johnson amendment, draws support from Evangelicals despite a personal history that might raise questions with religious conservatives, and receives support from the alt-Right which includes anti-Semitic elements.  Hillary Clinton who has deep personal religious roots does not emphasize these in her campaign.

3. Transgender rights-- particularly access to bathrooms-- become a religious as well as political issue as the Obama administration asserts that existing anti-discrimination provisions in federal law cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

4. Supreme Court grants review in ERISA "church plan" exemption cases.  Billions of dollars in potential underfunding of retirement plans by religiously-affiliated health care systems around the country are at issue.

5. Fallout from the legalization of same-sex marriage continues as various wedding service providers assert the right to refuse to serve same-sex couples, Mississippi's Conscience Protection Act is struck down, and Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore appeals his suspension growing of his resistance to accepting the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling.

6. Latin crosses as part of veterans' memorials, in parks, and on county seals and the like become the latest focus of the battle over religious displays on public property.

7. State "Blaine Amendments" again become the focus of attention as the Supreme Court grants review in the Trinity Lutheran Church case and Oklahoma voters defeat a proposal to eliminate Blaine Amendments from the state constitution.

8. Federal and state RFRA's continue to be asserted, often but not always unsuccessfully, in unusual contexts-- e.g. challenging "In God We Trust" on currency, as a defense to tax evasion charges, as a defense to food stamp fraud, in connection with bankruptcy discharges, and in treatment of transgender employees.

9. Congress expands the U.S. role in protecting international religious freedom by passing the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act.

10.  Justice Department sues cities under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for placing zoning impediments in the way of mosque construction.

For an alternative view of the Top Ten Religious Liberty Stories of 2016, see this post by Baptist Joint Committee blogger Don Byrd.

6th Circuit: Public Official Engaging in State Action Cannot Assert 1st Amendment Defense

In Emold v. Davis, (6th Cir., March 6, 2025), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $100,000 damage award to a same-sex couple who were refused a marriage license by Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis who had religious objections to same-sex marriage. The court said in part:

Government officials “have private lives and their own constitutional rights.” ...  But when a public official wields the “authority of the state,” she “engage[s] in state action,” which, by definition, cannot be protected by the First Amendment....

Davis alternatively argues that her Free Exercise rights were violated by a different state action:  Kentucky’s delay in granting her a religious accommodation.  But Plaintiffs had nothing to do with the timing of the accommodation, and Davis’s argument is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claim.  Either way, Davis has been found liable for state action—not private conduct—so she cannot raise a First Amendment defense...

 As Davis sees it, a public official can wield the authority of the state to violate the constitutional rights of citizens if the official believes she is “follow[ing] her conscience.” ...  That cannot be correct.  “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights” is to place certain freedoms “beyond the reach of . . . [government] officials.”  ...  Thus, when an official’s discharge of her duties according to her conscience violates the constitutional rights of citizens, the Constitution must win out.  The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates....

Davis also argues that Kentucky’s RFRA shields her from liability.  But that statute does not apply here....

Judge Readler filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.  Louisville Courier Journal reports on the decision.

Congress Gives Final Passage To Respect For Marriage Act

 Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives gave final passage to HR 8404 the Respect for Marriage Act (full text). By a vote of 258- 169, the House accepted the amendments added to the original bill by the Senate. The bill now goes to President Biden for his signature. Biden issued a statement yesterday praising Congress' passage of the bill. The bill assures federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages between two individuals and requires states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages from other states. The bill goes on to provide:

Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action....

 Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to deny or alter any benefit, status, or right of an otherwise eligible entity or person which does not arise from a marriage, including tax-exempt status, tax treatment, educational funding, or a grant, contract, agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, claim, or defense.

Fox4 reports on contents of the bill.

UPDATE: On Sept. 13, President Biden signed the bill into law. (White House press release.)

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.]

Suit Seeks To Invalidate New York Same-Sex Marriage Law For Procedural Irregularities

Liberty Counsel announced today that it has filed a lawsuit in New York asking a state court to declare the state's Marriage Equality Act void and to declare void any same-sex marriages that have taken place under the Act. (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) in New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms v. New York State Senate, (Livingston Co. Sup. Ct., filed 6/25/2011), alleges that there were a number of procedural defects in the passage of the statute. These include violation of the Open Meetings Law, suspension of normal Senate committee hearings and voting procedures, denying lobbyists access to members of the legislature, and pressures on Republican Senators from Wall Street and the governor.

