ILNews

Valpo, Indy law host lecture, event

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Law School Briefs

Law School Briefs is Indiana Lawyer’s new section that will highlight news from law schools in Indiana. While we have always covered law school news and will continue to keep up with law school websites and press releases for updates, we’ll gladly accept submissions for this section from law students, professors, alums, and others who want to share law school-related news. If you’d like to submit news or a photo from an event, please send it to Rebecca Berfanger, rberfanger@ibj.com, along with contact information for any follow up questions at least two weeks in advance of the issue date.

Valpo hosts lecture on same-sex marriage

Professor William Eskridge Jr. of Yale Law School will discuss “Six Myths That Confuse the Same-Sex Marriage Debate” as the guest speaker for the Valparaiso University School of Law Seegers Lecture on Jurisprudence starting at 4 p.m. Nov. 18 at the law school’s Wesemann Hall, 656 S. Greenwich St.

Those myths are: “(a) that gay marriage will have a significant impact (good or bad) on marriage; (b) that marriage equality must come through judicial activism rather than legislative reform; (c) that it is important to have a national resolution of the issue in the near future; (d) that whether lesbian and gay parents do a good job raising children will play a major role in resolving the debate; (e) that Judeo-Christian religions/faiths are inherently opposed to marriage equality; and (f) that opposition to gay marriage serves to reaffirm traditional marriage.”

Eskridge is a leader in the revival of Legislation and Statutory Interpretation as academic disciplines, according to a release from Valparaiso. He is recognized as a founder of the public law discipline Sexuality, Gender, and the Law.

In that discipline, Eskridge has published a variety of articles to define a legal and political framework for the proper treatment of sexual and gender minorities.

Historical materials in his book “Gaylaw” were the basis of an amicus brief he drafted for the Cato Institute, and that material was also used for the court’s analysis in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which invalidated consensual sodomy laws. His most recent book is “Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse?” written with Darren Spedale.

The Seegers Lecture is named for the late Edward A. Seegers, a Chicago attorney. During his lifetime, Seegers made significant contributions toward scholarships and new buildings, and he fully endowed a law school chair in honor of his father and mother, Louis and Anna Seegers.

Although he graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, Seegers was granted honorary alumni membership by the Valparaiso University Alumni Association in 1977.

Indy Law hosted environmental event

The Hoosier Environmental Council’s third annual “Greening the Statehouse” took place Nov. 6 at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis. The goal of the event is to educate and rally attendees on policies to advance public transit, sustainable agriculture, protection of bodies of water, and green energy. About 120 people attended.

This year, HEC partnered with various organizations from around the state to discuss strategies and tactics that will win over lawmakers and improve the environment and health of Hoosiers.

Rick Dove of North Carolina was the featured speaker and discussed the consequences of concentrated animal feeding operations. He is an advocate for Waterkeeper Alliance, an organization dedicated to preserving and protecting water from polluters, and he works with numerous Waterkeepers in various states and staff attorneys at the Waterkeeper Alliance.

Dove served in the U.S. Marines and was a military courts-martial judge on his final tour of duty. He also practiced law until becoming the Neuse Riverkeeper in 1993.

The event was hosted by the Environmental Law Society at IU School of Law – Indianapolis.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT