May

May

Mosher

Mosher

George

George

Law

'Gay Rights?' In Defense of Rational Argument PDF
by E. Christian Brugger, D.Phil, Senior Fellow and Director of the Fellows Program   

christian_new.jpg

Are moral judgments against homosexual behavior anything more than the expressions of emotional bias or narrow religious beliefs?  Two recent and highly divisive political decisions, one in the U.S. and the other in the U.K., would have us believe they are not.  The first, of course, is the Obama administration’s recent announcement that it thinks that the federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and consequently that it will no longer defend the law in court.  DOMA was passed in 1996 in response to early political initiatives to legalize same-sex marriage.  The law defines the term “marriage” for use throughout the entire body of federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and the term “spouse” as “only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”  The law also protects states from being legally forced to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship given legal recognition as a marriage in another state.  DOMA passed both houses of Congress by huge majorities and was signed by President Bill Clinton.  Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, harshly criticized the “moral disapproval” of homosexual lifestyles expressed by those who passed the law saying it reflected “stereotype-based thinking and animus.”  Holder also said he doubted whether “reasonable arguments” could be made in defense of DOMA.

Read more...
03/11/2011
 
‘FEMALENESS’ AND U.S. FAMILY LAW PDF
by Helen Alvaré, J.D. and E. Christian Brugger, Ph.D.   
 
Thealvare_h.jpg Church has identified herself as an “expert in humanity” [1].  But who has the christian_new.jpgtemerity to claim to be an expert in the female half of humanity?  The complete identity of the female—call it the nature of ‘femaleness’—is hidden in the complex body-soul unity which constitutes the human person.  And so an understanding of the female body is one key to unlock this complex reality.  But an understanding of the body is not enough to understand the person.  Although human persons are always bodily and human bodies always personal, persons are not reducible to their bodies. They are their bodies, but they are more than their bodies, because the animating principle that makes their bodies to be living bodies is a non-material soul. But is there such thing as a properly female soul”?  Can spirit per se be engendered?  These are weighty questions.

 

Read more...
09/17/2009
 
Review of “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts” Part III PDF
by William E. May, Ph.D, Senior Fellow   

william_e_may.jpgHere I examine Charles J. Reid, Jr’s “Marriage: Its Relationship to Religion, Law, and the State,” Douglas Laycock’s “Afterword,” and offer final comments.

I summarized pp. 157-176 of Reid’s chapter in Part I of this review; in them he showed that traditionally in Western civilization and particularly in Anglo-American history marriage was regarded as “a divine institution.” Here I focus on the section “Marriage and the State” (176-187) and on his “Conclusion” (187-188).

Read more...
12/11/2008
 
Connecticut's "Adults-Only" Same-Sex Marriage Decision PDF
by Helen M. Alvaré, J.D.   
alvare_h.jpgThe Supreme Court of Connecticut has rendered that state the latest in the growing number of states asserting a state constitutional mandate to recognize marriage rights for same-sex couples. (Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health).   In Kerrigan, Connecticut’s highest court  held that it was a violation of the state’s constitutional equal protection guarantee to allow same-sex couples all of the benefits associated with marriage, by means of the “civil union” classification, but to deny them the status of marriage.
Read more...
10/15/2008
 
Parenting "Rights" for Homosexuals: How We Got There and its Implications for all Families PDF
by Helen Alvare, J.D.   
alvare_h.jpgThe California Supreme Court decided several weeks ago that doctors specializing in assisted reproductive technologies may not assert their religious freedom as a defense to California’s Civil Rights law requirement that businesses provide services without discrimination on the basis of clients’ sexual orientation.  A fertility clinic willing to treat heterosexual patients must therefore also treat homosexual patients.
Read more...
10/02/2008