California Governor Signs Law Excusing Objecting Clergy From Performing Same-Sex Weddings

In California, on Sept. 30, Gov. Jerry Brown signed SB 1140 making it clear that clergy who object to same-sex marriage need not perform same-sex ceremonies.  The new law defines marriage as a civil, not a religious, contract. It also provides that no member of the clergy shall be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to his or her faith. Refusal to do so will not affect the tax exempt status of any entity. LGBT Weekly reports on the new law.

Iowa Faces Another Contested Supreme Court Retention Election Over 2009 Same-Sex Marriage Decision

In Iowa, state Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor, but stand in retention elections one year after their first appointment, and every eight years after that.  In 2010, voters opposed to the state Supreme Court's unanimous decision supporting same-sex marriage ousted 3 of the 7 justices who voted to invalidate the state's law that had barred recognition of same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) In November, another of the Justices who voted for the decision is up for retention and, according to the Des Moines Register, competing rallies by Justice David Wiggins' opponents and supporters are being held around the state.  Iowans for Freedom, who want Wiggins out of office, began a 4-day, 17 city bus tour with a rally at the Iowa State Capitol yesterday.  Among the speakers were former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum and former Iowa gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats.  A spokesman for the group said: "This is nothing personal against Justice Wiggins, understand. He’s just number four in a line of seven who committed a grievance against the people."

Meanwhile a group of lawyers, elected officials and Democratic activists are shadowing the “No Wiggins” campaign, defending the merit selection process. The president-elect of the Iowa State Bar Association said: "We don’t want to return to the days where politics have been injected into our system, and remove the fair and impartial courts that we have, well-respected throughout this country."

Israeli Court Rejects Reception Hall Owners' Religious Objections To Same-Sex Marriage

According to Haaretz today, the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court has for the first time under Israeli law held that owners of a reception hall may not refuse on religious grounds to host a same-sex wedding reception. The court awarded damages of 60,000 NIS ($15,196 US) and imposed 20,000 NIS in legal fees and court costs on the owners of the reception hall who are members of a sect of Messianic Jews. A lesbian couple, Tal Ya'akovovich and Yael Biran, booked the hall for a reception, but the owners canceled the reservation when they realized the reception was for a same-sex couple. The owners say that based on verses from the Old and New Testaments, they believe that homosexuality is an "abomination." The court refused to accept the owners' claim that their business has a religious character.  The court said:

Every person who opens a public business in Israel should know that they must serve the whole public equally, without discrimination, according to laws, which cover sexual orientation as well. As soon as the defendants opened their doors to all, they cannot close them for those who they believe do not meet the requirements found in the Bible or New Testament, thereby damaging their dignity and sensitivities.

The court also said:

Rejection, verbal abuse, and humiliation of another based on their sex or sexual orientation constitutes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment does not only include sexual exploitation, but also, and perhaps principally, ridiculing another person for their sex or sexual orientation… and in this case, the plaintiffs were ridiculed because of their sexual orientation

European Court Hears 4 British Cases On Accommodating Christian Employees' Beliefs

Yesterday the European Court of Human Rights held a Chamber hearing on four cases from the United Kingdom raising issues of religious accommodation.  The cases are Chaplin v. the United Kingdom (application no. 59842/10), Eweida v. the United Kingdom (no. 48420/10), Ladele v. the United Kingdom (no. 51671/10) and McFarlane v. the United Kingdom (no. 36516/10). (Links are to prior postings on each case.) As reported by EurActiv, two of the cases involved Christians women who were not permitted by their employers to wear a cross around their neck. The other two cases involve Christian employees who object on religious grounds to same-sex marriage. One refused to provide counseling to same-sex couples. The other case involves a registrar who refused to officiate at same-sex civil union ceremonies. The European Court has issued a press release describing the cases, and has posted a webcast of the hearing.

Democratic 2012 Platform: Provisions on Faith In America, Civil Rights, and Social Issues

As reported by Raw Story, the Democratic Party released it 2012 Platform (full text) on Monday night. It includes a number of provisions on the role of faith in America and on issues that have been of particular concern to religious groups.  The Platform section titled "Strengthening the American Community" includes the following:

Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.

The Platform supports "comprehensive immigration reform that supports our economic goals and reflects our values as both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants;" "policies that truly value families," and "a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay." It also provides:

We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

The Platform Section on Civil Rights says in part:

At the core of the Democratic Party is the principle that no one should face discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability status. Democrats support our civil rights statutes and we have stepped up enforcement of laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace and other settings. We are committed to protecting all communities from violence. We are committed to ending racial, ethnic, and religious profiling and requiring federal, state, and local enforcement agencies to take steps to eliminate the practice....

 ...we must continue our work to prevent vicious bullying of young people and support LGBT youth... The Administration has said that the word 'family' in immigration includes LGBT relationships in order to protect bi-national families threatened with deportation.

 The Platform also contains sections on "Combating Human Trafficking" and on "Gay Rights As Human Rights."

Recent Articles and Book of Interest

From SSRN:

• Cornelia Koch, The Sky is Falling If Judges Decide Religious Controversies! - Or is it? The German Experience of Religious Freedom under a Bill of Rights, (P. Babie and N. Rochow (eds), Freedom of Religion under the Bill of Rights', University of Adelaide Press, Adelaide 190-215, 2012).
• Paul T. Babie and Neville Grant Rochow, SC, Protecting Religious Freedom under Bills of Rights: Australia as Microcosm, (P. Babie and N. Rochow (eds), Freedom of Religion under the Bill of Rights', University of Adelaide Press, Adelaide 190-215, 2012).
• Ngaire Naffine, How Religion Constrains Law and the Idea of Choice, (P. Babie and N. Rochow (eds), Freedom of Religion under the Bill of Rights', University of Adelaide Press, Adelaide 190-215, 2012).
• Jonathan C. Augustine, Environmental Justice and Eschatology in Revelation, (Loyola Law Review, New Orleans, Vol. 58, No. 2, 2012, Forthcoming).
• Bruce MacDougall, Elsje Bonthuys, Kenneth Norrie, and Marjolein Van den Brink, Conscientious Objection to Creating Same-Sex Unions: An International Analysis, (Canadian Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 127-164, 2012).
• Patrick McKinley Brennan, The Mighty Work of Making Nations Happy: A Response to James Davison Hunter, (Pepperdine Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Carl H. Esbeck, Defining Religion Down: Hosanna-Tabor, Martinez, and the U.S. Supreme Court, (First Amendment Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Terri Day and Leticia M Diaz, The Affordable Care Act and Religious Freedom: The Next Battleground, Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2012.
• Rachel Gillum and David C. Wilson, American Muslims or Muslim Americans?: Impact of Perceived Discrimination on Confidence in Security Institutions, (August 27, 2012).
• Bradley T. Borden and Katherine E. David, Sales of Church Real Property to Parishioners, (24 Tax’N Exempts 3, July/Aug. 2012).

From SmartCILP:

• Jack B. Harrison, The Strange Intersection Between Law, Religion, and Government in the Regulation of Marriage, 6 Charleston Law Review 547-568 (2012).
• Kim Benita Vera, From Papal Bull to Racial Rule: Indians of the Americas, Race, and the Foundations of International Law, [Abstract], 42 California Western International Law Journal 453-472 (2012).

Recent Book:

• Shimon Gershon Rosenberg, Zot Briti (This Is My Covenant: Conversion, Secularization, Civil Marriage ), edited by Amnon S. Dukov, Zohar Maor, Moshe S. Faloch, The Institute for the Advancement of Rabbi Shagar's Writings, 258 pages (in Hebrew ). Reviewed in Haaretz.

Republican 2012 Platform: Numerous Provisions On Religious Freedom

CNA reports that the the 2012 Republican Platform (full text), adopted Tuesday by the national convention, contains strong planks on religious freedom.  Among its provisions are ones calling for defending traditional marriage against an activist judiciary and calling for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

A section titled "The First Amendment:The Foresight of Our Founders to Protect Religious Freedom" provides in part:

The first provision of the First Amendment concerns freedom of religion....That assurance has never been more needed than it is today, as liberal elites try to drive religious beliefs—and religious believers—out of the public square.... 

The most offensive instance of this war on religion has been the current Administration’s attempt to compel faith-related institutions, as well as believing individuals, to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services, traditional marriage, or abortion. This forcible secularization of religious and religiously affiliated organizations, including faith-based hospitals and colleges, has been in tandem with the current Administration’s audacity in declaring which faith-related activities are, or are not, protected by the First Amendment.... 

