RE: on the topic discussion regarding homosexuality
Will Linden opined:> Which is why I consider it dishonest when the "news" media repeatedly describe DOMA or the proposed amendments and legislation as moves to "ban gay marriage". They would not forbid anyone to conduct any ceremonies they choose, or even to call them "marriage". The only thing that would be "banned" is REQUIRING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS to call them "marriage". I am not convinced the matter is that simple. A law professor who had studied the matter claimed on Public Radio (Rick Duncan was also in the interview) there are over a thousant federal laws concerning the benefits going to the married. DOMA denies these benefits to homosexuals, does it not? Bob O'Brien NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
French Scarves
I will be putting together an article on the Stasi Report and the subsequent French law. I will welcome citation of any relevant articles. Bob O'Brien NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: Religion Clauses question
Paul Finkelman wrote: > well, Jim, some countries do not define marriage that way at all; the > French don't let the state do marriages. I suspect that Finkelman used the word "state" where he meant "church." Below is a section on French marriage law provided by the State Deparment: "French law recognises only the civil marriage. This must be performed by a French Civil Authority (officier de l'état civil), which includes the mayor (maire), his legally authorised replacement - the deputy mayor (adjoint) or a city councillor (conseiller municipal). ''American diplomatic and consular officers do not have legal authority to perform marriages. Because of the French legal requirement that civil marriages take place in a French mairie (city hall), marriages CANNOT be performed within the Embassy or within an American Consular office in France. "Religious ceremonies are optional, have no legal status and may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day.)" Bob O'Brien NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: Religion Clauses question
I am at a loss to understand why the issue of marriage is such a big deal. Protestants do not consider marriage a sacrament; therefore, whether people get married is religiously irrelevant. The Roman Catholic Church refuses to recognize divorces granted by the state. Judaism grants divorces which are not recognized by the state. In fine, the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage has long been recognized. If the state is willing to allow two or more people to marry while a particular church refuses to recognize such a marriage, I do not see why that church should care. Bob O'Brien NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: Religion Clauses question
Then you agree that chuches, as churches, and religious people, as religious people, have no reason to be interested in the subject? (My puzzlement did not concern why the state should care.) Bob O'Brien - Original Message - From: "Gene Summerlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:40 PM Subject: RE: Religion Clauses question > Bob, > > Your point is valid, so let me try to answer the question of why should the > government care? If we separate the sacrimental value of marriage from the > legal aspects of marriage, we can agree that if a church or other entity > wishes to "marry" same sex partners, the church is free to do so. But, > because the same sex marriage does not meet the legal definition of > marriage, the same-sex partners are not entitled to the legal benefits of > marriage. The question really becomes why does/can/should the state provide > incentives to some couples to marry (in the legal sense) and withhold those > benefits from other couples? > > Social research indicates that adults in heterosexual marriages do better > than single, divorced or cohabitating couples in virtually every measure of > well-being. Heterosexual married couples live longer, express a higher > degree of satisfaction with life, enjoy higher levels of physical and mental > health, recover from illness quicker, earn and save more money, are more > reliable employees, suffer less stress, and are less likely to become > victims of any kind of violence. As mentioned in an earlier post, children > residing in intact heterosexual marriages also gain a number of advantages > over peers in other living arrangements. On the other side of the coin, > there is a significant social cost to care for and treat the problems > associated with broken marriages. That is, to the extent that people and > children chose (or are forced) into non-heterosexual marriage living > arrangements, they are more likely to have health problems, economic > problems, abuse issues, etc. Society ultimately pays a financial price to > treat and attempt to remedy these issues. > > By enacting policies which promote heterosexual marriages, the state > preserves resources which would otherwise be spent on social welfare > programs. Therefore, the state provides economic incentives to encourage > people to form the type of family unit that best utilizes the state's > resources. > > > Gene Summerlin > Ogborn Summerlin & Ogborn P.C. > 210 Windsor Place > 330 So. 10th St. > Lincoln, NE 68508 > (402) 434-8040 > (402) 434-8044 (FAX) > (402) 730-5344 (Mobile) > www.osolaw.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Obrien > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 8:11 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question > > > I am at a loss to understand why the issue of marriage is such a big deal. > > Protestants do not consider marriage a sacrament; therefore, whether people > get married is religiously irrelevant. > > The Roman Catholic Church refuses to recognize divorces granted by the > state. Judaism grants divorces which are not recognized by the state. > > In fine, the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage has > long been recognized. If the state is willing to allow two or more people > to marry while a particular church refuses to recognize such a marriage, I > do not see why that church should care. > > > Bob O'Brien > > > NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education > ___ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > ___ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: The President and the Pope
Title: Message Eugene offered: > Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I wonder how this would have played out in other contexts. For instance, the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, and various anti-war and other movements have involved political-religious alliances on controversial public policy questions. (The abolitionist movement was of course indeed dangerous to the republic in the short term, though good in the long term.) >If in 1963, a government official called on Christian ministers to oppose racism and segretation and support civil rights, and asked them to assert that good Christians should oppose racism and segregation and support civil rights, would this really have been unconstitutional? Since Christian ministers differed on each of these issues (in the old South Christian ministers maintained Bibilical support for slavery; in the South of 1963 Chritian ministers continued to maintain Bibilical support for segregation), it seems to me that for the President to opine about the beliefs or actions of "good Christians" constitutes endorsement of one set of varieties of Christianity. However, for the President to call upon all like-minded Christians to come to his support is another matter. Bob O'Brien NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: Justice Thomas in Newdow
Two stories: (1) I once represented a teacher who for five years left the room during the opening prayer at the initial teachers meeting. After five years he refused to continue and complained to the Superintendent. In writing she scorned his objection. A suit changed things. (By the way, the judge refused to allow me attorney's fees, saying the superintendent had changed her policy without a court order.) (2) For some years I employed an excellent legal secretary who was a Jehovah's Witness ( and who happened to have been an in-law of the Barnett's of Barnette v. Board of Education--note the change in spelling). A few years ago she and her husband moved to North Carolina, where she quickly found employment. Recently an attorney who also had come to respect her special skills invited her to his swearing-in as judge. She asked one of the partners in the law firm whether he would be embarrassed if she did not participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. A few days later she was fired. The facts are that people do feel depreciated when they have to opt out of formal ceremonies for religious reasons and when they make their feelings known they are openly scorned and abused. Bob O'Brien - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 12:27 PM Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in Newdow In a message dated 6/18/2004 12:18:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Everyone notices when someone is gone for a particular ceremony -- every day. Or does not otherwise participate. These may be facts that could be proven. Or perhaps Justice Kennedy will simply assume that they are so, even though the parties in a particular lawsuit have agreed to other facts to the contrary. NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Re: (no subject)
Yes, the decision in Leyla Sahin v.Turkey was handed down on June 29. The central argument is found in paragraphs 104-106 and is essentially the same as the argument for such a prohibition in the Stasi Report. Three points might be made here: (1) Sahin deals with a student's objection to a university regulation. Courts have usually been more permissive of government regulation in primary and secondary schools. The Stasi report and the law passed by the General Assembly on February 10 apply only to schools below university level. (2) In the French version of the Sahin decision, the term laïcité appears wherever the term secularism is found in the English version. The Stasi Report came from La commission de reflexion sur l'application du principe de laïcité dans la Republique. The European Court and the Stasi Report use the same term when dealing with this issue. (3) Considering previous decisions of the European Court for Human Rights and the decision in Sahin, there seems to be little point in challening the French statute. As far as I know, the General Assembly has not acted upon any of the other recommendations of the Stasi Report; the ban on wearing religious symbols was passed on February 10. I make these and other points in the introduction to my translation which I expect to publish shortly. I want to thank the members of this list who demonstrated surprising (for me) interest in my translation. Let me add that I have greatly improved and corrected the translation I have e-mailed. Bob O'Brien - Original Message - From: marc stern To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:28 PM Subject: (no subject) A decision of the European Court of Human Rights upholding a rule banning headscarves in a university setting came down this week. It can be read at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ViewHtml.asp?Item=9&Action="">... Marc Stern ___To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
