Ireland
Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html ___ 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: Ireland
We shall overcome! Judy Baer Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.commailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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.
Re: Ireland
I'll rest easier when out-of-wedlock childbearing is widely condemned worldwide as harmful to kids; when people acknowledge there are good arguments on both side of this difficult issue, and when the re-writing of a multitude of family laws is seen for the broad consequences that they have--rewriting the significance of marriage. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Baer, Judith A j-b...@pols.tamu.edu wrote: We shall overcome! Judy Baer Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html ___ 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.
Re: Ireland
I understand many disagree with my concern about out-of-wedlock births. This apathy over my concern worries me, because without an acknowledgement of the importance of opposite-sex marriage to our society, the concerns shared by many who oppose same-sex marriage will be incorrectly seen as outdated and irrational. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.net wrote: I'll rest easier when out-of-wedlock childbearing is widely condemned worldwide as harmful to kids; when people acknowledge there are good arguments on both side of this difficult issue, and when the re-writing of a multitude of family laws is seen for the broad consequences that they have--rewriting the significance of marriage. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Baer, Judith A j-b...@pols.tamu.edu wrote: We shall overcome! Judy Baer Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html ___ 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 -- 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.
Re: Ireland
Hey, you know what, Michael? Not everyone thinks that having only one parent is worse than not being born at all. JB Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.netmailto:mwor...@byulaw.net wrote: I understand many disagree with my concern about out-of-wedlock births. This apathy over my concern worries me, because without an acknowledgement of the importance of opposite-sex marriage to our society, the concerns shared by many who oppose same-sex marriage will be incorrectly seen as outdated and irrational. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.netmailto:mwor...@byulaw.net wrote: I'll rest easier when out-of-wedlock childbearing is widely condemned worldwide as harmful to kids; when people acknowledge there are good arguments on both side of this difficult issue, and when the re-writing of a multitude of family laws is seen for the broad consequences that they have--rewriting the significance of marriage. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Baer, Judith A j-b...@pols.tamu.edumailto:j-b...@pols.tamu.edu wrote: We shall overcome! Judy Baer Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.commailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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.edumailto: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 -- Michael Worley J.D., Brigham Young University ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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.
Re: Ireland
I never ever said that. To think it is an important role of government to encourage two-person parenting is not to assert one-person parenting is worse than not being born at all. My comments were misconstrued. They were meant to assert marriage's role in helping kids of opposite-sex couples have two parents. If the importance of this function of marriage is belittled, then many arguments opposing same-sex marriage understandably seem irrational. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Baer, Judith A j-b...@pols.tamu.edu wrote: Hey, you know what, Michael? Not everyone thinks that having only one parent is worse than not being born at all. JB Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.net wrote: I understand many disagree with my concern about out-of-wedlock births. This apathy over my concern worries me, because without an acknowledgement of the importance of opposite-sex marriage to our society, the concerns shared by many who oppose same-sex marriage will be incorrectly seen as outdated and irrational. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.net wrote: I'll rest easier when out-of-wedlock childbearing is widely condemned worldwide as harmful to kids; when people acknowledge there are good arguments on both side of this difficult issue, and when the re-writing of a multitude of family laws is seen for the broad consequences that they have--rewriting the significance of marriage. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Baer, Judith A j-b...@pols.tamu.edu wrote: We shall overcome! Judy Baer Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html ___ 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 -- 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. ___ 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.
Re: Ireland
Will the Supreme Court follow the election returns? A bit more seriously, this is a tribute to the beneficent possibilities inherent in direct democracy. (Prop. 8 is not so Inspiring, but can there be any real doubt that there would be a different result today? Or, for that matter, that a national referendum in the U.S. would come to the same conclusion even if, perhaps, by not so definitive a margin?) Worth noting, incidentally, was the generosity of spirit displayed by the leader of Iona, the chief opponent (other than the institutional Roman Catholic Church) of the referendum, in conceding the remarkable defeat. Sandy Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Baer, Judith A j-b...@pols.tamu.edumailto:j-b...@pols.tamu.edu wrote: We shall overcome! Judy Baer Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.commailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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.edumailto: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.
