Denmark Approves Full Wedding Ceremonies For Same-Sex Couples

AP and RT report that on Thursday, Denmark's parliament, by a vote of 85-24, approved a change to the country's marriage law that permits same-sex couples to be married in formal church weddings by the Church of Denmark. According to the Copenhagen Post, bishops will quickly develop a separate ceremony for such marriages. The change becomes effective June 15.  Previously, under a 1997 law, the state's Lutheran Church could only marry same-sex couples in a special short blessing ceremony at the end of a regular church service. Under the new law, any minister can refuse to conduct a same-sex ceremony, but the local bishop is then required to arrange for a replacement to do so. Also the new legislation automatically recognizes the 4,100 couples in registered civil partnerships as married.

Another Court Says DOMA Is Unconstitutional

Another court has held that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.  In Windsor v. United States, (SD NY,June 6, 2012), a New York federal district court awarded plaintiff Edith Windsor damages equal to the $353,000 in estate taxes paid to the federal government on her same-sex spouse's estate. Edith and her long-time partner Thea Spyer, who were New York residents, were married legally in Canada in 2007. Spyer by will left her estate for the benefit of Windsor, but because of DOMA Spyer did not qualify for the unlimited estate tax marital deduction. Without invoking strict scrutiny, the court held that Section 3 of DOMA violates the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment because the government's asserted interests are inadequate to support the law. Jurist reports that this is the fourth federal court decision invalidating DOMA. (See prior related posting.)

9th Circuit Denies En Banc Review In Proposition 8 Case

As reported by The Recorder, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday denied en banc review in Perry v. Brown.  In the case in February, a 3-judge panel (by a 2-1 vote) struck down Proposition 8 that eliminated the right for same-sex couples to marry. (See prior posting.) However the court stayed the mandate in the case pending any petition to the Supreme Court for review and until final disposition by the Supreme Court. In denying en banc review, the 9th Circuit issued an order along with a dissent by 3 judges, plus a response to the dissent by two others. (Full text.) The dissent, written by Judge O'Scannlain, said in part:

A few weeks ago, subsequent to oral argument in this case, the President of the United States ignited a media firestorm by announcing that he supports same sex marriage as a policy matter.  Drawing less attention, however, were his comments that the Constitution left this matter to the States and that “one of the things that [he]’d like to see is–that [the] conversation continue in a respectful way.”  

Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation.  Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia....  Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it.

The response, written by Judge Reinhardt expressed puzzlement over the dissenters' "unusual reliance on the President’s views regarding the Constitution, especially as the President did not discuss the narrow issue that we decided in our opinion."

Refusing To Provide Photography Services To Same-Sex Ceremony Violates State Anti-Discrimination Law

In Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, (NM Ct. App., May 31, 2012), a New Mexico state appeals court held that a photography firm's refusal to provide its services to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony violates the New Mexico Human Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.  According to the court:

Elane Photography’s owners are Christians who believe that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one woman.  They also believe that photography is an artistically expressive form of communication and photographing a same-sex commitment ceremony would disobey God and the teachings of the Bible by communicating a message contrary to their religious and personal beliefs.

Rejecting Elane Photography's free expression arguments, the court held:

the mere fact that a business provides a good or service with a recognized expressive element does not allow the business to engage in discriminatory practices.... While Elane Photography does exercise some degree of control over the photographs it is hired to take... this control does not transform the photographs into a message from Elane Photography.

The court also rejected Elane Photography claim that applying the Human Rights Act to it would violate its free exercise of religion protected by the U.S. and New Mexico constitutions. It held that the statute is a neutral law of general applicability. Finally it rejected a claim under the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act, concluding that it applies only to suits in which government agencies are the adverse parties, not to suits against a private individual or business.  Volokh Conspiracy has an extensive discussion of this aspect of the case, as well as a posting on its more general holding.

Judge Wechsler filed a concurrence in the case, arguing that the New Mexico constitution's free exercise clause is broader than that in the First Amendment, but also concluding that Elane Photography had not properly preserved that issue for appeal. WND reports on the decision.

1st Circuit Invalidates Defense of Marriage Act

Today in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (1st Cir., May 31, 2012), the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals 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. The 3-judge panel (composed of 2 judges nominated by Republican presidents and 1 nominated by a Democratic president) was unanimous in its decision. The court said:

This case is difficult because it couples issues of equal protection and federalism with the need to assess the rationale for a congressional statute passed with minimal hearings and lacking in formal findings.  In addition, Supreme Court precedent offers some help to each side, but the rationale in several cases is open to interpretation.  We have done our best to discern the direction of these precedents, but only the Supreme Court can finally decide this unique case.

Although our decision discusses equal protection and federalism concerns separately, it concludes that governing precedents under both heads combine--not to create some new category of "heightened scrutiny" for DOMA under a prescribed algorithm, but rather to require a closer than usual review based in part on discrepant impact among married couples and in part on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage.

Describing recent Supreme Court equal protection decisions, the 1st Circuit said:

In a set of equal protection decisions, the Supreme Court has now several times struck down state or local enactments without invoking any suspect classification.  In each, the protesting group was historically disadvantaged or unpopular, and the statutory justification seemed thin, unsupported or impermissible.

Concluding that "Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest," the court explained:

In reaching our judgment, we do not rely upon the charge that DOMA's hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality.  The many legislators who supported DOMA acted from a variety of motives, one  central and expressed aim being to preserve the heritage of marriage as traditionally defined over centuries of Western civilization.  ...

For 150 years, this desire to maintain tradition would alone have been justification enough for almost any statute....  But Supreme Court decisions in the last fifty years call for closer scrutiny of government action touching upon minority group interests and of federal action in areas of traditional state concern.

To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today.  One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage.

CNN reports on the decision.

Lawsuits Seek Same-Sex Marriage Rights In Illinois

Two lawsuits were filed yesterday in federal district court in Illinois seeking to strike down provisions of Illinois law that bar the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and prevent legal recognition of same-sex marriages.  The suits allege that denial of same-sex couples the right to marry violates various provisions of the Illinois constitution.  As announced in an ACLU press release, one suit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of nine couples, and the other by Lambda Legal on behalf of 16 couples.  The suits are Lazaro v. Orr, (IL Cir. Ct., filed 5/30/ 2012) (full text of complaint) and Darby v. Orr,, (IL Cir. Ct., filed 5/30/2012) (full text of complaint). Illinois law provides for same-sex civil unions, but not same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.)

District Court Invalidates DOMA and Related Care Insurance Restrictions

In Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, (ND CA, May 24, 2012), a California federal district court held unconstitutional Sec. 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and federal provisions (26 USC Sec. 7702B(f)) that effectively bar states from permitting same-sex domestic partners or same-sex spouses from participating in state-maintained long-term care insurance policies. DOMA was defended by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (BLAG) since the administration refused to defend its constitutionality.  In striking down the provisions, the court said in part:

the legislative record contains evidence of anti-gay animus and the BLAG has failed to establish that § 3 of the DOMA is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.  Accordingly, Plaintiff same-sex spouses are entitled to summary judgment that § 3 of the DOMA is invalid under the Constitution’s equal protection principles to the extent that the law blocks their access to the CalPERS long-term care plan....

Because Congress’s restriction on state-maintained long-term care plans lacks any rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, but rather appears to be motivated by antigay animus, the exclusion of registered domestic partners of public employees from § 7702B(f)’s list of individuals eligible to enroll in state-maintained long-term care plans violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

Metro Weekly reports on the decision.

President Objects To House Passed Defense Bill's LGBT Related Provisions

The U.S House of Representatives last week passed, and sent to the Senate, HR 4310, the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (full text.)  The bill contains two provisions relating to same-sex unions and to broader issues of conscience rights in relation to gays and lesbians.  Section 536 of the bill provides in part:

(a) Protection of Rights of Conscience- The Armed Forces shall accommodate the conscience and sincerely held moral principles and religious beliefs of the members of the Armed Forces concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality and may not use such conscience, principles, or beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.....

