Mississippi Legislature Sends Governor Broad "Freedom of Conscience" Bill

The Mississippi Legislature today gave final passage to H.B. 1523 (full text) and (adopted amendment). Titled Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 32-17 House by a vote of 69-44.

The statute, one of the broadest to date enacted by states, protects three separate beliefs if held on religious or moral grounds: (1) marriage is a union of one man and one woman; (2) sexual relations should be reserved to heterosexual marriage; and (3) gender is an immutable characteristic determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.

The statute protects from any kind of adverse state action a religious organization that on one of these bases refuses to solemnize a marriage or refuses to provide services, accommodations, goods or facilities for a marriage.  It also allows religious organizations to use these beliefs in making employment decisions or decisions regarding the sale, rental or occupancy of housing facilities, or in providing adoption or foster care services.

The statute protects from adverse government action any adoptive or foster parents who guide or raise a child consistent with these beliefs.  It protects any person who refuses provide counseling or fertility services or treatment because of these beliefs (except for emergency medical treatment).

The statute goes on to protect anyone who refuses to provide specific kinds of wedding-related services because of these beliefs, including photography, wedding planning, printing, floral arrangements, dress making, hall or limousine rental or jewelry sales and services.  It also protects any person who imposes sex-specific policies based on these beliefs on students or employees or regarding access to rest rooms, locker rooms and showers.

The statute goes on to protect state employees who speak out on these issues in their private capacity or in the workplace to the extent other political, moral or religious beliefs can be expressed. It allows county clerks to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licences consistent with these beliefs, and allows judges and others to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

According to CBS News, Republican Gov. Phil Bryant so far refuses to say whether or not he will sign the bill into law.

Plaintiffs Awarded Attorneys' Fees In Suit Against County Clerk Kim Davis

In Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, July 21, 2017) a Kentucky federal district court awarded $224,703 in attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiffs who previously obtained a preliminary injunction against Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis.  Davis, citing her religious beliefs, stopped issuing marriage licenses entirely in order to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples.  The court yesterday held that plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees because they were the “prevailing party” --they obtained a preliminary injunction that granted the relief they sought. The ultimate dismissal of the case after a change in the law rendered it moot did not change this conclusion.  The court, in a 50-page opinion, said in part:

In this case, the Plaintiffs “prevailed by every measure of victory.” The relief Plaintiffs obtained—the ability to secure marriage licenses and marry—was “preliminary” in name only. It is not the “fleeting” success that fails to establish prevailing-party status.  After the Court obtained compliance with the Preliminary Injunction Orders, Plaintiffs received marriage licenses. And once the plaintiff-couples received their marriage licenses, their rights were not subject to revocation….

... Couples continued to receive marriage licenses after the Kentucky General Assembly amended the law – albeit, on a form Davis felt more comfortable with. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction success materially altered their legal relationship with Davis, and that court-ordered change was enduring and irrevocable. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs “prevailed” within the meaning of § 1988 and are entitled to attorneys’ fees.

The court also held that the state of Kentucky, not Rowan County, is liable for the attorneys’ fees. AP reporting on the decision says Davis plans to appeal, but the state of Kentucky has not yet decided whether it will appeal the ruling. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Maine Bill Would Separate Clergy's Role In Marriages From Legal Recognition

A bill has been introduced into the Maine legislature that would separate the religious role of clergy in performing marriage ceremonies from the legal recognition of marriage. The bill, LD 779, titled An Act to Remove Clergy as Signatories on Marriage Licenses, was introduced by a legislator on behalf of Rev. Mark Rustin, a Congregationalist minister, who says that he does not want to be an agent for the state of Maine. The bill calls for the legal aspect of the marriage contract to be carried out by lawyers, justices, judges or notaries. Today's Village Soup Times reports that Rev. Rustin is concerned that the present role of clergy places them in a difficult position when they need help a couple get through a divorce. Also, he said, that sometimes older couples want the clergy’s blessing to live together, but do not want a legal marriage contract because they will then lose Social Security benefits. Some people think the bill will also impact the issue of same-sex marriages.

