Federal Lawsuit Challenges Prop 8; Some Gay-rights Activists Question Strategy

The New York Times reports that at a news conference yesterday, David Boies and Theodore Olson-- attorneys best known as opponents in the Bush v. Gore litigation in 2000-- announced that they are jointly representing two couples who have filed a lawsuit in federal district court in San Francisco challenging California's Proposition 8 on federal constitutional grounds. The complaint (full text) in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (ND CA, filed 5/22/2009), asks the court to enter a declaratory judgment and to enjoin enforcement or application of Proposition 8, arguing that it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint alleges that "California relegates same-sex unions to the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership."

A number of gay rights activists criticized the filing of the lawsuit, arguing that it could backfire strategically. Yesterday's Examiner says these critics fear that the current Supreme Court would rule against the challenge, and that this would then undermine attempts to get state courts to protect gay marriage under state constitutions. These critics point to another case moving through the federal courts challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which they say is a better first step toward getting federal courts to protect same-sex marriage.

California High Court Upholds Proposition 8, But Validates Pre-Prop 8 Marriages

The California Supreme Court today in Strauss v. Horton, (CA Sup. Ct., May 26, 2009), rejected a challenge to voters' approval of Proposition 8, thereby upholding the California constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. In a 6-1 decision, the court held that Proposition 8 was an "amendment" and not a "revision" of the state constitution, and therefore properly approved in an initiative process. However same-sex marriages entered into before the effective date of Proposition 8 will remain valid.

The majority opinion by Chief Justice George held that: Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to privacy, due process and equal protection provision in the state constitution, "reserving the official designation of the term 'marriage' for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

Justices Kennard and Werdegar each wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Kennard also joined the majority opinion while Justice Werdegar only agreed with the result, but rejected much of the majority's analysis. Justice Moreno dissented arguing that Proposition 8 is a "revision" of the Constitution because it "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution" by requiring discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification. The Court has also issued a press release describing the opinions. The New York Times reports on the decision.

Same-Sex Marriage Not Yet A Done Deal In New Hampshire

As previously reported, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch told the legislature that he would sign the same-sex marriage bill it had passed only if it made changes to grant stronger protections to religious institutions. According to yesterday's Concord Union Leader, the state Senate on Wednesday agreed to the governor's requested changes by a vote of 14-10. However later in the day, the state House of Representatives in a close vote (188-186) refused to adopt the Governor's changes, and by a larger vote (207-168) asked the Senate to negotiate a compromise.

Meanwhile, as gay marriage seems to be gaining momentum in state legislatures, Pew Forum yesterday published a Q&A with Professors Ira "Chip" Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, titled: A Clash of Rights? Gay Marriage and the Free Exercise of Religion.

New Hampshire Governor Will Sign Same-Sex Marriage Bill Only If New Religious Protections Are Added

New Hampshire's Governor John Lynch yesterday released a statement saying that despite his personal views on the subject, he will sign the same-sex marriage legislation passed by the state legislature last week only if legislators first amend it to provide more protections for religious institutions. Otherwise he will veto it. NECN News has posted both a transcript and a video of his statement, which says in part:

... I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that ... a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families. I have also heard, and I understand, the concerns of our citizens who have equally deep feelings and genuine religious beliefs about marriage. They fear that this legislation would interfere with the ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.

Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections. That is what I believe we must do today. But ... we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals.

The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs. But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.... [T]he laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, ... go further in protecting religious institutions.... This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions. This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions. It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn't pass these provisions, I will veto it.

(See prior related posting.)

NY Assembly Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill; Fate In Senate Unclear

The New York Assembly on Tuesday passed, by a vote of 89-52, A07732, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. The bill also provides that no member of the clergy is required to solemnize a marriage. The bill now goes to the state Senate where, according to NY1 News, it is unclear whether it will pass. Tuesday's New York Times says that conservative religious groups are mobilizing to fight against passage of the bill.

Maine Is 5th State To Permit Gay Marriage; New Hampshire Bill Sent To Governor

Maine yesterday became the 5th state to authorize same-sex marriage as Gov. John Baldacci signed LD 1020, "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom." The Brunswick (ME) Times Record reports that the bill moved quickly through the state legislature. Last Thursday the State Senate approved it by a vote of 21-14, the House followed on Tuesday with an 89-57 vote, and the Senate gave its final approval yesterday by a vote of 21-13. While authorizing same-sex marriage, the new law goes on to provide:

This Part does not authorize any court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution's religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage within that particular religious faith's tradition as guaranteed by the Maine Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.

AP reports that opponents of the new law say they will challenge it through a statewide referendum. Seacoast Online says that Rev. Bob Emerich of the Jeremiah Project in Plymouth (ME) will be working with the Portland Catholic diocese and other groups to obtain the 55,087 signatures needed to get a referendum measure on the statewide ballot.

Later yesterday, the New Hampshire legislature also passed a bill permitting same-sex marriage. (CNN). HB 436 provides however that:

Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.

The state Senate last week approved the bill by a vote of 13-11. Yesterday the House approved it by a vote of 178-167. The Concord Monitor says that it is unclear whether or not Gov. John Lynch will veto the bill. In the past he has said that his personal views are opposed to same-sex marriage.

New Hampshire Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill Different From House Version

Yesterday, the New Hampshire Senate passed by a vote of 13-11 a bill authorizing same-sex marriage in the state. The House also approved a same-sex marriage bill last month, but differences between the Senate and House versions mean that the bill must now go back to the House for its approval. HB436, as amended by the Senate, provides:

Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender. Each party to a marriage shall be designated "bride," "groom," or "spouse."

The bill also provides that a marriage may be solemnized either in a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony, and that neither clergy nor civil officials shall be required to officiate at any civil of religious marriage ceremony that would violate their free exercise of religion. Baptist Press reports that the Senate amendment clearly recognizing a difference between religious and civil ceremonies convinced Senate Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Deborah Reynolds to vote for the bill in the full Senate after opposing it in committee.

Under the bill, previous civil unions will be recognized as marriages in the state. AP reports that New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has said that the crucial issue is providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as to others, and that the state's existing civil unions law does that. Thus it is unclear whether the Governor will sign the same-sex marriage bill even if both houses agree on it.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Seth Barrett Tillman, Blushing Our Way Past Historical Fact And Fiction: A Response to Professor Geoffrey R. Stone's Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture and Essay, (Jan. 27, 2009).
• Paolo G. Carozza & Daniel Philpott, The Catholic Church, Human Rights and Democracy: Convergence and Conflict with the Modern State, (in The Cross, the Crescent and the Ballot Box: Catholic and Islamic Dialogue on the Rule of Law and International Democracy Promotion, Peter Schraeder, ed., Forthcoming; Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 09-15).
• Cynthia Koploy, Free Exorcise Clause? Whether Exorcism Can Survive America's "New Neutrality", (Northwestern University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Kenneth W. Starr, Our Libertarian Court: Bong Hits and the Enduring Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian Colloquy, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2008).
• Linda C. McClain, Red Versus Blue (and Purple) States and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate: From Values Polarization to Common Ground?, (University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, Vol. 77, p. 416, 2008).
• Melissa E. Murray, Marriage Rights and Parental Rights: Parents, the State, and Proposition 8, (Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Forthcoming).
• Cosmin Dariescu & Nadia Cerasela Dariescu, Rabbinical Chancery in Romania - An Alternative to the State Organized Courts in Solving Family Litigations?, (International Society of Family Law: Regional Conference in Israel, June 7-9, 2009).
• Ann Laquer Estin, Unofficial Family Law, (February 1, 2009).

