Doug writes: "On the gay rights issues, religious conservatives are pretty much getting exemptions only within the church itself -- not even their affiliated religious organizations -- which is to say, they are getting only those exemptions that no sensible person on the gay rights side actually opposes."
>From everything I have heard, no version of ENDA (the bill that would extend >Title VII to discrimination based on sexual orientation) can possibly pass >unless it includes the same exemption for religious organizations (not just >"houses of worship") as the current Title VII exemption for such organizations >to engage in religious selectivity. If that is right, such an exemption will >include a broad range of religiously affiliated entities (i.e., schools, >charities, etc, organized for religious purposes). So Doug's "pretty much" in >the first sentence above may be obscuring some very important matters. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:46:30 -0400 >From: Douglas Laycock <layco...@umich.edu> >Subject: Re: Same-sex marriage and religious exemptions >To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > It is patently easier to do one deal than to do > fifty. And on this issue, it is easier to do a deal > in a legislature where both Vermont and Alabama are > represented than to do a deal in Vermont or to do a > deal in Alabama. Maybe we want to let Vermont and > Alabama each go their own way on marriage; maybe we > even want to let them each go their own way on free > exercise of religion; those are two distinct issues > different from the political possibilities of deal > making. > > American legislatures have enacted lots of religious > exemptions, but not many controversial exemptions > with an organized interest group in active > opposition. On the gay rights issues, religious > conservatives are pretty much getting exemptions > only within the church itself -- not even their > affiliated religious organizations -- which is to > say, they are getting only those exemptions that no > sensible person on the gay rights side actually > opposes. > > Quoting hamilto...@aol.com: > > > Boerne only makes the deal harder to strike if one > assumes the > > federal government should drive social policy in > every state from > > Washington DC and only if one is inclined to > engage in blind > > lawmaking that operates at an abstract level > without reference to > > facts. All Congress could do here is foreclose > the 50 state > > experiment in finding the right balance for > everyone. > > In light of history, it is patently ridiculous to > argue that it is > > ever too late for religious exemptions in this > country. Religious > > entities have both political access and power > disproportionate to > > their numbers even if they do not win every single > request they make. > > J Scalia was empirically correct when he said in > Smith that the > > American legislative system is inclined toward > exemptions. > > Marci > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Douglas Laycock <layco...@umich.edu> > > > > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:51:08 > > To: <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > > Subject: Same-sex marriage and religious > exemptions > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To post, send message to > Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get > password, see > > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list > cannot be viewed as > > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and > read messages that are > > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list > members can > > (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to > others. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To post, send message to > Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get > password, see > > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list > cannot be viewed as > > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and > read messages that are > > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list > members can > > (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to > others. > > > > > > > > > > Douglas Laycock > Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law > University of Michigan Law School > 625 S. State St. > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 > 734-647-9713 >________________ >_______________________________________________ >To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people >can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward >the messages to others. Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
