RE: Social Notes from All Over
I was engaging in poetic license! sandy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom Michael Sent: Mon 11/7/2005 2:31 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over This may be off topic, but what makes the invitees the "finest" people? From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:41 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Rick writes: It seems to me that inviting people to dinner is totally unrelated to supporting a radical re-definition of marriage. The one is socially decent, the other would be totally destructive of a great institution. Bush is right to invite his Veep's family & guests to dinner at the WH. He is also right to stand up for traditional marriage. If Bush invited Clinton to dinner, would it mean that he is celebrating disbarred lawyers. I think not. I think that Rick is missing the point that we're talking about a state dinner (or, in this case, lulncheon). If this were a constitutional law case, there would be "state action" in a way that would not be the case if we were referring to the Bush's having someone for dinner in their private quarters. This is the United States of America recognizing the fitness of honoring Ms. Cheney and her companion with an invitation to meeting His Royal Highness and his wife. Indeed, everyone knew that an important line had been crossed when Queen Elizabeth formally accepted the presence of Camilla Parker-Bowles at some Buckingham Palace event after the Queen had, for many years, refused formally to rcognize the reality of the relationship. This is precisely why the Right is ultimately going to lose this battle in the great culture war. Most Americans, including Rick, apparently, believe there's nothing at all wrong in the United States of America's recognizing the humanity of two people of the same sex who are in a committed relationship with one another. Today a State Lucheon at the White House, tomorrow (or, say, ten years from now), Ms. Cheney and Ms.Poe will, should they wish, be allowed to get married in places other than Massachusetts. After all, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe, congratulated His Royal Highness on his marriage to a divorced woman with whom he had had an adulterous relationship. I presume the United States of America officially shares that joy, given the occasion of the State Luncheon to which the finest people in America were invited. sandy. <>___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
This may be off topic, but what makes the invitees the “finest” people? From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:41 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Rick writes: It seems to me that inviting people to dinner is totally unrelated to supporting a radical re-definition of marriage. The one is socially decent, the other would be totally destructive of a great institution. Bush is right to invite his Veep's family & guests to dinner at the WH. He is also right to stand up for traditional marriage. If Bush invited Clinton to dinner, would it mean that he is celebrating disbarred lawyers. I think not. I think that Rick is missing the point that we're talking about a state dinner (or, in this case, lulncheon). If this were a constitutional law case, there would be "state action" in a way that would not be the case if we were referring to the Bush's having someone for dinner in their private quarters. This is the United States of America recognizing the fitness of honoring Ms. Cheney and her companion with an invitation to meeting His Royal Highness and his wife. Indeed, everyone knew that an important line had been crossed when Queen Elizabeth formally accepted the presence of Camilla Parker-Bowles at some Buckingham Palace event after the Queen had, for many years, refused formally to rcognize the reality of the relationship. This is precisely why the Right is ultimately going to lose this battle in the great culture war. Most Americans, including Rick, apparently, believe there's nothing at all wrong in the United States of America's recognizing the humanity of two people of the same sex who are in a committed relationship with one another. Today a State Lucheon at the White House, tomorrow (or, say, ten years from now), Ms. Cheney and Ms.Poe will, should they wish, be allowed to get married in places other than Massachusetts. After all, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe, congratulated His Royal Highness on his marriage to a divorced woman with whom he had had an adulterous relationship. I presume the United States of America officially shares that joy, given the occasion of the State Luncheon to which the finest people in America were invited. sandy. ___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
The decree was that the Queen's non-royal descendents will be "Mountbatten-Windsor". But none of them have been born yet, the extant issue all being "Royal Highness". At 04:26 PM 11/4/05 -0600, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C5E18E.D025B93B"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-346617 I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary Cheney Ms. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, is a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy ___ 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 11/3/05 ___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
As a matter of fact, they were there. Perhaps this is why it was at lunch, rather than dinner, because they had to leave for Argentina. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 11/5/2005 3:08 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Social Notes from All Over And what symbolism is to be drawn when the invitation is to attend a luncheon at which the President and his wife will not be present? Weren't they in the air on the way to the Summit? Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ <>___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
And what symbolism is to be drawn when the invitation is to attend a luncheon at which the President and his wife will not be present? Weren't they in the air on the way to the Summit? Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
Sandy wrote on 11/05/2005 12:40:47 AM: > This is precisely why the Right is ultimately going to lose this > battle in the great culture war. Most Americans, including Rick, > apparently, believe there's nothing at all wrong in the United > States of America's recognizing the humanity of two people of the > same sex who are in a committed relationship with one another. On the contrary, the reason why the Left is ultimately going to lose this battle is because they've never understood the basis for the Right's opposition to same-sex marriage. There's nothing earthshaking or noteworthy about "recognizing the humanity of two people of the same sex who are in a committed relationship with one another". The Left has consistently painted supporters of traditional marriage as hateful bigots when this kind of blanket stereotype was never even remotely true. Like it or not, the Fred Phelpses of the world are pariahs, not leaders. The overwhelming majority of those of us who believe same sex intimacy is wrong have never disputed the "humanity" of practicing homosexuals. The fact that this seems to be news to the