RE: Ireland
Dear Michael: when children have children it is a bad thing. That is true whether they are married or merely very young and forced into marriages. But out-of-Wedlock births is a very broad category. When my adult gay friends had children, twelve years ago, they could not be legally married because our legal system would not sanction their commitment to each other, their love, or their respect of the institution of marriage. Some fifteen years ago they had a wedding, performed by a bona fide member of the clergy, who was legally permitted to marry people in New York state, but not them. Their twins (one of my friends is the birth mother -- who used a sperm donor -- the other is the other mom) are about to enter high school. They are bright, and as well adjusted as most 12 year old girls, doing well in school, and will probably be dating boys soon. That you condemn my friend (who by the was is now a sitting judge!) as an unwed mother is more than outdated or even irrational. It is unconscionable and shameful. I note you are at BYU (or at least you have a BYU email address). The Mormons faced horrendous persecution by the United States government, the cold blooded murder of their founder (Joseph Smith), and a forced migration that took them outside the country -- all because of their views on marriage and faith. It would seem to me that you should honor those who were persecuted for faith and marriage and thus you ought to be cheering on Ireland -- and my gay friends who were finally able to legally marry after New York State adopted marriage equality. If opponents of marriage equality spent their energies on dealing with real social issues -- such as poverty, the lack of birth control for teenagers, and sex education -- instead of condemning people who only wish to be married, the whole society would be better off. * Paul Finkelman Senior Fellow Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism University of Pennsylvania and Scholar-in-Residence National Constitution Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 518-439-7296 (p) 518-605-0296 (c) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edumailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.comhttp://www.paulfinkelman.com/ * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Worley [mwor...@byulaw.net] Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 8:16 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Ireland I understand many disagree with my concern about out-of-wedlock births. This apathy over my concern worries me, because without an acknowledgement of the importance of opposite-sex marriage to our society, the concerns shared by many who oppose same-sex marriage will be incorrectly seen as outdated and irrational. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.netmailto:mwor...@byulaw.net wrote: I'll rest easier when out-of-wedlock childbearing is widely condemned worldwide as harmful to kids; when people acknowledge there are good arguments on both side of this difficult issue, and when the re-writing of a multitude of family laws is seen for the broad consequences that they have--rewriting the significance of marriage. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Baer, Judith A j-b...@pols.tamu.edumailto:j-b...@pols.tamu.edu wrote: We shall overcome! Judy Baer Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.commailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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.edumailto: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 -- Michael Worley J.D., Brigham Young University ___ To post, send message
Re: Ireland
Professor Finkleman: We disagree on many fundamental levels, and this is an emotional thing for us both. You raise complex and interesting questions, but I have increasingly found it is hard to change minds on this issue, and lengthy debates only tend to polarize because of different assumptions a variety of people have on the role of marriage, and the emphasis placed on various societal goods. I think many of the most prestigious, well-educated, careful lawyers in the country agree with you, and equally prestigious, well-educated and careful lawyers agree with me. I know there are several lawyers who have ascended to the highest legal circles, have family members who are members of the LGBT community, perhaps even attend same-sex weddings and yet have written in support of my view. Because of these complexities, I do not respond to your arguments in full. I merely note that the persecution of the Mormon faith you note is distinguishable. I, for one, think pastors have a constitutional right to marry any person they want, so long as the law isn't required to validate that marriage. Thank you, Michael On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Finkelman, Paul paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu wrote: Dear Michael: when children have children it is a bad thing. That is true whether they are married or merely very young and forced into marriages. But out-of-Wedlock births is a very broad category. When my adult gay friends had children, twelve years ago, they could not be legally married because our legal system would not sanction their commitment to each other, their love, or their respect of the institution of marriage. Some fifteen years ago they had a wedding, performed