Bill Proposed In California To Protect Clergy From Perfoming Same-Sex Marriages

As the federal court trial challenging the constitutionality of California's gay marriage ban continues (New York Times 1/27), proponents of same-sex marriage yesterday introduced a bill in the California legislature to make the prospect more appealing to opponents. The Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act (SB 906) emphasizes the distinction between religious and civil marriage by changing language in state statutes relating to marriage to refer to "civil marriage." The bill goes on to add to the section which permits clergy to perform marriage ceremonies:

No person authorized by this subdivision shall be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith. Any refusal to solemnize a marriage under this subdivision shall not affect the tax exempt status of any entity.

According to LAist yesterday, both Equality California (press release) and the California Council of Churches back the measure.

DC Court Upholds Election Board's Rejection of Initiative To Define Marriage

In Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, (DC Super. Ct., Jan. 14, 2010), the District of Columbia Superior Court agreed with the D.C. election board's rejection of an initiative petition seeking to amend the D.C. Code to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized in D.C. Last year, D.C. City Council passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere. (See prior posting.) The court held that Council appropriately implemented the Charter Amendment Act when it prohibited initiatives that would authorize discrimination in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act. The proposed initiative would violate the Human Rights Act by authorizing discrimination based on sexual orientation. (See prior related posting.) Alliance Defense Fund (which filed the lawsuit on behalf of a local pastor and other voters) in a release yesterday says it will appeal the decision.

Supreme Court Blocks Broadcast of California Proposition 8 Trial

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, blocked the broadcast by a California federal district court of the non-jury trial challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8-- California's ban on same-sex marriage. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, (Sup. Ct., Jan. 13, 2010), the per curiam majority opinion concluded that the federal district court did not follow the proper procedures in amending its rules to permit broadcast of the trial. It did not give enough time for public comment on its proposal. The majority said:

The trial will involve various witnesses, including members of same-sex couples; academics, who apparently will discuss gender issues and gender equality, as well as family structures; and those who participated in the campaign leading to the adoption of Proposition 8. This Court has recognized that witness testimony may be chilled if broadcast.... Some of applicants' witnesses have already said that they will not testify if the trial is broadcast, and they have substantiated their concerns by citing incidents of past harassment....

The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.

Technically the court granted a stay of the district court's order pending filing of petitions for a writ of certiorari and mandamus. The decision only related to the proposal to broadcast the trial live to a number of other courthouses around the country. It did not relate to the proposal to post recordings of the trial on YouTube at the end of each day. The 9th Circuit never approved that portion of the district court's poposal because the district court's technical staff encountered difficulties in preparing video that was suitable for online posting. Justice Breyer dissenting, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor said:

The majority’s action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order to consider a mandamus petition, with a view to intervening in a matter of local court administration that it would not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent for doing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone “irreparable harm,” to justify its issuance of this stay.

The New York Times reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)

Prop 8 Trial Begins Monday With Dispute Over Televising of Proceedings

In San Francisco tomorrow, the federal district court trial challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 barring same-sex marriage begins. (See prior posting.) Invoking a policy change instituted by the Ninth Circuit in December, the district court is permitting limited televising of the trial. Proceedings will be taped by court personnel and will be posted on YouTube at the end of the day. Intent on keeping the taping under the control of court personnel, Chief Judge John Walker rejected an offer by In Session (formerly Court TV) to broadcast the trial live. (The Recorder, 1/7.) Proponents of Proposition 8 are unhappy fearing intimidation of witnesses by same-sex marriage backers. Their appeal to the 9th Circuit of the district court's order permitting televising of the proceedings was denied by the appeals court on Friday. (Mercury News, 1/8.) Proposition 8 backers quickly filed an appeal with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who has given the other side until noon today to respond. (New York Times, 1/9).

UPDATE: Justice Kennedy referred the appeal on broadcasting of the trial to the full court. On Monday the Court stayed the trial court's order thereby temporarily banning streaming of the proceedings to other court houses as well as any wider broadcasting of the proceedings. The stay remains in effect only until Wednesday to giver the Court more time to examine the issue. Justice Breyer dissented urging further consideration of the issue without a stay being imposed. (Order in Dennis v. Kristin, Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2010.) (CBN reports on the Supreme Court's action.)

Many Issues of Religon and Human Rights Remain In Latest Kenya Draft Constitution

Kenya is in the complex process of drafting and adopting a new constitution. (See prior posting.) The public comment period on the Committee of Experts' draft expired Dec. 15. It was supposed to be redrafted taking the comments into account, forwarded to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Constitution, and then forwarded to the National Assembly which is to hold a referendum on it. (Sunday Nation 12/11/09). However today's Sunday Nation reports that the redraft forwarded to the Parliamentary Select Committee does not reflect some of the changes to the Bill of Rights proposed by churches, civil society organizations and human rights lobbies. Issues still remain over the document's language on abortion, its provisions on Islamic law, issues of family, of same-sex marriage, protection of religious institutions that wish to hire on the basis of religion, protection of children and the right to education and housing. The Parliamentary Select Committee is now expected to seek consensus on various issues and return the document to the Committee of Experts for redrafting.

New Jersey Senate Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Bill

The New Jersey Senate yesterday voted down A818, the proposed Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act that would have legalized same-sex marriage in the state. Yesterday's Christian Science Monitor and the Asbury Park Press report that the vote was 20 opposed, and 14 in favor, with 5 senators not voting. New Jersey already recognizes civil unions, but supporters of gay marriage say that there are still restrictions on insurance benefits available to couples who are only in civil unions. Opponents argued for the traditional definition of marriage, and said any change should be through a referendum.

(See prior related posting.)

Mexico City Approves Gay Marriage, Adoptions

Mexico City yesterday became the first Latin American city to legislatively approve same-sex marriage. (A court decision in Buenos Aires, Argentina in November had approved same-sex marriages, but the issue is tied up in further litigation.) CNN and AP report that the city's legislative assembly approved the change by a vote of 39-20, with 5 abstentions. In a second vote of 31-24, with 9 abstentions, the assembly approved legalizing adoptions by same-sex couples. Mayor Marcelo Ebrard is expected to sign the law. The Roman Catholic Church which is the dominant religion in Mexico opposes the change. 91% of Mexico's population is Catholic. (Background.) The city had approved same-sex civil unions in 2007.

UK Court of Appeal: No Discrimination In Requring Official To Register Civil Partnerships

In Ladele v. London Borough of Islington, (EWCA, Dec. 15, 2009), the Court of Appeals of England and Wales agreed with Britain's Employment Appeals Tribunal (see prior posting) that a Christian marriage registrar was not subjected to illegal discrimination when she was disciplined and threatened with dismissal for refusing to register same-sex civil partnerships. Lillian Ladelle argued that requiring her to "facilitate the formation of a union which [she] sincerely believe[d] was contrary to God's law" violated her rights under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The Court of Appeal, however, concluded unanimously that:

Ms Ladele was employed in a public job and was working for a public authority; she was being required to perform a purely secular task, which was being treated as part of her job; Ms Ladele's refusal to perform that task involved discriminating against gay people in the course of that job; she was being asked to perform the task because of Islington's Dignity for All policy, whose laudable aim was to avoid, or at least minimise, discrimination both among Islington's employees, and as between Islington (and its employees) and those in the community they served; Ms Ladele's refusal was causing offence to at least two of her gay colleagues; Ms Ladele's objection was based on her view of marriage, which was not a core part of her religion; and Islington's requirement in no way prevented her from worshipping as she wished....

Ms Ladele's proper and genuine desire to have her religious views relating to marriage respected should not be permitted to override Islington's concern to ensure that all its registrars manifest equal respect for the homosexual community as for the heterosexual community

Today's London Mail reports on the decision.