From Bepress:

• Abeer Ghazi Jarrar, Combating a Religious Radical Ideology v. Suppressing Islamic Opposition: Jordan’s Approach to Counterterrorism, (Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers Series, April 14, 2009).
• Sigit Ardianto, From Secularism into Modified Pluralism: Comprehensive Application of John Rawls’s Justice as Fairness Theory in Defining State and Religion Relationship, (Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers Series, April 14, 2009).

From SmartCILP:

• Geoffrey C. Hazard, Not the City of God: The Multiplicity of Wrongs and Rules, 42 Akron Law Review 1-11 (2009).

Recent Books:

• Jon A. Shields, The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, (Princeton University Press, 2009), reviewed by the New York Times.
• ABA Section of State and Local Government Law, RLUIPA Reader: Religious Land Uses, Zoning and the Courts, (Michael S. Giaimo & Lora A. Lucero, eds.) (April 2009).

Iowa Recorders Are Told They Must Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

According to yesterday's Gay & Lesbian Times, now that the Iowa Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage in the state (see prior posting), Victoria Hutton of the Iowa Department of Public Health has notified all 99 county recorders that they must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some of the recorders have religious objections to doing so. Meanwhile yesterday's Des Moines Register reports that Iowa magistrate Francis Honrath has decided he will stop performing all marriage ceremonies. A number of other judges and court officials are expected to take similar stands.

Connecticut Law Implements Same-Sex Marriage Ruling With Exemptions For Religious Organziations

Yesterday Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell signed S.B. No. 899, a bill to implement the state Supreme Court's 2008 decision validating same-sex marriages. (AP). The bill also recognizes same-sex civil unions from other states and merges Connecticut civil unions into marriages. On Wednesday, the Senate and House both adopted amendments granting extensive religious exemptions. Those exemptions provide:

[A] religious organization ... or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization ..., shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request for [them]... is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage and such solemnization or celebration is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith....

... The marriage laws of this state shall not ... shall not require a fraternal benefit society ... which is operated, supervised or controlled by ... a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society's free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state.

Nothing in this act shall be deemed or construed to affect the manner in which a religious organization may provide adoption, foster care or social services if such religious organization does not receive state or federal funds for that specific program or purpose.

The bill also provides that no member of the clergy shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to the free exercise of religion and no church shall be required to participate in solemnizing a marriage in violation of its religious beliefs.

Yesterday's edition of The Edge reports on the amendments adopted Wednesday. Yesterday's Hartford Courant, reporting on the bill, points out that the state legislature rejected broader proposals that would have exempted objecting individuals and businesses from having to provide services in connection with same-sex marriages.

Vermont's Gay Marriage Law Contains Strong Religious Exemptions

Last week, Vermont's legislature overrode the veto of Gov. Jim Douglas and became the fourth state to authorize same-sex marriages. As the Burlington Free Press reported last week, this is the first time that gay marriage has been approved legislatively, rather than by the courts. Largely uncommented upon until an article in today's New York Daily News are the strong religious freedom exemptions included in the new law (full text of S. 115).

Statutory provisions on who may solemnize marriages were amended to include this provision:

[18 VAA Sec. 5144(b): ] This section does not require a member of the clergy ... to solemnize any marriage, and any refusal to do so shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

The provisions of Vermont's Banking and Insurance law relating to Fraternal Benefit Societies was amended to include the following:

[8 VSA Sec. 4501(b):] The civil marriage laws shall not be construed to affect the ability of a society to determine the admission of its members ... or to determine the scope of beneficiaries..., and shall not require a society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the society’s free exercise of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of United States or by Chapter I, Article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Vermont.

Finally, the law amended Vermont's provisions banning discrimination in public accommodations to include the following:

[9 VSA Sec. 4502(l):] Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with this subsection shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

This subsection shall not be construed to limit a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization from selectively providing services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to some individuals with respect to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage but not to others.

