Unlike some justices of the US Supreme Court, I do not think that the practice in France is particularly informative or relevant (except, perhaps, in Louisiana) (since the treaty making final the purchase of the territory guarantees to the residents of the territory all the rights they enjoyed
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
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
I was
making only Marty's point (ii). As to his point (i), If the church
wants to buy media time for political ads, it can do that through the
501(c)(4) affiliate as well as anyone else.
But if the
pastor, or the rabbi, or the archbishop, wants to urge his faithful to
support the candidate that
http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$22599
___
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
Maybe if a
secular 501(c)(3) has a well known leader who has built up special
credibility with his members, there might be a similar
problem. But the IRS may also be much more likely to accept
the defense that that leader is partly on the payroll of the
501(c)(4). It looks impossibly fictional
(An earlier version of this got lost in cyberspace, apparently.)
From the religious standpoint, I think the concern is that the leader of the
faith community -- say, the diocesan bishop -- should also be the leader and
teacher in public pronouncements on moral and social issues, and should be
In a message dated 6/4/04 7:57:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(except, perhaps, in Louisiana) (since the treaty making final the purchase of the territory guarantees to the residents of the territory all the rights they enjoyed prior to the conveyance).
Jim-
You would have to say "except,
I wonder if thinking about the President of the United States might be useful here.
Clearly, the fact that he is President gives him a certain charismatic authority, and
that authority is linked to the office that he holds. At the same time, Presidents
generally serve as the de facto head of
Actually it gets even more fun. Louisiana was a French territory when purchased, but
for much of its history it was Spainish, so you would need to be able to look at
Spainish law as well. Furthermore, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo contained a
similar provision with regard to the territory
A student at the public high school in Poway, California has sued the
school district, challenging his suspension for wearing a T-Shirt on
national gay rights day (or the Day of Silence, I think it was called)
that stated his religious objection to homosexuality.
See
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.
Paul,
You have to consider the statistical argument within the context of what it
measures, so if the measurement is based on heterosexual marriages, we
aren't free to remove the term heterosexual and say, See, all marriage of
every type creates these benefits. That is an intellectually
this only shows that the exeperiment is not working as well as opposite
sex marriage (but you don't offer number on those marriage in Holland);
neverhteless if the statistics show that marraige improves life then all
people should be allowed to be married. If the succdess rate of gay
marriage
Paul,
I think we are talking past each other here, so I will leave it at this:
the statistics don't show that marriage improves the quality of life, but
that heterosexual marriage improves the quality of life. The limited
statistics that we do have concerning same-sex marriage indicates that it
Well, if the situation had arisen here in the heart of Dixie (not Alabama but south Georgia), it likely the Eleventh Circuit would uphold the suspension relying on its decisions in a pair of Confederate flag cases. In Denno v. School Bd. of Volusia County and Scott v. School Bd. of Alachua County,
Does your analysis (in your POV) apply with equal force to the transgendered
and adult incest situations? If not, why not?
- Original Message -
From: Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June
And of course, neither the French legal tradition nor the Spanish legal tradition would permit the residents of those territories to refuse the constitutional wisdom and insights of Supreme Court that finds in the text of the Constitution a "wall of separation," a right to take the life of another
I do not know enough about transgendered relationships to comment; as
for incest -- my first thought is that unlike gay people, it would be
hard to argue that adults can only marry close family members. Part of
my arguemnt is that Mr. Summerlin makes a strong case that marriage is
good for
Following your reasoning below, if one believes (in good faith) that
homosexual orientation/proclivity to homosexual conduct is not immutable,
then that person would not be akin to segregationists, et al. Right?
- Original Message -
From: Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Amar D.
but that is like believing the earth is flat, and even in good faith,
that would not be a pssing answer on a science test!
Amar D. Sarwal wrote:
Following your reasoning below, if one believes (in good faith) that
homosexual orientation/proclivity to homosexual conduct is not immutable,
then
Paul,
With all due respect, your are stating a conclusion without providing
any evidentiary support. What scientific studies do you believe support
your conclusion to such a degree of certainty as to warrant your
comparison of the opposing view to flat-earthers?
John Eastman
Dr. John C.
Hmm. Since when does the ad hominem pass for science, Paul?
You made a specific contention earlier--that the science on this was so
clear as to not warrant discussion. You added to that below with the
comparison of those who would hold otherwise to flat-earthers. All I
asked was for a single
I think Gene is right. You both are talking past each other. Unfortunately,
it is hard for discussions on this subject to move beyond that. I certainly
haven't figured out how to avoid that result -- which is the reason I don't
participate in this kind of a discussion on the list. If I had the
But see Holloman v. Harland, 2004 WL 1178465 (11th Cir. May 28, 2004)
denying qualified immunity to a teacher who disciplined a student for
silently raising a fist during the pledge of allegiance and concluding
that the allegation, if proved, would establish a violation of the first
amendment.
25 matches
Mail list logo
