The new policy applies to only some of the millions of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Homeland security will not prosecute immigrants who came to the country before their 16th birthday, are currently under the age of 30, and have lived in the U.S. for at least the past five years.

Immigrants who qualify must also be in school, finished high school, or be honorably discharged from the military. The policy will not apply to any immigrants convicted of a felony or who pose a threat to national security.

Secretary Homeland Security Janet Napolitano wrote a memo explaining the new policy, where the Department of Homeland Security will exercise its prosecutorial discretion by no longer pursuing cases against many of the young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. without documentation.

Known as the Religious Liberty Restoration amendment, supporters of Measure 3 argued it would prevent attacks on religious freedom. The North Dakota Family Alliance, headed by Tom Freier, led the push to put the measure on the ballot.

“This measure would really put in place the protection for North Dakota that would make sure the people are protected, and religious organizations are protected, when and if they do need that protection,” Freier told NPR last week.

But critics argued the amendment could cause unintended problems, included providing a curtain of protection for parents who abuse their children or employers who discriminate based on differences in morals and religious beliefs. Tom Fiebiger, a labor lawyer in Fargo and a former Democratic state senator, told the Christian Science Monitor the measure was too vague.

“On first blush, it looks great, but you pull back the curtain, and you see all the problems,” Fiebiger told the Monitor. “It’s a solution in search of a problem.”

But Christopher Dodson, head of the North Dakota Catholic Conference, countered those arguments. “The measure itself says that it doesn’t affect those acts which the state has a compelling interest in preventing,” he told NPR. “And it’s somewhat irresponsible to even imply that the state doesn’t have an interest in protecting children, women and vulnerable persons.”

The fight over the amendment attracted a lot of outside attention—and outside funds. According to CitizenLink, the group North Dakotans Against Measure 3 raised more than $1 million to fight the measure, with the vast majority of funds coming from out-of-state groups. (CitizenLink said its numbers came from the North Dakota Secretary of State’s site, which only lists gifts greater than $200.) In contrast, Freier told CitizenLink that most of the $150,000 raised in support of the measure came from state residents.

In its report, the Christian Science Monitor noted that while many states have created some sort of religious exemption in health care since the new federal laws were enacted, only Alabama has adopted a constitutional amendment like Measure 3. However, a similar bill is currently sitting in committee in the Kentucky state senate, and a religious freedom amendment was withdrawn from the Colorado ballot last month.

CT has reported how many Christian therapists have abandoned reparative therapy amid broad changes in the ex-gay movement, as well as how Willow Creek Community Church and other groups have ended partnerships with Exodus International.

Practitioners of reparative therapy in the United Kingdom have recently lost their licenses over the disputed practice.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Massachusetts, said that DOMA imposes a burden on both states and couples without a legitimate federal purpose. The decision is expected to be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.

According to the court decision, DOMA affects more than 1,000 references to marriage in federal laws. As a result, same-sex couples who are married in U.S. states are denied substantial benefits from the federal government. Same-sex couples cannot file joint federal tax returns. Spouses cannot collect Social Security survivor benefits. Federal employees cannot share their health insurance with their spouses.

The First Circuit ruled that the burden placed on the more than 100,000 same-sex couples could not be justified. It rejected the argument that the underlying purpose of DOMA was “hostility toward homosexuality.” Support for traditional marriage, said the Court, did not mean moral disapproval of same-sex couples.

“Traditions are the glue that holds society together, and many of our own traditions rest largely on belief and familiarity--not on benefits firmly provable in court. The desire to retain them is strong and can be honestly held,” the court said.

Morality, too, was not a legitimate reason to define federal marriage as the union between one man and one woman. When passing DOMA, Congress said, “Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.”

The First Circuit cited the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. The Lawrence opinion said that morality was an insufficient justification for regulating homosexuality.

The First Circuit said that if the goal of DOMA was to strengthen and protect heterosexual marriage, then DOMA was a “poor remedy” to the problem. It ruled that Congress failed to show “any demonstrated connection between DOMA's treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage.”

The decision is limited to the constitutionality of DOMA and avoids broader claims that same-sex couples have a right to marry in any state. Rather, the court said that DOMA violates federalism by interfering in the choices of both same-sex couples and the states that grant them marriages.

The judges acknowledges that the principles in case, including federalism, civil rights, and congressional authority, are difficult to untangle and that “only the Supreme Court can finally decide this unique case.”

