The Political Science of Family Fragmentation

The interface between political science and family law and policy offers the opportunity to consider how government family support interacts with the occurrence of family fragmentation. We presented this research at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference last weekend in Chicago. 

            The current dramatic rise in government support for fragmented families over the last several years allowed us to introduce a statistical study of human behavior within families as an aspect of politics. This research was more controversial than expected, as the participants and attendants to our panel were not pleased to learn the facts regarding the costs of family fragmentation. Observing the political aspects of individual or family behavior in the context of government support identified patterns of family breakdown and a lack of family formation.  It is understandable that some might take these descriptive generalizations personally, rather than appreciate a full discussion of these facts as a political hypothesis.

            This research was originally published by Lynne Marie Kohm and Rachel K. Toberty in the Regent University Law Review, and is entitled, A 50 State Survey of the Cost of Family Fragmentation, 25 Regent U. L. Rev. 25 (2012)(detailing that statistical analysis on a state by state basis).  The article is also available at the Social Science Research Network at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2205349.

            Though the family welfare system in the United States is designed to bridge expense gaps created by family fragmentation, this process of support tends to result in increased reliance on state funds by broken families. Now firmly established as a regular part of states’ budgets, observing these trends reveals that federal and state resources offered to assist fragmented families restrict those recipients and their children by the very benefits designed to assist them. (See e.g. Derek Neal, The Economics of Family Structure, copyright 2001, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, SSRN Working Paper 8519, (October 2001), http://www.nber.org/papers/w8519 (discussing marriage rate theories, existing literature, and a developed economic theorem that describes the recent demographic phenomenon of never-married mothers).)  

            The small otherwise bankrupt town of Woonsocket, Rhode Island provides an example of how this phenomenon occurs.  Woonsocket has a local economy based solely and completely on government support.  A third of its residents use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which was formerly known as food stamps.  At precisely midnight on the first of every month Woonsocket experiences its monthly financial windfall of nearly two million dollars, deposited on residents’ Electronic Banking Transfer cards (EBTs), which then flows to grocery stores and sundry establishments throughout the town, operating its local economy for the next 20-30 days.  According to the Washington Post in an article by Eli Saslow entitled Monthly Boom and Bust Cycle dated March 16, 2013, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/food-stamps-put-rhode-island-town-on-monthly-boom-and-bust-%20%20cycle/2013/03/16/08ace07c-8ce1-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html, “a federal program that began as a last resort for a few million hungry people has grown into an economic lifeline for entire towns.” Woonsocket is not alone, but many residents in many towns and cities across the United States live off government support like SNAP, which is directly loaded onto individual EBT cards and used at will by average Americans.  In fact, EBT has been accepted for some time at local bars, strip clubs, and other establishments unrelated to general health and welfare. See Welfare Recipients Take Out Cash at Strip Clubs,FoxNews.com, Jan. 1, 2006, also available at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/06/welfare-recipients-take-out-cash-at-strip-clubs-liquor-stores/?test=latestnews.

            According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), one in seven U.S. residents received SNAP (food stamps) in 2011. At the end of 2012 one in four residents were relying on SNAP. Government support makes up one third of U.S. wages. Government resources support nearly 40 million people.  This support is observable in broken households or never formed families, and according to family law scholar Stephanie Coontz is creating “a nation of welfare families.” For an examination of how the federal benefits work with state implementation, see Gina Adams, Pamela A. Holcomb, Kathleen Snyder, Robin Koralek, and Jeffrey Capizzano, Child Care Subsidies for TANF Families: The Nexus of Systems and Policies, at Urban.org (Apr. 10, 2006), also available athttp://www.urban.org/publications/311305.html.

            These programs are designed to provide assistance for families.  Operatively, however, they have worked to trap those families in government dependence, and near poverty.  Government reliance inadvertently tends to create a cycle of poverty embedded in family fragmentation as it serves as a disincentive to become part of an intact and stable family.  “Experts estimate that for most couples receiving public assistance, getting married will reduce their benefits by 10% to 20% of their total income.”  See Eve Tushnet, “A Choice Between Feeding Your Children or Getting Married,” First Things, Feb. 27, 2013, at http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/a-choice....   Thus, government welfare is creating further family fragmentation, and greater dysfunctional reliance, albeit unintentionally.

