Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

George on marriage, courts, and the culture wars

If the Supreme Court imposes same-sex marriage, it will exacerbate, not heal, "culture wars" and divisions, writes Robert George in The Wall Street Journal:

We are in the midst of a showdown over the legal definition of marriage. Though some state courts have interfered, the battle is mainly being fought in referenda around the country, where “same-sex marriage” has uniformly been rejected, and in legislatures, where some states have adopted it. It’s a raucous battle, but democracy is working.

Now the fight may head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Following California’s Proposition 8, which restored the historic definition of marriage in that state as the union of husband and wife, a federal lawsuit has been filed to invalidate traditional marriage laws.

It would be disastrous for the justices to do so. They would repeat the error in Roe v. Wade: namely, trying to remove a morally charged policy issue from the forums of democratic deliberation and resolve it according to their personal lights. . .

As it happens, our own Michael Perry has argued in a new book that, while federal judges usually should defer to political actors' judgments on the subjects of moral controversy, they should, in the case of same-sex marriage, rule that it is unconstitutional to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. 

Michael, do you have any reactions to Prof. George's WSJ piece?

The bishops on health-care proposals and abortion

Following up on Richard's and Michael P.'s recent posts on the current health-care debate:  Here is a piece about Cardinal Rigali's recent letter to the members of the relevant House committee.  He says, among other things:

In this particular letter I am writing specifically about our fundamental requirement that health care legislation respect human life and rights of conscience. Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an “abortion rights” agenda or reversing longstanding current policies against federal abortion mandates and funding. In this sense we urge you to make this legislation “abortion neutral” by preserving longstanding federal policies that prevent government promotion of abortion and respect conscience rights.. . .

As long-time supporters of genuine health care reform, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is working to ensure that needed health reform is not undermined by abandoning longstanding and widely supported policies against abortion funding and mandates and in favor of conscience protection.

Farr on the Administration and religious liberty abroad

Thomas Farr is a veteran diplomat and a crucial voice in the struggle for religious liberty, here and abroad.  (Read his book!)  Courtesy of the American Principles Project, here (and here) are some of his thoughts on the Administration's plans and policies regarding religious freedom around the world.  He emphasizes, among other things, that "the United States should move its policy of advancing international religious freedom into the mainstream. It is not a 'nice to have' humanitarian issue to be shoved aside when more 'strategic' imperatives (the environment and trade) loom. Religious liberty is intimately connected to all human affairs, including the defeat of those who, in the President's well-crafted words,  'would murder innocents.' It should be treated as such."

Monday, August 3, 2009

Berlusconi and the Italian Episcopacy

MOJ friend Pasquale Annicchino thought that some MOJ readers would be interested in the piece, from the Irish TimesTimid Church remains largely silent on Bersluconi's adventures (here).  Pasquale said that the piece was "widely debated today in Italy."

That lovable, zany wedding party dance

I did not intend to stop blogging while teaching in Rome, but the combination of teaching a partially new course, finishing my book edits, and (most significantly) keeping three children from getting run over by speeding scooters meant that something had to give, and that something was blogging.  Now I'm at our annual Bible conference at Lake Okoboji in Iowa, so I have a little more free time.  To avoid pulling any muscles, I'll ease back into this blogging thing by grasping some low-hanging fruit: namely, the burning-up-the-internet-phenomenon of the "dancing wedding party" video.  In case you haven't seen it (and if you haven't seen it, you're only of only 17 people who haven't), here it is.

I got a kick out of it the first time I saw it, but then when I read interviews with various clergy members either applauding the creativity or lamenting the loss of ritual and solemnity, I saw the bigger picture.  In the end, I agree with David Goodman's take in Slate.  Here's his conclusion: 

And so, though I am a writer and half-Jewish, I will be saying traditional vows in an Episcopal church, the very same in which my fiancée’s parents were married. We don’t buy into the idea of the wedding day as the truest expression of our love. It’s more of a rite of passage, and we don’t think rites work when you whip them up on your own, or buy them off the YouTube rack.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

"A Catholic Framework for Evaluating Health Reform"

See Cathy Kaveny's post, today, at dotCommonweal; see especially the material at the links Cathy provides (here).

Is there a human right to (basic) health care?

What is the magisterium's position on that issue?

If there is such a human right, the question is not whether but how government should protect the right, yes?

On that question, and as a general matter--understanding that it is always perilous to generalize--do Republicans and Democrats give different answers?

Does the (general) Republican answer entail that Medicare was a mistake?  (When Medicare was being debated in Congress, the general Republican take was that Medicare is "socialized" medicine.)  If so, does that say something about the credibility of the Republican answer?

(Analogy:  If a theory of constitutional interpretation and proper judicial role entailed that Brown v. Board of Education and /or Loving v. Virginia were illegitimate constitutional decisions, would that tell us something about the credibility of that theory of constitutional interpretation and proper judicial role?) 

ARCHIVE: Memos/Letters on Religious Liberty and Same-Sex Marriage

Over the last months, there have been MOJ posts about the efforts of an assortment of religious-liberty scholars --including MOJers Berg, Garnett, and Perry -- proposing strong religious-liberty protections for conscientious objectors in states where same-sex marriage has been or may be legally recognized. 

Based on comments from readers and others, I thought it would be worthwhile to collect in one post links to the various memo/letters that the scholars have written on the religious-liberty effects of same-sex marriage in the respective states.  For each state, there is a Letter 1 -- a longer one with a full set of arguments by one group of scholars, including Garnett and Berg -- and a Letter 2 -- a shorter one by another group, led by Doug Laycock and including Michael Perry [UPDATE 1/2013: and including Tom Berg], all of whom support same-sex marriage but also support strong religious-objector provisions.

Hawaii (special session fall 2013): Group 1 Letter here (Oct. 17); Group 2 Letters herehere; Group 1 legislative testimony here (Oct. 28); Group 2 testimony in HI Senate (Oct. 27), House (Oct. 30)

Minnesota: Group 1 Letter here (May 2, 2013); Group 2 Letters to Democrats, to Republicans (May 3, 2013)

Rhode Island: Letter 1 (Feb. 4, 2013)

Illinois: Letter 1 here (Jan. 4, 2013); Group-2 Letters here, here (Mar. 12, 2013)

Washington state: Letter 1 and Letter 1 follow-up ; Letter 2 (all added 2-7-2012)

Maryland: Letter 1 (added 2-7-2012)

New York (2011 round): here is Letter 1 (added 5-18-2011)

New Jersey:  here is Letter 1 (added 1-7-2010)

Iowa: Letter 1 and Letter 2

New York (2009 round): Letter 1 and Letter 2

Maine: Letter 1 and Letter 2

Our letters and our proposed statutory language have been revised since we wrote memo letters earlier concerning New Hampshire and Connecticut.  (UPDATE 5-18-2011, 1-7-2010: they've been revised a couple of times, most recently for New York.)  Because the legal developments have often happened fairly quickly, the most recent letters, reflecting our revisions, should be taken as constituting our proposals and arguments.  But if you want to look at earlier letters, you can find links to the New Hampshire letters here and the Connecticut letters here.

Tom B.

Friday, July 31, 2009

The Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola

To readers and contributors of the Mirror of Justice, a blessed feast of Saint Ignatius of Loyola! May his company of Jesus be faithful to the vocation of the least Society of Jesus.

Saint Ignatius, pray for us! May Mary, the Mother of God, patroness of the least Society of Jesus and Mirror of Justice, pray for us!


 Seal of SJs


RJA sj

Thursday, July 30, 2009

National Health Care as a Struggle for the Moral Validation of Abortion

Inclusion of abortion in an official national healthcare plan is a communal imprimatur, similar to the imprimatur received for gay sex when gay marriage is approved.  It does more than increase liberty; it says that nothing is significantly wrong with the act in question.

True tolerance, by contrast, takes no position in favor or against the act or relationship in question. It leaves others with full behavioral liberty to engage in the conduct, without endorsing what they do in any way. Gamblers may be left at liberty without affirming that what they are doing is a good thing. But the legal validation of gambling debts affirms that public policy supports them.

The great political problem for pluralism is that toleration alone may not satisfy the human heart. John Noonan (in A Private Choice) has reflected upon how slavery and abortion became polity-shattering  to the degree that advocates for each cause escalated their demands from simple toleration to universal legal approval. Yet he also recognizes their difficulty in moderating those demands: “[I]n a moral question of this kind, turning on basic concepts of humanity,…you cannot be content with the practical toleration of your activities. You want, in a sense you need, actual acceptance, open approval,…the moral surrender of [your] critics.”



Two new blogs of interest

I learned the other day about a new group blog, run by a group of in-formation (not-yet-ordained) Jesuits, called "Whosoeverdesires".  Check it out.  Lots of interesting stuff.  I also discovered that one of these young Jesuits has a blog of his own, called "Under a Chindolea".  (Walker Percy fans -- and aren't we all Walker Percy fans -- might catch the reference.)  Again, well worth reading.