Nevada Tells 9th Circuit It Will No Longer Defend Its Same-Sex Marriage Ban

According to AP, Nevada's attorney general yesterday filed a statement with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals informing the court that the state will no longer defend its ban on same-sex marriage. The move comes in the pending appeal in Sevcik v. Sandoval, in which a Nevada federal district court upheld the ban against an Equal Protection Clause challenge. (See prior posting.) The attorney general told the court:

After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable.

Nevada's Governor Brian Sandoval agrees with the attorney general.

As described by SCOTUSblog, the state changed its position after considering the 9th Circuit's decision last month in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, (9th Cir., Jan. 21, 2014) holding that heightened scrutiny must be applied to equal protection claims based on sexual orientation. The case held that peremptory jury challenges may not be made on the basis of sexual orientation.

Developments In Utah Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

Numerous amicus briefs have been filed in the 10th Circuit in Kitchen v. Herbert, the appeal of the Utah federal district court's decision striking down the ban on same-sex marriage in Utah. Of particular interest is the amicus brief (full text) filed yesterday by major religious organizations urging reversal of the district court. The brief, filed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; National Association of Evangelicals; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod argues:

Undermining the husband-wife marital institution by redefining it to include same-sex couples will, in the long term, harm vital child-welfare interests that only the husband-wife definition can secure. The result will be more mothers and fathers concluding that the highest end of marriage is not the welfare of their children but the advancement of their own life choices. We know, from personal experience over numerous decades of ministering to families and children, that more focus on satisfying adult needs will not benefit vulnerable children.

The Salt Lake Tribune has a summary of the over 20 briefs filed in support of Utah's position, and reports at more length on the brief filed by religious organizations.

Meanwhile, last month the ACLU filed a lawsuit (press release) seeking to require Utah to recognize as valid the more than 1000 same-sex marriages performed in the state after the district court struck down the ban and before the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the decision.  The complaint (full text) in Evans v. State of Utah, (UT 3d Dist. Ct., filed 1/21/2014), argues that by not fully recognizing the marriages, the state has deprived couples of liberty and property interests protected by the due process clause of the Utah constitution and by 42 USC Sec. 1983:

By placing recognition of their marriages “on hold,” the State of Utah has placed the legal status of all same-sex married couples, including Plaintiffs and their families and children, in legal limbo and created uncertainty as to their rights and status in virtually all areas of their lives.

The ACLU provides links to other documents and items relating to the case.

Court Upholds Hawaii Law Permitting Same-Sex Marriage

A news release from Hawaii's Department of Attorney General reports that on Jan. 29 a state trial court judge upheld the constitutionality under both the state and federal constitutions of Hawaii's Marriage Equality Act of 2013:

In his ruling from the bench, Judge Sakamoto noted the importance of marriage under the federal constitution, drawing an analogy to Loving v. Virginia, the landmark United States Supreme Court case that struck down state laws banning inter-racial marriage. He concluded that the Marriage Equality Act is consistent with Article I, section 23 of the Hawaii State Constitution, and that “same-sex marriage is legal.”

Article I, Sec. 23 of Hawaii's constitution provides: "The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples."

Administrative Complaint Charges Catholic School With Discrimination For Terminating Employee In Same-Sex Marriage

The Boston Globe reports on the employment discrimination complaint  (full text) filed yesterday with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination by Matthew Barrett who was hired as food services director at a Catholic school. Three days after he accepted the position with Fontbonne Academy, the school terminated his employment because it learned from paperwork he had filled out that he was gay and had a same-sex spouse.

The Massachusetts law against discrimination (MGL Title XXI, Ch. 151B, Sec. 1(5)) provides:

[N]othing herein shall be construed to bar any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organization operated for ... educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and which limits membership, enrollment, admission, or participation to members of that religion, from... taking any action with respect to matters of employment, discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law which are calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained.

In its press release on the case, GLAD says: "Our laws carefully balance the important values of religious liberty and non-discrimination.  When Fontbonne Academy fired Matt from a job that has nothing to do with religion, they came down on the wrong side of the law."

Orthodox Patriarch Warns Russian Parliament About Same-Sex Marriage

According to ITAR-TASS News Agency, on Tuesday Patriarch Krill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, spoke at the Federation Council (the upper house of Russia's parliament) to warn against the legalization of same-sex marriage and to lament marital infidelity. He said that if a person is unfaithful to his family, he may be unfaithful to his homeland.  After Krill's presentation, the Federation Council and religious leaders adopted a joint statement which reads in part: "Preservation of marriage as a union between a man and a woman based on love and mutual understanding and birth of beloved children are a precondition for survival of humankind."

Virginia's Attorney General Will Not Defend State's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In an NPR interview, Virginia's newly-elected Attorney General, Mark Herring, says that his office will no longer defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage. He has concluded that the ban violates the federal equal protection clause. The state's solicitor general will tell a federal court next week that the state is joining the plaintiffs in Bostic v. Rainey, a case challenging the constitutionality of Virginia's same-sex marriage ban. According to the Washington Post, defendants in the case include two county clerks who are represented by separate counsel, so there will still be a defense of the Virginia law presented.

Suit Challenges Florida's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday Equality Florida Institute and six same-sex couples who were denied Florida marriage licences in Miami-Dade County filed suit in state court in Florida challenging state constitutional and statutory provisions that prevent same-sex couples from marrying in the state.  The complaint (full text) in Pareto v. Ruvin, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 1/21/2014), contends that these restrictions violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Equality Florida Institute and the National Center for Lesbian Rights issued a press release announcing the planned filing of the lawsuit. Liberty Counsel in a press release said it would help defend the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment which "affirms the natural created order of marriage...."

Federal District Court Strikes Down Oklahoma Same-Sex Marriage Ban; Stays Effectiveness of Decision

In Bishop v. United States, (ND OK, Jan. 14, 2014), an Oklahoma federal district court, in a 68-page opinion, held that the provision in the Oklahoma constitution barring same-sex marriage in the state violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. After a lengthy discussion of the justifications for the ban offered by the state, the court said:

Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights. The Bishop couple has been in a loving, committed relationships for many years. They own property together, wish to retire together, wish to make medical decisions for one another, and wish to be recognized as a married couple with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment excludes the Bishop couple, and all otherwise eligible same-sex couples, from this privilege without a legally sufficient justification.

The court however-- with an eye on the stay granted by the U.S. Supreme Court to a similar Utah federal district court decision-- granted a stay of its injunction against enforcing Oklahoma's provision pending disposition of any appeal to the 10th Circuit. The court dismissed on standing grounds plaintiffs' challenges to provisions in the Oklahoma constitution and DOMA precluding recognition in the state of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

Nigerian President Quietly Signs Controversial Anti-Gay Law

AP reported yesterday that in Nigeria, President Goodluck Jonathan signed the controversial Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill on Jan. 7 without any public announcement that he had done so. (See prior related posting.) The new law imposes up to 14 years in prison for entering a same-sex marriage or civil union.  It also provides: "A person who registers, operates or participates in gay clubs, societies or organizations, or directly or indirectly makes public show of same-sex amorous relationship in Nigeria commits an offense and is liable on conviction to a term of 10 years." U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement (full text) yesterday criticizing the new law, saying that " it is inconsistent with Nigeria’s international legal obligations."