            On the other hand, strong families are part of the fabric of a healthy and strong society. Intact families are generally not in need of support as economic resources of the united family members are used to support the family.  Family restoration is the best solution to these concerns.  When families are strong, society is strongest, and stabilized; the outcome is that communities and families do not require government intervention. Strong families cost government less.

            Interactions between political science and family law and policy reveal how government family support fosters and perpetuates the occurrence of family fragmentation. The current dramatic rise in government support for fragmented families over the last several years demonstrates clearly that human behavior within families is a critical aspect of politics.  Curbing family reliance on government through marriage and family restoration, however, would serve to increase family stability.

Regent Developing Women Leadership

This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend Capital Law School’s Wells Conference on Adoption with Professor Lynne Marie Kohm in Columbus, Ohio. My attendance was all due to the generous support of Regent University. Regent recognizes the importance of supporting and developing women leaders.

In anticipation of the event, I was able to help Professor Kohm research and prepare for her presentation entitled “Rethinking Mom and Dad,” which detailed the law and social science on whether children do best with both a mother and a father, and why that is the case. At the event, I helped Professor Kohm run the power point and video links for her presentation. Being at the conference with Professor Kohm gave me the chance to network with several other law professors and legal professionals. 

I also think this experience was instrumental because it gave me a front row seat to watch and learn from Professor Kohm. I look up to Professor Kohm in many ways but one of the most important is her courage and grace in presenting truth and light in a dark world. Just take this conference as an example; Professor Kohm was the only presenter out of about ten who was advocating that the best interest of a child involves a mother and a father. She was incredible in her ability to be firm in her research and arguments yet sensitive to others. Watching her present and interact with the audience and other presenters at the conference taught me much about what it looks like to be a Christian leader who changes the world.

I am confident that this experience will have a profound impact on developing my own leadership abilities and has furthered my desire to continue to be involved in issues of restoring the family. It has also given me the confidence to now go to the next conference with Professor Kohm in April in Chicago (for a presentation entitled “The Politics of Family Fragmentation”) where she is graciously allowing me to co-present with her.

I am blessed to be at a school that recognizes the importance of supporting future leaders and has professors that are willing to train these students.

--Rachel Kathleen Toberty 

Regent University Law School, Candidate for J.D., 2013

Editor In Chief, Regent Journal of Law and Public Policy

Rethinking Mom and Dad toward Family Restoration

An upcoming Conference on Adoption Law at the Capital Law School's Wells Conference Symposium in Columbus, OH, will feature a host of subjects on "Rethinking the Best Interest of the Child."  My (somewhat) controversial presentation is entitled "Rethinking Mom and Dad," and discusses the notion that children need both a mother and a father.

In fact, this is such a significant event that Regent University has allowed me to use this opportunity for student mentoring in leadership.  My graduate assistant, Rachel Toberty, will be joining me at that conference.  This will provide her with a fabulous comparative perspective on child advocacy by another law school from a different perspective and further develop her leadership skills.  She and my graduate assistant, Elizabeth Oklevitch, have done some excellent research to prepare my presentation and article for this event.  You can see more about it below:

The 9^th Annual Wells Conference on Adoption Law:
"Rethinking Children's Best Interests"
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Capital University Law School
Columbus, Ohio 303 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Panel One will focus on
"The New Face of Family and Children's Best Interests"


FEATURED PANELISTS

Annette Appell, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Civil Justice Clinic, Washington University Law (same sex adoption; birth certificates)	Cynthia R. Mabry, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law (Post Adoption Contact and PACAs)	Lynne Marie Kohm,  John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law, Regent University School of Law (Rethinking mothers and fathers: the inclusiveness of family)	Melissa Holtzman,  Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Ball State University (the best interests of the child in the context of contested adoption)

6.5 CLE and Social Work Counselor and Social Worker Continuing Education credit hours are requested.

 

For more information and to register, please visit the conference web site at www.law.capital.edu/Wells.

 

For questions about the conference, please contact:
Denise St. Clair
Executive Director
National Center for Adoption Law & Policy
Capital University Law School
dstclair@law.capital.edu
614.236.6593

---

---

The introduction to my remarks, listed here below, gives you an idea of how important mom and dad are to family restoration.