Kim Davis' Case Continues to Defy Finality

The controversy surrounding Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage license to same-sex couples is not over.  As previously reported, after being released from custody on contempt charges, Davis allowed others in her office to issue licenses, but only with revised wording. On Nov. 13, outgoing Governor Steven Beshear filed a response (full text) with the federal district court that had held Davis in contempt stating that:

those altered licenses are not fully consistent with Kentucky statute, but such deviations do not render the marriages ineffective.  Thus, the Third-Party Defendants have and will continue  to  recognize  as  valid  those  marriages  solemnized  pursuant  to  the  altered licenses for purposes of the governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities conveyed by the Executive Branch agencies over which Governor Beshear exercises supervisory control.

This led the ACLU to file a motion (full text) on Nov. 20 urging to court to require licenses to be issued in their original unaltered form, stating:

As Governor Beshear has now recognized, Davis’ actions have created considerable uncertainty regarding the legality of the altered marriage licenses.  They impose significant and ongoing harm on Rowan County couples who are legally eligible to marry but now face doubt and fear that a marriage solemnized pursuant to an altered marriage license could be held invalid at some unknown time in the future. And Davis’ actions effectively brand the altered licenses with a stamp of animus against gay people. This Court can and should eliminate the uncertainty and harm by enforcing its prior orders....

Meanwhile, accordidng to the Nov. 6 International Business Times, Republican Kentucky Gov.-elect Matt Bevin says that when he is sworn in on Dec. 8, he will issue an executive order removing county clerks' names from state marriage licenses, hoping that this will resolve the problem.

Challenge To North Carolina Marriage Laws Dismissed

According to the Greensboro (NC) News & Record, a North Carolina state trial court judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit filed last year by 11 clergy challenging the state's requirement that marriages be solemnized by clergy or a magistrate.  The complaint claimed that (1) it violates the Establishment Clause for the state to make a member of the clergy an agent of the state to perform a marriage ceremony and submit a state granted license; (2) it violates state and federal free exercise protections for the state to require individuals entering into marriage to participate in a state-prescribed ceremony and licensing of the marriage; and (3) it is unconstitutional for the state to prohibit members of the clergy from solemnizing the marriage of same-sex couples. (See prior posting.) Plaintiffs say they will appeal the decision.

New House Speaker Has Long Record of Conservative Advocacy on Religious Freedom Issues

Newly elected Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Johnson (R- LA), has a long record, before he was in Congress, of advocacy on conservative Christian religious issues.  Wikipedia reports:

Before his election to Congress, Johnson was a partner in the Kitchens Law Firm and a senior attorney and national media spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, now known as Alliance Defending Freedom. Johnson was also formerly chief counsel of the nonprofit law firm Freedom Guard.

In September 2016, Johnson characterized his legal career as "defending religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and biblical values, including the defense of traditional marriage, and other ideals like these when they’ve been under assault."

Johnson served as a trustee of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission within the Southern Baptist Convention from 2004 to 2012.

Johnson came to some prominence in the late 1990s when he and his wife appeared on national television to represent Louisiana's newly passed marriage covenant laws, which made divorce more difficult legally.

Louisiana House of Representatives

After the 8th District seat was vacated in 2015, Johnson ran for the position unopposed....

In April 2015, Johnson proposed the Marriage and Conscience Act, a bill similar in content to Indiana's controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed a few days earlier, though Johnson denied that his legislation was based on the Indiana law.

Johnson's Marriage and Conscience Act would have prevented adverse treatment by the State of any person or entity on the basis of the views they may hold with regard to marriage. Critics denounced the bill as an attempt to protect people who discriminate against same-sex married couples.

An e-mail statement from First Liberty Institute says that Johnson was also once a First Liberty attorney.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Tadeusz Kugler, State-Sponsored Religion as Impediment To Assimilation and Immigration: A Look at Europe, (In Narratives and Negotiation: Agency, Religion and the State, edited by Autumn Quezada-Grant and Sargon Donabed. New York, NY: Lexington Books, 2015).
• Doulas Laycock & Thomas C. Berg, Brief of Douglas Laycock, Thomas Berg, David Blankenhorn, Marie Failinger, and Edward Gaffney as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners in Same-Sex Marriage Cases (Obergefell v. Hodges etc.), (April 12, 2015).
• Lucia Ann Silecchia, The Call to Stewardship: A Catholic Perspective on Environmental Responsibility, (Chapter 17 of American Law from a Catholic Perspective, Edited by Ronald J. Rychlak, 2015).
• Robert A. Kahn, The Overlapping of Fools? Drawing the Line between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Wake of the 2014 Gaza Protests, (U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15-11, 2015).
• Pamela Foohey, Secured Credit in Religious Institutions' Reorganizations, (2015 U Ill L Rev Slip Opinions 1).
• Daniel Ortner, The Terrorist's Veto: Why the First Amendment Must Protect Provocative Portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad, (April 8, 2015).
• J. Stephen Clark, But for Sex: Equal Protection and the Individual Opportunity to Marry One's Chosen Partner Without Regard to Sex, (South Dakota Law Review, Forthcoming).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Robin Fretwell Wilson, When Governments Insulate Dissenters From Social Change: What Hobby Lobby and Abortion Conscience Clauses Teach About Specific Exemptions,48 UC Davis Law Review 703-790 (2014).
• Is Religion Outdated (As A Constitutional Category)?, Introduction by Steven D. Smith and Larry Alexander; articles by Christopher J. Eberle, Stanley Fish, William A. Galston, Larry Alexander, Frederick Mark Gedicks, Micah Schwartzman, Maimon Schwarzschild and Winnifred Fallers Sullivan; reply by Andrew Koppelman. 51 San Diego L. Rev. 971-1142 (2014). 
• Tengku Ahmad Hazri, Constitutional Governance and the Future of Islamic Civilisation, Islam and Civilisational Renewal (from Academia.edu).

Appeals Court Reverses Denial of Name Change After Gender Reassignment

In In re Steven Charles Harvey, (OK Ct. Civil App., Nov. 20, 2012), an Oklahoma appeals court held that a trial court judge abused his discretion in denying Steven Charles Harvey, who was undergoing a sex change, the right to change his name to Christie Ann Harvey. The trial judge (full text of trial court opinion) had held that it would assist that which is fraudulent to allow the name change because "a sex change cannot make a man a woman or a woman a man." The trial judge argued this could lead to inadvertent or illegal same-sex marriage, or, in case of a crime, could lead police to ignore a female suspect because they had retrieved male DNA.  In support of his denial of the name change petition, the trial court judge quoted from the Biblical book of Genesis: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them...." and went on to say: "The DNA code shows God meant for them to stay male and female." The appeals court agreed with petitioner that there is nothing fraudulent in the use of a traditionally female name by one with male DNA. The Oklahoman reports on the appeals court decision.

Suit Challenges Montana's Ban on Polygamy

According to MTN News, a federal court lawsuit was filed yesterday challenging Montana's  ban on polygamous marriages.  Nathan and Vicki Collier were legally married in 2000.  Nathan is now seeking a marriage license to legally marry Christine Parkinson who has also been living as his wife in a polygamous relationship.  The family has a total of eight children.  In July, the Yellowstone County clerk's office denied Nathan a marriage license and asked the county attorney's office for legal advice.  In a letter, the Deputy County Attorney said that the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision does not extend to protect polygamous marriages.  Nathan, Vicki and Christine all filed the lawsuit, representing themselves, arguing that their consensual plural family association is protected by the equal protection, free exercise,  and establishment  clause as well as by the 1st Amendment's protection of speech and association. Montana's bigamy statute imposes a fine of $500 and imprisonment up to 6 months on those convicted.