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Bruce Bartlett, Tax Policy and the Bible, (Tax Notes, Vol. 141, No. 11, 2013).
• P.G. Monateri, Stasis in Moltmann e Schmitt (Stasis in Moltmann and Schmitt), (Cosmo. Comparative Studies in Modernism, 3 - 2013: Diritto e Religione, a cura di Cristina Costantini, pp. 9-17).
• Caroline Mala Corbin, Abortion Distortions, (Washington and Lee Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Charles J. Reid, 'May a Man Marry a Man?' Medieval Canon Lawyers Analyze Same-Sex Unions, (U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-02 (2014)).
• Mattheew I. Hall & Benjamin Means, The Prudential Third Party Standing of Family-Owned Corporations, (University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online, Forthcoming).
• Michael J. Perry, David C. Baum Memorial Lecture: Why Excluding Same-Sex Couples from Civil Marriage Violates the Constitutional Law of the United States, (University of Illinois Law Review, 2014, Forthcoming).
• Brian Christopher Jones, SCOTUS Short Title Turmoil: Time for a Congressional Bill Naming Authority, (32(1) Yale Law & Policy Review Inter Alia 25-33 (2013)).
• Andrew A. Proia, Freeing the Prop 8 Tape: Perry v. Brown, the Presumption of Access to Civil Proceedings, and the Preservation of Judicial Integrity, (University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2013).

From SSRN and elsewhere (Islamic Law):

• Suznne Bouclin, YouTube and Muslim Women's Legal Subjectivities, (Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Vol. 3, No. 7, 2013).
• Iris Sportel, 'Because It's an Islamic Marriage' Conditions Upon Marriage and after Divorce in Transnational Dutch-Moroccan and Dutch-Egyptian Marriages, (Oñati Socio-Legal Series, Vol. 3, No. 6, 2013).
• Javaid Rehman, Islam and Human Rights: Is Compatibility Achievable between the Sharia and Human Rights Law?, (January 2, 2014).
• Special Issue: Islamic Bioethics: Text and Context, [Table of Contents], Bioethics, Vol. 28, Issue 2 (Feb. 2014).

U.S. and Utah Clarify Status of Same Sex Marriages That Were Performed In Utah Before Supreme Court Stay

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder today issued a statement (full text) confirming that the federal government will recognize the same-sex marriages performed in Utah in the two weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay stopping them while an appeal to the 10th Circuit is pending. Describing the Supreme Court's action as "an administrative step," Holder said in part:

for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages.  These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds.

Meanwhile yesterday Utah's Attorney General distributed a letter (full text) to all County Attorneys and County Clerks in the state advising that they should send marriage certificates to same-sex couples whose marriage ceremonies took place between Dec. 20 and Jan. 6. The letter advises in part:

Based on our analysis of Utah law, the marriages were recognized at the time the ceremony was completed.

While the validity of the marriages in question must ultimately be decided by the legal appeals process ..., the act of completing and providing a marriage certificate for all couples whose marriage was performed prior to the morning of January 6, 2014, is administrative and consistent with Utah law.  Therefore, it is recommended that county clerks provide marriage certificates to all persons whose marriages were solemnized during this period as an administrative function and not a legal function. This would allow ... couples ... to have proper documentation in states that recognize same-sex marriage.

Utah Will Deny New Benefits To Same-Sex Couples While Appeals Are Pending

As previously reported, on Dec. 20 a federal district court in Utah struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.  However on January 6 the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stayed the district court's order while an appeal is working its way through the 10th Circuit.  This left Utah authorities to figure out the status of some 1000 same-sex couples who were married in the state between Dec. 20 and January 6.  Yesterday Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes issued an Official Statement on how those marriages will be treated for now:

... We are unable to reach a legal conclusion as to the ultimate validity of marriage  between persons of the same sex who completed their marriage ceremony in Utah between Dec 20, 2013 and Jan. 6, 2014. That question remains unanswered and the answer will depend on the result of the appeal process.

The Office of the Attorney General has advised the Governor in this case and will continue to work with the Governor and the individual agencies as they evaluate the application of specific policies and benefits within their agencies. A review team has been established to advise on a case-by-case basis.....

While the ultimate validity of such marriages is subject to the decision of a higher court, it is clear that the State is bound by law to limit any benefits attaching after the stay.

CNN reports that the governor's office has advised all state cabinet officials that "state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice."

Unauthorized Class Action Sought Millions For Denial of Religious Freedom and Right To Marry By Utah and LDS Church

Last Friday, a class action was filed in federal district court in Utah against the state of Utah and the LDS Church on behalf of "all persons denied freedom of religion and the right to marry"-- at least 500 people according to the complaint.  The complaint (full text) in Winburn v. State of Utah, (D UT, filed Dec. 27, 2013), describes the LDS Church as "an entity of defendant State of Utah," and alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act, the Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It seeks damages of at least $25,000 for each class member. Yesterday, the lead plaintiffs in the case filed a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" (full text). The plaintiffs, Pidge Winburn and Amy Fowler-- a same-sex couple who were married on Dec. 23 after a federal court invalidated Utah's ban on same-sex marriage-- say they did not authorize the lawsuit, never spoke to the attorney who filed it, and learned of it only through a phone call from a reporter.  Apparently attorney E. Craig Smay who filed the suit learned of Winburn and Fowler through a feature article about them in the Dec. 26 Salt Lake Tribune.  According to yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune, Fowler says she plans to file a formal bar complaint against the attorney.

Utah Seeks Stay From U.S. Supreme Court of District Court's Same-Sex Marriage Decision

As reported by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog, yesterday the state of Utah filed an Application (full text) seeking an immediate stay pending appeal of the Dec. 20 federal district court decision in Kitchen v. Herbert which barred Utah from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage.  The district court and 10th Circuit have both denied stays. As required by Supreme Court rule, the stay application was filed with Justice Sotomayor, the Justice assigned to the 10th Circuit.  Late yesterday afternoon, Justice Sotomayor asked for a response from respondents by noon on Friday.  It appears that Utah's governor and attorney general have retained an outside law firm to handle the attempt to obtain Supreme Court review.  A Boise, Idaho firm is listed as petitioners' counsel, with counsel of record being the firm's senior partner Monte Neil Stewart who was a law clerk for Chief Justice Warren Burger and is the founder of the Marriage Law Foundation.

Utah's application for a stay argues that it is likely that the district court will be reversed on appeal, and if that happens without a stay the state will be faced with the problem of whether and how to unwind the many marriages that will have occurred in the interim. AP reports on Utah's efforts.

Happy New Year 2014!

Dear Religion Clause Readers:

Happy New Year! The past year was unusual in the extent to which two developments often seemed to dominate Religion Clause's coverage-- reactions to same-sex marriage and opposition to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate.  However, many other interesting and challenging religious liberty and church-state items also filled 2013.

As we enter 2014, I want to again thank all of you who read Religion Clause-- both long-time followers and those who have discovered the blog more recently. And thanks to all of you who send me leads or corrections. Your input is important in maintaining completeness and accuracy. I read all of your e-mails and comments and appreciate receiving them, even though time constraints often prevent me from replying individually. Normally when I blog on a story sent to me by a reader, I mention the sender. If you do not want to be mentioned, I will be happy to honor that request if you let me know when sending me information.

Religion Clause's established format of neutrality, broad coverage and links to extensive primary source material has made it a widely-recognized authoritative source for keeping up on church-state and religious liberty developments around the world. Often Religion Clause carries a story well before mainstream media feature it. This year, for the fifth time in 7 years, Religion Clause was named by the ABA Journal as one of the 100 top blogs for a legal audience.

I am of course always considering whether any changes in format or coverage would make the blog more useful.  This year I changed the blog's template a bit-- to mixed reviews.  I have also begun to add subject tags to my posts to allow readers to find other blog entries covering similar subject matter.  I will not, however, have the time to retroactively add tags to the over 15,000 past blog posts that are in the Religion Clause database.  I welcome any comments or suggestions you have regarding Religion Clause. Feel free to post them as a comment to this blog entry, or to e-mail them to me at religionclause@gmail.com.

The Sitemeter shows that Religion Clause has attracted over 1,544,000 visits since I created the blog in 2005. Around 206,500 of these visits came in 2013. Sitemeter, however, is becoming a less and less reliable measure of readership.  First, the Sitemeter server which measures visits to Religion Clause suffered severe technical problems for at least two months this year. Also, a number of visits by automated bots are counted by Sitemeter. This overestimates real readers of the blog.  At the same time, readers are undercounted because of the increasing numbers who are following Religion Clause through Twitter, Facebook, Feedly, Blogger, FeedBlitz and similar services that make access more convenient. (Information about many of these alternatives are available in the blog's sidebar.)  Reading of posts, or of post headlines, through these routes is not measured by Sitemeter.  Only click-throughs are registered.

Ultimately, however, raw numbers are not as important as the quality of the audience and the usefulness of the blog to readers. On this score, I am pleased that my regular readers span the political and religious spectrum and include a large number of law school faculty, journalists, persons at governmental agencies, and others working professionally dealing with church-state relations and religious liberty concerns.  I encourage you to recommend Religion Clause to colleagues and friends who might find it of interest, and to link to specific posts and share them on social media.

Finally, I remind you that in addition to the postings, the Religion Clause sidebar contains links to a wealth of resources.

Best wishes for 2014!  It promises to be another year of interesting legal and political change.

Howard M. Friedman

Top 10 Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments in 2013

As the new year approaches, here is my annual attempt at picking the most important developments of the past year.  My nominations for the 2013 Top Ten Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments are:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor strikes down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in an opinion by Justice Kennedy that triggers judicial and legislative expansion of marriage equality to a total of 18 states and the District of Columbia by the end of 2013.

2.  Judicial challenges by Catholic- and conservative Christian-owned small businesses to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate generate an intense legal debate over whether corporations have religious exercise rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari in two cases raising the issue.

3. A decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Elane Photography requires a commercial photography business to serve same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couple, despite the photographer's religious objections to same-sex marriage. A preliminary Colorado administrative decision takes the same approach on wedding cakes. In a related development, Britain's Supreme Court holds that its anti-discrimination laws require Christian hotel owners to rent rooms to same-sex couples. 

4. U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Town of Greece case.  The Court will decide on the constitutionality of opening city council meetings with sectarian prayers.

5. Numerous challenges by religiously-affiliated colleges and social service agencies to a compromise that was intended to accommodate their objections to the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate raise the issue of how to define a "substantial burden" on religious exercise under RFRA. Courts have reached differing conclusions.

6. European Court of Human Rights decides four cases from Britain on religious accommodation of Christian employee' religious beliefs. Decisions call for a case-by-case balancing approach.

7. Egypt continues to struggle with the future role of the Muslim Brotherhood (which the government now brands a "terrorist" group) and with what its constitution should say about the role of religion.

8. Federal district court strikes down most of Utah's anti-polygamy law.

9. A variety of recent cases and legislative initiatives in the U.S. and elsewhere raise the question of what qualifies as a "religion"-- Scientology, yoga, Humanism, Naturism.

10. Federal district court holds Internal Revenue Code parsonage allowance provisions violate Establishment Clause.

 I welcome reader comments taking issue with my choices. You may be interested in the somewhat different picks by the Religion Newswriters Association for its 2013 Top 10 Religion News Stories.

Same-Sex Marriages Move Ahead In Utah As State Continues Seeking Stay

The Salt Lake Tribune reported yesterday on the flurry of motions being filed by the state of Utah seeking to obtain a stay of the federal district court's decision handed down Friday (see prior posting) legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. On Friday morning, the district court denied a stay, and the state quickly filed its third motion with the 10th Circuit seeking a stay while it appeals the district court ruling.  The 10th Circuit had previously denied an emergency stay pending a decision by the district court on granting a stay, as well as denying an anticipatory request to stay the expected district court's refusal of a stay. (Full text of order.)  Meanwhile, according to yesterday's Deseret News, approximately 700 same-sex marriage licenses have been issued across the state since Friday.  Some county clerks, however, are still refusing to issue same-sex licenses, and a lawsuit has been filed by a same-sex couple against the Utah County clerk's office to force them to issue a license.  Cache County officials closed the Clerk's office completely, stopping issuing traditional marriage licenses as well.

UPDATE: The Salt Lake Tribune reports that around 6 p.m., Dec. 24, the 10th Circuit again denied the state's motion for a stay of the district court's order. A spokesman for the Utah attorney general's office said that any county clerks that continue to refuse to issue licences to same-sex couples risk being held in contempt of court. Here is the full text of the order denying a stay during appeal, and which also directs expedited consideration of the appeal of the district court decision. ScotusBlog reports that Utah will file an appeal of the denial of a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday.

