Debate on Marriage Amendment at MULS
Written by Daniel on September 29, 2006 – 11:17 am - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
The GLBT-Straight Legal Society and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies of Marquette University Law School are hosting a debate on the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment.
Arguing in favor of the Amendment is Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. Mr. Lorence argued the Southworth case before the U.S. Supreme Court and argued for the voter initiative to protect marriage before the Massachussets Supreme Judicial Court. We’re very excited to be hosting Mr. Lorence for this event.
Opposing the Amendment will be Brenda Lewison of the Law Office of Arthur Heitzer. She is an equal rights and labor law attorney here in Milwaukee and a member of Attorneys Against the Ban. She is also a member of the Individual Rights & Responsibilities Section Board of the Wisconsin State Bar.
The debate will take place on Tuesday, October 3rd in Sensenbrenner Hall with refreshments at 11:45 AM in Eisenberg and the discussion at 12:15 PM in Room 307.
The courtesy of an RSVP is requested but not required. Co-sponsoring the event are the National Lawyers Guild, American Constitution Society, and the Christian Legal Society.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- WisEye in Wis Lawyer - November 16th, 2008
- 2nd MU GOPer in the House - November 8th, 2008
- Textbook Case - November 3rd, 2008
- Kagen's Legislative Accomplishments - November 3rd, 2008
- That's not a good thing - November 3rd, 2008
Posted in Points of Personal Privilege |
September 29th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Good deal… I look forward to the analysis of that debate. Every college campus in the state is undergoing a massive campaign to persuade their students to vote against the ammendment. Essentially its tax-payer funded campaigning at its best…
September 30th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Does the Federalist Society have an official position on the amendment?
September 30th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
FedSoc doesn’t have “official positions” on anything. It’s not that kind of group.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:48 am
Sure it does. I realize they don’t lobby or endorse candidates but they have official stances on things. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be” is an official position of the Federalist society. So is “The state exists to preserve freedom.” But whatever. I know what you mean. I was a member for the first few years of law school.
And that’s why I asked the question. I was surprised that they’d concern themselves at all with such a purely political issue.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:51 am
They’re sponsoring a debate. THAT’S what they do. The guy arguing in favor of the amendment is from ADF, not FedSoc, and those aren’t “positions,” they’re philosophies.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:43 am
Whatever Chappy. That’s just semantics. I’m sorry if I was unclear.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Translation from the original Commentese: “You’re right, of course.”
I graciously accept your concession. Thank you.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I didn’t know we were disagreeing about something. Perhaps my word choice of “official position” was imprecise. Although I think you know what I meant. You certainly don’t have to be a smart ass about it.
I’ll try to phrase the question in such a way that my word choice doesn’t offend Dan Chapman. Does the Federalist Society embrace a particular philosophy with respect to amending constitutions to limit individual rigths versus protect individual rights?
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Here’s a bit of advice: If you think someone misunderstood you, “Whatever Chappy. That’s just semantics.” is not going to be a very effective way of clearing the water. You’re wrong when you assume I knew what you meant, but I do regret trying to answer your question.
Best of luck finding an answer, assuming you’re really looking for one.