in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Leean. and Charitable Choi ce

[Rob Katz]

RE: in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Leean. and Charitable Choi
ceAccording to the Marriage Savers' website, the Wisconsin House has passed
an amendment to the law to remove references to clergy.  The new state
employee's job is to coordinate "the development of community-wide standards
for marriages solemnized in this state. Marriage Savers claims that this
amendment, if enacted, will immunize the law from establishment challenge.
This still seems rather fishy though. Who has the state authorized to
solemnize marriages besides clergy and governmental officials (e.g., judges,
marriage license clerks)? Even if there are some secular marriage officiants
who could participate in the project (e.g. secular humanist ministers), the
vast bulk of the participating officiants would be clergy.

Rob Katz
Bigelow Fellow
The University of Chicago Law School
1111 E 60th Street, Room 421
Chicago, IL 60637
robert_katz at law.uchicago.edu
W: 773-702-9564
F: 773-702-0730
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
[mailto:RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
  Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 1:20 PM
  To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu
  Subject: Re: in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Leean. and Charitable
Choi ce


          The opinion doesn't seem to be on WESTLAW yet, but I think the
following quote from the Freedom Forum account -- if it captures the sense
of the decision accurately -- seems pretty persuasive:

                Shabaz said the state's marriage policy made state funds
available only to
                    religious officers and unconstitutionally favored
religion.

                    "The project's benefits, in the form of an in-kind
subsidy, are confined to a
                    strictly and necessarily religious class of recipients,"
Shabaz wrote in his
                    14-page decision. "Without even considering whether
state assistance may be
                    either helpful or necessary, by providing it only to
clerical officiates in an
                    attempt to strengthen marriages, the Wisconsin
legislature has favored
                    clerical officiates over the secular and has conveyed a
message that
                    religiously solemnized marriages are preferred to those
secularly solemnized.
                    Such an imprimatur stamped on religion by the state is a
violation of the
                    Establishment Clause."



    -----Original Message-----
    From:   David Guinn [SMTP:dsg at PRCHFE.ORG]
    Sent:   Thursday, June 01, 2000 5:55 AM
    To:     RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu
    Subject:        in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Leean. and
Charitable Choi ce

    I haven't seen the decision, but I wonder why this didn't pass muster
under charitable choice?  ( I am also surprized that charitable choice
hasn't come up for discussion on this list - or at least I don't remember it
if it did!)

    David

    Federal judge says state's marriage-counseling policy violates First
Amendment
    By Jeremy Leaming
    The Freedom Forum Online
    05.31.2000
    A Wisconsin program designed to help clergy in counseling couples before
marriage is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled.

    Last December, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, <
<http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/>> a nonprofit based in Madison, sued the
state in federal court, arguing the state's Community Marriage Policy
Project advanced Christianity in violation of the establishment clause of
the First Amendment. Wisconsin's budget passed last year, included an
allocation of $210,000 for the project, which was intended "for the purpose
of coordinating the development of, and assisting local members of the
clergy to develop community-wide standards for marriages solemnized in this
state by members of the clergy."

    <http://www.freedomforum.org/news/2000/05/2000-05-31-03.asp>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20000601/52ab142f/attachment.htm