Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The world is complicated . . .
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
"Third, as his Wake Forest bio states, he has a horse in the race, so to speak."
Yes, well, don't we all, Robert, don't we all. You may be interested to learn: Shannon Gilreath is a convert to Roman Catholicism.
The world is complicated, isn't it?
Another interesting article on closer examination
Thanks to Michael P. for bringing to our attention Shannon Gilreath’s article “Not a Moral Issue: Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty.” Unlike Mr. Gilreath who cannot make the distinction between “religious objections to interracial marriage, as well as religious justification for other forms of inequality, and religious objections to same-sex marriage”, I believe that many can. I would be one. First of all, I think he has offered an interesting but deficient interpretation of the claims made by people, who happen to be religious, against same-sex unions/marriages. Thus, he fails to comprehend their arguments. Second, he leaves a great deal out of the picture. I have attempted to do this when I address the issues that he addresses. Third, as his Wake Forest bio states, he has a horse in the race, so to speak:
Shannon Gilreath
Wake Forest Fellow for the Interdisciplinary Study of Law
Shannon Gilreath is nationally recognized as a leading young scholar on issues of equality, sexual minorities, and constitutional interpretation. His book, Sexual Politics: The Gay Person in America Today (2006), was nominated for two prestigious awards: the ALA Stonewall Prize for Non-Fiction and the Lambda Literary Foundation Award. His innovative casebook, Sexual Identity Law in Context: Cases and Materials, published by Thomson-West (2007), is designed to put the law concerning lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people into a social context. An advocate of interdisciplinary study, he teaches courses in Sexuality and Law, Religion and Law, and Gender Studies in the law school, serves as an associated professor at the Wake Forest Divinity School and has taught various courses as part of the Women’s and Gender Studies faculty of the undergraduate college. He is an active speaker for gay rights causes, frequently consults on cases, and has been widely cited in journals and the popular press.
Fourth, the matter that he claims not to be a moral issue is in fact a profound moral issue, as it is a pressing legal issue, as it is a crucial social issue, and as it is an important political issue. I look forward to our further MOJ discussion of this topic.
RJA sj
Another article (of interest to MOJers) by a former student of mine
Yesterday I linked to an article by a former student (Northwestern Law). Today I link to an article by another former student (Wake Law), who is now on the faculty at Wake Law:
"Not a Moral Issue: Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty"
SHANNON GILREATH, Wake Forest
University - School of Law
Email: [email protected]
Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts is a new book of
essays edited by Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., and Robin Fretwell
Wilson. In this Book Review, I focus on the book’s intellectual center of
gravity, Professor Wilson’s essay, Matters of Conscience: Lessons for Same-Sex
Marriage from the Healthcare Context, and Professor Laycock’s Afterword. The
authors purport to offer a solution that will give Gays and Lesbians access to
the benefits of marriage while also recognizing religious objectors’ rights to
oppose Gay marriage. The authors endorse specific statutory exemptions in
emerging marriage equality legislation allowing anyone asserting individual
moral opposition to Gay and Lesbian couples to opt out of the facilitation of a
same-sex marriage. The authors want such explicit exemptions for everyone from
state employees to individuals providing services in the general stream of
commerce.
I argue that Professors Wilson and Laycock’s nearly exclusive
focus on individual rights analysis in their approach to the same-sex marriage
question fails to consider seriously the group-based equality issues at stake. I
argue that, contrary to Professors Wilson and Laycock’s assertions, one cannot
easily distinguish between religious objections to interracial marriage, as well
as religious justification for other forms of inequality, and religious
objections to same-sex marriage. I argue that we must analyze the claims of Gays
and Lesbians for civil marriage under a substantive equality paradigm, and that
the group-based equality interests of Gays and Lesbians should not be
subordinated to the individual desires of religious objectors through resort to
the descriptive moral counterbalancing inherent in typical, liberal individual
rights analysis.
[Downloadable here.]
