Earlier, an article about our case appeared describing how the civil courts punished me by removing my children from my care.  One of their reasons is that I taught my children what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage and divorce.
http://renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/051207       Dianne Sollee, of Smart Marriage posted the article on her e-mail news.  Later she posted a reply by Bill Bailey from University of Arkansas.    Our lead attorney, constitutional law professor, Stephen Safranek, replied to Bill Bailey's concerns. 
 

Let Freedom Ring
By Stephen Safranek

Dear Diane:
 
I would like equal time, if possible to respond to the letter you received from Bill Bailey in Arkansas. It is so wrong as a matter of fact and law that it needs to be addressed.
 
The TrueMarriage.net project and the MacFarlane case are nothing like Bailey describes.
 
Let us start with the current state of affairs.
 
Currently, the state mixes itself up with the Churches in lots of ways. In virtually all states if a minister or priest says you are married, you are married. The state has given its licensing powers to the churches.
 
Until no fault divorce, the state considered divorce in large measure like the churches considered it, i.e. those at fault were required to pay for their fault and the children were protected from tawdry and untoward situations if possible, i.e. if one of the spouses was living with a girlfriend or boyfriend or whatever, the children were not forced to observe and be a part of it. This was the normal course because the courts enforced a religious/moral view on marriage and the raising of children.
 
No fault changed all of this. It says that anyone anywhere who enters marriage can leave it at will. It has FORCED all marriages to be no fault marriages. It has FORCED this to be so. This fact needs to be kept in mind.
 
TrueMarriage and the MacFarlane case will not FORCE anyone to to anything unless they AGREED to it at some point. Essentially, TrueMarriage and the MacFarlane says people can have any type of marriage they want all the way down to the "no fault" version. However, they can also have a serious one.
 
Moreover, and this is the fact Bailey misses -- both of the MacFarlanes would testify that they will follow what their Church tells them. In other words, they agreed and agree to follow their Church's decisions. This is a crucial fact.
 
Bailey and others should realize that this is not the creation of some powerful Church force. Instead, TrueMarriage's goal is simple but effective - many people choose alternative dispute mechanisms to resolve their problems. This is the case even for marriages. To date, this has been confined to the rich and famous. The decisions of these arbitrators are binding. Anyone today could, as long as they follow the correct legal procedures, choose that the incidents of their marriage will be decided by Bill Bailey or anyone else if they choose to divorce. TrueMarriage wants religious people to choose their chosen church tribunal (created however they want) as their dispute mechanism resolver.
 
Surely, there will be different ways churches do this. Isn't this was freedom and what religious freedom is all about? Nobody has to be married in a church. Nobody has to even agree to be bound by a church tribunal if they marry in a church.
 
But, if a person says: Religion is important to me; religion is at the core of who I am and what my marriage is; iIf I am blessed by children, my most important role as a parent is to do everything I can to ensure that they will be faith filled people who love God because this will determine their eternal life; and I will not marry anyone who does not share this view. Should these people be forced to give an unfaithful spouse shared parenting where the children are forced to observe immoral behavior?
 
Assume that seriously religious people exist. They do. And they are not the Taliban force Bailey fears.
 
These people want one thing, they want their marriage to be considered in light of their beliefs if any problems arise in the marriage. Many if not most will admit of their own faults. And they are willing to be confronted by their faults by a proper tribunal.
 
Is this a problem for the Bill Baileys of the world? It appears so.
 
Therefore, the Bill Baileys of the world prevent religious people from marrying as they see marriage. What the Bill Baileys of the world do is FORCE all people who marry to enter a no fault marriage.
 
Amazingly, people like Mrs. MacFarlane and TrueMarriage are seen as crazed or as imposing some medieval torture on people. It is truly a bizarre world when such a twisting can occur.
 
Ask yourself, should the most important promise I ever make --- one more important than any other contract or agreement I will ever make -- be treated as terminable at will by one person to that promise?
 
If your answer is yes, then no fault is for you. If your answer is no, the TrueMarriage project is for you.
 
Moreover, ask yourself, must I impose my view of marriage on everyone? If your answer is yes, no fault is for you. If your answer is no. If you believe people should be free to enter more serious marriages, then TrueMarriage is for you.
 
The divide is between those who want to give people the freedom to bind themselves in a serious way, and those who do not.
 
Amazingly, it is the Baileys of the world who are the Talibans. They require people to be subject to the state in every way -- the state determines visiting hours for their kids, how much to spend, what you can say, etc. Indeed, the current divorce courts are a Sovietesque structure.
 
I say, let freedom reign!
 
Stephen J. Safranek
Founder
TrueMarriage.net

 The beginning question was "should the civil court stay its hand (stay neutral in the case) pending the canonical decision of the Catholic Church?" The answer is absolute not. There is a reason why the founding fathers believed in separation of church and state and avoided the creation of either state churches -- such as those that existed in 7 of the original 13 states of the U.S. prior to the Bill of Rights. It was to make all American citizens equal before the law, no matter what their religious beliefs were.
In addition, it would appear that if the court waits until the Catholic Church makes it's decision, then it implies there are should DIFFERENT laws applying to individuals based on their religious traditions, beliefs and opinions. It would indicate that different state laws and courts should be created for Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Muslims, etc. Each and every religion should have the right and the authority to make decisions about its believers prior to any civil court decision. That is, our elected legislators and judges would be subservient to the decisions make by Bishops, Cardinals, Rabbis, Preachers, and other religious authorities either as individuals or group representatives of a particular religion.

For example, if I do not believe the laws of the state and nation apply to me because I am a United Methodist, all civil decisions regarding any case I have before the courts must await the decision of the United Methodist Bishop and the Cabinet (District Superintendents) of the state of Arkansas prior to the civil court (headed by an elected judge) making a decision in my case. Imagine, if you will, the consequences of such an enmeshment of church and state policies that would result if the court agreed with the MacFarlane request.

 The same would apply to all divorce laws in the nation. Each religious rganization could request a set of divorce laws that only apply to their religious adherents. It would also become very sticky for divorce cases that involved mixed religious couples. Who  would decide for a Jewish and Catholic couple? Each religious body would make their "decisions" based on their religious practices and then they would have to meet and debate which religion has authority over the couple. Either we are a nation of laws that apply equally to everyone, regardless of religious faith, or we are not!

 The second question asks "if the civil court will not stay its hand, should the faithful spouse at least be able to introduce religious beliefs to determine custody issues and other matters?" At issue here is the phrase, "faithful spouse." Is it the role of the court to determine which one of the couple is the religiously "faithful spouse?" Maybe the courts should return to the "trial by ordeal" using dunking to determine who was the faithful one of the couple. If one spouse drowned and the other did not, the one who drowned was the "faithful one"  (see http://www.answers.com/topic/trial-by-ordeal).

 The second issue is also important. Yes, I believe that those going through a custody battle ought to have the right to witness to their religious beliefs. However, the judge in such a civil case continues to have the responsibility to uphold the laws of the state, the state constitution, and the Constitution of the United States. The court needs to take intoconsideration the religious beliefs of the litigants but they cannot be the only factor used in making legal decisions.

 It is my perspective that we live in dangerous times where our freedoms are threatened by the replacement of our representative constitutional democracy with a theocracy. The Taliban of Afghanistan represent to me and millions of Americans the consequences of the establishment of theocracy. I recommend that any one interested in this look at the web site
http://www.theocracywatch.org/.

Bill Bailey