The section goes on to support public display of the Ten Commandments and the right of students to engage in prayer at public school events. It also supports

the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols,or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices. We oppose government discrimination against businesses due to religious views. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault and condemn the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights.

A section on The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life provides in part:

We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of  judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

... We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form—and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain.... We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

The platform's section on health care includes a section on "Protecting Individual Conscience in Healthcare." The Platform section on prison reform includes a call for government to "work with faith-based institutions that have proven track records in diverting young and first time, non-violent offenders from criminal careers..." A section on human rights supports the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and accuses the current administration of shunting it aside at a time that its voice needs to be heard more than ever. It pledges that: "A Republican Administration will return the advocacy of religious liberty to a central place in our diplomacy."

The Platform's section on foreign aid includes the following:

The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda. At the same time, faith-based groups—the sector that has had the best track record in promoting lasting development—have been excluded from grants because they will not conform to the administration’s social agenda.

Massachusetts High Court: Polygamy Statute Applies To Marriage After Undissolved Civil Union

In Elia-Warnken v. Elia, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., July 26, 2012), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that Massachusetts will recognize a Vermont same-sex civil union as equivalent to a marriage in Massachusetts. It went on to hold that the result of this is the application of Massachusetts' polygamy statute to a partner in a same-sex civil union who subsequently enters a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts without first obtaining dissolution of the civil union. The Massachusetts marriage would thus be void.  While the polygamy statute applies to a person entering a marriage while the person has a "husband" or "wife," the court held that these terms include any legal spousal relationship. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Shooter At Family Research Council Was Supporter of LGBT Rights

The Washington Post report today on the 28-year old man charged with shooting and wounding a security guard at the D.C. office of the Family Research Council suggests that he was motivated by the Council's opposition to expansion of rights for gays and lesbians.  According to the FBI affidavit (full text) seeking to show probable cause to charge Floyd Lee Corkins II, the shooter told the guard, before opening fire, "I don't like your politics."  Corkins' backpack contained 15 sandwiches from Chick-fil-A, whose president recently made highly publicized statements in opposition to same-sex marriage.  Corkins' parents told investigators that Corkins has strong opinions about those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner. Corkins has been volunteering at a community center that serves LGBT clients.

German Constitutional Court Says Civil Partners Must Get Same Treatment As Spouses In Tax Law

In In re the Constitutional Complaints of Mr. P, (Fed. Const. Ct. Germany, July 21, 2012), Germany's Constitutional Court held that the prior version of Germany's Gift and Inheritance Tax Act was unconstitutional under Germany's Basic Law because it treated same-sex civil partners differently than spouses in a traditional marriage. Deutsche Welle reported on the decision.

Federal Court Upholds Hawaii's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

In Jackson v. Abercrombie, (D HI, Aug. 8, 2012), an Hawaii federal district court, in a 120-page opinion, upheld as constitutional Hawaii's laws that bar same-sex marriage.  The court held that rational basis review applies in the federal equal protection and due process challenges to the state constitutional and statutory provisions involved.  The court explained:

The right to marry someone of the samesex, is not "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" and thus it is not a fundamental right..... Hawaii’s marriage laws do not treat males and females differently as a class; consequently, the laws do not discriminate on the basis of gender.  The United States Supreme Court has never held that heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation....

[T]he legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently [sic.] conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship.... The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex.

Hawaii has enacted a law providing for civil unions that give partners all the same state legal rights as married couples. AP reports on the decision. Alliance Defending Freedom links to the pleadings in the case.

Scottish Government Will Move Ahead With Same-Sex Marriage Law; Will Protect Conscience Rights

After conducting a public consultation last year, the government of Scotland announced yesterday that it intends to move ahead with legislation to permit same-sex marriage and religious ceremonies for civil partnerships.  However it will also add protections for freedom of speech and religion. SDGLN reports on these developments and reprints the full text of the Scottish Government's announcement. No religious body will be required to conduct same-sex marriages.  The Government will also seek an amendment to the UK Equality Act to assure protection for clergy who disagree with their religious organization's decision to perform same-sex marriages. Currently the Equality Act grants an exemption from equality requirements only where necessary to comply with the doctrine of a religious organization or to avoid conflict with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the followers of the religion or belief. The Scottish government will also include provisions to protect the beliefs of teachers and parents in schools. The curriculum in Catholic schools will continue to be controlled by the Scottish Catholic Education Service.

