French Parliament Approves Same-Sex Marriage

In France yesterday, the lower house of Parliament, the National Assembly, by a vote of 331-225, approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. The bill was approved by the Senate earlier this month. Legifrance has links to the text of the bill, reports and legislative votes (all in French). As reported by CNN and the New York Times, a group of senators have filed a challenge with the Constitutional Council, which has a month to rule on the law's constitutionality.  It is expected that the bill will be upheld and that President François Hollande will sign it in time for the first same-sex marriages to take place this summer. If finally approved, France will be the ninth European country to permit same-sex marriage. The others are Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. (Background.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Marshall Thompson, Tortured Morals: The Illegality and Immorality of the Enhanced Interrogation Program from an LDS Perspective, (April 10, 2013).
• Patrick M. Garry and John P. Garry, The Establishment Clause and the Making of a New Secularism: A Review Essay on Church, State and the Crisis in American Secularism by Bruce Ledewitz, (Duquesne University Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2013).
• Brian Michael McCall, The Church and the Usurers: Unprofitable Lending for the Modern Economy, (April 10, 2013).
• Donna Carol Litman and Steven H. Resnicoff, Jewish and American Inheritance Law: Commonalities, Clashes, and Estate Planning Consequences,(in L. Moscovits (ed.), Jewish Law Association Studies XXII (2012)). 
• Robert K. Vischer, Do For-Profit Businesses Have Free Exercise Rights?, (Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 2013, Forthcoming).
• Douglas Laycock and Thomas C. Berg, Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, (99 Virginia Law Review In Brief (2013)).
• Mark D. Rosen, Religious Institutions, Liberal States, and the Political Architecture of Overlapping Spheres, (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming).
• James David Nelson, Conscience, Incorporated, (April 8, 2013).
• Nelson Robert Lund, Same-Sex Marriage in the Courts of Law and Reason, (Engage: The Journal of the Federalist Society's Practice Groups, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 34-35, February 2013).
• Gianluca Parolin, (Re)Arrangement of State/Sharī'ah Relations in Egypt's Constitutional Transition (April 15, 2013). NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 13-15.
• Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Plausibility of Personhood, (74 Ohio State Law Journal 14 (2012)).
• Nina J. Crimm, What Could Globalization Mean for Domestic Islamic-Socio-Political Activism?, (36 Fordham International Law Journal 600 (Symposium Issue, 2013).
• François-Xavier Licari, L'Arbitrage Rabbinique, Entre Droit Talmudique Et Droit Des Nations (Rabbinic Arbitration, Between Talmudic Law and the Law of the Gentiles), (Revue de l'arbitrage 2013, pp. 57-120). 

Transcripts and Recordings of SCOTUS Arguments In Same-Sex Marriage Cases Are Available

This week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases involving same-sex marriage.  The written transcript and audio recording of Tuesday's arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California's Proposition 8 are available on the Supreme Court's website. The written transcript and audio recording of Wednesday's arguments in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act are similarly available. Before arguments began on Tuesday, thousands of demonstrators on both sides of the issues marched and picketed near the Supreme Court. Yahoo! News reports that the National Organization for Marriage, a coalition of ethnically diverse churches from at least 15 states, were among the marchers opposing same-sex marriage.  But those invoking religion demonstrated in favor of marriage equality as well. One carried a sign reading: "Jesus had two dads and he turned out fine."

UPDATE: Oyez and ISCOTUS have created a website with extensive background information on the cases.

Religion Clause Will Be On A 2-Day Publication Break

Religion Clause will be on a two-day publication break tomorrow and Wednesday. Look for new posts early on Thursday. These will include reporting on the oral arguments in the  Supreme Court that will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday in two important same-sex marriage cases. For those who want to read more on the oral arguments before Thursday, SCOTUSBlog will have its usual excellent coverage of the arguments. The Supreme Court's own website will link to transcripts and audio recordings of the arguments when they become available.      

