Congress Gives Final Passage To Defense Authorization Act-- Some Sections Impact Religion

Yesterday the Senate gave final approval to S.2943 as amended by Conference Report 114-840, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. (Full text). The 975-page bill, which now goes to the President for his signature, contains the following provisions of interest to those who follow church-state and religious liberty developments:

• Sec. 549 which calls for data collection on hazing notes that victims are often members of protected classes such as race and religion.
• Sec. 585 authorizes award of the distinguished service cross posthumously to Chaplain Joseph Verbis LaFleur for acts of valor while a Japanese prisoner of war during World War II.
• Sec. 591. Repeals the requirement for a chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy appointed by the President.
• Sec. 1085. A sense of Congress resolution that there should be within the National Security Council a Special Adviser to the President on International Religious Freedom who should serve as liaison with the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, the United States Commission on  International Religious Freedom, Congress and religious nongovernmental organizations.
• Sec. 1263 (Part of the ‘Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act). Authorizes the President to impose sanctions on any foreign person who is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture or other gross human rights violations against individuals in a foreign country who, among other things, exercise, defend or promote freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections.
• Section 2829F provides for return of certain lands at Fort Wingate, New Mexico to the Zuni Tribe and Navajo Nation. Certain of the land is to be held in trust with shared cultural and religious access by the Zuni and Navajos.

The final bill did not include the controversial Russell Amendment which would have allowed religious organizations that enter government contracts to require that their employees adhere to the organization's religious tenets. This would have permitted religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage to refuse to hire those in same-sex relationships. (Background).

Wedding Videographers Sue To Refuse Same-Sex Couples

The owners of a St. Cloud, Minnesota film and media production company filed suit yesterday in federal district court claiming that the Minnesota Human Rights Act violates their rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments by requiring them "to produce videos promoting a conception of marriage that directly contradicts their religious beliefs if they produce videos promoting marriages between one man and one woman."  The complaint (full text) in Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey, (D MN, filed 12/6/2016), alleges that Carl Larsen and Angel Larsen "desire to counteract the current powerful cultural narrative undermining the historic, biblically-orthodox definition of marriage as between one man and one woman by magnifying God’s beautiful design and purpose for marriage through their creative storytelling and promotional talents." Plaintiffs argue:

The First Amendment prevents the government from compelling people to create, express, support, or promote a message not of their own choosing or to speak when they would rather remain silent.

KSTP-TV News reports on the lawsuit.

Questions On Abortion and Gay Marriage Violated Rights of Constable Candidate

In Lloyd v. Birkman, (WD TX, Dec. 2, 2016), a Texas federal district court held that members of the Williamson County (TX) Commissioners' Court violated the equal protection rights of plaintiff when, in an interview for appointment as interim County Constable, they asked him his views on same-sex marriage, abortion and religious affiliation.  The Commissioners had argued that the purpose of their questions was to determine whether the appointee was likely to be electable for a full term to the position in the next popular election. KXAN News reports on the decision.

Suit Challenging Indiana Anti-Discrimination Laws Moves Ahead

As reported by the Indianapolis Star, an Indiana state trial court judge is allowing a lawsuit filed by three conservative advocacy organizations to move ahead.  The suit challenges laws barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  The organizations assert that the laws infringe on their free exercise rights. The suit challenges the ordinances of four Indiana cities as well as the so-called "fix" to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act that prevents using RFRA to discriminate. The order (full text) in Indiana Family Institute, Inc. v. City of Carmel, Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., Nov. 16, 2016), however, requires plaintiffs to file an amended complaint adding the state of Indiana as a party. In a statement (press release), plaintiffs' counsel said:

Plaintiffs currently stand stripped of the heightened legal protection provided under RFRA and must host speakers and hire employees who advocate for same-sex marriage contrary to their religious beliefs. We believe in the constitutionally protected free-exercise of religion that affects people who advocate for traditional marriage, just as it protects all other religious beliefs.

More On Presidential Voting By Religious Groupings

Earlier this week, the Pew Research Center, using exit polls, published How the faithful voted: A preliminary 2016 analysis.  It breaks down the vote in last Tuesday's Presidential election by faith group.  The group giving Donald Trump the largest percentage-- 81%-- of their vote were described in the survey as "White born-again/ evangelical Christians". The category overlaps some of the other categories reported: Protestant/ other Christian- 58%; White Catholic- 60%. Groups giving Trump the lowest percentage of their votes were: Jewish- 24%; Hispanic Catholic- 26%; Religiously unaffiliated- 26%.

