I just wanted to respond to a minor point of Professor Cruz who
said:
Doug Laycock isn't right that there is something troublesome about such a
fusion of governmental and religious authority. I had previously thought
that perhaps allowing
clergy to perform the government's
the other?
David
- Original Message -
From: David Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:38 PM
Subject: RE: UU ministers arrested
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
[snip]
(2) PUNISHING
Two Unitarian Universalist Ministers were arrested in NY for performing same-sex marriages under the power granted them by the state, not just as religious unions. Of course the typical faultlines are exposed - including claims of violation of separation of church and state. But surely that
: UU ministers arrested
Two Unitarian Universalist Ministers were arrested in NY for performing
same-sex marriages under the power granted them by the state, not just
as religious unions. Of course the typical faultlines are exposed -
including claims of violation of separation of church and state
Here is what another article said:
Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with multiple counts of solemnizing a marriage without a license, the same charges leveled against New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who last month drew the state into the widening national
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Gene Summerlin wrote:
Do you know what the criminal charge is? I could certainly envision the
state refusing to recognize the marriages performed by the ministers or,
perhaps, the state revoking the ministers licensure, but what is the
criminal law which they have
Sent by:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: (bcc: Christine A
Corcos/ccorcos/LSU)
ts.ucla.edu Subject: RE: UU ministers
arrested
The New
York Times story this morning quotes the prosecutor as saying that he
recognized their right to perform a purely religious ceremony; the
offense was that they had purported to exercise the authority vested in
them by the State of New York to perform a legal ceremony. I don't
know what
Isn't there something conceptually odd about the charge "of solemnizing a marriage without alicense"? How is "solemnizing" used here? Further, if certain kinds of unions (S-S unions, for instance) areagainst the law in NY or do not count as "marriage,"it seems conceptually impossible to be
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:37
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: UU
ministers arrested
Isn't there something conceptually
odd about the charge "of solemnizing a marriage without alicense&
Title: Message
What exactly does it mean to "purport to
exercise the authority vested in [one] by the State of New York"? If the
claim is that the clergyman is trying to defraud someone by claiming authority
he doesn't have, that just seems incorrect on the facts. If the claim is
that the
Since the reports are not done by the folk on this list it is sometimes hard to be sure of the facts in the way we would like to be. But after spending way to much time drifting around on this, I think this much is correct (but am definitely not going to stand by it as fully correct- no doubt
I'm still thinking about this,Doug. Let me ask -- do you think there would
be a constitutional violation under a constitutional regime that protected
the free exercise of religion against neutral laws of general
applicability? The clergy in question would be asking for an exemption from
the
?
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:13 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: UU ministers arrested
Thanks Christine - though I believe it is the lack of a marriage
license
I have trouble thinking through what the rules should be when the
starting premise is some version of uniting religious and legal
marriage. But I think I can pose your question free of that.
Whether or not pastors are deputized to perform legal marriages,
suppose the state
claims that she did not know she was doing anything wrong.
Bob
- Original Message -
From:
Volokh,
Eugene
To: Law Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 1:56
PM
Subject: RE: UU ministers arrested
What exactly does it mean to "pu
being declared constitutional.
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
_
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 3/16/2004 12:56 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: UU ministers arrested
What exactly does it mean
I appreciate, as always, Tom's thoughtful arguments; but let me explain why I at least
tentatively disagree.
(1) MISSTATEMENTS OF FACT. I think that indeed if the clergy are saying This is a
valid civil marriage, they are not expressing a fact; they're expressing an opinion.
An analogy:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
[snip]
(2) PUNISHING THE CLERGY FOR VIOLATING A VALID LAW: Now the question
is whether the expression of this opinion leaves the clergy open to
punishment for violating a valid law. Tom says yes -- but I don't see
why. There is a valid law that
I think that if someone falsely claims to be exercising legal authority *and people
are likely to be deceived into believing that he is*, then indeed the state could
impose sanctions for misspeaking for the government.
But here everyone knows that the minister doesn't have legal authority. In
20 matches
Mail list logo