Canadian Tribunal Finds Christian B&B Owners Violated Human Rights Code By Cancelling Reservation For Gay Couple

In Eadie and Thomas v. Riverbend Bed and Breakfast, (BCHRT, July 17, 2012), the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal held that a bed and breakfast in a small Canadian town, and its owners who are members of the Mennonite Brethren Church, violated the sexual orientation discrimination provisions of the  B.C. Human Rights Code when they cancelled a room reservation after learning that it had been made by a same-sex couple.  The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the Human Rights Code conflicts with the freedom of religion provisions of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That issue must be presented to a court.  Instead, the Tribunal is limited to determining whether respondents had a "bona fide and reasonable justification" to discriminate.  The Tribunal Member hearing the case wrote:

I accept that the Molnars [the B&B owners] hold a sincere, personal and core religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and that sex outside of such a marriage,including same-sex sexual relations, is a sin. I also accept that the Molnars sincerely believe that to allow a same-sex couple to stay in a single bed in their home would harm their relationship to their Lord, and that they would not rent a room in their home for a purpose that conflicted with, or was contrary to, their personal religious beliefs....

She concluded, however, that to be acceptable, a justification had to be rationally related to the function or purpose of the bed and breakfast.  Here the policy of restricting rooms with one bed to heterosexual couples was rationally related to the owners' religious beliefs, but not to the B&B's purpose of offering temporary accommodations to the general public. The Tribunal issued a cease and desist order and awarded damages, including $1500 to each of the complainants for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

The Province, reporting on the decision, says that the Molnars stopped operating their bed and breakfast when the complaint was filed against them, and they do not intend to reopen. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Early Cert. Petition Filed In Another DOMA Case

In an unusual tactical move announced yesterday, a petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Windsor v. United States even though the case has not yet been decided by the Second Circuit where an appeal is pending.  In the case, a New York federal district court held that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) At issue is whether the federal government must recognize the unlimited estate tax marital deduction in the case of the death of a same-sex spouse. The lesbian couple involved had been legally married in Canada. The ACLU explained its reasoning in petitioning on behalf of the parties that prevailed at trial before the government's appeal has been decided:

At this point petitions for Supreme Court review have been filed in two other DOMA cases – GLAD’s Gill v. OPM case, which has been decided by the First Circuit, and Lambda Legal’s Golinski v. OPM case, which, like Windsor v. United States, doesn’t have an appeals court decision yet.

The Court will likely decide the constitutionality of DOMA this coming term, using one or more of these cases as vehicles for addressing the issue. We filed because we believe that Edie [Windsor's] story is a strong addition to the striking collection of plaintiffs in the Gill case and to Karen Golinski’s story as well. Now the Court has three cases, offering a variety of harms, to choose from.

[Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.] 

NY Marriage Equality Act Survives Open Meeting Act Challenge

In New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms v New York State Senate, (NY App. Div., July 6, 2012) a New York state appeals court rejected a challenge to the state's Marriage Equality Law (which permits same-sex marriage) enacted last year. Plaintiffs claimed that private lobbying of the Republican Conference of the State Senate in favor of the law by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor Andrew Cuomo violated the Open Meetings Act. The court concluded that the exemption in the Open Meetings Law for deliberations of political caucuses, including invited staff or guests, covered the lobbying being challenged. It rejected the argument that the exemption for invited guests only includes guests of the same political party as the caucus. Advocate.com reports on the decision.

Ballot Title For Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment Creates Controversy