Ohio Must Recognize Same-Sex Spouses On Death Certificates

In Obergefell v. Wymyslo, (SD OH, Dec. 23, 2013), an Ohio federal district court today in a 50-page opinion held that despite its statutory and constitutional provisions to the contrary, Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages that were validly performed in other states for purposes of indicating on an Ohio death certificate the deceased's marital status and the identity of the surviving spouse. The court said in part:

... [U]nder the Constitution of the United States, Ohio must recognize valid out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples on Ohio death certificates, just as Ohio recognizes all other out-of-state marriages, if valid in the state performed, and even if not authorized nor validly performed under Ohio law, such as marriages between first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages. 

That is, once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away, because the right to remain married is properly recognized as a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Moreover, as this Court held in its initial Orders this summer and reaffirms today, by treating lawful same-sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex marriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins, marriages of certain minors, and common law marriages), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, violates the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.... 

The court's decision does not invalidate Ohio's refusal to issue marriage licenses for same-sex marriages in the state.  The court says that there is a possibility the state's concerns about same-sex marriage are more compelling in the context of marriage creation than in the context of marriage recognition. Reporting on today's opinion, AP says that Ohio will appeal the decision.

Indiana Appeals Court: Sex Change of Spouse Does Not Invalidate Marriage Despite Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In In re Marriage of Melanie Davis and Angela Summers, (IN App., Dec. 20, 2013), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a marriage between a man and a woman that is valid when  entered does not become void when one of the spouses is diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has his or her birth certificate amended to reflect a change in gender.  Even though Indiana law bars same-sex marriage, this ban does not apply to a marriage that is valid in Indiana when entered. [Thanks to William Baude at Volokh Conspiracy for the lead.]

Nigeria and Uganda Parliaments Pass Harsh Anti-Gay Laws; Final Approval By President/ Prime Minister Uncertain

Daily Trust reports that last week Nigeria's National Assembly gave final approval to the conference committee's version of the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Bill 2011.  It imposes a 14-year prison sentence on same-sex couples who enter a marriage or civil union.  Ten year prison sentences are prescribed for anyone who witnesses or aids or abets a same-sex union.  Section 2 of the bill provides:

Any person, who registers, operates or participates in gay clubs, societies and organisations or directly or indirectly make public show of same sex amorous relationship in Nigeria commits an offence and shall each be liable on conviction to a term of 10 years in prison.

The bill still needs the signature of President Goodluck Jonathan to become law.  Amnesty International on Friday called on the President to reject the bill. (AFP).

Meanwhile, on Friday, Uganda's Parliament passed an anti-homosexuality law described as draconian.  The Guardian reports on some of its provisions:

British campaigner Peter Tatchell noted that the bill extends the existing penalty of life imprisonment for same-sex intercourse to all other same-sex behaviour, including the mere touching of another person with the intent to have homosexual relations.

Promoting homosexuality and aiding and abetting others to commit homosexual acts will be punishable by five to seven years jail.... "These new crimes are likely to include membership and funding of LGBT organisations, advocacy of LGBT human rights, supportive counselling of LGBT persons and the provision of condoms or safer sex advice to LGBT people.

"A person in authority – gay or heterosexual – who fails to report violators to the police within 24 hours will be sentenced to three years behind bars."

He added: "Astonishingly, the new legislation has an extra-territorial jurisdiction. It will also apply to Ugandan citizens or foreign residents of Uganda who commit these 'crimes' while abroad, in countries where such behaviour is not a criminal offence. Violators overseas will be subjected to extradition, trial and punishment in Uganda.

The Guardian adds:

[The bill] was opposed by Ugandan prime minister Amama Mbabazi, who argued that not enough MPs were present for a quorum, a challenge that might yet discourage Museveni from signing the bill into law. The threat of a withdrawal of western aid could also play into his decision.