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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT