I'll believe this is a serious issue when the Court holds that limiting the priesthood or rabbinate to men violates Title VII, but not a day before. I detect some demagoguery in Oklahoma legislature--shocking I'm sure.
Sent from my iPhone On Feb 13, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Brad Pardee <bp51...@windstream.net<mailto:bp51...@windstream.net>> wrote: I thought that having nearly ten percent of the legislature oppose it indicates that that the pastors' concerns weren't just products of their imagination, and what nearly ten percent now may grow larger in time as activists and lobbyists play their role in the political process. What I've seen of our legislature here in Nebraska is that, when senators' votes are changed, it seems far more likely that senators who voted with the majority will change rather than one of the minority, which is why I felt it was a serious question. Considering that nearly the entire article as about this piece of legislation and there were no gay rights supporters stating that this proposal was fine and that it was other proposals they would challenge in court, it could be that it is sloppy journalism (not unheared of on Yahoo) or it could be that the gay right supporters included this in the proposals they would challenge. Brad From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 3:22 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Oklahoma bill would protect clergy who won't perform gay marriages What does it "say" that seven out of 95 legislators voted against? That this is not a serious question. BTW, the story does not say that "supporters of gay rights said they'll challenge the law in the courts if it is passed, indicating that they believe pastors can be forced to perform same sex weddings that violate a church's teaching." What it says is that there are "several proposals" "before the Republican-dominated Oklahoma Legislature intended to protect the interests of people who object to the lifting of the gay marriage ban," and that "gay rights supporters have said they would challenge the proposed measures in court if they become law." It does not cite any gay rights supporters as saying they'll sue to require ministers to perform religious weddings for same-sex couples. On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Brad Pardee <bp51...@windstream.net<mailto:bp51...@windstream.net>> wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-bill-protect-clergy-wont-perform-gay-marriages-230731935.html >From what I have learned here in my time on this list, I wouldn't think that >this law would be necessary because existing law would seem to prevent the >government from mandating when churches are required to invoke God's blessing >and dictating what churches can include in their moral teaching. However, it >says something that a) the pastors felt the protection was required after the >ban on same sex marriage was overturned, b) seven legislators opposed >providing that protection in the law, and c) supporters of gay rights said >they'll challenge the law in the courts if it is passed, indicating that they >believe pastors can be forced to perform same sex weddings that violate a >church's teaching. Brad Pardee _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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.