Restrictions On Anti-Gay Marriage Protester Upheld

In Braun v. Terry, (ED WI, Nov. 30, 2015), a Wisconsin federal district court rejected claims by an anti-gay marriage protester that his free speech, equal protection and due process rights were infringed when authorities restricted the area in which he could carry his signs.  The events at issue occurred on the first day that same-sex marriage licenses were issued and marriages were conducted at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.  Plaintiff complains that he was not permitted to enter the courthouse to protest, and that the area in the park outside the courthouse where he could protest was restricted. The court found the restrictions imposed reasonable, non-discriminatory and narrowly tailored.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Robert F. Cochran, Jesus and the Mosaic Law: Agapic Love as the Foundation and Objective of Law, (Touro Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2020).
• James M. Oleske, Jr., In the Court of Koppelman: Motion for Reconsideration, (2020 BYU Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Nicholas Aroney, Law, Education and Religion — Pathways to the Good Society?,(July 8, 2020).
• Itzchak E. Kornfeld, Equity in American and Jewish Law, (Touro Law Review, 2020).
• Jack M. Balkin, Obergefell v. Hodges: A Critical Introduction, (to appear in Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press 2020).
• Rigel Christine Oliveri, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Under the Fair Housing Act After Bostock v. Clayton County, (University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2020-23).
• Ryan T. Anderson & Robert George, The Unfairness of the Misnamed 'Fairness For All' Act, (Notre Dame Journal of Legislation Online Supplement, 2020).
• Nan D. Hunter, Reconstructing Liberty, Equality, and Marriage: The Missing Nineteenth Amendment Argument, (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 108, Issue 7, Nineteenth Amendment Special Edition, pp. 73-104 (2020).
• Jacob Russell, For Whom Are Non-Profit Managers Trustees? The Contractual Revolution in Charity Governance, (Laby & Russell, eds., Fiduciary Obligations in Business (Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming)).
• David M. Schizer, Enhancing Efficiency at Nonprofits with Analysis and Disclosure , (Columbia Journal of Tax Law, Volume 11, Number 2, Pgs. 76 - 134 (July 30, 2020)).

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

• Faizan Kirmani, A New Theory on the Quraanic Term Hadd (pl.Hudood), (Journal of Legal Studies And Research, 2020).
• Adnan Zulfiqar, Pursuing Over-Criminalization at the Expense of Islamic Law, (Harvard Journal of Islamic Law, Forthcoming).
• Dimitry Kochenov & Uladzislau Belavusau, After the Celebration: Marriage Equality in EU Law post-Coman in Eight Questions and Some Further Thoughts, (Forthcoming in 27 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2020).
• Reza Hasmath, Future Responses to Managing Muslim Ethnic Minorities in China: Lessons Learned from Global Approaches to Improving Inter-Ethnic Relations, (2020).
• Augustine Arimoro & Abba Elgujja, When Dissent by Football Fans On Social Media Turns to Hate: Call for Stricter Measures, (University of Maidguri Journal of Public Law Vol. 6 Iss. 1 (2019)).
• Charlotte Ku, What Can Islamic Law Practice Tell Us About the Peaceful Resolution of International Disputes, (International Studies Review, Forthcoming).
• Phillip Morgan, Judgment-Proofing Voluntary Sector Organisations from Liability in Tort, ((2020) 6 Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law).

From SmartCILP:

• Stephen M. Krason, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of William Bentley Ball and Charles E. Rice, [Abstract], 16 Ave Maria Law Review 1-35 (2018).
• Michael Quinlan, The Twenty-First Century Catholic Lawyer, [Abstract], 16 Ave Maria Law Review 36-61 (2018).

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Prakash Shah, Does Durkheim Enhance Our Understanding of Law and Religion?, (Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 212/2015, Nov. 2015).
• Jeffrey M. Hirsch, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.: Mistakes, Same-Sex Marriage, and Unintended Consequences, (Texas Law Review, Vol. 94, 2015, Forthcoming).
• Nicholas Aroney, Faith in Public Office: The Meaning, Persistence and Importance of Oaths, (November 23, 2015).
• Lucia Ann Silecchia, Pope Francis and the Vocation of the Lawyer: Reflections on Service and Responsibility, (54 J. of Cath. Legal Stud. 23 (2015)).
• Lewis A. Grossman, Orthodoxy and 'The Other Man's Doxy': Medical Licensing and Medical Freedom in the Gilded Age, (November 19, 2015).
• Susan Frelich Appleton, The Forgotten Family Law of Eisenstadt v. Baird, (Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, Vol. 28:1, 2016).
• Cynthia Godsoe, Marriage Equality and the 'New' Maternalism, (California Law Review Circuit, Vol. 6, No. 145, 2015).
• Jay P. Greene & Cari A. Bogulski, The Effect of Public and Private Schooling on Anti-Semitism, (EDRE Working Paper No. 2015-10, Nov. 2015).
• Abdul Azeez Maruf Olayemi, et. al., Islamic Interbank Money Market: A Comparative Legal Study between Malaysia And Some Notable Jurisdictions, (2015 1 SHR, SHARIAH REPORT, A Journal of Islamic Law, Banking & Finance, Malaysian Current Law Journal (MCLJ)).
• Eric C. Chaffee, Collaboration Theory: A Theory of the Charitable Tax Exempt Nonprofit Corporation, (November 22, 2015).
• UPDATE: Netta Barak Corren, Does Anti-Discrimination Law Influence Religious Behavior?, (Hastings Law Journal, Forthcoming).