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie announced last week that the title of the proposed state constitutional amendment banning recognition same-sex marriage (full text) that will appear on the November ballot will be "Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples."  According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, backers of the amendment are furious. They had wanted the ballot title to read: "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman"-- the title chosen by the state legislature. Even though the legislature prescribed a title for the ballot measure, the governor vetoed the bill containing the proposed amendment. (Veto letter.) However the veto does not prevent the measure from appearing on the ballot because the Minnesota Constitution Art. IX provides that amendments are submitted to the voters by a majority of the members of each house. However apparently the portion of the bill setting the title for the ballot measure is treated as ordinary legislation so that the veto did invalidate that section. So then under Minnesota Statutes Sec. 204D.15, the choice of a title falls to the secretary of state, who must submit it to the attorney general for approval. Backers of the amendment believe that the new title may influence voters who do not like government restrictions to vote against the measure. They are considering whether to file a lawsuit over the title. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Steven H. Resnicoff, Extraordinary Sources of Jewish Law: the Example of Capital Punishment,, (Steven H. Resnicoff, Chapter 8 of Understanding Jewish Law, LexisNexis, 2012).
• Rene Provost, Magic and Modernity in Tintin au Congo (1930) and the Sierra Leone Special Court, (June 25, 2012).
• Nicolai N. Petro, The Role of the Orthodox Church in a Changing Russia, (ISPI Analysis #121, Institute for the Study of International Politics, Milan, Italy, June 2012).
• David A. Grenardo, Samuel D. Davis and Thomas M. Gutting, Take One Step Forward: Federal Courts Continue to Find that Volunteers are Shielded from Retaliation Based on Protected Speech Under the First Amendment, (First Amendment Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2011).
• Lewis D. Solomon, God and Human Destiny: A Jewish Perspective, (GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-53).
• Richard S. Myers, Same-Sex Marriage, Education, and Parental Rights, (Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, Vol. 2011, No. 2).
• Richard S. Myers, Assessing the Legal Bases for Conscientious Objection in Healthcare, (Life and Learning XVIII: The Proceedings of the Eighteenth University Faculty for Life Conference 57-82, J. Koterski ed. 2011).
• Mehmet Asutay and Zulkifli Bin Hasan, An Analysis of the Courts’ Decisions on Islamic Finance Disputes, (ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance, 3 (2), 41-71, 2011).
• Kimberley Brownlee and Richard Child, Can the Law Help Us to Be Moral?, (Warwick School of Law Research Paper No. 2012/17).
• Kimberley Brownlee, Conscientious Objection and Civil Disobedience, (Warwick School of Law Research Paper No. 2012/15).

Cert. Petition Filed In Defense of Marriage Act Challenge

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed Friday in Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Gill. In the case, decided by the 1st Circuit under the title Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the appeals court held unconstitutional Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples (and surviving same-sex spouses) lawfully married in Massachusetts and other states. (See prior posting.)  The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group that filed the cert. petition was intervenor-appellant in the court of appeals below.  SCOTUS Blog reports on the filing of the cert. petition. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Same-Sex Couple Sues NY Catholic Hospital Over Family Health Benefits

The Advocate reported Friday on a class action lawsuit filed last week in federal district court in New York by a married lesbian couple who claim that a Catholic hospital illegally discriminated against them by refusing them the same family health benefits offered to other employees. The suit was filed against St. Joseph Medical Center in Yonkers, NY, as well as against the insurance company that administers the hospital’s self-insurance plan.  In a statement on the case, the New York State Catholic Conference said in part:

In 2011, when Governor Andrew Cuomo made the redefinition of marriage his top legislative priority, we warned not only that such action would have negative consequences for society, but also that it would infringe on the religious liberty of Catholic employers..... As we stated when the law was passed, the so-called "religious exemption" language included in the bill was insufficient to protect religious institutions.

(See prior related posting.)

Controversial Pastor Hangs Obama In Effigy To Protest Marriage and Abortion Stances

Terry Jones, pastor of the small Gainesville, Florida Dove Outreach Center, who gained notoriety in 2011 for burning a copy of the Qur'an (see prior posting), has now created another controversy.  As reported last week by the Huffington Post (along with a photo), Jones has hanged President Obama in effigy on the front lawn of his church:

The effigy is suspended from a makeshift gallows with a noose of yellow rope, has a doll in its right hand and a rainbow-colored gay pride flag in its left.

In a telephone interview with The Huffington Post, Jones said the flag was meant to call attention to Obama's stance on same-sex marriage and that the baby doll is there because the president is "favorable toward abortion."...

There is also an Uncle Sam dummy standing at the base of the gallows outside the DWOC. Jones told HuffPost that the Obama effigy had originally been positioned to be hanging Uncle Sam when the display went up two weeks ago, but that the church changed the display on Wednesday.

The words “Obama is Killing America” are printed on a trailer nearby.

The U.S. Secret Service is investigating the situation. [Thanks to Joseph K. Grieboski for the lead.]