D.C. Council Votes Final Passage of Gay Marriage Bill

Washington, D.C.'s City Council yesterday, by a vote of 11-2, gave final approval to the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. The bill, which permits same-sex marriages to be performed in D.C., now goes to Mayor Adrian A. Fenty, who, according to the Washington Post, is expected to sign the bill before Christmas. Congress then has 30 days to review the legislation and can block it only by a resolution passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It appears unlikely that the law will be rejected through this route. The bill contains protections to assure that clergy can refuse to perform same-sex marriages and that religious organizations can refuse to provide goods, services, accommodations and facilities for same-sex marriages that violate their religious beliefs, except when those facilities are offered to the general public. A number of Christian clergy say they will continue to oppose the legislation. As previously reported, they have filed suit to force an initiative vote on a proposal to define marriages as only between a man and a woman. (See prior related posting.)

New York Senate Defeats Same-Sex Marriage Bill; DC Bill Moves Ahead

Yesterday the New York State Senate, by a vote of 24-38, defeated a bill that would have permitted same-sex marriage in the state. The bill, strongly supported by Gov. David Patterson, had already passed the state Assembly. AP reports that the bill lost by a wider margin than had been expected. The New York Daily News has details of the roll-call vote. The Senate debate included references to religion and the Bible by those on both sides of the issue. (Baptist Press.) After the vote, the New York State Catholic Conference issued a statement saying that the bishops are "pleased and grateful" that the Senate "rejected the concept that marriage can be anything other than a union between one man and one woman."

Meanwhile, Washington, D.C.'s city council, by a vote of 11-2, gave tentative approval on Tuesday to the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. The Washington Times reports that a final Council vote is scheduled for December 15 on the bill that would authorize same-sex marriage in the District. Then Congress would have 30 days to review the law and disapprove it. (See prior related posting.)

New Catholic, Evangelical Declaration Reaffirms Pro-Life, Traditional Marriage Agenda

This afternoon, a coalition of 149 pro-life, Catholic, evangelical and Orthodox Christian leaders signed the 4700-word Manhattan Declaration, pledging to defend their pro-life views and their opposition to same-sex marriage. (LifeNews.) The Declaration says in part:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

.... We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths.... Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Today's New York Times reporting on the Declaration says that the document, written by Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson, "is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the [Bush] administration.... They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage." [Thanks to Ira "Chip" Lupu for the lead.]

Appeal Filed Seeking Acceptance of D.C. Marriage Initiative Petition

Having lost in their attempt to obtain a referendum (see prior posting), opponents of Washington, D.C.'s new law recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere filed an initiative petition in September. The Marriage Initiative would provide that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized in D.C. In an order issued on Tuesday, In Re: Marriage Initiative of 2009, (DC Bd. Elec. & Ethics, Nov. 17, 2009), the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that because the initiative would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act, under D.C.'s Initiative, Referendum and Recall Procedures Act it was required to reject the initiative petition.

Yesterday, several proponents of the initiative filed suit seeking court review of the Election Board's ruling. The complaint (full text) in Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, (DC Super. Ct., filed 11/18/2009), challenges the restriction in D.C. law that precludes using the initiative for any measure that would authorize discrimination in violation of the Human Rights Act. It also argues that the Initiative does not violate the HRA. Alliance Defense Fund issued a release announcing that the appeal had been filed.

D.C. Catholic Archdiocese Threatens To End Social Services Over Gay Marriage Bill

In Washington, DC, the Catholic Archdiocese is threatening to end the social service programs it operates under contract with the city if City Council does not include broader religious exemptions in the same-sex marriage bill that it will vote on next month. In a press release issued on Tuesday, after the Council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary voted to narrow the language on exemptions for religious organizations, the Archdiocese said:

Under the bill, religious organizations do not have to participate in the "solemnization or celebration" of a same-sex marriage ceremony. An earlier version of the bill also exempted them from "the promotion of marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs." The revised language significantly narrows that exemption to the "promotion of marriage through religious programs, counseling, courses, or retreats."

As a result, religious organizations and individuals are at risk of legal action for refusing to promote and support same-sex marriages in a host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs. This includes employee benefits, adoption services and even the use of a church hall for non-wedding events for same-sex married couples. Religious organizations such as Catholic Charities could be denied licenses or certification by the government, denied the right to offer adoption and foster care services, or no longer be able to partner with the city to provide social services for the needy.

