[JURIST] Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri [official profile] vetoed legislation [text, PDF] on Tuesday that would have allowed domestic partners, including those in same-sex relationships, to claim the body of their partner and to make funeral arrangements. Neither domestic partnerships or civil unions are recognized in Rhode Island, and the bill would have required that a same-sex partner produce documentation establishing the nature of the relationship, such as proof of a joint bank account, mortgage, or car registration, and that the relationship had lasted for a year or longer. In his letter to lawmakers [text, PDF] explaining the veto, Carcieri said:

This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue. If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of State of Rhode Island decide.

The sponsors of the bill, Senator Rhonda Perry and Representative David Segal [official profiles] have promised to push for an override [AP report] of the veto in the state legislature, where Democrats hold enough seats to make that possible.

The veto of the burial rights bill comes amid a larger battle in Rhode Island over same-sex marriage, which, according to a Brown University poll [press release], has the approval of 60 percent of registered voters in the state. Rhode Island and Maine remain the only two states in New England that do not recognize same-sex marriage. Advocates for same-sex couples have been met with mixed results over the last few years. Legislation to legalize same-sex marriage was vetoed in Maine [JURIST report] last week, but similar legislation was successful in New Hampshire and Vermont [JURIST reports] earlier this year. Legislation to the same end was passed [JURIST report] by the New York State Assembly in May, but has since stalled in the state senate. In April, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned [JURIST report] that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, following the supreme courts of Connecticut, California, and Massachusetts [JURIST reports]. Last November, California voters approved Proposition 8 [JURIST report], making California the first state to outlaw same-sex marriage after legalizing it.

[JURIST] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed suit[complaint, PDF; press release] Tuesday on behalf of US citizen Amir Meshal, alleging that FBI agents were involved in his interrogation and rendition in Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia in 2007. The suit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website], alleges that agents repeatedly threatened Meshal with torture, disappearance, and execution in order to force him to acknowledge ties with al Qaeda. Meshal was originally detained in Kenya while fleeing fighting in Mogadishu between militia known as Islamic Courts Union [BBC profile] and forces of the US and Ethiopian-backed Transitional Federal Government of Somalia [official website; JURIST news archive]. After being held in Kenya, Meshal was returned to Somalia and eventually taken to Ethiopia where he was held until his release in May of 2007. No charges were ever filed against Meshal.

The issue of west African renditions was first raised by Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] in March 2007 when they claimed [JURIST report] that the US, Kenya, and Ethiopia were cooperating with the transitional government of Somalia to secretly detain people fleeing that country’s conflict. Further reportsalleged [JURIST report] that US intelligence agents were involved with the secret prisons in Ethiopia and that citizens of western nations such as Sweden, Canada, and the US were being held there along with citizens of west African nations. The governments of Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia have all denied illegally transporting and jailing people, claiming they have only taken action against legitimate suspects.

Finish reading Chapter 4 and begin reading Chapter 5 of Sullivan, the required text.

Anyone who has not handed in his/her second, short, written assignment should do so asap.

By Mark Fass

November 03, 2009

A split en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that a Canadian citizen who alleges that U.S. officials “rendered” him to Syria to be tortured in 2002 lacks standing to sue the U.S. government in federal court.

“Our ruling does not preclude judicial review and oversight in this context,” Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs wrote for the 7-4 majority in Arar v. Ashcroft, 06-4216-cv. “But if a civil remedy in damages is to be created for harms suffered in the context of extraordinary rendition, it must be created by Congress, which alone has the institutional competence to set parameters, delineate safe harbors, and specify relief. If Congress chooses to legislate on this subject, then judicial review of such legislation would be available.”

Read entire article.

Oral argument: November 9, 2009

Please finish reading Chapter Four of Sullivan, the required text.

Hand in the second, short, written assignment.

High School Football Fans Fill Stands With Biblical Verses

The New York Times reported yesterday that high school football fans in a Georgia town have found a way to respond to the school district’s ending the practice of cheerleaders carrying banners with Biblical quotations onto the field. As previously reported, Fort Oglethorpe High School, concerned about potential litigation, ended the 8-year old tradition of the players breaking through paper banners painted by cheerleaders with New Testament verses. Cheerleaders switched to banners carrying secular slogans.” But now, fans calling themselves “Warriors for Christ” (a take-off on the team’s name), have filled the stands with their own signs carrying Biblical verses, along with others reading “You Can’t Silence Us” and “Living Faith Outloud.” The fans have also held large rallies and sold more than 1,600 T-shirts carrying passages from Deuteronomy and Timothy. Also at last week’s game, led by students, the team prayed on the 50 yard line before play began. The team captain shouted “In Jesus Name!” as players broke out of a huddle. The Times commented: “the backlash demonstrates the difficulty of separating church and state in communities, especially in the South, where many prefer the two merged.”

Read Chapter Four-Equality Under the Constitution- of Sullivan, the required text.

I will hand out the 2nd short written assignment during class tomorrow.

There has been much commentary on last week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Salazar v. Buono– the case involving the Sunrise Rock Cross located in the Mojave Preserve war memorial . (See prior posting.) In paticular pundits have focused on Justice Scalia’s questioning. (St. Louis Post Dispatch.) Stephen Colbert’s satirical take on the arguments is among the more interesting reactions to Scalia. Thanks to Don Byrd for pointing out this video clip:

Thanks to Religious Clause

The Freedom from Religion Foundation and 21 of its members, represented by Michael Newdow, filed a federal lawsuit today challenging the constitutionality of two provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that give special tax deductions to “ministers of the gospel.” the complaint (full text) in Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Geithner, (ED CA, filed 10/16/ 2009) alleges that Sections 107 and 265(a)(6) of the Revenue Code violate the Establishment Clause by discriminating against secular organizations and excessively entangling the government with religion because determinations whether the sections apply turn on religious criteria and inquiries.

Section 107 exempts from income the rental value of a parsonage, or the amount of a parsonage allowance, furnished to a “minister of the gospel.” Section 265(a)(6) allows a minister of
the gospel to claim deductions interest and property taxes, even though the money used to pay such amounts was received from a church in the form of a tax-exempt §107 allowance. The concern is not a literal interpretation of “minister of the gospel”– courts have not limited application of these IRS regulations to Christian denominations. (Background). Instead the objection is to the requirement that to be deductible, the parsonage allowance must be received as compensation for service performed in the exercise of a religious ministry. This requires an examination of whether the clergy person is performing religious worship or conducting the activities of a religious organization.

The lawsuit also challenges Sections 17131.6 and 17280(d)(2) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code which track the federal provisions being challenged. ABC News 10 reported on the lawsuit.