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review In Proposition 8 Case

As reported by The Recorder, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday denied en banc review in Perry v. Brown.  In the case in February, a 3-judge panel (by a 2-1 vote) struck down Proposition 8 that eliminated the right for same-sex couples to marry. (See prior posting.) However the court stayed the mandate in the case pending any petition to the Supreme Court for review and until final disposition by the Supreme Court. In denying en banc review, the 9th Circuit issued an order along with a dissent by 3 judges, plus a response to the dissent by two others. (Full text.) The dissent, written by Judge O'Scannlain, said in part:

A few weeks ago, subsequent to oral argument in this case, the President of the United States ignited a media firestorm by announcing that he supports same sex marriage as a policy matter.  Drawing less attention, however, were his comments that the Constitution left this matter to the States and that “one of the things that [he]’d like to see is–that [the] conversation continue in a respectful way.”  

Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation.  Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia....  Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it.

The response, written by Judge Reinhardt expressed puzzlement over the dissenters' "unusual reliance on the President’s views regarding the Constitution, especially as the President did not discuss the narrow issue that we decided in our opinion."

Photographer Challenges Public Accommodation Law

Earlier this week a suit was filed in a Wisconsin state trial court challenging Madison City Code § 39.03(5) which makes it illegal for public accommodations to deny “equal enjoyment” because of someone’s sexual orientation or political beliefs or to publish “any communication” that denies facilities or that conveys a person’s patronage is “unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable” because of someone’s sexual orientation or political beliefs. It also challenges Wis. Stat. §106.52 that has similar provisions regarding sexual orientation. The complaint (full text) in Amy Lynn Photography Studio, LLC v. City of Madison, (WI Cir. Ct., filed 3/7/2017), contends that these legal provisions impede the ability of photographer Amy Lynn to rely on her Christian religious beliefs in deciding which clients to offer her visual storytelling service:

Amy loves to photograph and post about weddings so that others can see God’s love and character displayed in the beauty of marriage. Amy also wants to photograph for and post about pro-life pregnancy health clinics so that others can see God’s love and character displayed in the sanctity of life. These desires have grown as Amy has seen our culture increasingly question the value of marriage and the sanctity of human life.

To counteract that trend, Amy not only promotes certain content, she avoids certain content. Amy can hardly promote her beliefs while glamorizing contrary ideas. Amy therefore cannot photograph or write about things celebrating pornography, racism, violence, abortion, or any marriage besides marriage between one man and one woman, such as same-sex marriage. Nor can she photograph or write about organizations that promote those beliefs.

But Madison’s and Wisconsin’s public accommodation laws forbid that freedom.

An ADF press release announced the filing of the lawsuit.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Ryan T. Anderson, Disagreement is Not Always Discrimination: On Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Analogy to Interracial Marriage, (Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2018).
• Lee J. Strang, The Original Meaning of 'Religion' in the First Amendment: A Test Case of Originalism's Utilization of Corpus Linguistics, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Vol. 2017).
• Kathleen Brady, Religious Accommodations and Third-Party Harms: Constitutional Values and Limits, (106 Kentucky Law Journal, Issue No. 4, Forthcoming).
• James A. Davids, Religious Colleges' Employment Rights Under the 'Ministerial Exception' and When Disciplining an Employee for Sexually Related Conduct, (Texas Review of Law & Politics, Vol. 21, No. 3 (2018).
• Mark Storslee, Religious Accommodation, the Establishment Clause, and Third-Party Harm, (March 8, 2018).
• Timothy Zick, Introduction to The Dynamic Free Speech Clause: Free Speech and Its Relation to Other Constitutional Rights, (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).
• Michael J. Higdon, Biological Citizenship and the Children of Same-Sex Marriage, (March 11, 2018).
• Hiroshi Fukurai & Alice Yang Murray, The History of Japanese Racism, Japanese American Redress, and the Dangers Associated With Government Regulation of Hate Speech, (Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 45, 2018).
• Joel S. Newman, Conspicuous Philanthropy: A Response, (American University Law Review Forum, Vol. 67, No. 1, 2018).

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

• M.C. Mirow, Léon Duguit, (In Olivier Descamps and Rafael Domingo, Great Christian Jurists in French History (Cambridge University Press, 2019) (Forthcoming)).
• Neil James Foster, Protection of Religious Freedom under Australia’s Amended Marriage Law: Constitutional and Other Issues, (Freedom of Religion or Belief: Creating the Constitutional Space for Other Fundamental Freedoms: 14th – 16th February 2018).
• Sheida Banasaznavaei, A Study on the Temporary Marriage Contract in Iranian Law — Are Women Safe in Temporary Marriage Contracts?, (January 5, 2018).