The Washington Post this morning says that Catholic Charities serves 68,000 people in the District, including one-third of the homeless, who go to city-owned shelters managed by the Church. From 2006 to 2008, the Catholic Church received $8.2 million in city contracts, and supplemented city social service funding with $10 million per year of its own funds. Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, told City Council that: "All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow." However, City Councilman David A. Catania said he would rather end the city's relationship with Catholic charities than give in to the Church's demands. [Thanks to both Steven H. Sholk and Scott Mange for the lead.]

Maine Voters Reject Same-Sex Marriage

In a referendum yesterday, Maine voters rejected the state's recently-enacted law to permit same-sex marriage. The New York Times reported early Wednesday morning that with 87% of the precincts reporting, 53% of the voters had voted in favor of repeal. The Catholic Church was one of the primary supporters of the repeal referendum. It asked parishes to pass a second collection plate at Sunday Mass to support the repeal effort. The website of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland features a strong rebuke to a group of Catholics who had taken out an ad favoring marriage equality. It also features a Homily (full text) delivered in October, which supports legal recognition of domestic partnerships, but opposes same-sex marriage:

It is not discrimination to call things by their own names. We have different names for different things. A cat is not a dog; an oak tree is not a rose..... It is not discrimination to call one person a husband and another person a wife. It is not discrimination to say that one person is heterosexual and another person is homosexual. It is not discrimination to call the union of a man and a woman marriage and to call the committed relationship of homosexual persons something else -- you pick the word. It is difficult to believe that Maine people, much less Christian people, see no difference between marriage and homosexual unions, even when homosexual unions are perceived as desirable. There remains a difference and the difference should have its own name.

Marriage is an absolutely unique and irreplaceable relationship. Other relationships can be loving; other relationships can be committed; other relationships can even be permanent, but still not be marriage, but something else. Marriage is the miracle of the coming together to a man and a woman whose love and commitment is open to overflow to create the new life of a new person.

DC Council Holds Hearing On Same-Sex Marriage Proposal

Last week, the District of Columbia Council, Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, held a hearing on the proposed Religious Freedom & Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 which would allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the District of Columbia. (A video of the hearing is available online.) Under the bill, no clergy would be required to solemnize a marriage if it violated the clergy person's free exercise of religion. No religious organization is required to make facilities or services available for a marriage that is in violation of the group's religious beliefs unless the group makes the facilities available to the general public. The Pilot yesterday reported on written testimony submitted at the hearing by the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. The Archdiocese urged broader religious exemptions, including exemptions for religious groups that provide services or rent space to those outside the group's faith. The Archdiocese warned that under the current bill, organizations that oppose same-sex marriages for religious reasons but serve the community could be denied government contracts or access to government facilities. It also claimed that under the bill, doctors, social workers and child-care workers opposed to same-sex marriage could have their licenses revoked, employers could be sued for not providing benefits to same-sex couples and religious colleges could have their accreditation revoked. (See prior related posting.)

James Dobson Will Step Down As Radio Host For Focus On Family

James C. Dobson, the 73-year old founder of Focus on the Family, will end 32 years as its primary spokesman in February when he steps down as host of its radio program. The announcement by Focus on the Family on Friday said that this "is just the 'third chapter in a transition that began in 2003,' when Dr. Dobson stepped down as Focus president." At that time, Jim Daly took over the presidency. The Colorado Springs Gazette reports that the powerful conservative Christian leader, who was asked for advice by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, has become a polarizing figure through his strong support of the traditional family and his opposition to pornography and same-sex marriage. Focus on the Family has suffered from declining donations in recent years. The Denver Post says that under Daly's presidency, Focus on the Family has become less confrontational and political as a younger generation of evangelical leadership is developing.

