Religious Interests in Community Conflict: Beyond the Culture Wars

Notes

h 281 Notes CHAPTER 1 1 For more information about the Public Religion Project conw w ducted by the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School with funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts, see http://martywcenter.uchicago.edu/research/publicreligion. shtml. CHAPTER 2 1 Throughout this paper, the term Indian is used instead of Native American. We do this both because the term Indian is less cumw w bersome and because most media accounts of the controversy examined here, as well as most selfwreferences by Native Ameriw w can participants in the conflict, use the term. 2 Two of the respondents indicated a lack of awareness of the casino controversy and were, therefore, dropped from most of the analysis. 3 In each evenwnumbered year, the Michigan legislature holds a brief session, called a lamewduck session because it tends to conw w tain fairly large numbers of legislators serving their final terms (due to retirement, electoral defeat, or term limits). 4 Four other members of Michigan’s 110wmember House also failed to vote on the measure. 5 A number of members of the 110wmember House and 38wmember Senate did not vote on each resolution. In 2001, five Democratic and two Republican House members did not vote. In 2002, three Democratic and two Republican House members failed to vote. In that same year, two Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator did not vote. While House Speaker Rick Johnson voted in favor of the casino resolution in both 2001 and 2002, Senate Majority Leader Dan DeGrow voted against the resolution in the 2002 Senate vote. 6 It is interesting to note, however, that the aggregate totals do mask some individual vote switching in the House. Among the fiftywone supporters of the 2001 resolution, the 2002 vote was fortywfive “yes,” two “no,” and four “did not vote.” Among the fiftywtwo opponents of the 2001 resolution, the 2002 vote was fortywtwo “no,” nine “yes,” and one “did not vote.” Among those who did not vote in 2001, the 2002 vote was four “yes” and three “no.” 7 Michigan campaign finance laws provide no limit on the amount an individual can contribute to an individual PAC. An independent PAC, however, is permitted to give ten times what a traditional PAC can give to a candidate . . . up to $34,000 for a gubernatorial candidate and up to $10,000 for a legislative canw w didate in any given election cycle (Hornbeck, Cain, and Heinlein 2002). 8 The first category included clergy from Assemblies of God, Bapw w tist, SeventhwDay Adventist, Wesleyan, Church of God, Nazarene, United Brethren in Christ, and nonwdenominational churches. The second category included Congregationalists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, United Methodists, and Episcopalians. There were too few Catholic respondents (4) to create a separate Catholic category. Catholics are grouped with Mainline Protesw w tants because they tend to represent longwestablished, hierarchiw w cal, liturgical churches. While the RCA is sometimes categorized as a mainline denomination, its Western Michigan churches tend to be culturally and theologically conservative, much like members of the CRC in the same region. 9 Birkholz did, in fact, deliver the letter, although it took considerw w able effort on her part to get a hearing with the incoming goverw w nor (Birkholz 2003). CHAPTER 3 1 The U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1 reads: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and 282 Notes to pp. 32–53 judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may bygenerallawsprescribethemannerinwhichsuchacts,records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” 2 In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a state law prohibiting samewsex marriages, and subsequently ruled that sowcalled “civil unions” would not satisfy the equal protection provisions of the Massachusetts state constitution (Cauchon 2003). In the following year, the mayor of San Franw w cisco (again on equal protection grounds) directed the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. While the City of San Francisco eventually was enjoined from issuing such licenses, several thousand gay couples had been legally married prior to the injunction by the state supreme court (Dao 2004). 3 The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines “marriage” as the union of one man and one woman and does not require states, under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, to recw w ognize any union as a marriage other than those...