(b) Protection of Chaplains- .... (2) No member of the Armed Forces may--

(A) direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain; or 

(B) discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a direction, order, or requirement prohibited by subparagraph (A)....

Section 537 of the bill provides:

A military installation or other property owned or rented by, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of, the Department of Defense may not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman.

Last week the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy objecting to several provisions in the bill.  The Statement says in part:

The Administration strongly objects to sections 536 and 537 because those provisions adopt unnecessary and ill-advised policies that would inhibit the ability of same-sex couples to marry or enter a recognized relationship under State law.  Section 536 would prohibit all personnel-related actions based on certain religious and moral beliefs, which, in its overbroad terms, is potentially harmful to good order and discipline.  Section 537 would obligate DOD to deny Service members, retirees, and their family members access to facilities for religious ceremonies on the basis of sexual orientation, a troublesome and potentially unconstitutional limitation on religious liberty.

LifeSite News on Tuesday reported on the controversy over these provisions.

Group Claims Baptist Church Violated Limits On Non-Profit Political Involvement

According to a press release yesterday from Americans United, the organization has written the Internal Revenue Service (full text of letter) asking it to investigate whether a Kentucky Baptist church has violated the rules that preclude Sec. 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from becoming involved in political elections by endorsing or opposing candidates. At issue is the sermon delivered by Pastor Ronnie Spriggs of Hager Hill Freewill Baptist Church in Hager Hill, Kentucky in which he took issue with President Obama's backing of same-sex marriage and said:

We need to really be prayerful, and we need to get active. If you’ve ever opened your mouth, you better open it now. Between now and November, God’s people ought to thunder this country. We ought to let this country know that we will not be silent on these issues....

You know why that Obama said he believes that? Because the polls represent more people in the United States believe they ought to marry than others do. So this is an advantageous time. You know what we got to show him? There’s more saved people in the United States then he thinks there are. And if we don’t voice our opinion now, we’ll lose our country….

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jill I. Goldenziel, Veiled Political Questions: Islamic Dress, Constitutionalism, and the Ascendance of Courts, (American Journal of Comparative Law, Forthcoming).
• Jeremy Waldron, What is Natural Law Like? (May 17, 2012).
• Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Priority of God (a Theory of Religious Liberty), (Pepperdine Law Review, 2012, Forthcoming).
• Erica A. Holzer, Defense of Marriage Acts: A Fifty State Survey, (March 5, 2012).
• Erica A. Holzer, DoMA Statutes and Same-Sex Divorce Litigation, (March 5, 2012).
• Pramudya A. Oktavinanda, Choice of Financing Schemes in Islamic Finance Industry: Failed Legal Formalism and Economic Inefficiencies, (May 14, 2012).

From SmartCILP:

• Pascale Fournier, Pascal McDougall and Merissa Lichtsztral, Secular Rights and Religious Wrongs? Family Law, Religion and Women in Israel, 18 William & Mary Journal of Women & Law 333-362 (2012).
• Janine Marie Idziak, Forgoing Drugs on Grounds of Cost: A Perspective from Catholic Health Care Ethics and Social Teaching, 13 Marquette Elder's Advisor 89-105 (2011).
• David E. Steinberg, The Myth of Church-State Separation, 59 Cleveland State Law Review 623-644 (2011).

Obama Campaign Hires Religious Outreach Director

CNN reported yesterday that the Obama re-election campaign is hiring a staffer from the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to be the campaign's religious outreach director. Michael Wear has resigned his position as executive assistant to the executive director of the White House faith-based office, and will join the Obama campaign in Chicago as its Faith Vote Director. This report follows one in the New York Times yesterday that just two hours after announcing his support for same-sex marriage last week, the President had a conference call with eight African-American pastors to explain how he had reached his decision.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Gary J. Simson, Religion by Any Other Name? Prohibitions on Same-Sex Marriage and the Limits of the Establishment Clause, (Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Vol. 23, p. 132, 2012).
• John M. Kang, Martin v. Malcolm: Democracy, Nonviolence, Manhood, (West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 114, No. 937, 2012).
• Brian D. Galle, Charities in Politics: A Reappraisal, (William & Mary Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Randall P. Bezanson, Sheila Anne Bentzen and C. Michael Judd, Mapping the Forms of Expressive Association, (Pepperdine Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Patrick S. Metze, Troy Davis, Lawrence Brewer, and Timothy Mcveigh Should Still Be Alive: Certainty, Innocence, and the High Cost of Death and Immorality, (6 Charleston L. Rev. 333, Winter 2012).
• Nan D. Hunter, Animus Thick and Thin: The Broader Impact of the Ninth Circuit Decision in Perry v. Brown, (Stanford Law Review Online, Vol. 64, pp. 111-116, 2012).
• Zubair Abbasi, God’s Law v. Corporations: A Critique of Islamic Law Matters Thesis, (May 6, 2012).

Chile Passes Anti-Discrimination Law That Had Been Pending For 7 Years

The Santiago Times and I Love Chile News both report on final passage by Chile's Senate on Wednesday of an anti-discrimination law that had been pending in Parliament for 7 years. The Senate's 25-3 vote in favor of the bill follows the killing in March of 24-year-old Daniel Zamudio in a neo-Nazi hate crime attack. The new law, which still needs to be approved by the Constitutional Tribunal as constitutional, punishes discrimination by fines of up to 1.8 million CLP ($3700 US). A fine of up to 733,000 CLP ($1500 US) will be imposed an a complainant if no discrimination is found. The new law defines discrimination as:

any distinction, exclusion or restriction, without reasonable justification, made by state officials or private individuals and causing deprivation, disruption or threat to the legitimate exercise of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic or in international human rights treaties ratified by Chile.

It includes differential treatment based on a broad range of characteristics: race, ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, ideology, political opinion, religious beliefs, participation in organizations or lack thereof, sex, gender, sexual orientation, appearance, health and disabilities. In the past, opponents of the law, including Protestant churches and the Catholic Church, had been concerned that it could be used to legalize same-sex marriage.  To deal with those concerns, the final version provides in Art. 18: "The precepts of this law cannot be interpreted as derogatory clauses or modifications of other legal norms."

President Obama Says He Supports Same-Sex Marriage

ABC News reports that in an interview recorded today, President Barack Obama told ABC News' Robin Roberts that he now supports same-sex marriage. Obama said in part:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

The President added that this is his personal position, but that he still supports the right of individual states to decide whether or not they will recognize same-sex marriages.

UPDATE: The New York Times reports that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney today reiterated his position opposing same-sex marriage and at least some types of civil unions:

"My view is the same as it’s been from the beginning," Mr. Romney told a CBS affiliate in Denver. "I don’t favor civil unions if it’s identical to marriage, and I don’t favor marriage between people of the same gender." Asked why he opposed civil unions, in particular, he explained that in many cases they represent marriage by a different name for gay couples.

North Carolina Voters Approve Constitutional Amendment Preserving Traditional Definition of Marriage

CNN reports that yesterday North Carolina voters, by a 61%-39% majority, approved a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage and civil unions. The vote was 1,303,952 for, and 831,788 against. The amendment (full text) provides:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

With this vote, North Carolina becomes the 31st state to add a constitutional amendment preserving the traditional definition of marriage. Six states and the District of Columbia issue marriage licences to same-sex couples.