Rethinking Mom and Dad

By Lynne Marie Kohm*

            If the players of the National Football League are any indicator of what might be in the best interests of children, some sports experts seem to think that fatherless quarterbacks have more challenges to their NFL success than those who had the benefit of both a father and a mother while growing up.[1]  Robert Griffen, III (also known as RGIII), is a prime example.[2]  In fact, "decades of research have now documented the tremendous challenges children face when they grow up without their fathers,"[3] and indeed father absence[4] and the father wound[5] are serious concerns in America today.[6]  

            In contrast, others argue there is "no conclusive evidence that, absent conditions [of poverty], the pure, pared-down state of single motherhood is itself dangerous to children."[7] A recent survey of current studies on parenting that mitigated family structure variables indicated that "strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers."[8] That survey of studies concluded that "average differences favor women over men" in parenting, but that "parenting skills are not dichotomous or exclusive" noting that the "gender of parents correlates in novel ways with parenting-child relationships but has minor significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success."[9] A 1999 study contended that successful parenting is not gender specific at all, but that children do not need either a mother or a father, but any gender configuration of adults could parent well,[10] even if still others called this thinking "lunacy,"[11] or "political screed masquerading as science."[12]    

            Constitutionally, parental rights are fundamentally protected,[13] but what parental situation is authentically in the child's best interests? Arguments for genderless parenting suggest that "the gender of parents only matters in ways that don't matter."[14]  In 1987 Supreme Court Justice William Brennan  in Bowens v. Guillard argued, however, that "the optimal situation for the child is to have both an involved mother and an involved father."[15] The New York Court of Appeals in 2006 ruled that     

[T]he Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.  Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.[16] 

An expert relied on in testimony against California's Proposition 8 (a referendum defining marriage as between one man and one woman passed by a majority of Californians) wrote that both "mothers and fathers play crucial and qualitatively different roles in the socialization of the child."[17]

            Speaking now as a bisexual parent and a child who was raised by two mothers, Professor Robert Lopez asserts that what parents do matters, and that he and other bisexual parents have "no choice but to take responsibility for what we do as parents…. When you are a parent, ethical questions revolve around your children and you put away your self-interest . . . forever."[18]  Journalist and researcher Alana Newman, speaking as a child of sperm donation who was raised without a father at home states "I am the daughter of a sperm donor. For a long time I didn't understand how this had negatively impacted my life... I am convinced that I am not alone in my struggles being donor-conceived."[19]  Doug Manwaring, a homosexual father of two teenage boys recently spoke publicly "of his personal experience as a gay man who came to realize that his own children need both a mother and a father."[20]

            Parents affect children.  Rethinking whether a child needs a mom and a dad is no straightforward task.  Exploring conflicts and issues that arise when determining the best interests of a child in a number of different parental contexts, this article considers rethinking the best interests of a child in having a parent of each gender, namely a father and a mother.  Focusing on child rearing and adoption from many angles such as fatherlessness, same gender parenting, motherlessness, parental incarceration, and children resulting from assisted reproductive technologies, this article discusses whether dual gendered parenting holds more or less weight in a best interest of the child analysis. If it does not matter whether a child has an opportunity to have a relationship with both a father and a mother, why is that the case? And if dual gendered parenting better fosters a child's best interest, why is that so? Can any state law require dual gendered parenting within parental rights and equal protection guidelines? And for that matter, should gender of the parent ever be a relevant consideration in the adoption of a child? This piece will consider state statutory codes defining what is in the best interests of a child, pediatric medicine, social science, constitutional requirements, and federal law and policy in determining if it is truly in a child's best interests to have both a mom and a dad. It will conclude with a discussion of dual gendered parenting imperatives, while offering innovative resolutions to the best interests of children missing one or the other.

            Part I discusses various studies and scenarios of parenting, perspectives on each, and their results on children. It confronts the problem of fatherlessness, the need for mothering, and the significance of a marriage context for children. Part II examines statutory parameters on the best interests of children regarding parental preference in state codes, analyzing these factors and considering whether and how they are directed by pediatric medicine, or evidence from social science. It then compares these facts with federal law on equal protection, and federal family policy. Part III brings all these angles together in a discussion of a child's interests in his or her own parents. It sets forth how the law and the evidence find it imperative that a child have an opportunity to enjoy a relationship with a father and a mother whenever possible, while offering innovative resolutions to provide a father or a mother for a child that has been deprived of one or the other.