In the same vein, yesterday the New York Times posted an article titled Religious Right Believes Donald Trump Will Deliver on His Promises, saying in part:

Now that he has won, evangelical leaders say they are confident Mr. Trump will deliver on the political promises he made to them. These include appointing a conservative to the Supreme Court, defunding Planned Parenthood, protecting businesses that refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings and rescinding the mandate in the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance coverage for birth control.

And with Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, an evangelical with a record of legislating against abortion and same-sex marriage, as vice president, Christian leaders say they feel reassured they will have access to the White House and a seat at the table.

Trinity Western Law School Wins Appeal In British Columbia

In Trinity Western University v. Law Society of British Columbia, (BC Ct. App., Nov. 1, 2016), the Court of Appeal for the Canadian province of British Columbia held that the province's Law Society acted unreasonably when it denied approval to a proposed new law school at the Christian-affiliated Trinity Western University. The Law Society's vote was a reaction to a requirement at the University that students sign a Community Covenant that, among other things, does not recognize same-sex marriage. The court summarized its decision in part as follows:

The issue on appeal is whether the Law Society met its statutory duty to reasonably balance the conflicting Charter rights engaged by its decision: the sexual orientation equality rights of LGBTQ persons and the religious freedom and rights of association of evangelical Christians. The Benchers initially voted to approve TWU’s law school. That decision was met with a backlash from members of the Law Society who viewed it as endorsement of discrimination against LGBTQ persons. The Benchers decided to hold a referendum and to be bound by the outcome. A majority of lawyers voted against approval. The Benchers then reversed their earlier position and passed a resolution not to approve TWU’s law school.

In doing so, the Benchers abdicated their responsibility to make the decision entrusted to them by the Legislature. They also failed to weigh the impact of the decision on the rights engaged. It was not open to the Benchers to simply adopt the decision preferred by the majority. The impact on Charter rights must be assessed concretely, based on evidence and not perception.

... [D]enying approval would not enhance access to law school for LGBTQ students. In contrast, a decision not to approve TWU’s law school would have a severe impact on TWU’s rights.... 

In a diverse and pluralistic society, government regulatory approval of entities with differing beliefs is a reflection of state neutrality. It is not an endorsement of a group’s beliefs.

CBC News reports on the decision. [Thanks to David Fernandes for the lead.]

Northern Ireland Appeals Court Upholds Anti-Gay Discrimination Finding Against Bakery

In a widely watched case, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland yesterday upheld the finding of a trial judge that a bakery had illegally discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in the  provision of goods and services to the public when it refused an order for a cake for a private event marking the end of 'Northern Ireland Anti-homophobic Week' and the political momentum towards same-sex marriage legislation.  The cake was to feature a picture of 'Bert and Ernie' (the logo for QueerSpace) with the caption, "Support Gay Marriage."  In Lee v. McArthur, (NI CA, Oct. 24, 2016), the 3-judge panel rejected the religious freedom and compelled speech defenses advanced by Ashers Bakery.  The court rejected the notion that the cake forced the bakery to express approval for same-sex marriage, saying in part:

The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either.

The court rejected broadly defendants' religious discrimination arguments, saying:

Anyone who applies a religious aspect or a political aspect to the provision of services may be caught by equality legislation, not because the legislation treats their religious belief or political opinion less favourably but because that person seeks to distinguish, on a basis that is prohibited, between those who will receive their service and those who will not....  In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious belief in relation to sexual orientation.

The Guardian, reporting on the decision, says that the decision will be appealed to the UK's Supreme Court.

Alabama Chief Justice Appeals Suspension With Cryptic Motion For Recusals

As previously reported, two weeks ago Alabama's Court of the Judiciary suspended Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore for the remaining two years of his term on charges stemming primarily from his order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent to the contrary.  The decision has been followed by a series of appellate moves by Moore.  On Sept. 30, Moore filed a Notice of Appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court. Then on Oct. 10, Moore filed a Motion (full text) to recuse four current and three former Alabama Supreme Court Justices from hearing the appeal.  The grounds for seeking recusal of 6 of the 7 were filed only in a sealed affidavit with the following cryptic explanation:

Because Case No. 1150818 has been maintained under seal by the present and former justices who sat on that case, the argument for this section is not presented in this public filing. However, the facts presented in the attached Sealed Affidavit of Chief Justice Roy S. Moore amply demonstrate that the Justices, present and former, who sat on Case No. 1150818, have disqualified themselves by their biased and unconscionable actions in that case not only from participating in this case but also from playing any role in selecting a substitute Court.... Media organizations and members of the public, if they so choose, may intervene in Case No. 1150818 to demand that the records of that case be made public.

The motion also argued:

The selection of replacement Justices should be made by a random drawing from a pool of names consisting of all sitting circuit judges.

In an October 12 public statement, Moore urged the unsealing of the referenced case, saying in part:

I call upon the press to demand that the Alabama Supreme Court unseal Case No. 1150818 and, if necessary, to intervene in that case. The public has a right to know why I have requested that the justices, who participated in that case, be disqualified from playing any role in my appeal. The Court has refused my requests to unseal Case No. 1150818. I ask the Supreme Court and the media to act...

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Christopher C. Lund, RFRA, State RFRAs, and Religious Minorities, (San Diego Law Review, Vol. 53, p. 163, 2016 (symposium)).
• Pranoto Iskandar, The Human Right to Non-Religious Beliefs: A Prospectus, (September 23, 2016).
• Christopher C. Lund, Keeping Hobby Lobby in Perspective, (in The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty (Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, and Zoë Robinson eds., Oxford University Press, 2016)).
• Joel A. Nichols & John Witte, Religious Law and Religious Courts as a Challenge to the State (National Report for United States of America), (Religious Law and Religious Courts as a Challenge to the State: Legal Pluralism from a Comparative Perspective, Ed. Uwe Kischel (Verlag Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2016), 83-111).
• Nelson Lund, Rousseau's Rejuvenation of Political Philosophy: A New Introduction, (Rousseau’s Rejuvenation of Political Philosophy, N. Lund, Palgrave, 2016).
• Michele Goodwin & Allison M. Whelan, Constitutional Exceptionalism, University of Illinois Law Review, 2016, (Forthcoming).
• Paul J. Heald, Christian Libertarianism and the Curious Lack of Religious Objections to the Patenting of Life Forms in the United States, (September 29, 2016).
• Engy Abdelkader, A Comparative Analysis of European Islamophobia: France, UK, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden, (UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, Vol. 16, 2016).
• G. Michael Fenner, Same-Sex Marriage, Conscientious Objection and an Ambushed Pope, (Creighton Lawyer, Fall 2016).
• Katayoun Alidadi, The Limits of State Law in the Case of an Organized Secular-Humanist Community in the Southern Bible Belt: Model Behaviour Shaping Self-Restrained Law Use, (Rechtsphilosophie: Zeitschrift Fur Grundlagen Des Rechts, Forthcoming 2016).
• Jason N. E. Varuhas, Damages and Human Rights: Introduction, (Chapter 1 of JNE Varuhas, Damages and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, 2016)).
• Jeremy Waldron, What a Dissenting Opinion Should Have Said in Obergefell v. Hodges, (September 28, 2016).
• Iain T. Benson, Undazzling Equality, (September 24, 2016).
• Brian D. Galle, Valuing the Right to Sue: An Empirical Examination of Nonprofit Agency Costs, (September 28, 2016).

From SmartCILP:

• Rowan W. Dorin, "Once the Jews Have Been Expelled": Intent and Interpretation in Late Medieval Canon Law, 34 Law & History Review 335-362 (2016).
• Mohammad Rasekh, Sharia and Law in the Age of Constitutionalism, [Abstract], 2 Journal of Global Justice & Public Policy 259-276 (2016).

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Suspended From Office Over Same-Sex Marriage Order

Alabama's 9-member Court of the Judiciary today unanimously concluded that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore violated various Canons of Judicial Ethics in issuing an order to state probate judges telling them they had a duty under Alabama law to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision finding that denial of marriage licences to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. The Court of the Judiciary also found that Moore should have recused himself in a subsequent case involving same-sex marriage.  The Court suspended Moore from office for the remaining two years of his term.  As reported by NPR, Moore's age will disqualify him from again running for the state Supreme Court in 2018.  A majority of the court voted to completely remove Moore from office, but removal rather than suspension requires a unanimous vote.  In the 50-page opinion in In re Roy S. Moore, (AL Ct. Jud., Sept. 30, 2016), the Court of the Judiciary also took into account the fact that Moore had in 2003 been the subject of proceedings that removed him from office after his resistance to court orders relating to a Ten Commandments monument.

Suit By Web Designer Challenges LGBT Anti-Discrimination Law

Last week, Lorie Smith, the owner of a Colorado graphic and web design company, filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Colorado's public accommodation anti-discrimination law.  The complaint (full text) in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, (D CO, filed 9/20/2016) alleges that the anti-discrimination provisions as they apply to plaintiffs violate various provisions of the 1st and 14th Amendments, including the free exercise clause.  The complaint alleges:

7. Colorado law makes it unlawful for Lorie and 303 Creative to publish, display, or mail any communication stating that they will not design, create, or publish websites celebrating same-sex marriages. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a).

8. Colorado law also makes it unlawful for Lorie and 303 Creative to publish, display, or mail any communication indicating that a person’s patronage at 303 Creative is “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable” because of sexual orientation. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a).

9. Therefore, Lorie and 303 Creative cannot explain on 303 Creative’s website their religious belief that God designed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman and why they cannot create wedding websites promoting and celebrating any other conception of marriage.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Employee Sues Under Title VII When Fired For Refusing To Process Same-Sex Marriage Licences

A Title VII lawsuit was filed earlier this month in a Florida federal district court by an employee of the Broward County, Florida clerk's office who was fired because she refused to process marriage license applications for same-sex couples. The complaint (full text) in Parker v. Forman, (SD FL, filed 9/9/2016), contends that plaintiff Yanicka Parker, as a Christian, has a sincere religious belief "that persons of the same sex cannot and should not be morally or legally recognized as husband and wife, and that God will judge individual Christians, as well as the society of which they are a part, who condone or institute same sex marriages."  The complaint asserts:

There were many other clerks available, willing and able to perform same sex marriages.

... Given that issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples was a miniscule part of the clerk’s job and overall responsibilities, and Ms. Parker was willing and able to perform all other aspects of her job, Defendant ... could have easily accommodated her religious beliefs.

Plaintiff seeks an injunction and damages for defendants' refusal to accommodate her religious beliefs. Christian Post yesterday reported on the lawsuit.

Court Refuses To Bar Enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Law Against Wedding Invitation Designers

In Brush & Nib Studio LC v. City of Phoenix, (AZ Super. Ct., Sept. 19, 2016), an Arizona trial court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Phoenix, Arizona's public accommodation anti-discrimination ordinance against a business that designs custom wedding invitations. Refusing to dismiss on ripeness grounds, the court held that the law does not violate plaintiffs' free speech or free exercise rights. Rejecting plaintiffs' compelled speech argument, the court said in part:

Here, there is nothing about custom wedding invitations made for same-sex couples that is expressive.... The printing of the names of a same-sex couple on an invitation or thank you note does not compel Plaintiffs to convey a government mandated message, such as an endorsement or pledge in favor of same-sex marriages, nor does it convey any message concerning same-sex marriage.... It is absurd to think that the fabricator of a wedding invitation for a same-sex couple has endorsed same-sex marriage merely by creating or printing that invitation. Moreover, there is nothing about the creative process itself, such as a flower or vine or the choice of a particular font or color, that conveys any pledge, endorsement, celebration, or other substantive mandated message by Plaintiffs in regard to same-sex marriage.

Responding to plaintiffs' free exercise challenge, the court said in part:

the sale of wedding invitations free of the names of same-sex couples clearly is not the exercise of religion, and certainly is not a burden on the free exercise of their religion. Nothing about the ordinance has prevented the Plaintiffs from participating in the customs of their religious beliefs or has burdened the practice of their religion in any way.

ADF which represented plaintiffs in the case issued a press release responding to the decision. The press release is accompanied by links to pleadings in the case and to the relevant city ordinances.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Steven Menashi, How Great is the Threat to Religious Freedom, Really?, (Mosaic Magazine, August 17, 2015).
• Michael W. McConnell, Mark E. Schneider, Jay P. Lefkowitz & Steven Menashi, Brief of Amici Curiae Former Justice Department Officials in Support of Petitioners in Zubik v. Burwell, (2016).
• Shachar Eldar & Elkana Laist, The Irrelevance of Motive and the Rule of Law, (New Criminal Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, Religious Accommodation, Religious Tradition, and Political Polarization, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Christopher C. Lund, Religious Exemptions, Third-Party Harms, and the Establishment Clause, (Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 91, p. 1375, 2016 (symposium)).
• John C. Eastman, No Free Lunch, But Dinner and a Movie (and Contraceptives for Dessert)?, (10 N.Y.U. J. L. & Liberty 282 (2016)).
• Robert Corn-Revere, Hate Speech Laws: Ratifying the Assassin's Veto, (Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 791 (2016)).