Iowa Supreme Court Invalidates Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

Today Iowa joined Connecticut and Massachusetts in recognizing same-sex marriage. In Varnum v. Brien, (IA Sup. Ct., April 3, 2009), the Iowa Supreme Court held that the Iowa statute (IC Sec. 595.2) that limits marriage to unions between opposite-sex partners violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6). Conducting a lengthy analysis of equal protection precedent, the court concluded that "legislative classifications based on sexual orientation must be examined under a heightened level of scrutiny...." Finding that the same-sex marriage ban cannot survive intermediate scrutiny, the court did not need to decide whether a strict scrutiny analysis should be applied instead. Near the end of its opinion, the Court focused on the question of religious opposition to gay marriage:

[We] give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views.
A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

New York Times reports on the decision. Americans United issued a release praising the decision and saying it "has reaffirmed religious liberty." On the other hand, a release from the Traditional Values Coalition complains about judicial activism and warns of possible losses and mandates that it says could be imposed on religious groups.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Robert Eli Rosen, Samson the Judge: Religion and Violence in Milton's SAMSON AGONISTES, University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-09, March 6, 2009).

From SmartCILP:

• Celine Abramschmitt, The Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition: Religious Morality, Social Science, and the Establishment Clause, 3 Florida International University Law Review 113-186 (2007).
• Mark W. Cordes, Religion as Speech: The Growing Role of Free Speech Jurisprudence in Protecting Religious Liberty, 38 Southwestern Law Review 235-286 (2008).
• Jay Michaelson, Chaos, Law, and God: The Religious Meanings of Homosexuality, 15 Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 41-119 (2008).
• Yuval Sinai, The Doctrine of Affirmative Defense in Civil Cases--Between Common Law and Jewish Law, 34 North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 111-178 (2008).

Recent Books:

• Thomas F. Farr, World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty is Vital to American National Security, (Oxford Univ. Press, 2008).
• David Novak, In Defense of Religious Liberty, (ISI Books, 2009).
• Stephen Spector, Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism, (Oxford Univ. Press, Nov. 2008).

Connecticut Bill Would Reform Financial Management of Catholic Parishes

In Connecticut, the Catholic Church is strongly criticizing a bill introduced in the state legislature last week to reform oversight of finances in Catholic parishes. Yesterday's Stamford (CT) Advocate reports that Raised Bill No. 1098 (full text) was introduced in response to the conviction of a Darien (CT) priest who stole $1.4 million in donations over several years. Under the proposed bill, any Catholic parish organized as a religious corporation would be required to elect a lay board of between 7 and 13 members to manage and oversee its financial affairs. A nominee of the bishop or archbishop will serve as an ex-officio member of each parish board. The bill provides, however, that it shall not be construed to limit the power of the bishop or pastor in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices. Complaining that the bill is an atttempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the Church, a statement by the Diocese of Bridgeport says in part:

This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop.... This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage.

UPDATE: The Meriden (CT) Record and The Hour reported Tuesday that the bill has been withdrawn from consideration for this legislative session while constitutional issues surrounding laws currently governing religious groups are reviewed. Tuesday's scheduled hearing on the bill was cancelled.

UPDATE 2: Here is the full text of a letter sent by 12 prominent law professors challenging the constitutionality of the bill before it was withdrawn.

Connecticut Catholic Conference Wants Protections For Objectors To Same-Sex Marriage

On Friday, the Connecticut General Assembly's Joint Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Raised Senate Bill No. 899 that was introduced last month to implement the state Supreme Court's 2008 decision validating same-sex marriages. (Bill status.) (See prior posting.) The bill would recognize same-sex unions from other states and would merge Connecticut civil unions into marriages. One provision in the bill guaranties that clergy will not be required to solemnize same-sex marriages when doing so would violate their religious beliefs. According to Saturday's Hartford Courant, the Catholic Conference is asking the legislature to expand that provision to also protect individuals such as florists, wedding photographers and justices of the peace who refuse to be involved in same-sex wedding ceremonies.