            A child's best interests, though required by state family law code, are not always the driving factor in parental decisions. Rethinking the best interests of a child leads to a legal duty that finds it imperative to allow a child every opportunity to have one parent of each gender - a mother and a father - whenever possible.

---

* John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law, Regent University School of Law.  My sincere gratitude is expressed to the Capital University Law School Law Review board and staff for hosting the March 2013 Wells Conference on "Rethinking Best Interests," where this article was presented by invitation.

[1] See e.g. Colin Cowherd, Sports and fatherless football players, SI Sports Radio [get correct cite here] (contrasting very successful rookie quarterbacks such as RGIII, Russell Wilson, and Colin Kapernick who were raised with a father (and a mother) with very talented but struggling quarterbacks such as Cam Newton, and Michael Vick, who did not have the benefit of being raised with a father at home.

[2] "It was always mom and dad with us. Robert knew we were both there." (is this exact?) Interview with Robert Griffin, Jr., Dec. 12, 2009,  http://www.zennie62blog.com/2012/12/09/rg3s-dad-talks-raising-robert-griffin-iii-12353/.

[3] Jenet Erickson, Men Don't Matter, Public Discourse, Oct. 26, 2012, at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6710/.

[4] See National Fatherhood Initiative, Defining the Issue (2011) at http://www.fatherhood.org/about/about-how-we-do-it (stating that "There are record levels of father absence in America…" with "24 million children liv[ing] in homes absent their biological father" and "1 of 3 children nationally – triple the rate of 1960 – liv[ing] in father-absent homes.")[hereinafter NFI].

[5] See The Father Wound Epidemic, Fathers for Good (2013), at http://www.fathersforgood.org/ffg/en/month/archive/march10.html.  The "father wound" is not yet an officially recognized clinical term, but it is used by mental health professionals in identifying the origin of numerous emotional and behavioral conflicts in spouses, singles, and children. "These difficulties can be the result of failing to have a strong, loving and supportive relationship with a responsible father, or as a result of modeling after and then repeating significant weaknesses of the father such as selfishness, excessive anger, emotionally distant behaviors or indifference to the faith."  Id.  See also Russell Simmons, "Knock Knock," PhatPraise, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E0DMcZ23kE.

[6] NFI, supra note 4.

[7] Katie Rophie, In Defense of Single Motherhood," New York Times, Aug. 11, 2012, at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/in-defense-of-single-motherhood.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

[8] Timothy J. Biblarz and Judith Stacey, How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? 72 J. Marriage & Fam. 3 (Feb. 2010).

[9] Id. summarizing the findings.

[10] L. B. Silverstein & C. F. Auerbach, Deconstructing the Essential Father, 54 Am. Psychologist 397 (1999).

[11] Wade Horn, Lunacy 101: Questioning the Need for Fathers, All about families newsletter, Jul. 21, 1999, at 4, available at www.allaboutfamilies.org. Mr. Horn was the Secretary for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services in 2001-2007.  See Wade Horn Ran Welfare for George W. Bush, Washington Post, Feb. 26, 2012, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/26/wade-horn-ran-welfare-for-george-w-bush-heres-how-hed-handle-the-sequester/.

[12] Jeff Jacoby, Attack on fatherhood a political screed masquerading as science, Boston Globe, Jul. 26, 1999, at A15, also available at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8566262.html.

[13] Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)(both holding that parents have an inalienable right to direct the upbringing of their children).

[14] Erickson, supra note 3, citing a "top-tier family science publication" – find this and cite it correctly directly from that source.

[15] Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 614 (1987, Brennan, J. dissenting).

[16] Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E. 2d 1 (2006, J. Robert Smith).

[17] Michael E. Lamb, Fathers: Forgotten Contributors to Child Development, 18 Human Dev. 245, 246 (1975).  Dr. Lamb testified in favor of same-sex couples in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), trial transcript at 1064, 1068.

