Episodes
2 hours ago
2 hours ago
As attorneys we talk about doing pro bono work. But guess what? The universe doesn’t revolve around us. <<<Yes, I realize that last sentence is a hard pill to swallow. 😊>>> Non-attorneys can also play an important role. How can non-attorneys help with pro bono work?
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: Here is a list of possible things non-attorneys can do to help promote pro bono work:
—Educate yourself regarding how common legal problems are resolved.
—Be a leader – Challenge & organize attorneys in your church or organization to become competent in an area of law and then serve others.
—Create/sponsor pro bono clinics
—Give rides to and from court
—Refer people to existing pro bono programs
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to the 79th episode of the Religion Law Podcast, your go-to place for learning about religious freedom and other law-related matters. In this episode, we steer away from discussing Supreme Court decisions to focus on something equally valuable – the world of pro bono work, a typically attorney-dominated field. However, host Michael Fielding asserts that it is not only attorneys who can have a significant impact; he encourages non-lawyers to play a vital role in fostering and promoting pro bono legal work.
This episode urges listeners, especially non-attorneys, to consider various ways they can contribute to pro bono work. For instance, they could educate themselves on common legal problems, organize attorneys in their community for competence in specific legal areas, help establish pro bono clinics, offer transportation to and from court, and spread awareness about existing pro bono programs. It emphasizes that anyone, regardless of their profession, can facilitate access to legal assistance those in need.
While this episode is relatively short, it effectively plants seeds of thought on how non-attorneys can support pro bono work. Sticking true to its question-answer format, it leaves listeners with a thought-provoking query about what they might do when they come across someone in need of pro bono legal help. Ultimately, no matter what your line of expertise is, this episode demonstrates how you are capable of making a difference in the sphere of legal aid.
After this brief yet impactful exploration, the podcast will continue its analysis of the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case in the imminent 80th quiz. Join us then for more insightful discussions on religion and law.
2 days ago
2 days ago
In Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020), the Montana Department of Revenue sought to distinguish that case from the Supreme Court’s Trinity Lutheran decision a few years earlier by arguing that “Trinity Lutheran does not govern here because the no-aid provision applies not because of the religious character of the recipients, but because of how the funds would be used—for ‘religious education.’” Id. at 2255. But the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Why did it reject that argument?
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: The reason is because the Espinoza case “turns expressly on religious status and not religious use.” Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2256 (2020) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court went on to note that “Status-based discrimination remains status based even if one of its goals or effects is preventing religious organizations from putting aid to religious uses.” Id.
Here is a bit more extensive quote from the decision to help put it more in perspective:
This case also turns expressly on religious status and not religious use. The Montana Supreme Court applied the no-aid provision solely by reference to religious status. The Court repeatedly explained that the no-aid provision bars aid to “schools controlled in whole or in part by churches,” “sectarian schools,” and “religiously-affiliated schools.” 393 Mont. at 463–467, 435 P.3d at 611–613. Applying this provision to the scholarship program, the Montana Supreme Court noted that most of the private schools that would benefit from the program were “religiously affiliated” and “controlled by churches,” and the Court ultimately concluded that the scholarship program ran afoul of the Montana Constitution by aiding “schools controlled by churches.” Id., at 466–467, 435 P.3d at 613–614. The Montana Constitution discriminates based on religious status just like the Missouri policy in Trinity Lutheran, which excluded organizations “owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity.” 582 U.S., at ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 2017.
The Department points to some language in the decision below indicating that the no-aid provision has the goal or effect of ensuring that government aid does not end up being used for “sectarian education” or “religious education.” 393 Mont. at 460, 466–467, 435 P.3d at 609, 613–614. The Department also contrasts what it characterizes as the “completely non-religious” benefit of playground resurfacing in Trinity Lutheran with the unrestricted tuition aid at issue here. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31. General school aid, the Department stresses, could be used for religious ends by some recipients, particularly schools that believe faith should “permeate[ ]” everything they do. Brief for Respondents 39 (quoting State ex rel. Chambers v. School Dist. No. 10, 155 Mont. 422, 438, 472 P.2d 1013, 1021 (1970)). See also post, at 2285, 2288 (BREYER, J., dissenting).
Regardless, those considerations were not the Montana Supreme Court's basis for applying the no-aid provision to exclude religious schools; that hinged solely on religious status. Status-based discrimination remains status based even if one of its goals or effects is preventing religious organizations from putting aid to religious uses.
Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2256, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679 (2020)
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to another insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where host Michael Fielding sheds light on religious freedoms and other religion law-related topics. Diving into The Supreme Court's ruling on religious bias, this episode centers around episode number 78, where a law case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, becomes the primary subject of discussion.
Detailed in the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case, the Montana Department of Revenue had ruled that students who partake in private religious-affiliated schools are ineligible to participate in state scholarship programs. The intention behind it being that it would not be appropriate for state dollars, distributed as scholarships, to be given to students attending private religious schools. This, of course, was challenged by a private Christian school.
Taking context from a few years earlier, the Supreme Court’s decision on Trinity Lutheran was recalled, and to defend their stance, Montana had to differentiate the Espinoza scenario from the Trinity Lutheran case. Their basis for contrast was, stated in quote: "Trinity Lutheran does not govern here because the no-aid provision applies not because of the religious character of the recipients, but because of how the funds would be used for religious education." The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument.
Fielding delves into the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s ruling, explaining how the Espinoza case turned expressly on religious status and not religious use. He highlights the Supreme Court's strong condemnation of status-based discrimination, and how they view it as inconsistent with the Constitution, in any circumstance where a generally applicable government program is in place.
Join us in this significant exploration of the Supreme Court's stance against religion-based discrimination, their rationale, and its implications on a larger scale. Remember, these law discussions aim at enhancing your understanding of legal scenarios related to religious freedoms and are not intended for direct legal implementation. Share this episode, leave a review, and stay tuned for more engaging discussions, till we meet again!
3 days ago
3 days ago
True or False: The Establishment Clause is not offended when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs.
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: True. Here’s what the Supreme said in that regard three years ago:
The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We have recognized a “ ‘play in the joints’ between what the Establishment Clause permits and the Free Exercise Clause compels.” Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ––––, ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2012, 2019, 198 L.Ed.2d 551 (2017) (quoting Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 718, 124 S.Ct. 1307, 158 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004)). Here, the parties do not dispute that the scholarship program is permissible under the Establishment Clause. Nor could they. We have repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause is not offended when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs. See, e.g., Locke, 540 U.S. at 719, 124 S.Ct. 1307; Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 839, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995). See also Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S., at ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 2019–2020 (noting the parties' agreement that the Establishment Clause was not violated by including churches in a playground resurfacing program).
Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2254 (2020) (emphasis added)
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to the bar. They are informal, non-binding hypothetical questions intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to another episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where we delve into religious freedom and other religion law-related topics through engaging quiz-based discussions. In this particular installment, we'll be exploring quiz number 77 and discussing the Supreme Court's 2020 decision: Espinoza v. Montana, Department of Revenue.
The Espinoza case revolves around the parents of students attending a private Christian school who sued the Montana Department of Revenue. The Department had created a rule excluding religiously-affiliated private schools from a state-established scholarship program, arguing that it would otherwise constitute state aid to religion, which could violate the Establishment Clause. This case was taken up to the Supreme Court, thereby setting the stage for a significant constitutional debate.
In this episode, we especially focus on the central question of the quiz: Is the Establishment Clause offended when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs? This particular query draws on past court decisions such as the Trinity Lutheran case and examines the balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
We then finish by delving into the implications of the Espinoza decision. The key takeaway posits that a neutral government program, regardless of its benefits to a religious organization, does not violate the Establishment Clause. Tune in to learn more about this important landmark decision that has implications for the boundaries of religious freedom and state aid.
As we wrap up this episode, we remind listeners that Religion Law quizzes are meant for educational purposes and not to be relied upon as legal advice. If you have found this episode insightful, please share it and leave a review. Stay tuned for our continued exploration of the Espinoza decision in quiz number 78.
4 days ago
4 days ago
If a State wants to create even greater separation between church and State than is already ensured under the U.S. Constitution is there any limitation on the State in doing this?
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: Yes. The State’s actions are limited by the Free Exercise clause. Consider what the Supreme Court said in this regard in 2020.
The Montana Supreme Court asserted that the no-aid provision serves Montana's interest in separating church and State “more fiercely” than the Federal Constitution. 393 Mont. at 467, 435 P.3d at 614. But “that interest cannot qualify as compelling” in the face of the infringement of free exercise here. Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S., at ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 2024. A State's interest “in achieving greater separation of church and State than is already ensured under the Establishment Clause ... is limited by the Free Exercise Clause.” Ibid. (quoting Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 276, 102 S.Ct. 269, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981)).
Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260 (2020).