Signature Campaign Begins On California Anti-Divorce Amendment [Updated]

The California Secretary of State announced last week that the proponent of an initiative petition to amend California's Constitution to ban divorce in the state may begin to collect signatures. The proposed amendment would still allow annulments, but would completely eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Proponents will need to collect the signatures of 694,354 registered voters to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

According to Huffington Post last month, the proponent, John Marcotte, introduced the amendment to mock the proponents of Proposition 8 who focused on protecting traditional marriage as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage. Last month, Cockeyed.com published an interview with Marcotte. Here is one exchange that gives the flavor of his remarks:

RC: well, this is a bold step. Do you think you face a strong opposition?

John: The opposition will always be there. The secular progressives, gays and MSNBC hosts -- but we beat them once with Prop 8 and we'll beat them again. If people are thinking about getting a divorce, just remember "Hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be." Jesus still loves you if you get divorced, just not as much as before.

Thanks to Not a Potted Plant and a commenter for correcting my initial incorrect interpretation of the proposal as as one that was meant to be serious in its approach. I guess it was a bad morning for my sense of humor that usually has a better compass than today.

Opposing Religious Coalitions Active On Maine's Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Issue

Yesterday' Bangor (ME) Daily News reports on religious coalitions on opposing sides of Maine's Question 1-- a referendum on the November ballot that would overturn a law passed earlier this year permitting same-sex couples to marry. (See prior posting.) The Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine held rallies around the state on Sunday to urge a "No" vote on Question 1. Rev. Bob Emrich, founder of the Maine Jeremiah Project which opposes same-sex marriage and urges a "yes" vote on the referendum, says the issue is not discrimination, but redefining marriage.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, Legalising Divorce in the Republic of Ireland: A Canonical Harness to the Legal Liberation of the Right to Marriage Among the Disenfranchised, (September 1, 2009).
• John D. Inazu, No Future Without (Personal) Forgiveness: Re-Examining the Role of Forgiveness in Transitional Justice, (Human Rights Review, Vol. 10, 2009).
• Patrick Parkinson, Christian Concerns with the Charter of Rights, (Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 09/72, Aug. 31, 2009).
• Louis J. Virelli, Administrative Evolution, (Stetson University College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 2009-05, Sept. 3, 2009).
• Pnina Lahav, Seeking Recognition: Women's Struggle for Full Citizenship in the Community of Religious Worship, (Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 09-33, July 30, 2009).
• Steven Douglas Smith, Discourse in the Dusk: The Twilight of Religious Freedom, (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 122, p. 1869, 2009).

From SmartCILP:

• Joshua B. Gessling, From Ankara to Strasbourg: Developing a Comprehensive Supranational Litigation Strategy for Patriarchal Preservation in Turkey, 15 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 109-157 (2009).
• Puja Kapai & Anne S. Y. Cheung, Hanging In a Balance: Freedom of Expression and Religion, 15 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 41-79 (2009).
• Judith E. Koons, Engaging the Odd Couple: Same-Sex Marriage and Evangelicalism in the Public Square, 30 Women's Rights Law Reporter 255-288 (2009).
• Gerard Magill, Using Excess IVF Blastocysts for Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Developing Ethical Doctrine, Secular and Religious, 37 Hofstra Law Review 447-485 (2008).

Louisiana Governor's State-Paid Trips To Churches Raise Controversy

Controversy between Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and his critics has been escalating since an article in the New Orleans Advocate a week ago disclosed that at least 15 times this year Jindal used his state helicopter to attend church services around the state. Jindal says he also uses the occasssions to talk with local officials. (Last year, Americans United criticized similar visits by Jindal.) Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, but also pastor of a Baptist Church in Monroe, Louisiana, this week wrote Jindal complaining about the taxpayer-funded trips. (Full text of letter.) He wrote in part: "For the sake of religion, please do not politicize houses of worship in Louisiana and rob those of us who minister there of the credibility that allows our faith to be a healing force in our state and across our land."

ABP reports that a Jindal spokesperson reacted to Gaddy's letter by saying : [The Interfaith Alliance] opposes putting crosses up in honor of fallen policemen, has attacked the National Day of Prayer and advocates for same-sex marriage, so it's not surprising that they are attacking the governor for accepting invitations to speak at Louisiana churches." [Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the lead.]