Reactions To California Marriage Decision From Chief Justice and Religious Groups

Today's Los Angeles Times reports on its unusually candid interview with California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George about the Court's ruling last week legalizing same-sex marriage. George told the paper: "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe." Meanwhile today's San Jose Mercury News reports on the divided views about the decision among religious leaders of different faiths and denominations. Before the decision came down, a group known as ProtectMarriage.com already filed with the California Secretary of State petitions containing 1.1 million signatures to get a marriage amendment to the state constitution on the November ballot. The proposed amendment provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. The Secretary of State is expected to announce in mid-June whether there are enough valid signatures for the measure to actually be placed on the ballot. Liberty Counsel announced Friday that it would file a motion with the California Supreme Court asking it to stay the effectiveness of its ruling until after the November vote on the marriage amendment.

Virginia Legislature Passes Bill To Protect Clergy and Religious Groups That Object To Same-Sex Marriage; Governor Threatens Veto

Yesterday the Virginia General Assembly gave final passage to S.41 (full text) that protects clergy, religious and religiously affiliated organizations and their employees and volunteers acting in the scope of their employment from being required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage or from receiving adverse treatment of any kind by the state because the person acted on the basis of a sincere religious or moral belief that marriage should be only the union of one man and one woman. As reported by the Washington Blaze, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has said he would veto the bill.  It should be noted that the language of the bill requires careful reading to avoid misinterpreting it as being broader than it is.  Section B. of the bill applies its protection to any "person," but that is limited by the narrow definition of "person" in Section A. The president of the Family Foundation of Virginia accurately, albeit not totally objectively, described the scope of the bill:

This legislation balances the recently discovered right to whatever definition of marriage you want with our nation’s longstanding principle of religious free exercise by ensuring that the heavy hand of government cannot penalize clergy or religious charities simply because of beliefs about marriage.

Respect For Marriage Act Receives Bipartisan Support But Is Opposed By Christian Groups

On July 19, by a bipartisan vote of 267-157, the U.S. House of Representatives passed and sent to the Senate HR 8404, the Respect For Marriage Act (full text). The bill provides in part:

No person acting under color of State law may deny—

(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

On Tuesday, 83 Christian and other conservative organizations sent a letter (full text) to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asking him to oppose the bill, and saying in part:

anyone who supports this measure is crossing a line into aiding and abetting the persecution of people of faith.

The letter suggests that the bill may be interpreted to require religiously-affiliated child placement and social service agencies that receive government funding or work closely with the government to recognize same-sex marriages. Washington Times reports on the letter.

More On Rowan County, Kentucky, and Marriage Licenses

When Kentucky federal district court Judge David Bunning released Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from jail where she had been placed for refusing to comply with a court order to issue same-sex marriage licenses (see prior posting), he also ordered the five deputy clerks who agreed to comply with the order to file a status report every 14 days. (Full text of order). The first of the ordered reports (full text) was filed on Sept. 18 on behalf of Deputy Brian Mason, the Deputy Clerk who, by mutual agreement, is actually issuing the licenses.  He reports in detail on language changes Kim Davis made in the forms. These include elimination of references to Davis in the form. The other Deputy Clerks filed their first status reports yesterday (Sept. 21).  Perhaps the most interesting (full text) is the one filed on behalf of Deputy Clerk Kristy Plank, which says in part:

As of this filing, Mrs. Plank reports that, to the best of her knowledge, all requests for marriage licenses requested by legally qualified couples have been issued.  The only denial of a marriage license application that has occurred within the last two weeks was to a gentleman who stated that he wanted a license that would permit him to marry “Jesus”. When it was explained to the individual that both parties had to be present, he stated, “Jesus is always present”. After being denied, the gentleman returned later and presented a type of Power of Attorney document issued by his church granting him authority to sign “Jesus’” name. Since both parties were not present these requests were denied.

For those who want to follow all the filings in this case (and in other cases involving LGBT rights), a comprehensive source is the non-profit organization Equality Case Files which posts these primary source materials online.  They are most easily accessed through the group's Twitter feed, its Facebook page or its library on Scribd. [Thanks to Marty Lederman via Religionlaw for the lead.]

UPDATE: On Sept. 21, the ACLU filed a motion (full text) with the court asking it to issue an order requiring marriage licences issued by the Rowan County Clerk's Office to be in the form that was used prior to Sept. 8, and not in the altered form that Davis has imposed. The motion argues that the changes-- especially listing the person signing it as "Notary Public" rather than "Deputy Clerk"-- cast question on the validity of the license and casts "a stamp of animus against the LGBT community."

New Catholic, Evangelical Declaration Reaffirms Pro-Life, Traditional Marriage Agenda

This afternoon, a coalition of 149 pro-life, Catholic, evangelical and Orthodox Christian leaders signed the 4700-word Manhattan Declaration, pledging to defend their pro-life views and their opposition to same-sex marriage. (LifeNews.) The Declaration says in part:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

.... We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths.... Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Today's New York Times reporting on the Declaration says that the document, written by Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson, "is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the [Bush] administration.... They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage." [Thanks to Ira "Chip" Lupu for the lead.]