Report Claims Religious Liberty Arguments Are Being Used To Stifle Civil Rights

Political Research Associates, an organization devoted to challenging the right and advancing social justice, this week issued a report written by Jay Michaelson titled Redefining Religious Liberty-- The Covert Campaign Against Civil Rights. The Report's Executive Summary reads in part:

A highly-active, well-funded network of conservative Roman Catholic intellectuals and evangelicals are waging a vigorous challenge to LGBTQ and reproductive rights by charging that both threaten their right-wing definition of “religious liberty.” The Christian Right campaign to redefine “religious liberty” has been limiting women’s reproductive rights for more than a decade and has recently resulted in significant religious exemptions from antidiscrimination laws, same-sex marriage laws, policies regarding contraception and abortion, and educational policies. Religious conservatives have succeeded in reframing the debate, inverting the victim-oppressor dynamic, and broadening support for their agenda.

While the religious liberty debate is a growing front in the ongoing culture wars, it is actually an old argument repurposed for a new context. In the postwar era, the Christian Right defended racial segregation, school prayer, public religious displays, and other religious practices that infringed on the liberties of others by claiming that restrictions on such public acts infringed upon their religious liberty. Then as now, the Christian Right turned antidiscrimination arguments on  their heads: instead of African Americans being discriminated against by segregated Christian universities, the universities were being discriminated against by not being allowed to exclude them; instead of public prayers oppressing religious minorities, Christians are being oppressed by not being able to offer them.

Was Religious Accommodation Needed For SCOTUS Arguments In Same-Sex Marriage Cases?-- An Editorial Commentary

While much has been written about the intersection of religious belief and same-sex marriage, next week's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in two same-sex marriage cases pose another religious issue that has hardly been noticed.  Oral arguments are scheduled for March 26 in Hollingsworth v. Perry, and on March 27 in United States v. Windsor. These dates are the first two days of Passover-- holidays in the Jewish calendar on which traditional Jews abstain from work.  One wonders if anyone involved sought, or thought about, religious accommodation.  Three Supreme Court Justices are Jewish (Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan). One of the eight attorneys presenting oral arguments is Jewish (Roberta Kaplan). The individual who created the legal issue in one of the cases was Jewish-- Edie Windsor's deceased partner, Thea Spyer. Amicus briefs in the cases have been filed by the American Jewish Committee, and by a broad coalition of religious groups that include national organizations representing the Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist branches of Judaism.

Among the numerous rallies, demonstrations and events planned in Washington next week to coincide with oral arguments, the United for Marriage Coalition has scheduled "Parting the Waters: A Seder for Love, Liberation & Justice" on Tuesday evening, March 26.  So at least someone has noticed the significance of the dates.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Kenneth L Marcus, Is Anti-Semitism Unique?: Review of Clemens Heni, Antisemitism: A Specific Phenomenon (Berlin: Edition Critic, 2013) (2013). Brandeis Brief (March 2013).
• Steven H. Resnicoff, Family Planning and Government Regulation – Jewish Law Perspective, (DePaul Journal of Health Care Law, Forthcoming).
• Alan Hurst, Hosanna-Tabor and the Exaggerated Decline of Separationism, (March 7, 2013).
• Marc O. DeGirolami, Book Review, Stephen v. Monsma, Pluralism and Freedom: Faith-Based Organizations in a Democratic Society, (Journal of Church and State (Forthcoming)).
• Russell Powell, Evolving Views of Islamic Law in Turkey, (March 14, 2013).
• Anna Jane Kloeden High, Government Beyond Law: Exploring Charity Regulation and Spaces of Order in China, (December 1, 2011).
• Andy G. Olree, 'Pride Ignorance and Knavery': James Madison's Formative Experiences with Religious Establishments, (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2013). 

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Victor E. Schwartz and Christopher E. Appel, Robert S. Marx Lecture. The Church Autonomy Doctrine: Where Tort Law Should Step Aside, (80 University of Cincinnati Law Review 431-499 (2011)).
• CambridgeBlog, Virtual Roundtable: Same-Sex Marriage, (March 15, 2013).