Some Scottish Religious Groups Want To Be Able To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

In Scotland yesterday, a coalition of faith groups (United Reformed Church, the Quakers, Buddhists and the Pagan Federation) calling themselves Faith in Marriage launched a campaign to end the ban on religious groups performing same-sex marriages.  Gay Star News reports that the group released an open letter to members of the Scottish Parliament asking them to change the law. A few days earlier, an anti-gay Christian group calling itself Scotland for Marriage announced that it would deliver leaflets to 300,000 homes in Glasgow warning of the dangers of same-sex marriage.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Caroline Mala Corbin, Expanding the Bob Jones Compromise, (Matters of Faith: Religious Experiences and Legal Responses in the United States, Austin Sarat, ed., Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming).
• Wilson Ray Huhn, The Growing Acceptance and Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage in America Constitutes a Victory for Reality-Based Thinking, (April 22, 2012).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Robert Audi, Natural Reason, Religious Conviction, and the Justification of Coercion in Democratic Societies, [Abstract], 4 Journal of Law, Philosophy & Culture. 1-28 (2009).
• Susanna Frederick Fischer, Catholic Social Teaching, the Rule of Law, and Copyright Protection, 4 Journal of Law, Philosophy & Culture 63-72 (2009).
• Haider Ala Hamoudi, Judicial Review of Islamic Law Under Iraq's Constitution, Jurist, April 2012.

Charles Colson, Watergate Offender Turned Evangelist, Dies At Age 80

Charles Colson, a key figure in the Nixon White House Watergate scandal died today at the age of 80.  After serving a prison term for his role in the burglarizing of the psychiatric files of Daniel Ellsberg who had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the media, Colson became an influential evangelical Christian.  As Time reports in his obituary today:

Colson would turn incarceration into resurrection. Seeing the conditions of his fellow prisoners, he would be inspired to start Prison Fellowship shortly after he regained his freedom to evangelize the inmates of America's penitentiary system.... 

As the years went by, Colson would use his celebrity as one of America's most famous redeemed sinners to crusade for prison reform — as well as buttress the country's burgeoning evangelical movement, which was finding its political legs in the 1980s. Among evangelicals and conservative Christian groups, he became a fount of carefully worded argument, without the bombast and grandstanding of politically-ambitious preachers, even as he defended the same positions on evolution and abortion, same-sex marriage and the use of the Bible in public schools. In 2009, he started the Chuck Colson center, an online research site that he calls "the Lexis-Nexis of resources on the Christian worldview." Colson was key to forming an amalgam of conservative Christian principles that would come together as an ecumenical political front of great potency.

ACLU Criticizes Operations of US Commission on International Religious Freedom

The ACLU in a blog posting yesterday charges that the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has failed to operate effectively. The ACLU says in part:

[S]ince its inception, the commission's been beset by controversy. People who watch the commission closely say it was created to satisfy special interests, which has led to bias in the commission's work. Past commissioners and staff have reported that the commission is "rife, behind-the-scenes, with ideology and tribalism." They've said that commissioners focus "on pet projects that are often based on their own religious background." In particular, past commissioners and staff reported "an anti-Muslim bias runs through the Commission's work."

The commissioners' personal biases have led to sharp divides both within the commission and with the State Department, which it is supposed to advise. One expert calls the commission's relationship with the State Department "adversarial," and "not conducive to effective dialogue, let alone cooperation."

The posting goes on to raise questions about two of the recent appointments to the Commission:  Zuhdi Jasser who the ACLU describes as someone who validates manufactured myths about Muslims; and Robert George who has been actively involved in battling against same-sex marriage. (See prior related posting.)

California Federal Judge Says Same-Sex Spouse of Court Employee Entitled To Health Insurance Coverage

On Tuesday in San Francisco (CA), federal district judge James Ware, acting as administrator of the federal district court's employee dispute resolution program, ruled that denying law clerk Christopher Nathan the right to enroll his same-sex spouse in the government's health insurance program violates the court's guarantee of a discrimination-free workplace. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Ware ordered reimbursement of Nathan for the cost of past and future private insurance for his spouse. The court's clerk, Richard Wieking, says that Ware's order is in conflict with a directive of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts requiring compliance with the Defense of Marriage Act.