9th Circuit: Treating Montana Church As Political Committee Violates Speech Rights

In Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church of East Helena, Inc. v. Unsworth, (9th Cir., Feb. 25, 2009), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional the application of Montana's campaign finance laws to a Church that engaged in limited activities in support of a 2004 constitutional initiative banning same-sex marriage. The Church advertised and hosted a one-time screening of a video in support of the amendment and made petitions available in its foyer for signing. The state Commission on Political Practices held that the Church should have registered as an incidental political committee, and complied with reporting requirements. (See prior posting.) The 9th Circuit, however, held that

the designation of the Church as an "incidental committee" because of its one-time, in-kind "expenditures" of de minimis economic effect violates the Church's First Amendment free speech rights.

The court also held that the Commission's interpretation of "in-kind expenditures" is unconstitutionally vague. Judge Noonan concurring argued that the case should have been decided on Free Exercise grounds. (See prior related posting.) Yesterday's Great Falls (MT) Tribune reported on the decision.

Op-Ed Suggests Compromise On Same-Sex Marriage

An op-ed in today's New York Times suggests an innovative compromise on the divisive issue of gay marriage. This is the crux of the proposal made by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rausch:

Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

West Virginia Proponents of Marriage Amendment Create Controversy

In West Virginia, a group seeking to convince the legislature to propose a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage has created controversy by a nearly 6-minute video it has posted on YouTube and on the WV 4Marriage website. At one point, the video shows a traditional family in the cross hairs of a rifle scope. The narrator says that activists are "working tirelessly to define marriage away from God's design" and says that same-sex marriage has created a crisis for the church. Yesterday's Times of West Virginia reports on the amendment efforts spearheaded by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia. A posting at Edge yesterday contains the video and discussion of further excerpts from it. Churches around the state will support the amendment efforts by participating in "Stand4Marriage Sunday" on March 1.

Christian College Student Sues Over Speech Prof's Treatment of His Presentation

On Wednesday, a student at Los Angeles City College filed a federal court lawsuit against a speech professor John Matteson, and against the trustees and various administrators at the College. The lawsuit revolves around a speech that plaintiff Jonathan Lopez delivered in class to fulfill an open-ended assignment for the course. His speech focused on his Christian beliefs including beliefs that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Prof. Matteson had already made clear to the class that he was a supporter of same-sex marriage. Lopez believes that sharing his Christian beliefs is a religious duty.

The complaint Lopez v. Candaele, (CD CA, filed 2/11/2009) (full text) alleges that Prof. Matteson refused to permit Lopez to complete his speech, called him a "fascist bastard" and, instead of entering a grade on an evaluation sheet, wrote that Lopez should "ask God" for his grade. An appeal to the dean was unavailing. It led to threats of retaliation by Matteson and claims by administrators that Lopez was engaged in hate speech. The lawsuit challenges both the actions taken against Lopez and the College's speech code as violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments. Alliance Defense Fund issued a release yesterday reporting on the case and linking to additional background materials.

Proposed Nigerian Law Would Criminalize Clergy Performing Same-Sex Marriages

A press release yesterday from Amnesty International on behalf of several human rights groups expresses strong opposition to proposed legislation in Nigeria that would impose criminal penalties-- up to 3 years in prison-- on same-sex couples who marry. Existing Nigerian law already imposes up to 14 years in prison for consensual same-sex sexual activity. The proposed Same Gender Marriage (Prohibition) Bill 2008 would also impose a fine of US$14 and up to five years in prison on any person who "witnesses, abet and aids the solemnization of a same gender marriage." This would threaten with criminal sanctions a member of the clergy who conducts a same-sex marriage ceremony in Nigeria. Amnesty says this violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which Nigeria has signed. The bill would additionally impose a fine of up to US$340 on anyone who witnesses or aids and abets a same-sex marriage. This provision is apparently aimed at LGBT organizations and events.