[Updated]

Now Stymied Lawsuit In Russia Seeks To Invalidate Sale of Alaska To Protect Its Orthodox Christians From Same-Sex Marriage

RIA Novosti reports today on an attempt in Russia by an obscure ultraconservative Russian Orthodox religious group--  Pchyolki ("Bees)-- to sue the United States to invalidate Russia's sale of Alaska to the U.S. in 1867. Pchyolki says that the suit was motivated by President Barack Obama's support for legalizing same-sex marriage. Pchyolki says this threatens freedom of religion for Alaska’s Orthodox Christians, who "would never accept sin for normal behavior." The lawsuit cites technical violations of the terms of the 1867 treaty. Art. VI of the treaty called for the U.S. to pay Russia $7.2 million "in gold."  The complaint filed in a Moscow arbitrage court says payment was made instead by check.

The suit was originally filed in Moscow in January, and Pchyolki had until this week to file certain additional papers and notify the U.S. government of the lawsuit. It failed to do so, and the court has therefore not processed the lawsuit.

Colorado Legislature Approves Civil Unions; Governor Expected To Sign Bill

The Colorado legislature today gave final passage to SB 13-11, the Colorado Civil Union Act, authorizing both same-sex and opposite-sex civil unions and giving parties to a civil union the same rights and obligations as spouses. It provides that a civil union may be certified by a judge, a magistrate, the parties or "in accordance with any mode of recognition ... by any religious denomination."  AP reports that Governor John Hickenlooper has said he will sign the bill, Many Republicans have expressed concern about the absence in the bill of religious exemptions for those opposed to civil unions.  Supporters say this would invite discrimination.  In 2006, Colorado approved a state constitutional amendment barring gay marriage-- but not civil unions.

Free Exercise and Establishment Clause Challenges To NC Marriage Laws Dismissed On Procedural Grounds

In Thigpen v. Cooper, (NC Ct. App., March 5, 2013), a North Carolina state appellate court, without reaching the merits of the claim, dismissed a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that three of the state's marriage statutes are unconstitutional.  Plaintiff claimed that the statutes violate the Establishment Clause by making clergy agents of the state to perform a marriage ceremony; that  they violate free exercise protections because the state requires individuals entering into marriage to participate in a state-prescribed ceremony; and that it is unconstitutional for the state to prohibit members of the clergy from solemnizing the marriage of same-sex couples. (See prior posting.)  The only defendants named were the state of North Carolina and the state Attorney General in his official capacity. The court held that a state is not a "person" for purposes of 42 USC Sec. 1983, the federal statute giving plaintiffs a cause of action to challenge the state laws. It held further that the suit is not properly brought against the attorney general, because he plays no role in enforcing the marriage statutes being challenged.

Justice Department Briefs Its Position On Merits In Both SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The U.S. Department of Justice has now filed briefs setting forth its arguments on the merits in the two same-sex marriage cases that will be argued before the Supreme Court later this month.  On Feb. 22, the Justice Department filed a merits brief (full text) in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Yesterday the Justice Department filed an amicus brief (full text) with the U.S. Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the federal equal protection challenge to California's Proposition 8. In both cases, the Justice Department argued that classifications based on sexual orientation should, when challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, be subject to heightened scrutiny. In its Hollingsworth brief, DOJ stated directly that: "The President and Attorney General have determined that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny for equal protection purposes."

In its Windsor brief, DOJ argued rather straight forwardly that Section 3 of DOMA fails heightened scrutiny. In its Hollingsworth brief, however, the Department of Justice took a more complicated position.  As discussed by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog, DOJ took the position that California's Proposition 8 fails the heightened scrutiny test, but in an argument that stops short of contending that the U.S. Constitution requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage.  DOJ reasoned that California does not substantially further any important governmental interest by barring same-sex marriage since it already gives same-sex couples the right to enter domestic partnerships that confer all the same rights as marriage.  This argument would apply only to the 8 states that have granted domestic partners or those who have entered civil unions rights equal to those of married couples.

Religious Conservatives Around The World Object To Valentine's Day

Today is Valentine's Day-- a celebration that has become increasingly popular around the world.  As in past years, conservative religious authorities in some countries continue to express their opposition to the occasion. In Coimbatore, India, members of the All India Youth Federation have petitioned police for protection, according to yesterday's Deccan Chronicle. The group says that every year, religious parties and other protesters gather in city parks and elsewhere where young people meet, and try to catch them and force them to marry in public places.