“Invalidating a federal statute is an unwelcome responsibility for federal judges; the elected Congress speaks for the entire nation, its judgment and good faith being entitled to utmost respect” the First Circuit wrote. “But a lower federal court such as ours must follow its best understanding of governing precedent, knowing that in large matters the Supreme Court will correct mis-readings (and even if it approves the result will formulate its own explanation).”

DOMA will remain in effect until the Supreme Court decides whether to review the decision.

The opinion was issued by a three-judge panel from the First Circuit. Michael Boudin, nominated by President George H. W. Bush, wrote the unanimous decision; the other two judges were chief judge Sandra L. Lynch (Clinton nominee) and Juan R. Torruella (Reagan nominee).

In previous surveys, support among black Americans for same-sex marriage has been consistently lower than among whites. A majority of black Americans polled over the past two years have opposed same-sex marriage (38 percent support vs. 52 percent opposition), according the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Black Americans who attend church are more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than are others.  According recent Pew polls, 70 percent of black Americans who attend church regularly oppose gay marriage, compared to 47 percent among those that do not.

With the relatively small number of black Americans in the Washington Post-ABC poll, it would be difficult to tell if the change in opinion occurred among more religious black Americans.

Three years ago the leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K., the U.S., Canada, and Russia gathered in L’Aquila, Italy. In a global recession, the world's wealthiest nations promised to assist the world's poorest countries, pledging $22 billion by 2012 to improve agriculture and food security. The U.S. is on track to meet its L'Aquila commitments by the deadline, but the G8 nations as a whole have given only 38 percent of their contributions, according to World Vision.

Adam Taylor, World Vision's vice president for advocacy, said the G8 nations need to fulfill their promises and distribute the remaining funds.

“While we applaud the real progress that has been made on food security and nutrition, if we had to give the G8 a grade right now, it would be ‘incomplete',” Taylor said in a statement.

Neil Watkins of ActionAid USA commended the U.S. for increasing its commitment to fight hunger, but he criticized other nations that have fallen behind on their commitments and have not promised to continue them into the future.

“Without a clear pledge to sustain L’Aquila public funding levels, this year’s G8 will be remembered as the summit that buried the L’Aquila pledge to fight hunger,” Watkins said.

Food security was not the top economic issues for the G8 nations that face their own recessions, a looming currency crisis, and austerity measures. With belt-tightening at home, G8 nations are less willing to provide aid to the world's poor.

Michael R. Wear, who has worked in the White House for the past three and half years, will move to Chicago to become the campaign's Faith Vote director next week, White House officials confirmed on Monday.

"It has been an honor working with Michael Wear to create positive faith-based and nonprofit partnerships to serve people in need," said Joshua DuBois, executive director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Wear was DuBois' executive assistant. (CT profiled then 26-year-old DuBois in 2009)

A native of Buffalo, N.Y., Wear was an intern during Obama's 2008 campaign, specializing in outreach to religious groups. He helped arrange candidate Obama's appearance at a presidential forum at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California as well as a meeting between Obama and prominent Christian leaders in Chicago.

Land, who leads the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, issued the two-page apology Wednesday (May 9), a week after a five-hour meeting with African-American leaders and other Southern Baptist officials.

Because of that meeting, “I have come to understand in sharper relief how damaging my words were,” he wrote in the statement released through his denomination’s news service.

Land had previously apologized for his comments, which charged Democrats and civil rights leaders with exploiting the killing of the unarmed Florida teen. He also has apologized for failing to attribute the material he used when discussing the case on his radio show.

In Michigan, there were concerns about the Day of Prayer from the Catholic Church. Church leaders were concerned about the Michigan Legislative Prayer Caucus, a new legislative group that held its first event on Wednesday. Lt. Gov. Brian Calley and around 30 lawmakers met at the state capitol for prayer and a singing of “God Bless America.” The caucus held a similar event on Thursday as part of the National Day of Prayer and the Michigan Day of Prayer.

The caucus describes itself as "a bipartisan body of believers of Scriptural Truth, adhering to established Judeo-Christian principles and Religious Liberties that were widely practiced by the Founders of these United States of America and the state of Michigan."

Dawud Walid, head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Michigan (CAIR-MI) said that while elected officials may be guided by their religious beliefs, the new caucus sent a mixed signal.

The Liberty speech is one of many events Romney has planned that will allow him to shore up support with conservatives while beginning to sound themes for the general election. Two weeks ago, Romney spoke at the National Rifle Association meeting. While Romney tipped his hat to second amendment rights activists, he spent most of the speech on taxes and the economy.