Recent Books:

• William Lazarus (with Sid Kleiner), Passover In Prison, (CreateSpace, July 2015).
• Saba Mahmood, Religious Difference in a Secular Age: A Minority Report, (Princeton Univ. Press, Nov. 2015).
• Katherine Franke, Wedlocked: The Perils of Marriage Equality, (NYU Press, Nov. 2015).
• William A. Schabas, The European Convention on Human Rights-- A Commentary, (Oxford Univ. Press, Nov. 2015).

Signature Campaign Begins On California Anti-Divorce Amendment [Updated]

The California Secretary of State announced last week that the proponent of an initiative petition to amend California's Constitution to ban divorce in the state may begin to collect signatures. The proposed amendment would still allow annulments, but would completely eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Proponents will need to collect the signatures of 694,354 registered voters to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

According to Huffington Post last month, the proponent, John Marcotte, introduced the amendment to mock the proponents of Proposition 8 who focused on protecting traditional marriage as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage. Last month, Cockeyed.com published an interview with Marcotte. Here is one exchange that gives the flavor of his remarks:

RC: well, this is a bold step. Do you think you face a strong opposition?

John: The opposition will always be there. The secular progressives, gays and MSNBC hosts -- but we beat them once with Prop 8 and we'll beat them again. If people are thinking about getting a divorce, just remember "Hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be." Jesus still loves you if you get divorced, just not as much as before.

Thanks to Not a Potted Plant and a commenter for correcting my initial incorrect interpretation of the proposal as as one that was meant to be serious in its approach. I guess it was a bad morning for my sense of humor that usually has a better compass than today.

Romania's Constitutional Court Upholds Proposed Traditional Marriage Amendment

Romania's Constitutional Court yesterday ruled unanimously that a proposal to amend Article 48 of the country's Constitution to preclude same-sex marriage is constitutional.  The Constitutional provision now reads: "The family is founded on the freely consented marriage of the spouses...."  According to Reuters, the proposed amendment would replace "the spouses" with "a man and a woman."  The petition proposing the amendment received 3 million signatures earlier this year.  The next steps will be for the amendment to be approved by Parliament and then submitted to a national referendum. The case has garnered international attention. The U.S. advocacy group Liberty Counsel submitted an amicus brief (full text) in support of the proposed amendment. Twenty-eight human rights groups, including Amnesty International, had urged the Court to reject the proposed amendment.

Democrats In Congress Introduce Bill To Repeal DOMA

The Hill reported yesterday that Democrats in both the House and Senate have introduced the Respect for Marriage Act (full text). The bill would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and instead recognize as valid for federal law purposes any same-sex marriage that was legally entered into in the jurisdiction where it was performed. On the Senate side, the bill was introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and is co-sponsored by 18 other Senate Democrats. (Press release.) In the House, the bill was introduced by Representatives Jerrold Nadler and John Conyers, and is co-sponsored by four gay and lesbian members of Congress. The Hill says that the chances of the bill passing the House are slim.

Dutch Court Rejects Religious Objections of Marriage Registrars

In the Netherlands, the Equal Treatment Commission (CGB) ruled yesterday that the country's Equal Treatment Act is not violated when a municipality insists that applicants for the position of marriage registrar be willing to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies as well as heterosexual ceremonies. NIS News says that the new ruling rejects arguments that religious objections to performing such ceremonies should be recognized. The CGB is an advisory court.