Left says a great deal about the Left's flawed assumptions and prejudices. Brad___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:26 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over It seems to me that inviting people to dinner is totally unrelated to supporting a radical re-definition of marriage. The one is socially decent, the other would be totally destructive of a great institution. I continue to be baffled by this claim. I fail to see how the institution of marriage can be destroyed without having any actual marriage damaged in any conceivable way. It's not going to do anything to any marriage that I'm aware of. No one I know is going to leave their spouse if gay marriage is legalized, or stop loving their kids, or choose not to get married. If anyone's marriage is fragile enough that it can damaged by the prospect of people they don't know being allowed to get married, there wasn't any hope for that marriage in the first place. And without destroying any particular marriage, how is the institution of marriage to be destroyed? I've never seen a logical causal argument made here to support this kind of rhetoric; I suspect I never will. Ed Brayton <>___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
Rick writes: It seems to me that inviting people to dinner is totally unrelated to supporting a radical re-definition of marriage. The one is socially decent, the other would be totally destructive of a great institution. Bush is right to invite his Veep's family & guests to dinner at the WH. He is also right to stand up for traditional marriage. If Bush invited Clinton to dinner, would it mean that he is celebrating disbarred lawyers. I think not. I think that Rick is missing the point that we're talking about a state dinner (or, in this case, lulncheon). If this were a constitutional law case, there would be "state action" in a way that would not be the case if we were referring to the Bush's having someone for dinner in their private quarters. This is the United States of America recognizing the fitness of honoring Ms. Cheney and her companion with an invitation to meeting His Royal Highness and his wife. Indeed, everyone knew that an important line had been crossed when Queen Elizabeth formally accepted the presence of Camilla Parker-Bowles at some Buckingham Palace event after the Queen had, for many years, refused formally to rcognize the reality of the relationship. This is precisely why the Right is ultimately going to lose this battle in the great culture war. Most Americans, including Rick, apparently, believe there's nothing at all wrong in the United States of America's recognizing the humanity of two people of the same sex who are in a committed relationship with one another. Today a State Lucheon at the White House, tomorrow (or, say, ten years from now), Ms. Cheney and Ms.Poe will, should they wish, be allowed to get married in places other than Massachusetts. After all, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe, congratulated His Royal Highness on his marriage to a divorced woman with whom he had had an adulterous relationship. I presume the United States of America officially shares that joy, given the occasion of the State Luncheon to which the finest people in America were invited. sandy. <>___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
It seems to me that inviting people to dinner is totally unrelated to supporting a radical re-definition of marriage. The one is socially decent, the other would be totally destructive of a great institution. Bush is right to invite his Veep's family & guests to dinner at the WH. He is also right to stand up for traditional marriage. If Bush invited Clinton to dinner, would it mean that he is celebrating disbarred lawyers. I think not. Rick Duncan Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That on some issues, this administration is more decent in own behavior than when it's posturing for the base. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 5:03 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over What was Sandy's substantive point? Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford LevinsonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, i! ! s a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ To p
RE: Social Notes from All Over
Title: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression Actually, it still appears to be Windsor. See http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page135.asp and http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf. The name of the Earl of Wessex’s daughter is Lady Louise Windsor. Just a bit of trivia on a Friday afternoon. Christine Corcos Associate Professor of Law Faculty Graduate Studies Program Supervisor Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University Associate Professor, Women's and Gender Studies Program LSU A&M W325 Law Building 1 East Campus Drive Baton Rouge LA 70803 tel: 225/578-8327 fax: 225/578-3677 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:27 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary Cheney Ms. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, is a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy ___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
It seems to be: when you go with someone to a social event, it's a way of saying "I'm having sex with this person."AnnOn Nov 4, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Rick Duncan wrote: What was Sandy's substantive point? Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sanford LevinsonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, i! s a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
RE: Social Notes from All Over
That on some issues, this administration is more decent in own behavior than when it's posturing for the base. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 5:03 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over What was Sandy's substantive point? Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford LevinsonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, i! s a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
What was Sandy's substantive point? Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford LevinsonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, i! s a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
Title: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford LevinsonSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, is a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy ___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
In a message dated 11/4/2005 5:05:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. perhaps it means nothing more than that the invitees were estimated to have a healthy appetite. ___ 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: Social Notes from All Over
Title: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostilityto Religious Expression Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary CheneyMs. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a "marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate conservatism"? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, is a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy ___ 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.