[18] Robert Oscar Lopez, "Growing Up with two Moms: the Untold Children's View, Public Discourse, Aug. 12, 2012, at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/.  Apparently, Professor Lopez had to explain his position.  See Karen Ocamb, Bisexual CSUN Prof Robert Oscar Lopez Explains Support for Regnerus Study, LGBTpov.com, Aug. 19, 2012, also available at http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2012/08/19/bisexual-csun-prof-robert-oscar-lopez-explains-support-for-regnerus-study/, where Lopez does so in a way that breaks through myriad sexual, political, and multicultural lines.

[19] Alana S. Newman, Gay Marriage and the Test-Tube Tidal Wave, First Things, Aug. 2, 2012, at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/08/gay-marriage-and-the-test-tube-tidal-wave.

[20] Napp Nazworth, Kids Need Both Mom and Dad, Says Gay Man Opposed to Gay Marriage, CP Politics, Jan. 28, 2013, at http://www.christianpost.com/news/kids-need-both-mom-and-dad-says-gay-man-opposed-to-gay-marriage-89018/#RF0rHvKbI3Mk7EXR.99.  Doug Manwaring is "now living with his ex-wife so they can co-parent their two teenaged sons."  Id. 

Contraceptive Mandate and Rights of Conscience Drive a Political Wedge that Harms Families

The Regent University Federalist Society hosted Professor Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington and Lee University School of Law on Monday, March 19 for a special event to discuss "The Contraceptive Mandate and Rights of Conscience." Professor Wilson is the Class of 1958 Law Alumni Professor of Law, and has been focusing her recent scholarship on providing accommodations for religious organizations on social issues that seem publicly divisive, but about which reasonable people, particularly people of faith, may have valid objections.

As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act citizens and employers in the United States will be forced to pay to make contraceptives available free of charge to any consumers who wish to use them. Being made to participate in the reproductive health care of others is not something Americans expected in health care reform. In light of discussions on this matter over the past two weeks, this issue is most controversial for those of faith, but it is not unreasonable to think that some Americans may have objections to such provisions not necessarily based on faith, but simply based on liberty. See the rise of the Catholic Church on this issue at The Daily Caller, and USA Today's recent discussion of government sponsored accommodations for religious objectors.

Professor Wilson argued that being made to participate in the reproductive health of others appears to be a neutral rule with a disproportionate effect on religious institutions and organizations, and therefore argues for carving out accommodations that honor religious objectives yet still comply with the law. She also discussed the concerns over contraceptives and sterilization generally, as well as concerns over contragestives (often labeled as contraceptives) particularly, noting their abortive qualities. Responses were offered by Regent Law Professors David Wagner, Lynne Marie Kohm, and Thomas Folsom for a lively discussion. The Federalist Society sponsored a vibrant, sprite, timely and well received event on this important issue.

Forced payment of contraception not only harms religious employers, but it drives a political wedge into the fabric of American liberty. That liberty generally protects individuals and families to make their own reproductive health care choices, rather than being coerced to be a funding party to anyone else's sexual choices. Contraceptive mandates violate rights of conscience for individuals, families, religious employers, and many other Americans, and in no way foster family restoration.

An Au Revoir Tribute to Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr.

Last week we at Regent University School of Law lost a special friend and an important advocate for our work here – Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. Many of us feel as if we lost a dear friend and relative, as God had blessed us dearly with the presence and encouragement of the Chief Justice for more than a decade.

Chief Justice Hassell was Regent University School of Law’s Jurist in Residence. He would visit the law school on a monthly basis, spending a concentrated time here with us each spring semester, teaching, speaking, and conversing with faculty, students, prospective law school candidates, and graduates. He had such a pulse on the life of the law school that the Regent Law Review instituted the annual Hassell Writing Competition, which now takes place each year in honor of the faith and practice principals espoused by the Chief Justice. Furthermore, the Chief Justice routinely hired Regent law graduates year after year, mentoring them, sharing wisdom and expertise with them, and devoting himself to their careers as people called to a mission field in the law. Indeed, more than one clerk would recount that “he was more like a second father than a boss to me.” As we bid him farewell for a time, and lift up prayers for his wife and children and extended family, it is important to honor him for who he was – a man of God.