by a bona fide member of the clergy, who was legally permitted to marry people in New York state, but not them. Their twins (one of my friends is the birth mother -- who used a sperm donor -- the other is the other mom) are about to enter high school. They are bright, and as well adjusted as most 12 year old girls, doing well in school, and will probably be dating boys soon. That you condemn my friend (who by the was is now a sitting judge!) as an unwed mother is more than outdated or even irrational. It is unconscionable and shameful. I note you are at BYU (or at least you have a BYU email address). The Mormons faced horrendous persecution by the United States government, the cold blooded murder of their founder (Joseph Smith), and a forced migration that took them outside the country -- all because of their views on marriage and faith. It would seem to me that you should honor those who were persecuted for faith and marriage and thus you ought to be cheering on Ireland -- and my gay friends who were finally able to legally marry after New York State adopted marriage equality. If opponents of marriage equality spent their energies on dealing with real social issues -- such as poverty, the lack of birth control for teenagers, and sex education -- instead of condemning people who only wish to be married, the whole society would be better off. * Paul Finkelman *Senior Fellow* *Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism* *University of Pennsylvania* *and* *Scholar-in-Residence * *National Constitution Center* *Philadelphia, Pennsylvania* 518-439-7296 (p) 518-605-0296 (c) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com * -- *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Worley [ mwor...@byulaw.net] *Sent:* Saturday, May 23, 2015 8:16 PM *To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject:* Re: Ireland I understand many disagree with my concern about out-of-wedlock births. This apathy over my concern worries me, because without an acknowledgement of the importance of opposite-sex marriage to our society, the concerns shared by many who oppose same-sex marriage will be incorrectly seen as outdated and irrational. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.net wrote: I'll rest easier when out-of-wedlock childbearing is widely condemned worldwide as harmful to kids; when people acknowledge there are good arguments on both side of this difficult issue, and when the re-writing of a multitude of family laws is seen for the broad consequences that they have--rewriting the significance of marriage. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Baer, Judith A j-b...@pols.tamu.edu wrote: We shall overcome! Judy Baer Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html ___ To post, send message
Re: Ireland
Dear Mr. Worley: Your claim that pastors can do what they want is a non-starter. We all know they can do that now, but it is the law that creates and protects the relationships of marriage in a complex society that is important. If the law does not validate the marriage then one spouse cannot visit another in hospital, there is no spousal immunity in court, child custody and child rearing issues are uncertain, and a wrongful death suit for the death of one spouse would not be possible. These are just some obvious ways which married gay people are denied the rights the rest of us have. I agree that I will probably not convince you of anything, but at the same time, it is important not to ignore the intellectual sleight of hand you try to pass off by saying you support the right of pastors to do what they want. I would love to know how the vicious persecution of LDS in the 19th century is different from the persecution of gay people. The main persecution was based on marriage choice, and all the federal laws focused on that. The US was so obsessed with LDS marriage practices -- plural marriage, polygamy -- that the Supreme Court upheld prosecutions for mere belief rather than practice. Mormons were tossed in jail before harvest time so they could get their crops in. Federal officials stormed into bedrooms in the night to catch polygamists. [look at Firmage and Mangrum, Zion in the Courts] Yet for all of the state and federal persecutions of Mormonst, probably more gay people have been murdered than Mormons because of their marital and love relations. You would honor the persecuted LDS adherents of the 19th century by opposing marriage persecution or laws today try to force religious values on others. The difference here is that I believe persecution is wrong and that consenting adults should be able to arrange their families as they wish (subject to the usual caveats of protecting children and spouses from violence, abuse, etc.) and have the same legal protections as other married people. That would true for Brigham Young with his many wive and 57 children or my gay friends who are married and raising their two children. You, however, would deny my friends the right to raise their children and protect their union with the law. Put another way, you would use the power of the law to compel people to follow your view of marriage -- or at least to prevent them from having the protections of the law which I have in my marriage (and if you are married you have in yours). You would deny basic rights to people with whom you disagree. I prefer liberty, even for practices I would not personally want to engage in. ** Paul Finkelman, Ph.D. Senior Fellow Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism University of Pennsylvania and Scholar-in-Residence National Constitution Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 518-439-7296 (w) 518-605-0296 (c) paul.finkel...@yahoo.com www.paulfinkelman.com From: Michael Worley mwor...@byulaw.net To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 10:04 PM Subject: Re: Ireland Professor Finkleman: We disagree on many fundamental levels, and this is an emotional thing for us both. You raise complex and interesting questions, but I have increasingly found it is hard to change minds on this issue, and lengthy debates only tend to polarize because of different assumptions a variety of people have on the role of marriage, and the emphasis placed on various societal goods. I think many of the most prestigious, well-educated, careful lawyers in the country agree with you, and equally prestigious, well-educated and careful lawyers agree with me. I know there are several lawyers who have ascended to the highest legal circles, have family members who are members of the LGBT community, perhaps even attend same-sex weddings and yet have written in support of my view. Because of these complexities, I do not respond to your arguments in full. I merely note that the persecution of the Mormon faith you note is distinguishable. I, for one, think pastors have a constitutional right to marry any person they want, so long as the law isn't required to validate that marriage. Thank you, Michael On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Finkelman, Paul paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu wrote: Dear Michael: when children have children it is a bad thing. That is true whether they are married or merely very young and forced into marriages. But out-of-Wedlock births is a very broad category. When my adult gay friends had children, twelve years ago, they could not be legally married because our legal system would not sanction their commitment to each other, their love, or their respect of the institution of marriage. Some fifteen years ago they had a wedding, performed by a bona fide member of the clergy, who was legally permitted
RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards'
Does not US v Ballard (US 1944) state the applicable rule-which is (unsurprisingly) the rule Doug proposed? Marc Stern From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:30 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Both these and the kosher laws address a species of fraud. But the fraud must be defined in a way that does not require a) government resolution of a religious question, or b) government designation of a preferred authority to resolve the religious question or act for the religion. The fact that is mispresented must be a secular fact, verifiable as true or false in this world. Quoting Eric Rassbach erassb...@becketfund.org: What if the law specified that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was purported to be a Mass intended to be celebrated in the Church? Would not then the offence simply be a species of fraud, i.e. the shop claimed to be selling the right to have a Mass offered in the Church but it was instead not to be offered in the Church? And would Irish law already ban such fraudulent activity, thereby rendering the law superfluous? None of this would affect Art's separate point about the unconstitutionality of the apparent presumption of guilt. I must say that there seems to be a bit of trend in Ireland right now with legislation that purports to protect religious freedom but actually harms it (cf. the recent blasphemy law, which surely violates the ECHR). Eric PS Máiréad -- as you can see, the members of this list will opine on this sort of thing for fun -- and for free -- with very little provocation! From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [layco...@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:48 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Unconstitutional. There is an analogous line of US cases on the sale of food labeled as kosher but not kosher in accordance with government standards. All struck down. If there's a fraud problem, the government can require the label to say who certified the food as kosher. That is a question that can be answered in this world. But government can't decide for itself what counts as kosher, or designate a particular rabbi or association as the only approved certifying agent. The sale of Mass cards sounds like the same problem. The state could require disclosure of who authorized the Mass card. Or a disclosure of whether and how the priest who signed the Mass card will be informed of the sale and of who purchased the card. Those are verifiable facts. But the state can't decide that only a bishop or a head of an order can authorize the sale of Mass cards. That's a matter of internal church governance. Quoting Mairead Enright maireadenri...@gmail.com: Dear All, A colleague and I hoping to write a short article on s. 99 of the Irish Charities Act, 2009 ( http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0609.pdf). The section regulates the sale of Catholic Mass cards. A Mass card is a greeting card given to someone to let them know that they, or a deceased loved-one, will be remembered and prayed for by a priest during a Catholic Mass. The person who purchases the card makes a donation to the church in exchange for the Mass and Mass cards are a significant source of revenue to Irish churches. Ordinarily, the card is signed by the priest who will say the Mass, at the time that the Mass is requested. However, in recent years, controversy has arisen regarding the sale of pre-signed Mass cards in ordinary shops ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0307/1224242428583.html). Section 99 of the new Charities Act provides that a person who sells a Mass card ?other than pursuant to arrangement with a recognised person? is guilty of a criminal offence. A ?recognised person? is defined as a bishop of the church, or the head of an order recognised by it. In any proceedings it will be presumed, unless proved to the contrary, that an offence has been committed. We were wondering whether one of the subscribers to this list might be willing - for fun - to venture an opinion on what the position of this section might be under U.S. constitutional law. Information on analogous U.S. cases would also be useful. A former Irish Attorney General has suggested that the legislation falls foul of the Irish constitution because (1) it is disproportionate to the aim sought to be achieved and (2) it represents a serious interference with the religious practice of some priests and others
RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards'
Sorry, my earlier post was not clear - by Church in quotation marks I meant the defined term in the statute, not the word Church on the card. I agree completely with Doug and Marc. My point was only that if the Mass card said e.g. that a mass had been arranged to be said in a Roman Catholic church under the authority of Diarmuid Martin, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, then it would be fraudulent to sell a card where that act had in fact not been arranged. I think that would be a secular fact that a court could decide or not decide, and adjusting the proposed law in that way would render it constitutional under US law. But I think there is a far easier solution - if this really is a widespread problem, the RC Church in Ireland should just require all mass cards issued by it to bear the Catholic equivalent of a hechsher. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc Stern Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 10:04 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Does not US v Ballard (US 1944) state the applicable rule-which is (unsurprisingly) the rule Doug proposed? Marc Stern From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 10:30 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Both these and the kosher laws address a species of fraud. But the fraud must be defined in a way that does not require a) government resolution of a religious question, or b) government designation of a preferred authority to resolve the religious question or act for the religion. The fact that is mispresented must be a secular fact, verifiable as true or false in this world. Quoting Eric Rassbach erassb...@becketfund.org: What if the law specified that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was purported to be a Mass intended to be celebrated in the Church? Would not then the offence simply be a species of fraud, i.e. the shop claimed to be selling the right to have a Mass offered in the Church but it was instead not to be offered in the Church? And would Irish law already ban such fraudulent activity, thereby rendering the law superfluous? None of this would affect Art's separate point about the unconstitutionality of the apparent presumption of guilt. I must say that there seems to be a bit of trend in Ireland right now with legislation that purports to protect religious freedom but actually harms it (cf. the recent blasphemy law, which surely violates the ECHR). Eric PS Máiréad -- as you can see, the members of this list will opine on this sort of thing for fun -- and for free -- with very little provocation! From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [layco...@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:48 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Unconstitutional. There is an analogous line of US cases on the sale of food labeled as kosher but not kosher in accordance with government standards. All struck down. If there's a fraud problem, the government can require the label to say who certified the food as kosher. That is a question that can be answered in this world. But government can't decide for itself what counts as kosher, or designate a particular rabbi or association as the only approved certifying agent. The sale of Mass cards sounds like the same problem. The state could require disclosure of who authorized the Mass card. Or a disclosure of whether and how the priest who signed the Mass card will be informed of the sale and of who purchased the card. Those are verifiable facts. But the state can't decide that only a bishop or a head of an order can authorize the sale of Mass cards. That's a matter of internal church governance. Quoting Mairead Enright maireadenri...@gmail.com: Dear All, A colleague and I hoping to write a short article on s. 99 of the Irish Charities Act, 2009 ( http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0609.pdf). The section regulates the sale of Catholic Mass cards. A Mass card is a greeting card given to someone to let them know that they, or a deceased loved-one, will be remembered and prayed for by a priest during a Catholic Mass. The person who purchases the card makes a donation to the church in exchange for the Mass and Mass cards are a significant source of revenue to Irish churches. Ordinarily, the card is signed by the priest who will say the Mass, at the time that the Mass is requested. However, in recent years, controversy has arisen regarding the sale
