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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT