It is easier for the national lobbyists to cut one deal, but it is not easier for the state and local groups who want to make a difference to do so in Washington. Washington washes out the smaller groups, giving a disproportionate voice to organized national groups. It is false to assume that national groups are just collections of state and local groups or that national groups are capable of capturing what is really of interest to local or state groups. The preference for Washington deals is a preference for national interest groups and against local and state interests. Boerne made it more likely that local and state groups can obtain what they seek in the state in which they live barring a constitutional prohibition. (And, yes, marriage and free exercise are can be distinct issues, but to date they have not been politically.) Doug's description of the political lay of the land for controversial religious exemptions is not accurate. The vast majority of controversial exemptions exist not because they were unopposed but because no one knew about them. I don't think I've ever given a talk discussing children and religion when the audience was not shocked to learn that states give special privileges to religious groups to medically neglect their children -- a legal regime that has laid the groundwork for the death of children from easily treated ailments. In any event, even when there are organized groups in opposition, legislators grant exemptions (including the blind exemptions provided in RFRAs and RLUIPA) and some end up being controversial. There is little that is more controversial right now than the way that RLUIPA is negatively impacting residential neighborhoods in cities and towns across the country. No one understood what was really at stake when it was passed, in no small part because the members of Congress (who were responding to the demands of religious groups) refused to give voice at the RLPA hearings of the opposition, including the National League of Cities, Intl Municipal Lawyers Assn, then-Mayor Giuliani, and others. If the religious lobbyists orchestrate the hearings, opposition and discourse are hobbled, to say the least. On a different note, the recent 1-2 punch in Iowa and Vermont for the gay marriage movement is still a small countermovement against the number of states that passed quick referenda outlawing any marriage other than that between a man and a woman following Goodrich. That movement was fueled exclusively by religious activists. No one should think the political power of those groups has been decimated. Marci In a message dated 4/10/2009 12:50:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, layco...@umich.edu writes:
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. **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)
_______________________________________________ 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.