In Indonesia, according to today's Tengri News, the country's largest Muslim organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama, says it does not want to ban Valentine's Day, but it should not be celebrated by teenagers. The Head of the conservative Islamic Defenders Front went further and declared the day "haram" (forbidden) for Muslims, saying it reflects the culture of "infidels."

According to OnIslam, in Pakistan, the head of Jammat-e-Islami, the country’s largest Islamic party, said: "We are going to observe February 14 as Hijab Day in all over the country, especially in the educational institutions in order to show to the world that the people of Pakistan totally reject this custom, which is a direct attack on the culture of modesty."

Meanwhile, according to Chicago's Daily Herald, in Illinois, supporters of same-sex marriage hope that the state Senate will use today to pass and send to the House a bill permitting same-sex marriage.

Archbishop Says Gays Should Be Protected From Discrimination

RNS reports that Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, in his first press conference sine he was appointed, urged protection of gays and lesbians from discrimination in countries where homosexuality is illegal. While emphasizing the Church's continued opposition to same-sex marriage, the Archbishop at a press conference yesterday said:

In the world there are 20 or 25 countries where homosexuality is a crime.  I would like the church to fight against all this.

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

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

Amicus Briefs In Same-Sex Marriage Cases Now Available Online

Numerous amicus briefs have now been filed in the two Supreme Court same-sex marriage cases that will be argued on March 26 and 27. A number of the amici are religiously affiliated organizations.  Scotus Blog has links to the full text of all the briefs in Hollingsworth v. Perry and  in United States v. Windsor.

NYT: Same-Sex Married Couples Face Continuing Unequal Treatment In Military

A front-page article in today's New York Times explores the continuing unequal treatment of married same-sex couples in the military.  Despite the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act still bars recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes of various benefits. There is also less formal discrimination. At a military retreat at Ft. Bragg designed to help couples cope with the pressures of deployments and relocations, a same-sex couple was asked to leave because they were making others uncomfortable. The retreat was organized by military chaplains, and the lesbian couple had been told in advance that they were welcome. The chaplains now say that was erroneous advice.

European Court of Human Rights Vindicates Britain In 3 of 4 Cases Denying Accommodation of Christian Beliefs

Yesterday, seven judges sitting as a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights handed down a decision in four widely followed employment discrimination cases brought by Christians in Great Britain who sought accommodation of their religious beliefs. (See prior posting.) Two of the cases involve women employees whose employers prevented them from wearing a cross on a necklace.  The other two cases involve claims that religious beliefs opposed to same-sex marriage and homosexual relationships should be accommodated.  In Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom, (ECHR 4th Section, Jan. 15, 2013), the court held that there had been a violation of Art. 9 (Freedom of Religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights in only one of the cases.  By a vote of 5-2, the court held that the United Kingdom violated Art. 9 by failing to adequately protect British Airways employee Nadia Eweida who wanted an exception to the airline's uniform rules so she could wear a visible cross around her neck. The court awarded her damages of 2000 Euros and costs of 30,000 Euros.

British law bars employment discrimination unless the employer can show that its requirements constitute "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." As to Ms. Eweida, the Court majority said:

[A] fair balance was not struck. On one side of the scales was Ms Eweida’s desire to manifest her religious belief.... [T]his is a fundamental right: because a healthy democratic society needs to tolerate and sustain pluralism and diversity; but also because of the value to an individual who has made religion a central tenet of his or her life to be able to communicate that belief to others. On the other side of the scales was the employer’s wish to project a certain corporate image.... [W]hile this aim was undoubtedly legitimate, the domestic courts accorded it too much weight. Ms Eweida’s cross was discreet and cannot have detracted from her professional appearance. There was no evidence that the wearing of other, previously authorised, items of religious clothing, such as turbans and hijabs, by other employees, had any negative impact on British Airways’ brand or image. Moreover, the fact that the company was able to amend the uniform code to allow for the visible wearing of religious symbolic jewellery demonstrates that the earlier prohibition was not of crucial importance.

However in the case of Shirley Chaplain, a geriatric ward nurse at a state hospital, the court held unanimously that the requirement she remove her necklace displaying a cross to prevent injury when handling patients was justified.

The third case involved Lillian Ladele, a local registrar of births, deaths and marriages, who refused on religious grounds to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. In a 5-2 decision, the Court rejected Ladele's claims under Art. 9 and the non-discrimination requirements of Art. 14, holding that local authorities are given "a wide margin of appreciation" in balancing religious freedom rights with the mandate not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Two judges dissented, saying that the issue is primarily one of freedom of conscience. They continued:

Instead of practising the tolerance and the “dignity for all” it preached, the Borough of Islington pursued the doctrinaire line, the road of obsessive political correctness. It effectively sought to force the applicant to act against her conscience or face the extreme penalty of dismissal... Ms Ladele did not fail in her duty of discretion: she did not publicly express her beliefs to service users.  Her beliefs had no impact on the content of her job, but only on its extent. She never attempted to impose her beliefs on others, nor was she in any way engaged, openly or surreptitiously, in subverting the rights of others. Thus ... the means used were totally disproportionate.

The fourth case involved Gary McFarlane, who was a counselor at an organization that provides sex therapy and relationship counselling. He was dismissed after he expressed concern on grounds of his Christian religious beliefs about providing psycho-sexual therapy to same-sex couples. The court unanimously rejected  his claim of discrimination and infringement of religious freedom, saying:  "the most important factor to be taken into account is that the employer’s action was intended to secure the implementation of its policy of providing a service without discrimination."

The Chamber judgment can be appealed to the Court's 17-judge Grand Chamber. The Guardian reports on the decision, as does a press release from Alliance Defending Freedom.

Recent Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:

• Haider Ala Hamoudi, Religious Minorities and Shari’a in Iraqi Courts, (Boston University International Law Journal, 2013, Forthcoming).
• Mark Anthony Frassetto, Catholic Emancipation: 1760-1829, (January 9, 2013).
• Donn Short, Queering Schools, GSAs and the Law: Taking on God, (Gerald Walton, ed, The Gay Agenda: Claiming Space, Identity & Justice, New York: Peter Lang, 2013).
• Wayne Barnes, Render Unto Rawls: Law, Gospel, and the Evangelical Fallacy, (January 11, 2013).
• Adilson Jose Moreira, We are Family! Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions in Brazil, (American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 60, No. 4, 2012).
• Joseph Benjamin Landau, DOMA and Presidential Discretion: Interpreting and Enforcing Federal Law, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 81, 2012).
• Joseph Benjamin Landau, Symposium Foreword to Defense of Marriage Act: Law, Policy, and the Future of Marriage, (Fordham Law Review, Vol. 81, p. 537, 2012).
• Shafi'i Abdul Azeez Bello, Application of 'Urf in Islamic Law, (January 11, 2013).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Stewart L. Harris, Which Bible? Which God?, (12 Appalachian Journal of Law 151-166, 2012).
• Faisal Kutty, Free Expression and an Elusive Middle Ground: Part Two, (JURIST - Forum, Jan. 7, 2012).

Recent Book:

• Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality, (Harvard Univ. Press, Jan. 2013), reviewed by Daily Northwestern.

Scotland Announces Consultation On Marriage Bill That Will Introduce Same-Sex Marriage and Other Changes

On Dec. 12, the government of Scotland announced a Consultation, i.e. published for public comment, a bill that would substantially amend Scotland's law on marriage.  The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill would introduce same-sex marriage and the religious registration of civil partnerships. Other changes include ones that would allow non-religious belief bodies, such as the Humanist Society of Scotland, to solemnize marriages in "belief ceremonies." (The Dec. 30 Scotsman reports on this.) The Consultation Paper sets out the proposed changes in detail and seeks comment on them.  Section 12 of the Bill assures that provisions for same-sex marriage do not affect freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the Consultation Paper:

The Lord Advocate (who has responsibility for prosecutions in Scotland) intends, in due course, to publish prosecutorial guidelines on allegations of breach of the peace and threatening or abusive behaviour arising out of opposition to same sex marriage.

The Consultation Paper also deals with treatment of same-sex marriage in schools. The Government plans to introduce a bill in Parliament in 2013.

