Posted on 01/21/2006 11:07:58 PM PST by NYer
Columbus, Jan. 20, 2006 (CNA) - An Ohio mother of four has launched a constitutional appeal against an Ohio civil divorce and custody decision, arguing her religious beliefs and free speech were used against her in the proceedings.
Marie “Bai” Macfarlane’s husband abandoned her and their four children in 2003 and began no-fault divorce proceedings. Macfarlane is a stay-at-home mother and devout Catholic who homeschooled her children until 2004.
Her potentially precedent-setting appeal was submitted by Ave Maria School of Law professor Stephen Safranek. The Constitutional Law professor argues: “The civil courts do not have sole authority to end her marriage or to control the upbringing of her children. These religious and moral beliefs may be considered alien or quaint in our culture. Yet, the holding fast to such beliefs should not result in discrimination against a mother.”
Macfarlane said she and her husband had agreed to marry for life. “Even if disputes arose, I expected that we would resolve them as Catholics, from the Church’s moral position,” she said.
However, the civil divorce court refused to allow a third party arbitrator, the ecclesiastic authority of the Catholic Church, to determine separation procedures, financial settlements and custody of the children, despite legal precedents set in cases of Jewish or Islamic marriages.
Further, the appeal argues the Guardian for the children in the case was hostile to Macfarlane’s religious views and did not act properly in defending the interests of the children.
The Guardian removed them from their mother’s care although the court psychologist report states the children, “do want more time with their mom” and the older boys “were adamant supporters of homeschooling.”
The court gave the father, who works full time, permanent custody and their stay-at-home mom visitation.
“I was forced to stop homeschooling my three older children. My youngest child is in daycare although I am willing to stay home and care for my children,” said MacFarlane. “I have no right to make any decision regarding their upbringing. Finally, although we as a family poured our lives and savings into a non-profit foundation, my husband runs it and I have been ordered to get another job.”
Macfarlane founded www.marysadvocates.org for people concerned about no-fault divorce. To learn about Safranek’s public interest law firm, visit www.truemarriage.net.
Need more salient info.
"However, the civil divorce court refused to allow a third party arbitrator, the ecclesiastic authority of the Catholic Church, to determine separation procedures, financial settlements and custody of the children, despite legal precedents set in cases of Jewish or Islamic marriages."
Ah, yes. Some religions are more equal than others.
There also was his involvement in a website strongly supportive of Catholic Homeschooling:
http://www.catholicity.com/links/categories.html?catid=20
Ah, yes. Some religions are more equal than others.
Islamic Arbitration.
Marriage as an institution went to hell in a handbasket when government licenses became a replacement for ceremonial marriages.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
ping?
How much justice can you afford?
Marriage as an institution went to hell in a handbasket when government licenses became a replacement for ceremonial marriages.
When did that happen?
Although marriage licenses issued by the State have been around in Western civilization for about 500 years, ceremonial marriages and common law marriages were predominant. It was an issue of private contract between two parties.
When our country was founded, one could be married by a preacher, enter the marriage in the family Bible, and it would be considered legal. No license required. Many marriages in the Wild West consisted of shacking up together and representing to the public that one was married.
However, in the late 19th Century and throughout the 20th Century, the states started instituting licensing requirements. In the Jim Crow South, requiring a license for interracial marriages was a way to prevent blacks and whites from inter-marrying.
Only about a dozen states even recognize common law marriages today. The licensing issue is all about control. What the state assumes the power to grant, it can attach alot of strings to in the process...particularly on the back -end.
I'm sure there was some kind of a prenup.
"the holding fast to such beliefs should not result in discrimination against a mother.”
Depends on what the beliefs are. In this case, the relevant beliefs are that: 1) The mother didn't want the divorce, 2)Divorce is bad and 3) It's daddy's fault. The courts, psychs and social workers don't allow this. You are required to accept the divorce, never refer to it as bad, and never blame anyone. If you rebel against their "wisdom", you will suffer their wrath.