Reading of interest to MOJers, Part 753
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4 (2009), pp. 729–755
Faith in the Future: Sexuality, Religion and the Public Sphere
CARL F. STYCHIN
Abstract—The clash between religious freedom and equality for lesbians and gay men has become a controversial legal issue in the United Kingdom. Increasingly, claims are made that compliance with anti-discrimination norms impacts upon conscientious, faith-based objectors to same-sex sexual acts. This article explores this issue and draws insights from North American case law, where this question has been considered in the context of competing constitutional rights. It raises farreaching issues concerning the distinction between belief and practice, as well as the role of identity in the public sphere. The author advocates that courts and tribunals should adopt a fact-specific approach which is sensitive to the rights in a particular context, and which focuses upon the values of accommodation, tolerance and mutual respect.
mental reservation
Here is a short piece by moral theologian Mark Latkovic on mental reservation. Here. This is an issue that deserves more attention. The practice of mental reservation is widespread and probably explains why one encounters the manipulative use of language so often. People rely on the idea of mental reservation to mislead, while still thinking of themselves as truth-tellers. As Latkovic explains, it is important that we honor the good of truth.
Richard M.
Judge Noonan nails it
Here's Judge John Noonan, writing a few months ago in the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church case:
An unregulated, unregistered press is important to our democracy. So are unregulated unregistered churches. Churches have played an important — no, an essential — part in the democratic life of the United States. . . . In a secular age, Freedom of Speech is more talismanic than Freedom of Religion. But the latter is the first freedom in our Bill of Rights.
Football and philosophy
From Ivan Maisel's Three Point Stance:
It’s important that Notre Dame remain relevant in college football, not only for history and tradition, but because Notre Dame still believes that high academic standards and winning can co-exist. Asked Monday if it’s tough to focus on school while thinking about who the next coach might be, Irish defensive end Kapron Lewis-Moore said, “Actually with me the hardest thing is thinking about if I want to write about Aristotle in my philosophy paper.” Beautiful.
Equivocation
A response to Patrick Brennan on authority in the Church
[MOJ friend Gerry Whyte--a member of the law faculty, and former dean of the law faculty, at Trinity College Dublin--sent me the following message this morning:]
I would like, from the perspective of an Irish Catholic, to respond to Patrick Brennan's recent posting on MOJ about the Apostolic Visitation to women religious in the US. To put my comments in context, I should point out that, prior to the discovery, beginning in the mid 1990s, of the abuse of children by Irish clergy and religious and the subsequent cover up by our church authorities, I was very proud of what I considered to be the heritage of Irish Catholicism, both here in Ireland and abroad. In particular, I was very happy to serve as a member of the episcopal Commission for Justice and Peace for a number of years during the 1980s, inspired as I am by the Catholic vision of social justice.
Turning to the scandal of child abuse in the Church in Ireland, it seems to me that some of the underlying factors may be, if not unique to Ireland, of more relevance here than elsewhere. This would include a repressed sexuality (arguably the product of the Jansenist strain within Irish Catholicism combined with the pressures of living in a poor, agrarian society), a repressed anger (possibly the legacy of colonisation?) and a hierarchical and judgmental society that placed great store on social status and, conversely, thought little of those who lacked that status.
However in my opinion, a further factor contributed to this sorry situation, a factor of which Catholics outside Ireland should take note, and that is the fact that the clergy and religious in Ireland had great power, in respect of the exercise of which they were completely unaccountable. Many people are familiar with Lord Acton's aphorism that 'power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Fewer know that Acton, an English Catholic, coined that phrase in the context of the nineteenth century debate on papal infallibility. I mention this not to implicate papal infallibility in the current scandal - the rights and wrongs of papal infallibility are, to quote your President, 'above my pay grade' - but rather to illustrate the fact that Acton, in the nineteenth century, recognised that the Church could be corrupted by the exercise of absolute power. In my opinion, the recent revelations of abuse and cover up by the Catholic Church in Ireland reinforces that point. Reflecting on the Ryan and Murphy reports, one has to conclude, reluctantly on my part, that the wrongdoing here was not simply the actions of a few bad apples but, rather, was systemic. The exercise of untrammelled power corrupted the institution of the Church. So, returning to Patrick Brennan's point about the three forms of leadership within the Church - institutional, charismatic and intellectual - in my opinion, the Irish experience shows that there is something very wrong with the structures of leadership within the Church and that they have a corrosive and corrupting effect on people who are otherwise good and decent. Quite what we need to do now, I am not sure, but it cannot simply be a case of 'business as usual'.
One final (and unrelated) point arising from last week's Murphy report relates to the concept of 'mental reservation'. This was a concept of which I was unaware (though I know I am not alone in this) prior to the publication of the Murphy report and I wonder whether MOJ readers are better informed? The concept justifies what might politely be called 'disingenuousness' and was relied upon by one prominent cleric here to defend his statement that Church funds ARE not used to compensate victims of clerical sex abuse when he knew, and chose not to disclose, that such funds WERE so used in the past.