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to the bar. They are informal, non-binding hypothetical questions intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to another episode of the Religion Law Podcast, hosted by Michael Fielding. This episode brings you Question 76 of our Religion Law Quiz series, exploring the extent of a state’s authority for imposing separation between church and state, beyond the parameters defined by the U.S. Constitution.
The episode discusses the Establishment Clause under the First Amendment, aimed at ensuring the separation between church and state and preventing any single religion from becoming the state religion. It addresses the question - can a state create an even more drastic separation between church and state, beyond the distance already defined by the Constitution? The answer to this is far more dynamic than a simple yes or no.
This deep dive intricately explores how the state's actions in this regard are indeed limited by the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. This phenomenon was highlighted in the Supreme Court's 2020 Espinoza decision, stating that a state's interest in achieving greater separation of church and state is limited by the Free Exercise Clause, demonstrating an inherent check and balance within the First Amendment itself.
Engagingly conveyed through the rubber band analogy, the podcast explains how the clauses work together to maintain balance. Just like the elasticity of a rubber band restricting the poles from going too far apart, these clauses subtly keep a check and balance between the free exercise and the establishment of religion.
The episode concludes with a contemplative commentary on the genius of the framers of the Constitution and how their understanding of human nature shaped distinct checks and balances. It signifies how the Constitution contributes to maintaining stability and fostering prosperity in the United States.
In the Religion Law Podcast, we aim to make complex legal concepts around religion accessible and engaging. Thank you for tuning in, and keep influencing for good.
6 days ago
6 days ago
Can you believe we are up to Religion Law Quiz #75? What a milestone? In honor of that milestone today’s quiz focuses on a key concept that is critically important to many constitutional rights.
How does the government satisfy “strict scrutiny”?
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: Here’s how the Supreme Court answered that question three years ago.
Strict scrutiny “is not ‘watered down but really means what it says,’ Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 546, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). To satisfy it, government action ‘must advance ‘interests of the highest order’ and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.’ Ibid. (quoting McDaniel, 435 U.S. at 628, 98 S.Ct. 1322).”
Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260 (2020)
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to the bar. They are informal, non-binding hypothetical questions intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to episode 75 of the Religion Law Podcast. In this episode, your host Michael Fielding, throws light on the concept of strict scrutiny as applied to religion-related legal cases. Focusing on the key legal principles from the major Supreme Court decision, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue in 2020, Michael shares insights on how the government satisfies strict scrutiny.
Discussing how strict scrutiny isn't just a label but it really implies what it signifies, he emphasizes the need for government actions to advance the highest order of interests and to be strictly tailored in pursuit of such interests. A practical application of strict scrutiny is also shared from a layperson's viewpoint with some memorable and relatable examples.
This episode takes us on a journey where we get a more systematic understanding of the Supreme Court's religious freedom-related cases over the past years. The episode ends with the assurance that the next episodes will be even more significant, offering an up-to-date understanding of the law and how it affects us.
Laid out in a convenient question-and-answer format, this episode of the Religion Law Podcast is a valuable resource for anyone keen on understanding the legal aspect of religious freedom. The content is solely for educational purposes and is not intended as legal advice.
7 days ago
7 days ago
Today's episode is part-10 of a multi-part series about what you can to do help protect and foster respect for religious freedom. One thing we can all do is pray for God's guidance about what we should do and then have the courage to act on the direction we receive.
Below is a list of the prior past nine episodes about what regular, run-of-the-mill people can do to defend and foster respect for religious freedom.
Quiz #50 (Part 1) – Tie Your Actions to Religion
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-1-defending-religious-freedom-tie-your-actions-to-religion/
Quiz #50 (Part 2) – Share How Religion Helps You
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-2-defending-religious-freedom-share-how-religion-helps-you/
Quiz #50 (Part 3) – Talk About the Good that Religion Does
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-3-talk-about-the-good-that-religion-does/
Quiz #50 (Part 4) – Respecting Religious Freedom -- Stand up for the rights of others
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-4-defending-religious-freedom-stand-up-for-the-rights-of-other-religious-groups/
Quiz #50 (Part 5) – Respecting Religious Freedom -- Be a Peacemaker
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-5-defending-religious-freedom-be-a-peacemaker/
Quiz 50 (Part 6) – Respecting Religious Freedom -- Become Educated
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-6-protecting-religious-freedom-become-educated/
Quiz 50 (Part 7) – Participating in events that promote the exercise of religion
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/fostering-respect-for-religious-freedom/
Quiz 50 (Part 8) – Tie religion to your work
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/tying-religion-to-work/
Quiz #50 (Part 9) – Engage in the Community
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/engaging-in-community-to-promote-and-protect-religious-freedom/
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to episode 50, part 10 of the Religion Law Podcast; a discussion on the various practical steps every individual can take towards promoting, protecting, and fostering respect for religious freedom. Hosted by Michael Fielding, this episode centers around the use of prayer as a guide in pursuing religious freedom passionately and effectively.
In previous parts of this series, Fielding discussed nine tactics including tying actions to religion, advocating for the beneficial role of religion, standing up for others' religious rights, fostering peace, and engaging in religious promotion events. This tenth installment brings attention to a straightforward approach that anyone can adopt - seeking divine guidance and discerning what we should do to propagate religious freedom through prayer.
Fielding emphasises the idea that prayer may vary across religions but the belief in a Supreme Being who loves us binds us all together. He encourages listeners to seek ways to listen and communicate more effectively with people of varying beliefs while emphasizing the importance of the role of religion in society, as well as the necessity to protect the freedom to practice religion. This is part of fostering respect and understanding in a diverse society.
The discussion also delves into the idea of focusing on commonalities rather than divisions while interacting with differing views, fostering harmony and respect at societal levels. Fielding concludes with the belief that divine help can guide us in fostering this respect and protecting religious freedom, while also being a peacemaker. Tune in to this episode to learn more about taking personal action towards promoting religious freedom.
Friday Apr 19, 2024
Quiz #74 - Revisiting the Lemon Test and the Kennedy Case
Friday Apr 19, 2024
Friday Apr 19, 2024
April is Spring and that means softball season. So in honor of that, let’s throw up a softball quiz that you can knock out of the park!
Religion Law Quiz #56 talked about Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). In 2022 there was a Supreme Court decision which many people viewed as noting that the Lemon analysis is dead. What was that decision?
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 213 L. Ed. 2d 755, 142 S. Ct. 2407, 2411 (2022). Don't worry—we’ll be addressing that decision in future Religion Law Quizzes.
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to the bar. They are informal, non-binding hypothetical questions intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to the latest installation of the Religion Law Podcast, hosted by Michael Fielding. This episode shares core insights into religious freedom and law through a friendly quiz format, engaging listeners with quick, insightful questions and detailed analysis.
The focus of today's quiz is quite exclusive - we're revisiting the significance of the Lemon V. Kurtzman decision and its evolution in Supreme Court's judgements. Back in Religion Law Quiz number 56, we introduced you to the Lemon test, a prominent legal principle shaping religious freedom rights in America. By 2022, however, this principle was considered defunct in a landmark Supreme Court ruling. We unravel this critical decision for you - the Kennedy Vs Bremerton School District case.
This case features Coach Kennedy, a Washington state football coach, who made it a habit to say a prayer on the 50-yard line after each game. This led to heated debates on whether his actions violated the establishment clause. As the show proceeds, we elaborate on both perspectives in this case, stirring engaging discussions around religious freedom and establishment clauses. Stay tuned for more information on the specifics of this case that raised a whirlwind of questions and dilemmas around religion laws.
Remember, the Religion Law Quiz is not just a fun trivia game; it's an exciting opportunity to expand your knowledge and understanding of religion laws. So, make sure you join us for the next quiz! Share this episode if you've found our insights valuable, and don't forget to leave a review. Until next time, keep influencing and learning!
Wednesday Apr 17, 2024
Quiz #73 Limited Scope Representation -- Pro Bono
Wednesday Apr 17, 2024
Wednesday Apr 17, 2024
Religion Law Quiz #71 talked about ethical Rule 6.5 and limited scope representation when doing pro bono work. What are examples of limited scope representation?
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: Examples of limited scope representation include (but are not limited to) the following:
—Providing information
—Giving brief advice and referral
—Drafting simple contracts
—Filling out forms
—Drafting court documents
—Assisting with pro-se forms
—Speaking on a client’s behalf
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to the bar. They are informal, non-binding hypothetical questions intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to another exciting episode of the Religion Law Podcast. We engage you with short, question-and-answer sessions on various topics pertaining to religious freedom and other religion law-related matters. Your host, Michael Fielding, guides you through these intriguing subjects.
This episode focuses on the essence of limited scope representation through our Religion Law Quiz number 73. We reminisce about Quiz number 71, where we delved into Ethical Rule 6.5 and reflected on the concept of limited scope representation in the context of pro bono work. We discovered how attorneys can provide versatile services, such as drafting contracts, or court documents, speaking on a client's behalf, and more as part of their limited scope representation.
Drawing real-life examples, we discussed how attorneys can offer off-the-cuff legal advice during law day events sponsored by non-profit organizations, provided there's no conflict of interest. The conversation leads to the realization that maintaining ethical standards means upholding a transparent, zealous representation for clients while ensuring no conflicts of interest.
We also touch on the importance of having well-versed lawyers who are familiar with the specific area of the clientele's issues, whether it's family law, juvenile matters, or criminal issues. It underscores the specialization of the law and the need for competent legal advice.
The episode concludes the topic of pro bono questions for now. Do stay tuned for more Religion Law Quizzes! Please remember these quizzes are solely for educational purposes and are not to be used as legal advice. If you find this episode enlightening, don't hesitate to share it and leave a review. Until we meet again, continue being an influence for good.
Monday Apr 15, 2024
Quiz#72 Respect for Marriage Act
Monday Apr 15, 2024
Monday Apr 15, 2024
Rhonda has heard a lot of passionate arguments about the recently passed Respect for Marriage Act. Rhonda wants to rise above culture war bickering and get a more objective understanding of the Act and its potential ramifications. Where should Rhonda turn to find more information on this important topic?
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: Rhonda should consider studying the forthcoming law review article co-authored by Doug Laycock, Thomas Berg, Carl Esbeck and Robin Fretwell Wilson entitled “The Respect for Marriage Act: Living Together Despite our Deepest Differences.” A link to it is below as well as the Abstract.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4394618
The Respect for Marriage Act: Living Together Despite Our Deepest Differences
University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming
Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2023-25
U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper, Forthcoming
University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2023-08
50 Pages Posted: 21 Mar 2023 Last revised: 25 Apr 2023
Douglas Laycock
University of Virginia School of Law
Thomas C. Berg
University of St. Thomas, St. Paul/Minneapolis, MN - School of Law
Carl H. Esbeck
University of Missouri School of Law
Robin Fretwell Wilson
University of Illinois College of Law
Date Written: March 20, 2023
Abstract
The recently enacted Respect for Marriage Act is important bipartisan legislation that will protect same-sex marriage should the Supreme Court overrule Obergefell v. Hodges. And it will protect religious liberty for traditional beliefs about marriage. The Act has been attacked by hardliners on both sides. We analyze the Act section by section, showing how it works, why it is constitutional, and why it does not do the many things its critics have accused it of.The Act requires every state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. If Obergefell were overruled, Congress would have no authority to require each state to license same-sex marriages within its borders. By invoking the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Congress did all that it could for same-sex couples.The Act protects religious liberty with congressional findings, rules of construction, modest new substantive protections, and a limitation on the Act’s reach: only persons acting under color of state law are required to recognize sister-state marriages. The Act specifically addresses the fear that conservative religious entities could lose their federal tax-exempt status.The Act is a model for pluralistic approaches that protect both sides in the culture wars. State legislatures have passed many gay-rights bills with protections for religious liberty. Neither side has been able to pass gay-rights bills without such protections, or absolute religious liberty bills with no allowance for gay and lesbian rights. The Respect for Marriage Act is an encouraging return to the practice of protecting liberty for all Americans—both the LGBTQ community and the conservative religious community.
Keywords: Respect for Marriage Act, same-sex marriage, religious liberty, religious exemptions, wedding vendors, full faith and credit, Obergefell v. Hodges, gay-rights legislation, religious liberty legislation, LGBTQ
Suggested Citation:
Laycock, Douglas and Berg, Thomas Charles and Esbeck, Carl H. and Wilson, Robin Fretwell, The Respect for Marriage Act: Living Together Despite Our Deepest Differences (March 20, 2023). University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming, Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2023-25, U of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research Paper, Forthcoming, University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2023-08, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4394618
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to the bar. They are informal, non-binding hypothetical questions intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to this riveting edition of the Religion Law Podcast. Your host, Michael Fielding, takes you through a thought-provoking quiz in episode 72. The spotlight shines on the Respect for Marriage Act, intricately dissecting its ethos and implications amidst the cultural clamor.