"Bai also asked Cletus in my(social worker) presence, 'Why aren't you at my house anymore?' Cletus responded, 'Because Daddy broke up our family.'" ... "Of great concern are her interactions with Cletus in my office. Specifically, she encouraged Cletus to state that his father was 'breaking up' their family.'"
See! Ma failed to teach the kids that this is simply normal thing to do. I'll bet see even got into an argument with the social worker too and perhaps the judge at a prelim. Judges adhere to the preachings of the same psych gurus that lead the social workers.
Courts see marriage as a contract. The conditions of the contract allow dissolution if one party, or both ain't happy. When the contract is dissolved, the court requires that you follow their orders to act, which they justify on grounds of the children's mental heath needs.
" Stephen Safranek. The Constitutional Law professor argues: “The civil courts do not have sole authority to end her marriage or to control the upbringing of her children. These religious and moral beliefs may be considered alien or quaint in our culture. Yet, the holding fast to such beliefs should not result in discrimination against a mother.”"
If this is his Constitutional argument, he's not playing with a full deck. The marriage license and court jurisdiction are clearly State matters. Freedom of religion is irrelevant here. The only relevant issue is what's best for the children, not the parent's religious beliefs.
Something to contemplate -- everyday there are dozens of gay ceremonial marriages performed by ordained clergy, though not recognized by the States in which they are performed. By your response, I take it that you're okay with gay marriage.
I'm fine with ceremonial marriages that are private contracts between consenting adult individuals. I object to the concept that these private contracts can lead to special recognition, rights or obligations imposed by the government. I'd never participate in a gay marriage, nor would I be a party to an Islamic ceremonial marriage for that matter, but the private contracts created by these are none of my business except to the extent they interfere with my rights. The same can be said of a Christian ceremonial marriage. To each their own.
We're actually more or less in agreement. I got no substantial come back argument.
The courts have repeatedly held that one can hold whatever religious beliefs one wants...but the ability to act on those beliefs can be limited by the State. Examples include snake-handling, polygamy, wife-beating, withholding medical treatment from a child, etc.
Here is a fine case from TROP.
"Defendant took three wives. They wed into the Islamic faith. Defendant believed that the teachings of the Holy Koran empowered him to beat his wives. So he beat all three of them. Only two survived...
Jeannie Boyd-Jones succumbed to massive injuries sustained as a result of a prolonged beating administered by defendant. Portions of her deep body fat liquified, and the tissue died as a result of the force applied. Over one-third of her blood supply permeated the internal body cavity lost to circulation as a result of the force applied. Her lower torso and shanks were one massive contusion, with no portion of her frame free of visible welts and bruises. Jeannie Boyd-Jones was beaten to death. Of that there can be no dispute...
He admitted that the State's exhibit was the "stick" employed to "discipline" his three wives. There is no question about the weapon used to inflict the wounds that caused death.
The "stick" was 36 inches in length and 2 inches in diameter. It was only slightly larger in length and slightly smaller in its barrel than the Louisville Slugger employed by Mark McGwire. The trial court characterized it as a cudgel. Over the course of 8 1/2 hours it was applied with full force to various portions of Jeannie's body. At times, defendant would hold it with both hands like a baseball bat and swing for the fences with all the force he could muster. The defendant is six feet two inches in height and weighs 250 pounds.
Of course, defendant did not swing at Jeannie continuously during the 8-hour "disciplinary period." Jeannie fell in and out of consciousness, a circumstance that on occasion brought a respite. Defendant had two other wives to address. There was also evidence of certain smoke breaks during the ordeal. On occasion, however, when defendant was not beating his other wives or smoking crack cocaine, he was reviving Jeannie in order to inflict further punishment. At one point, as Jeannie was about to collapse and pass out, defendant told her to 'go ahead and die bitch'..."
State of Illinois v. Jones, 297 Ill. App. 3d 688; 697 N.E.2d 457 (1998).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