California's Proposition 8 Pushed By Religious Groups, Especially Mormons

California's Proposition 8 on the ballot in November aims to overturn the California Supreme Court's recognition of same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's News Blaze carries a long article about the involvement of religious organizations-- and particularly the Mormon Church-- in support of Proposition 8. Calls are being made into California by out-of-state Mormons, such as a group in Rexburg, Idaho. LDS volunteers are also going door-to-door in support in California. The article goes on to report on funding for the Proposition 8 campaign:

Proposition 8 has exploded into the most expensive, extensive gay-marriage battle ever. The forces pushing it include all the Mormons who've made individual campaign donations totaling more than $9 million (more than 40 percent of the war chest...). Conservative Catholics, including the Knights of Columbus, have kicked in more than $1 million. Other notable backers include Dobson's Focus on the Family (about $500,000), a wealthy board member of that group ($450,000), an Orthodox Jewish group based in New York City, evangelical groups from all over, miscellaneous Baptists and Muslims and Sikhs, the National Organization for Marriage (about $950,000), the American Family Association ($500,000), a couple of right-wing foundations ($1.5 million), and countless Republicans who don't necessarily belong to any of the other groups.

Suit Challenges Non-Discrimination Fix To Indiana's RFRA ; Local Anti-Discrimination Laws

In Indiana yesterday, two pro-family advocacy groups filed suit in state court challenging the constitutionality of this year's anti-discrimination "fix" to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The suit also challenges the legality of two local anti-discrimination ordinances-- one adopted by the city of Carmel and one by Indianapolis-Marion County.  The 178-paragraph complaint (full text) in Indiana Family Institute, Inc. v. City of Carmel, Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., filed 12/10/2015), says that plaintiff organizations believe in the Biblical teaching that marriage must be between one man and one woman, and that sexual relations must be within that marriage context.  They want to follow these teachings in their employment decisions and their programs.  They contend that the challenged laws preclude this, and in doing so violate a variety of state and federal constitutional provisions.  In a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit, plaintiffs' attorneys said in part:

RFRA originally protected all religious viewpoints and insured a high level of protection for peoples' free exercise of religion.  The 'fix,' however, stripped that protection based on a person's particular religious view, such as, opposition to same-sex marriage.  This pits some religions that the government protects against other religions that will suffer government punishment if they don't fall in line.  We believe this discrimination between religious views is unconstitutional...

Indianapolis Star reports on the lawsuit.

UPDATE: In January 2016 plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Bloomington and Columbus, Indiana as defendants.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kif Augustine-Adams, Religious Exemptions to Title IX, (February 19, 2016).
• Matthew W. Bourda, Turning the Water to Blood: How Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Drove the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act Out of Touch with Society, (41 T. Marshall L. Rev. Online 160 (2016)).
• Levi Cooper, Legislation for Education: The Munkács Regulations Enacted by Rabbi Tsevi Elimelekh of Dynów, (Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry 30 (2017), Forthcoming).
• Shaun Alberto de Freitas, Religious Associational Rights and Sexual Conduct in South Africa: Towards the Furtherance of the Accommodation of a Diversity of Beliefs, (February 20, 2016).
• Asim Jusic, From Formal Equality to Positive Neutrality to Positive Inferiority (for Some): The European Court of Human Rights’ Limited Influence on Constitutional Changes and Religion in Hungary, (Vienna Journal of International Constitutional Law, Vol. 10, 2016).
• Mohamed A. Arafa, Insights on Divine (Islamic) Law: Islamophobia versus Terrorism, Death Penalty, and Transitional Justice, (CALUMET: Intercultural Law & Humanities Review (Online) 2016).
• Kristine S, Knaplund, Becoming Charitable: Predicting and Encouraging Charitable Bequests in Wills, (77 U. Pitt. L. Rev. (Fall 2015).

From SSRN (Marriage):

• Robin Bradley Kar, Against Marriage Essentialism: A Legal Grounding for Obergefell and Same-Sex Marriage, (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Gregg Strauss, The Positive Right to Marry, (February 24, 2016).
• Kaiponanea T. Matsumura, A Right Not to Marry, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 84, 2016).

Guam Legislature Passes Marriage Equality and LGBT Employment Discrimination Laws

Pacific Daily News reports that the Guam legislature yesterday passed the Guam Marriage Equality Act (full text), aligning the U.S. Territory's laws with the a district court's decision in June specifically striking down Guam's same-sex marriage ban. (See prior posting.)

The legislature this week also passed the Guam Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2015 (full text), adding bans on employment discrimination based on gender identity or expression; sexual orientation; and veteran or military status. The law includes an exemption for religious and educational institutions that are exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act. HRC Blog has more on the new law.