Jesus Christ was the most important person in his life. That is why he connected himself with Regent Law, and that is why he served the State of Virginia so formidably. Justice Hassell preached the Gospel through his life. As he swore new attorneys into the bar, he would encourage them to serve the indigent community, taking care of the least of these to “love your neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27.) He would daily talk about how good God was to him, how blessed he was with his wife’s support, how greatly he loved his family, and how honored he was with his work and calling. He also talked about God's goodness during his speeches to attorneys at the Virginia State Bar conference and at almost every public occasion. Attorneys throughout the Commonwealth recognized this, as he was most recently honored by the Virginia Bar Association (VBA) with their Lifetime Achievement Award, and was scheduled to be honored by the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association (VTLA) as the unanimous choice to receive the VTLA Distinguished Service Award at their upcoming “Voice of the People” conference this coming March.

Chief Justice Hassell was a champion for the people, and a victor in eternity. He fought the good fight; he finished the race; and he kept the faith. (2 Timothy 4:7). Please honor Justice Hassell by viewing his death as an open door to share about God's goodness. In Christ believers have the assurance of eternal security (I John 5:11-13) and the hope of the resurrection to come (John 11:25). The "homecoming" of a beloved friend, advocate and jurist may carry an air of sadness in our loss, but it is an open door to respectfully let people know the hope to which Jesus Christ calls us. Please honor Justice Hassell by letting people know that he is at home with Christ.

I Corinthians 15:5 (NIV) "Where, o death, is your victory? Where, o death, is your sting?"

Click here for A Resolution

In Honor of the Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr.

Parent No. 1? + Parent No. 2? = New(Speak) Families?

According to recent news from the State Department, passports for children will no longer refer to a child’s mother and father, but will rather refer to parents in purely gender neutral terms only.  

The Washington Post reports, “The State Department has decided to make U.S. passport application forms ‘gender neutral’ by removing references to mother and father, officials said, in favor of language that describes one's parentage somewhat less tenderly. The change is ‘in recognition of different types of families,’ according to a statement issued just before Christmas that drew widespread attention Friday after a Fox News report.”

Amid this change lies an undertone that such an alteration is not an ideal one to make regarding families, as the Post also reports that, “[t]he announcement of the change was buried at the end of a Dec. 22 news release, titled ‘Consular Report of Birth Abroad Certificate Improvements,’ that highlighted unrelated security changes.”  Why would the State Department bury such news?  When something is hidden like this is that an indication that there must be some apparent or latent dishonor or embarrassment associated with it?  Some change that is not to be well received by many?  This surreptitious announcement, however, does not escape review.  You can read the entire Washington Post article here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706741.html.

Could an innocent reader view this change in language, and the attempt to secret those changes an indirect blow to the American family? Or as further evidence of the continued breakdown and/or watering down of the meaning of family? Liberty University Law Review recently published a piece by Professor Kohm written precisely on this topic, comparing such language alterations to George Orwell’s “NewsSpeak” language of 1984.  You can read that piece at 4 Liberty U. L.Rev. 593 (2010).  This type of effort toward a family ‘newspeak’ can only hinder, rather than foster, family restoration. 

It is the Lord Christ You are Serving (Colossians 3:24)

Having the great privilege of service to the community through the Virginia Bar often offers me opportunities to share the depth of calling to law that a good lawyer receives from the Almighty Judge and Law Giver, Jesus Christ. 

My recent essay has been posted on the Virginia State Bar web site (click here to view).  It is part of a section of their web site called Reflections, A collection of essays written by or about Virginia lawyers.

It provides a unique take on the big picture of what practicing law is all about, illuminating the concept of a calling. With a continued focus on diversity, and particularly diversity of ideas, it is an honor to be a part of this project.

Law is more than a profession… it’s a calling.

A Week with the Chief Justice in Residence at Regent Law

Every spring semester Supreme Court of Virginia Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. spends a week teaching classes at Regent Law as our Jurist in Residence. This year, from March 9 through 13 the Honorable Chief Justice was on campus – guest lecturing, meeting with student groups, meeting with faculty and even spending time with individual students and potential students to share with them his heart for Regent Law.

