Re: Civil determination of a religious question in Rowan County?

[Steven Jamar]

The underlying theory is exactly the same — complicity with evil.  Once the 
naked assertion is made, it is, after Hobby Lobby, uncontestable by the 
government or courts.

Analogizing and distinguishing are tricky, manipulable rhetorical devices.  But 
you can’t dodge the similarities just because there are differences.  The 
question is not are there similarities or differences, but rather which ones 
that invariably exist matter to the court.

Steve


> On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:22 AM, Michael Worley  wrote:
> 
> A state actor does not have to defer to a religious belief for a benefit it 
> bestows (granting a marriage license).  The actor is, however, required under 
> Hobby Lobby to not coerce a private, unelected, citizen to grant a benefit 
> contrary to its religious belief.
> 
> The issues are worlds apart.  Hobby Lobby never asked the govt. to identify 
> the drugs as abortcifatents; only to get hobby lobby out of the picture.


-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar
Assoc. Dir. of International Programs
Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice
http://iipsj.org
http://sdjlaw.org

"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a 
day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, 
equality and freedom for their spirits."

Martin Luther King, Jr., (1964, on accepting the Nobel Peace Prize)





___
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.

Re: Civil determination of a religious question in Rowan County?

[Michael Worley]

A state actor does not have to defer to a religious belief for a benefit it
bestows (granting a marriage license).  The actor is, however, required
under Hobby Lobby to not coerce a private, unelected, citizen to grant a
benefit contrary to its religious belief.

The issues are worlds apart.  Hobby Lobby never asked the govt. to identify
the drugs as abortcifatents; only to get hobby lobby out of the picture.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Len <campquest...@comcast.net> wrote:

> These reports put The Onion to shame.
>
>
>
> --
> *From: *"Marty Lederman" <lederman.ma...@gmail.com>
> *To: *"Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <
> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
> *Sent: *Monday, September 21, 2015 3:19:16 PM
> *Subject: *Civil determination of a religious question in Rowan County?
>
>
> A report to the court of another of the Rowan County Deputy Clerks today
> includes the following:
>
> "Mrs. Plank reports that, to the best of her knowledge, all requests for
> marriage licenses requested by legally qualified couples have been issued.
> The only denial of a marriage license application that has occurred within
> the last two weeks was to a gentleman who stated that he wanted a license
> that would permit him to marry 'Jesus'.  *When it was explained to the
> individual that both parties had to be present, he stated, 'Jesus is always
> present'.*  After being denied, the gentleman returned later and
> presented a type of Power of Attorney document issued by his church
> granting him authority to sign 'Jesus'’ name.  *Since both parties were
> not present* these requests were denied."
>
> Impermissible civil assessment of a fundamentally religious question?
>
> (P.S.  The passage from the filing today, quoted above, is 100% true.  My
> "legal" question, however, is of course facetious -- although given the
> Court's recent movement toward almost absolute deference to private
> religious assessments (cf. *Hobby Lobby*), it's not obvious on first
> glance why the Clerk's Office was permitted to act on the basis that "Jesus
> was not present.")
>
> ___
> 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.

Civil determination of a religious question in Rowan County?

[Marty Lederman]

A report to the court of another of the Rowan County Deputy Clerks today
includes the following:

"Mrs. Plank reports that, to the best of her knowledge, all requests for
marriage licenses requested by legally qualified couples have been issued.
The only denial of a marriage license application that has occurred within
the last two weeks was to a gentleman who stated that he wanted a license
that would permit him to marry 'Jesus'.  *When it was explained to the
individual that both parties had to be present, he stated, 'Jesus is always
present'.*  After being denied, the gentleman returned later and presented
a type of Power of Attorney document issued by his church granting him
authority to sign 'Jesus'’ name.  *Since both parties were not present*
these requests were denied."

Impermissible civil assessment of a fundamentally religious question?

(P.S.  The passage from the filing today, quoted above, is 100% true.  My
"legal" question, however, is of course facetious -- although given the
Court's recent movement toward almost absolute deference to private
religious assessments (cf. *Hobby Lobby*), it's not obvious on first glance
why the Clerk's Office was permitted to act on the basis that "Jesus was
not present.")
___
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.

Re: Civil determination of a religious question in Rowan County?

[Len]

These reports put The Onion to shame. 



- Original Message -

From: "Marty Lederman" <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> 
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> 
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 3:19:16 PM 
Subject: Civil determination of a religious question in Rowan County? 

A report to the court of another of the Rowan County Deputy Clerks today 
includes the following: 




"Mrs. Plank reports that, to the best of her knowledge, all requests for 
marriage licenses requested by legally qualified couples have been issued. The 
only denial of a marriage license application that has occurred within the last 
two weeks was to a gentleman who stated that he wanted a license that would 
permit him to marry 'Jesus'. When it was explained to the individual that both 
parties had to be present, he stated, 'Jesus is always present'. After being 
denied, the gentleman returned later and presented a type of Power of Attorney 
document issued by his church granting him authority to sign 'Jesus'’ name. 
Since both parties were not present these requests were denied." 



Impermissible civil assessment of a fundamentally religious question? 

(P.S. The passage from the filing today, quoted above, is 100% true. My "legal" 
question, however, is of course facetious -- although given the Court's recent 
movement toward almost absolute deference to private religious assessments (cf. 
Hobby Lobby ), it's not obvious on first glance why the Clerk's Office was 
permitted to act on the basis that "Jesus was not present.") 

___ 
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.