This episode timely revisits the Respect for Marriage Act, introduced back in late 2022 or early 2023. With its fair share of controversy, the Act was vehemently argued for and against. Amidst this, a practical and neutral perspective is offered by the scholarly team of Doug Laycock, Thomas Berg, Carl Esbeck, and Robin Fretwell Wilson. Their article, "The Respect for Marriage Act, Living Together Despite Our Deepest Differences", serves as a credible guide to understanding the Act's provisions objectively.
Highlighting the 'middle of the road' perspective, we discuss an abstract of the same article, examining how the act protects both, marriages of same-sex couples and conservative religious beliefs. We delve into how the Act skillfully utilizes the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the steps taken to safeguard religious liberty, while clarifying misinterpretations along the way.
In the depths of this episode, you will find an evolving understanding of the Act's role in conserving the liberty of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community and the conservative religious circles. Grasping the crux of the Respect for Marriage Act, we explore how fervent arguments can sometimes mask the law's actual intent and balance.
As we wrap up this enlightening episode, remember that Religion Law Quizzes are designed purely for educational purposes. As always, feel free to share your insights, leave a review and keep influencing the world. Until the next quiz, stay tuned and keep exploring.
Saturday Apr 13, 2024
Quiz 50 (Part 9) -- Defending Religious Freedom -- Engage in the Community
Saturday Apr 13, 2024
Saturday Apr 13, 2024
For the moment, this is the last part of our sub-series about what regular, run-of-the-mill people can do to help create respect for religious freedom and to also protect and defend it. The simple answer is: Get Involved! Don’t just preach to the choir. Role up your sleeves. Go to work. Find an organization that is involved in the community and volunteer. This might mean becoming a member of a board or commission for a state or local government. It might mean getting involved in some non-profit. It might mean serving on the steering committee for the annual mayor’s prayer breakfast in your city. It might mean posting on social media in respectful and honorable ways. It might mean contacting government leaders. You have many choices. Oftentimes there is no wrong answer. So find something that interests you, role up your sleeves, and go out there and be an influence for good!
Here are links to the last eight episodes of our sub-series:
Quiz #50 (Part 1) – Tie Your Actions to Religion
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-1-defending-religious-freedom-tie-your-actions-to-religion/
Quiz #50 (Part 2) – Share How Religion Helps You
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-2-defending-religious-freedom-share-how-religion-helps-you/
Quiz #50 (Part 3) – Talk About the Good that Religion Does
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-3-talk-about-the-good-that-religion-does/
Quiz #50 (Part 4) – Respecting Religious Freedom -- Stand up for the rights of others
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-4-defending-religious-freedom-stand-up-for-the-rights-of-other-religious-groups/
Quiz #50 (Part 5) – Respecting Religious Freedom -- Be a Peacemaker
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-5-defending-religious-freedom-be-a-peacemaker/
Quiz 50 (Part 6) – Respecting Religious Freedom -- Become Educated
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/quiz-50-part-6-protecting-religious-freedom-become-educated/
Quiz 50 (Part 7) – Participating in events that promote the exercise of religion
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/fostering-respect-for-religious-freedom/
Quiz 50 (Part 8) – Tie religion to your work
https://religionlawquiz.podbean.com/e/tying-religion-to-work/
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST
Welcome to this exciting episode of The Religion Law Podcast, where your host, Michael Fielding delves into the practical aspects of promoting and protecting religious freedom. This episode marks the ninth part of a sub-series, all housed within the 50th quiz. Hitherto, eight distinct items have been discussed, each dealing with a different factor contributing to the support of religious freedom. These include tying religion to actions, sharing the benefits of religious beliefs, standing up for the rights of others, and even tying religion to your work.
The focus of this episode, however, is on the ninth point – engagement within the community. Fielding emphasizes the need to step outside comfort zones, roll up sleeves, and actively participate in society to preserve religious freedoms.
He shares valuable insights on how one can get involved at various levels, from volunteering within local city councils to partaking in the work of state-level commissions. Fielding also highlights the importance of stepping outside one's bubble and interacting with diverse groups, facilitating the formation of invaluable networks and relationships.
This podcast aims to empower individuals in their fight for religious freedom. Listen in, get involved, and share this podcast with those eager to support religious freedom. Remember, no effort is too small when it comes to maintaining the invaluable rights we hold.
About Me
Michael Fielding is an attorney who provides practical, non-biased education about religious freedom and other religion law related topics. Religion law is not his area of practice, but he believes it is a topic that all can easily learn about.
Michael and his wife Tammy are the parents of six children. They are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Please email suggestions for improving this podcast to MyReligiousFreedom@protonmail.com