Some days Chief Justice Hassell was found teaching as many as five different classes! For example, on Tuesday he taught Family Law, immediately followed by Business Associations. After a law faculty luncheon welcoming him to campus, the Chief Justice taught Labor Law in the afternoon and Trial Practice that evening. In Family Law, the Chief Justice was quoted, “We are in a war [for the family]. Courts are the worst forums for making decisions about families. There, a complete stranger will make decisions that will impact your life forever.” He added, “Judges and attorneys must learn how to temper justice with mercy,” echoing Micah 6:8.

On Wednesday he lectured in Legal Analysis, Research & Writing, then in Professional Responsibility, then spoke in Regent University Chapel, lectured in Law Practice Technology, and spent the evening teaching Judges & Judicial Process. The students in each of these courses benefited tremendously from time spent with the Chief Justice. With an amazing zeal for education and personal networking, the honorable Mr. Hassell went non-stop for the entire week in this fashion, giving students and faculty alike his time in myriad ways and forms. 

At what other law school can a student get that kind of lecture benefit and personal face time with the highest justice in the state? Regent Law is supremely grateful for his efforts, and once again honored to have Chief Justice Leroy Hassell on campus last week as our jurist in residence.

Oral argument in Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum

Yesterday, November 12, 2008 at the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow presented oral arguments on behalf of a little town in Utah regarding a municipality’s duties and abilities in the display of public monuments. Read more about the case at http://alliancealert.org/2008/11/12/oral-argument-in-pleasant-grove-city-v-summum/ or read on:

Via Scotus Blog:

At 10 a.m, the Court will hear argument in Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum (07-665), on whether donated monuments displayed in public parks qualify as private speech, thus requiring municipalities to display monuments from all other donors. Jay Sekulow of Washington, D.C., Deputy Solicitor General Daryl Joseffer will argue for the petitioner, and Pamela Harris of Washington, D.C., will argue for the respondent.

Scotus Blog also has an argument preview. How Appealing provides a number of links to relevant articles from the Deseret News (Pleasant Grove religious case in top court today), the Associated Press (High court hears dispute over religious monument), CNN (2 religious groups take battle over monument to Supreme Court), and NPR:

And today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Supreme Court Hears Religious Display Case” (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg.

On Monday, Jay Sekulow provided this update.

UPDATE 1:30 PM: The ACLJ has posted an account of today’s arguments with links to their opening and reply briefs:

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), today urged the Supreme Court to preserve sound precedent involving the well-established distinction between government speech and private speech in a case that could force cities to either to dismantle a host of monuments, memorials, and other displays, including long-standing patriotic and historical displays, or else let all comers install privately owned monuments or displays, regardless of content.

The ACLJ is asking the high court to overturn a decision by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that ordered Pleasant Grove City, UT to accept and display a monument from a self-described church called Summum because the city displays a Ten Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

The ACLJ contends that the Tenth Circuit made a serious error confusing government speech with private speech. In its briefs, the ACLJ argues that “a city’s selection of which items to display in a park – like its selection of decorations for government buildings – is government speech, and no private entity can claim a ‘Me too!’ right of access for its own preferred displays.”

UPDATE 3:00 PM: Via How Appealing, a link to the transcipt of today’s proceedings.

What you may not know is that the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is located on the 4th floor of Robertson Hall at Regent University, and employs large numbers of Regent Law students and alumni – most of which have worked on the preparation for the Summum briefs, reply petition and arguments for the past nine months. This incredible opportunity of very hard work was rewarded by an opportunity to be present for the actual oral arguments yesterday morning if seating permitted. 

The greatest honor was made possible for four faculty members (myself included) to be admitted to the Court on motion by Mr. Sekulow, taking the oath to be admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. 

After the arguments, nearly 150 students, faculty, attorneys and friends of the ACLJ were assembled at the public interest law firm’s offices in D. C. For more on that… see tomorrow’s post… 

Related:

High court hears dispute over religious monument
Associated Press, Mark Sherman, 11.12.2008

The Ten Commandments vs. The Seven Aphorisms
Real Clear Politics, Maggie Gallagher, 11.12.2008

Utah Case Presents High Court With First Amendment Issue, Just Not The One That Should Be Considered
American Constitution Society, Ayesha N. Khan, 11.11.2008

Wednesday: Oral argument in Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum
Alliance Alert, 11.10.2008

Click here to read a student perspective on the argument.