Romney is likely to follow a similar strategy at Liberty, one that commencement speakers John McCain (2006) and George Bush (1990) used to avoid hot button social issues to focus on foreign policy and other issues.

The court's decision comes on the heels of the defeat of a personhood bill in the state legislature, where Republican leaders kept the bill from coming up for a vote before it adjourned last week.

The decision is not binding on any other state, but it could be a bellwether for future court challenges. Compared to other state courts, the Oklahoma Supreme Court is a moderate court, far from the more liberal courts of Hawaii and the northeastern states but also more moderate than the conservative courts in the South.

The unanimous verdict, however, is important. Even the most conservative members of the court agreed that the personhood initiative violated U.S. Supreme Court precedent and was therefore unconstitutional.

The decision likely means that other state courts will also decide that other personhood legislation and initiatives are unconstitutional.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told NPR that evangelical voters would support Romney, particularly when the opponent is President Obama.

“I think that people have to understand that being for Rick Santorum does not necessarily mean you're anti-Romney,” Land said. “And against Barack Obama, it will not be very difficult at all for Mr. Romney to garner the support of both the evangelicals, unless he were to do something catastrophic, like pick a pro-choice running mate, which I don't think he's going to do.”

Land also noted that evangelicals often supported Romney. While most of Rick Santorum's supporters were evangelical, most evangelicals did not vote for Santorum. The former Pennsylvania senator would have been doomed without the support of social conservatives. But most evangelicals voted for other candidates, including Romney.

Romney did very well among evangelicals in New England, but received less support in the South. In the battleground states like Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin, Romney received around 40 percent of the evangelical Republican vote.

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, was one of Santorum's supporters who told the New York Times said that he will now support Romney.

“Going to the general election, I will do everything I can for Governor Romney,” Bauer said. “But his campaign has got to make it easy for me to help them, and not make it hard by being tempted to pull back on conservative issues.”

But what may count most is the support of activists who run the phone banks, knock on doors, and give money. Ralph Reed told CNN that Romney may be able to count on votes, but he needs the grassroots support, too.

"Mitt Romney will win the support of evangelicals and conservatives because his opponent is Barack Obama. But he needs the grassroots enthusiasm of activists who are for him, not just against Obama," Reed said.

Mark DeMoss, an evangelical publicist and a senior advisor to the Romney campaign, told the Huffington Post that the campaign has already been contacted by evangelical political leaders and may convene a summit to discuss issues and build support for the general election.

"I'm optimistic that things are coming together nicely behind Mitt Romney and could do so fairly quickly," DeMoss said. Social conservatives will need to convince Romney that he needs their support. Many live in southern states where Romney should be able to win with or without their enthusiastic support. Social conservatives failed to show that they were capable of mobilizing voters in the Republican primary. Just before the South Carolina primary, leaders from political groups with evangelical constituencies met in Texas to coalesce around a candidate, picking Santorum. A week later, most evangelicals in South Carolina voted for Newt Gingrich.

“We made a decision over the weekend that, while this presidential race for us is over — for me — and we will suspend our campaign effective today, we are not done fighting,” Santorum said.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, was one of the evangelical leaders who met in January to support Santorum (Land, however, does not endorse candidates). On Sunday, Land said on CBS's “Face the Nation” that Santorum should consider stepping aside.

“As his friend,” Land said, “I would say to him you know, you ought to seriously consider leaving the race now. In eight years he’ll be three years younger than Romney is now.”

Santorum was expected to stay on at least through the Pennsylvania primary, but recent events changed this decision. Politically, Santorum faced a greater threat in his home state than anticipated. A loss in the Keystone State would not only seal his fate as a candidate, it would impinge on his future prospects in politics.

Personally, Santorum faced the challenge of having a child with a serious medical condition. Santorum's daughter, Bella, was hospitalized due to pneumonia, which was potentially life-threatening because Bella suffers from Trisomy 18 (a rare genetic disorder). Bella was released from the hospital Monday evening, and Rick Santorum cancelled campaign events to be with his family.

At the beginning of March, House conservatives introduced the Marriage Protection Act, which would kick all marriage cases from federal courts to states. A second bill would amend the Constitution to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Both pieces of legislation are now off the table.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) cosponsored the federal marriage amendment, but he acknowledged that the issue is not front-and-center on the agenda. “That’s not something we’re focused on now,” Gohmert told Politico.