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.

Federal Court Strikes Down Utah's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, a Utah federal district court declared Utah's state constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage invalid under the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal constitution and enjoined the state from enforcing provisions of Utah law that prevent a person from marrying another person of the same sex. In Kitchen v. Herbert, (D UT, Dec. 20, 2013), the court said in part:

If, as is clear from the Supreme Court cases discussing the right to marry, a heterosexual person’s choices about intimate association and family life are protected from unreasonable government interference in the marital context, then a gay or lesbian person also enjoys these same protections. ... The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence removed the only ground—moral disapproval—on which the State could have at one time relied to distinguish the rights of gay and lesbian individuals from the rights of heterosexual individuals.

Moving to plaintiffs' equal protection challenge, the court held that none of the reasons put forward to justify the ban-- responsible procreation, optimal child rearing, proceeding with caution, preserving the traditional definition of marriage-- survive even "rational basis" review.

Utah's Attorney General quickly moved to stay the court's order, filing a motion (full text) in district court as well as a motion (full text) in the 10th Circuit.  The court's decision and plans for appeal are discussed at Scotus Blog, Christian Science Monitor, and the Salt Lake Tribune. An op-ed in the St. George (UT) News contrasts the quick appeal of the ruling with the still-uncertain reaction of state officials to a federal court decision last week invalidating a large part of Utah's law banning polygamy.

In Ogden, Weber County officials had originally announced the the county Clerk's office would be open for one hour today to process marriage license applications, but reversed that decision, turning away over 200 people in line.  According to the Salt Lake Tribune, county Clerk Ricky Hatch apologized to those waiting, and later explained that the decision not to open was made in part because there was no security in place for the building and in part because he was "advised that opening the office for 'special circumstances' may violate equal-protection laws, as the county had never before opened on a Saturday to accommodate a particular group or event."

New Mexico Supreme Court Validates Same-Sex Marriages

In Griego v. Oliver, (NM Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2013), the New Mexico Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, held that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry.  New Mexico is the only state whose laws do not explicitly either permit or prohibit same-sex marriage. (See prior related posting.)  However in its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that "the statutory scheme reflects a legislative intent to prohibit same-gender marriages."  It went on to hold that this prohibition is unconstitutional:

We conclude that the purpose of New Mexico marriage laws is to bring stability and order to the legal relationship of committed couples by defining their rights and responsibilities as to one another, their children if they choose to raise children together, and their property. Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the governmental interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage or to the purposes we have identified. Therefore, barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution. We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law.

In reaching its decision, the court added:

Although this question arouses sincerely-felt religious beliefs both in favor of and against same-gender marriages, our analysis does not and cannot depend on religious doctrine without violating the Constitution.... Our holding will not interfere with the religious freedom of religious organizations or clergy because (1) no religious organization will have to change its policies to accommodate same-gender couples, and (2) no religious clergy will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

Bloomberg News reports on the decision which makes New Mexico the 17th state to recognize same-sex marriage. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Two Decisions Follow On Illinois Legalization Of Same-Sex Marriage

As previously reported, last month Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, effective June 1, 2014. There have now been two follow-up judicial developments. As reported by Illinois Review, yesterday, with the backing of all parties, an Illinois state trial court judge dismissed as moot the complaint in Darby v. Orr, a suit filed last year by the ACLU and Lambda Legal challenging the constitutionality of Illinois' previous prohibition of same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, in Lee v. Orr, (ND IL, Dec. 10, 2013), an Illinois federal district court issued an opinion in a class action lawsuit granting a temporary injunction allowing  individuals in same-sex relationships who need to marry before to June 1, 2014 due to a life-threatening illness of one or both parties the right to do so. The court said:

The putative subclass of medically critical plaintiffs here are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the provisions of the current Illinois law that deny them the right to marry based solely on their sexual orientation, as applied, violates their constitutional right to equal protection.

The court's decision was contingent on the parties agreeing on a satisfactory implementation method.  They have done so.  As announced by the ACLU,  the court finalized its order yesterday adopting a procedure that allows same-sex couples to marry before June 1 if they provide a doctor’s certification stating that one of them has a life-threatening illness. Still pending in the case is the broader attempt by plaintiffs to speed up the same-sex marriage implementation date for everyone.

North Dakota AG Says Non-Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage Allows Issuance of License For Heterosexual Marriage To Same-Sex Spouse

In Letter Opinion 2013-L-06, (ND AG, Dec. 12, 2013), North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem concluded that since the state does not recognize same-sex marriages, a county recorder in North Dakota may issue a marriage license for a heterosexual marriage to an individual who previously entered a valid same-sex marriage in another state, even when the same-sex marriage has not been legally dissolved.  Consistent with this, the Attorney General also ruled that an individual who previously entered a same-sex marriage elsewhere would not be committing a criminal violation in North Dakota by checking the box on the marriage license application indicating that he or she is "Single/Never Married." The Attorney General concluded by stating that it would be inappropriate for him to give a legal opinion on whether the person married in these circumstances would be in violation of another state's bigamy statute if he returns to a state that recognizes both marriages. Forum News Service reports on the AG's opinion letter. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Federal Financial Aid Forms Will Now Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

The U.S. Department of Education announced on Friday that, in light of the Supreme Court's Windsor decision, it will recognize same-sex marriages for purposes of eligibility for Federal Financial Aid. It said in part:

[T]he Department will recognize a student or a parent as legally married if the couple was legally married in any jurisdiction that recognizes the marriage, regardless of whether the marriage is between a couple of the same sex or opposite sex, and regardless of where the student or couple lives or the student is attending school.

It also posted on its website a "Dear Colleague" letter (full text) detailing how its new policy should be applied by those completing FAFSA financial aid forms and calculating the student's Expected Family Contribution. The new policy does not apply to civil unions, domestic partnerships and other arrangements short of marriage. However, as announced earlier this year, beginning with the 2014-2015 FAFSA, dependent students will be required to include on the FAFSA income and other information regarding their legal parents (biological or adoptive) regardless of marital status or gender, if those parents live together. FAFSA will include a new category: "unmarried and both parents living together." [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Australia's Highest Court Invalidates Capital Territory's Marriage Equality Law

In Commonwealth of Australia v. Australian Capital Territory, (Australia High Ct., Dec. 12, 2013), Australia's highest court invalidated the Australian Capital Territory's Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 as inconsistent with federal law.  As summarized by the High Court's press release:

Today the High Court decided unanimously that the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013, enacted by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, cannot operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act 1961. The Court held that the federal Parliament has power under the Australian Constitution to legislate with respect to same sex marriage, and that under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the federal Parliament.

The decision comes only 5 days after the Australian Capital Territory's new law took effect. Some 27 same-sex couples got married during that period. According to CNN, those marriages will be annulled.

EU Directive Requires Companies To Give Same Benefits to Civil Partners Where Same-Sex Marriage Is Unavailable

In Hay v. Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres, (Eur. Ct. Jus. 5th Chamber, Dec. 12, 2013), the 5th Chamber of the European Court of Justice held that under Council Directive 2000/78/EC that creates a framework for equal treatment in employment, it amounts to direct discrimination for a French firm to deny a same-sex couple entering a civil partnership the same benefits given couples being married. The court concluded that:

an employee who concludes a PACS [civil solidarity pact] with a person of the same sex [must be] allowed to obtain the same benefits, such as days of special leave and a salary bonus, as those granted to employees on the occasion of their marriage, where the national rules of the Member State concerned do not allow persons of the same sex to marry, in so far as, in the light of the objective of and the conditions relating to the grant of those benefits, that employee is in a comparable situation to an employee who marries.

Art Leonard Observations has analysis of the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Colorado Civil Rights Commission Initial Decision Holds Bakery Violated Law In Refusing Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

In Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO Civ. Rts. Commn., Dec. 6, 2013), an Administrative Law Judge for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission held that a bakery and its owner illegally discriminated against a same-sex couple on the basis of sexual orientation in refusing to sell them a wedding cake. The bakery owner claimed that creating cakes for same-sex weddings violates his religious beliefs. The ALJ held that the refusal violated the public accommodation anti-discrimination ban in C.R.S. Sec. 24-34-601(2), rejecting the argument that the refusal was not "because of" the couple's sexual orientation.

The ALJ also rejected respondents' claims that requiring them to prepare the cake would violate their free speech and free exercise rights protected by the U.S. and Colorado constitutions.  The ALJ held that this would not amount to compelled speech, saying that the bakery owner "was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage." Also any impact on free speech "is 'plainly incidental' to the government's right to regulate objectionable conduct."  The ALJ rejected respondents' free exercise claim, finding that the anti-discrimination law is neutral and of general applicability.

The ALJ's initial decision may be appealed to the full Civil Rights Commission (Commn. Rule 10.13), and from their to the state court of appeals (C.R.S. Sec. 24-24-307). The ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. Fox News and AP report on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]