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

[David Guinn]

The reason I though charitable choice might apply, as implied in the story,
was not that it was an effort to standardize the marriage ceremony but
rather to standardize the prenuptial process as a way to avoid divorce and
bad marriages.  The analogy would be using religion and religious practice
to treat drug abuse.

Obviously, if the purpose is to address this "secular" concern, there are
problems in the drafting of the law because it fails to include other forms
of premarital counseling - but then again, I'm not sure that anyone else is
active in premarital counseling.

David
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric W. Treene [mailto:etreene at BECKETFUND.ORG]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 11:12 AM
To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Leean. and Charitable
Choi ce


-----Original Message-----
From: David Guinn [mailto:dsg at PRCHFE.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 8:55 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

I really don't see this case as fitting within the ambit of  charitable
choice.  The opinion is now up on the FFRF website,
http://www.ffrf.org/legal/shabaz_99-C-813-S.html
The statute at issue provides:
(14g) Community Marriage Policy Project. The authorized FTE positions for
the department of health and family services are increased by 1.0 PR project
position, to be funded from the appropriation under section 20.435(3)(kx) of
the statutes for the period beginning on the first day of the 2nd month
beginning after the effective date of this subsection, and ending on
September 30, 2003. The positions are increased under this subsection for
the purposes 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.
The appropriation at issue uses government funds to give grants to clergy to
develop common community standards for marriage. While it does not
explicitly so state,  I think this amounts to appropriating funds for
developing religious common ground among various (but certainly not all)
clergy.  Thus the analogy is not to charitable choice, which involves
allowing religious groups and religiously motivated charities to participate
in social service programs.  The FFRF case is more akin to a federal program
that paid various religious organizations to come up with a homeless shelter
program that instilled values in the participants based on principles that
all of the religious groups agreed upon.   This to me is vastly different
from a program that provides funds for homeless shelters, and allows
religious groups to participate-the charitable choice concept.

Eric W. Treene
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
1350 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Suite 605
Washington, D.C.  20036
(202) 955-0095


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20000602/65776d72/attachment.htm