Re: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic 'Mass Cards'
In addition to what Doug Laycock said, the statute would also be unconstitutional here because it presumes guilt and puts the burden on the accused to prove his or her innocence. Here, the government always has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the facts that show a crime has been committed by the accused. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).(Is it actually the case that in Ireland a person can be convicted of a crime simply by being accused and standing silent, with no facts put into evidence by the prosecutor?) In a message dated 8/4/09 8:31:37 PM, maireadenri...@gmail.com writes: In any proceedings it will be presumed, unless proved to the contrary, that an offence has been committed. ___ 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: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic 'Mass Cards'
Probably so unconstitutional that it would not even be a good exam question. It is also an incredible threat to free exercise. Who would want the state telling the church how to run its business? * Paul Finkelman, Ph.D. President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) pf...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.com * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [layco...@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:48 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic 'Mass Cards' Unconstitutional. There is an analogous line of US cases on the sale of food labeled as kosher but not kosher in accordance with government standards. All struck down. If there's a fraud problem, the government can require the label to say who certified the food as kosher. That is a question that can be answered in this world. But government can't decide for itself what counts as kosher, or designate a particular rabbi or association as the only approved certifying agent. The sale of Mass cards sounds like the same problem. The state could require disclosure of who authorized the Mass card. Or a disclosure of whether and how the priest who signed the Mass card will be informed of the sale and of who purchased the card. Those are verifiable facts. But the state can't decide that only a bishop or a head of an order can authorize the sale of Mass cards. That's a matter of internal church governance. Quoting Mairead Enright maireadenri...@gmail.com: Dear All, A colleague and I hoping to write a short article on s. 99 of the Irish Charities Act, 2009 ( http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0609.pdf). The section regulates the sale of Catholic Mass cards. A Mass card is a greeting card given to someone to let them know that they, or a deceased loved-one, will be remembered and prayed for by a priest during a Catholic Mass. The person who purchases the card makes a donation to the church in exchange for the Mass and Mass cards are a significant source of revenue to Irish churches. Ordinarily, the card is signed by the priest who will say the Mass, at the time that the Mass is requested. However, in recent years, controversy has arisen regarding the sale of pre-signed Mass cards in ordinary shops ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0307/1224242428583.html). Section 99 of the new Charities Act provides that a person who sells a Mass card ?other than pursuant to arrangement with a recognised person? is guilty of a criminal offence. A ?recognised person? is defined as a bishop of the church, or the head of an order recognised by it. In any proceedings it will be presumed, unless proved to the contrary, that an offence has been committed. We were wondering whether one of the subscribers to this list might be willing - for fun - to venture an opinion on what the position of this section might be under U.S. constitutional law. Information on analogous U.S. cases would also be useful. A former Irish Attorney General has suggested that the legislation falls foul of the Irish constitution because (1) it is disproportionate to the aim sought to be achieved and (2) it represents a serious interference with the religious practice of some priests and others who are members of non-Catholic churches. The relevant section reads: 99.?(1) A person who sells a Mass card other than pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person shall be guilty of an offence (2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities, that the sale of the Mass card to which the alleged offence relates was not done pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person. (3) In this section? ?Church? means the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church; ?Mass card? means a card or other printed material that indicates, or purports to indicate, that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (howsoever described) will be offered for? (a) the intentions specified therein, or (b) such intentions as will include the intentions specified therein; ?priest? means a priest ordained according to the rites of the Church; ?recognised person? means? (a) a bishop of the Church, or (b) a provincial of an order of priests established under the authority of, and recognised by, the Church; ?sell? includes, in relation to a Mass card, offer or expose the card for sale or invite the making by a person of an offer to purchase the card. Many thanks, Mairead Enright. -- Máiréad Enright IRCHSS Scholar in Gender and the Law 2007-2010 NUI EJ Phelan
RE: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic 'Mass Cards'
Both these and the kosher laws address a species of fraud. But the fraud must be defined in a way that does not require a) government resolution of a religious question, or b) government designation of a preferred authority to resolve the religious question or act for the religion. The fact that is mispresented must be a secular fact, verifiable as true or false in this world. Quoting Eric Rassbach erassb...@becketfund.org: What if the law specified that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was purported to be a Mass intended to be celebrated in the Church? Would not then the offence simply be a species of fraud, i.e. the shop claimed to be selling the right to have a Mass offered in the Church but it was instead not to be offered in the Church? And would Irish law already ban such fraudulent activity, thereby rendering the law superfluous? None of this would affect Art's separate point about the unconstitutionality of the apparent presumption of guilt. I must say that there seems to be a bit of trend in Ireland right now with legislation that purports to protect religious freedom but actually harms it (cf. the recent blasphemy law, which surely violates the ECHR). Eric PS Máiréad -- as you can see, the members of this list will opine on this sort of thing for fun -- and for free -- with very little provocation! From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock [layco...@umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:48 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of Catholic'Mass Cards' Unconstitutional. There is an analogous line of US cases on the sale of food labeled as kosher but not kosher in accordance with government standards. All struck down. If there's a fraud problem, the government can require the label to say who certified the food as kosher. That is a question that can be answered in this world. But government can't decide for itself what counts as kosher, or designate a particular rabbi or association as the only approved certifying agent. The sale of Mass cards sounds like the same problem. The state could require disclosure of who authorized the Mass card. Or a disclosure of whether and how the priest who signed the Mass card will be informed of the sale and of who purchased the card. Those are verifiable facts. But the state can't decide that only a bishop or a head of an order can authorize the sale of Mass cards. That's a matter of internal church governance. Quoting Mairead Enright maireadenri...@gmail.com: Dear All, A colleague and I hoping to write a short article on s. 99 of the Irish Charities Act, 2009 ( http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0609.pdf[1]). The section regulates the sale of Catholic Mass cards. A Mass card is a greeting card given to someone to let them know that they, or a deceased loved-one, will be remembered and prayed for by a priest during a Catholic Mass. The person who purchases the card makes a donation to the church in exchange for the Mass and Mass cards are a significant source of revenue to Irish churches. Ordinarily, the card is signed by the priest who will say the Mass, at the time that the Mass is requested. However, in recent years, controversy has arisen regarding the sale of pre-signed Mass cards in ordinary shops ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0307/1224242428583.html[2]). Section 99 of the new Charities Act provides that a person who sells a Mass card ?other than pursuant to arrangement with a recognised person? is guilty of a criminal offence. A ?recognised person? is defined as a bishop of the church, or the head of an order recognised by it. In any proceedings it will be presumed, unless proved to the contrary, that an offence has been committed. We were wondering whether one of the subscribers to this list might be willing - for fun - to venture an opinion on what the position of this section might be under U.S. constitutional law. Information on analogous U.S. cases would also be useful. A former Irish Attorney General has suggested that the legislation falls foul of the Irish constitution because (1) it is disproportionate to the aim sought to be achieved and (2) it represents a serious interference with the religious practice of some priests and others who are members of non-Catholic churches. The relevant section reads: 99.?(1) A person who sells a Mass card other than pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person shall be guilty of an offence (2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities, that the sale of the Mass card to which the alleged offence