Top 10 Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments For 2012

Here are my nominations for the 2012 Top Ten Church-State and Religious Liberty Developments:

1.  The long-simmering tensions between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Obama Administration took on a greater focus when in May some 40 Catholic institutions, in 12 lawsuits, filed challenges to the Obama administration's mandate that health insurance policies include contraceptive coverage. Other suits followed. The Administration had granted a one-year moratorium to non-profit institutions, while it worked unsuccessfully to produce a compromise that might be acceptable to religiously affiliated non-profit institutions. Meanwhile, for-profit companies owned by Catholics and conservative Christians also filed an avalanche of suits seeking conscience exemptions from the mandate.

2.  The battle between religious conservatives and advocates of marriage equality continued to rage on numerous fronts.  Each side saw some victories and some defeats, but proponents of marriage equality had a good year.  Legislatures in Washington and Maryland approved same-sex marriage. In November, voters in 4 states also indicated approval of same-sex marriage, but earlier in the year North Carolina voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage.. The 9th Circuit in a narrow opinion struck down California's Proposition 8, and the Supreme Court has agreed to review that decision. The Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the 1st Circuit, the 2nd Circuit and a California federal district court. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the 2nd Circuit case. Same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Hawaii were upheld by federal district courts.

 3.  Mitt Romney lost the Presidential election, but his Mormon religious faith was not an important issue in the campaign. Indeed, Romney's activities as a lay Mormon pastor were used to his advantage at the Republican Convention.

4. The Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC adopted the "ministerial exception" doctrine for employment discrimination cases, finding it to be constitutionally-based.

5.  Egypt has struggled to draft and adopt a new constitution.  The role the new constitution will provide for Sharia law in the country has been one of the central issues in debates on the document.

6.  A 17-year long struggle by the New York City Board of Education to bar churches from renting out school buildings on weekends for church services, even though the buildings are available to other community groups, was revived by a federal district judge. Most observers had thought that a 2011 decision by the 2nd Circuit had ended the dispute in favor of the Board of Education, but the court held that the 2nd Circuit had not passed on the Bronx Household of Faith's free exercise and establishment clause claims. The district court's vindication of the free exercise claim is now on appeal.

7.  An online video promoting the obscure movie "Innocence of Muslims" triggers demonstrations against American embassies in the Muslim world. The video leads to an unusual set of legal proceedings-- litigation involving probation violations by the producer, attempt by an actress in the movie to have it removed from YouTube, and in abstentia convictions in Egypt.

8.  New questions are raised around the world regarding ritual circumcision of young boys by Muslims and Jews. Germany's Bundestag confirmed the legality of religious circumcision after a Cologne district court held that parents lack the right to decide that their young sons should be circumcised for non-medical reasons. Ritual circumcision is also questioned in Australia and Norway. Meanwhile, in the United States some Orthodox Jewish groups sue challenging the New York City health department's new regulation requiring informed consent from parents when a Jewish religious circumcision involves use of the oral suction technique (metzitzah b'peh).

9.  The court martial trial of accused Fort Hood mass shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan is delayed as the question of his right to wear a beard for religious reasons at his trial is litigated.  In December, an appeals court held there was insufficient evidence to show that the beard materially interfered with the court martial proceedings. It also ordered court martial judge Gregory Gross removed from the case for the appearance of bias.

10.  In the wake of Congress' reorganization of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in late 2011, developments demonstrated internal divisions and conflicts in the Commission. The pressure of expiring terms of 5 Commissioners led to early release of USCIRF's annual report and to a public statement by 5 of the Commissioners charging that the report wrongly reflected the votes of Commissioners on the status of Turkey.  Meanwhile a former USCIRF staff member sued alleging anti-Muslim bias against her.  In an unrelated case, a different employee was sentenced to prison for embezzling USCIRF funds. And Muslim groups criticized one of the new Commissioners, claiming he is anti-Muslim.

Some of my picks were rather obvious candidates for inclusion, while others may surprise some readers. A number of the top developments continue trends reflected in last year's list.  You may also find it interesting to compare two other "Top 10" lists: Religion Newswriters 2012 Top 10 Religion Stories and Blog from the Capital's Top Religious Liberty Stories of 2012. I invite you to post your comments or disagreements with my choices this year.