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

• Effie Fokas, Directions in Religious Pluralism in Europe: Mobilizations in the Shadow of European Court of Human Rights Religious Freedom Jurisprudence, (Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, Vol 4, No.1, 54-74 (2015)).
• Luke Beck, The Case against Improper Purpose as the Touchstone for Invalidity under Section 116 of the Constitution, (Federal Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, Forthcoming).
• Gbohou Gnantin Hilaire Tegnan & Saldi Isra, Rule of Law and Human Rights Challenges in South East Asia: A Case Study of Legal Pluralism in Indonesia, (April 1, 2016).
• Preethi Kumar Mokshagundam, Dr. Ambedkar's Concept of Social Justice and Indian Constitution Protection for Dalits – A Recent Day Analysis, (August 23, 2016).
• Paul Dermine, Towards the Recognition of a Pan-European Right to Same-Sex Marriage – What If Light Came from the United States?, (June 1, 2016).
• Matthew S. Erie, Sharia, Charity, and Minjian Autonomy in Muslim China: Gift Giving in a Plural World, (American Ethnologist 43(2): 311-423 (2016)).

From SmartCILP:

• Walter C. Long, The Constitutionality and Ethics of Execution-Day Prison Chaplaincy, [Abstract], 21 Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights 1-33 (2015).
• Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Unconscionable War on Moral Conscience (reviewing Robert P. George, Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism), 91 Notre Dame Law Review Rev. 1167-1195 (2016).
• Mark Strasser, Hobby Lobby, RFRA, and Family Burdens, [Abstract], 25 Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 239-264 (2016).
• Special Issue: A Thousand Years of Infamy: The History of the Blood Libel. Edited by Richard H. Weisberg; preface by Richard H. Weisberg; articles by Jeffrey Mehlman, Hannah R. Johnson, Richard H. Weisberg, David Fraser and Vivian Grosswald Curran. 28 Law & Literature 1-95 (2016).

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....

Catholic School's Firing of Guidance Counselor Over Same-Sex Marriage Remains In Litigation

In Drumgoogle v. Paramus Catholic High School, (NJ Super., Aug. 22, 2016), a New Jersey state trial court refused to grant summary judgment to a Catholic high school in a suit by its former dean of guidance who was fired after she entered a same-sex marriage.  The school terminated her under a provision of its collective bargaining contract that allows for-cause termination of a tenured teacher for "violating accepted standards of Catholic morality as to cause public scandal." Plaintiff claims that the school's policy on harassment bars discrimination against her on the basis of marital status and claims her firing violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  The court concluded that further discovery is required in order to determine whether plaintiff's status requires application of the "ministerial exception" to anti-discrimination laws and whether the dispute is secular or ecclesiastical. The Bergen County Record reports on the decision.

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.

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."

Roy Moore's Trial On Ethics Charges Set For Next Month

After a hearing yesterday on charges against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary issued an Order (full text) denying motions for summary judgment from both sides.  Yesterday's order also set the case for trial on Sept. 28. At issue are charges filed by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission contending that Moore acted unethically when in January he issued an administrative order telling state probate judges that they had a duty under Alabama law to continue to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (See prior posting.) Al.com reports on yesterday's developments.

Catholic Bishops React To Biden's Officiating At Same-Sex Marriage

As reported by the Washington Post, last Monday Vice President Joe Biden officiated at the same-sex wedding ceremony of two White House staffers.  In a blog post yesterday, three prominent members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (including its president) reacted to Biden's action, without referring to him by name.  They said in part:

When a prominent Catholic politician publicly and voluntarily officiates at a ceremony to solemnize the relationship of two people of the same-sex, confusion arises regarding Catholic teaching on marriage and the corresponding moral obligations of Catholics. What we see is a counter witness, instead of a faithful one founded in the truth....

Faithful witness can be challenging—and it will only grow more challenging in the years to come—but it is also the joy and responsibility of all Catholics, especially those who have embraced positions of leadership and public service.