BYU is unlike Notre Dame in that its standards on heterosexual and homosexual sexual activity is rigorously enforced, when possible ( enforced privately and with charity, to be sure, but still rigorously enforced).
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe. But I doubt it. > > Take Notre Dame, for example. It's student rule is this: "The University > embraces the Catholic Church’s teaching that a genuine and complete > expression of love through sex *requires a commitment to a total living > and sharing together of two persons in marriage*. Consequently, students > who engage in sexual union *outside of marriage* may be subject to > referral to the University Conduct Process." > > The University has not changed that rule since gay couples began to marry > in larger numbers. And I doubt it will. It will likely just leave that > rule in place, which is silent on the question of sexual orientation. > Moreover, it is very unlikely that Notre Dame will take any disciplinary > action against its students who are married to persons of the same sex: > After all, my understanding is that it rarely, if ever, disciplines the > thousands of its students that are having sex regularly. A school that is > so concerned about its image that it puts out this video -- > https://youtu.be/ca9bUC7jqAs -- is not about to start expelling its LGBT > students who are lawfully married. > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> > wrote: > >> Marty: I thought it was established that some colleges >> forbid sex by students outside of marriage. I assume that this isn’t a >> judgment about the civil law of adultery, but rather because they view such >> sex as deliberate sin. If so, why *wouldn’t* they “extend such rules to >> prohibit sex within a same-sex marriage”? Indeed, they’d probably just >> say, “we prohibit sex within what we see as a theologically permitted >> marriage,” which is to say opposite-sex marriage. >> >> >> >> Moreover, even if such universities are in practice >> uninclined to look closely at students’ sex lives, wouldn’t such >> universities be pretty unlikely to offer married student housing to >> same-sex couples? >> >> >> >> Eugene >> >> >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:39 AM >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> *Subject:* Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex >> marriage >> >> >> >> The more I think about the details of this, the more I'm inclined to >> agree with Chip that the issue won't arise, even 20 years from now. >> >> >> >> After all, if there are few, if any, colleges in existence *today *that >> discriminate >> against gay students in any way, it's hard to see how there would be any >> Bob Jones analogues around a couple of decades from now. >> >> >> >> What about in the context of employment? Well, Congress will enact ENDA >> sometime in the next 20 years (perhaps much sooner). So that, in and of >> itself, will get rid of employment discrimination, save for whatever the >> ministerial exception exempts. The Court's judgment on SSM will have no >> bearing on it at all. And the IRS will have no occasion to consider >> withdrawing tax-exempt status, since there won't be any discrimination left >> to consider. >> >> >> >> Am I missing anything? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Marty, for that answer and for understanding my mis-written >> question (I meant to ask "what do the rules permit different sex couples >> to do that same sex couples may not do?", but I mangled it in the earlier >> e-mail.) And I think Marty has identified the only likely discriminatory >> rule at a religiously conservative college -- whether sex is permitted >> between members of a different sex married couple but not members of a same >> sex married couple (because I assume such schools prohibit intercourse of >> any kind by unmarried students on campus.) >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I seriously doubt that any school has, or will have, a rule that >> prohibits same-sex "dating," as such, akin to one of the Bob Jones >> prohibitions (set out below). I'd also be surprised if any schools will >> refuse to admit, or will expel, students who are gay, or who are "partners" >> in a SSM (again, akin to Bob Jones). Several schools, however -- Notre >> Dame included -- have rules generally prohibiting students from having sex >> outside of marriage. I wonder whether any of those schools will extend >> such rules to prohibit sex within a SSM, thus creating a facial >> discrimination. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > -- Michael Worley J.D., Brigham Young University
_______________________________________________ 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.
