*These quotes have not been selected to represent the views of David or Hannah Lawton.
They have been selected to show humor, evidence of cultural changes, or interesting
views from the bench.

"The First Amendment leaves the Government in a position not of hostility to religion but of neutrality.
The philosophy is that the atheist or agnostic -- the non-believer -- is entitled to go his own way. The
philosophy is that if government interferes in matters spiritual, it will be a divisive force. The First
Amendment teaches that a government neutral in the field of religion better serves all religious
interests."  Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 443 (1962).

"The concept of a 'wall' of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of
Thomas Jefferson. The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an
established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate
description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state. No
significant segment of our society and no institution within it can exist in a vacuum or in total or absolute
isolation from all the other parts, much less from government. It has never been thought either possible
or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation." (Internal quotations omitted) Lynch v. Donnelly, 465
U.S. 668, 673 (1984).

"Civil courts do not inhibit free exercise of religion merely by opening their doors to disputes involving
church property. And there are neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which
can be applied without 'establishing' churches to which property is awarded...."  Urantia Found. v.
Maaherra, 895 F.Supp. 1329, 1332 (D.Ariz.,1995).

In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the
tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of
view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or
are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have
ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties
are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a
democracy. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 (U.S. 1940).

"[Man] is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex
evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine
ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and
functions of womanhood. [The] paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and
mothers. This is the law of the Creator."  Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. 130 (1873).

"The two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one is different from a community composed of both. Inherent
differences between men and women, we have come to appreciate, remain casue for celebration, but not for denigration of the
members of either sex or for artificial constraints on an individual's opportunity." (Internal quotations omitted)  United States v. Virginia,
518 U.S. 515 (1996).

"The plaintiff contended that at some time in 1923 he noticed that the defendant was developing a propensity for wrestling with the
plaintiff's wife, and engaging in other similar play with her. ... This seems to be a rather unusual method of love making, yet if current
reports are reliable, it is not the first instance where a cicisbeo has delved into the distant stone age and brought forth a somewhat
rough and uncouth method of endearment, which well served his purpose, and brought about the desired result."  Coles v. Harsch,
129 Or. 11 (1929).

"Wrongfully to deprive human beings of their freedom and to subject them to physical constraint in conditions of hardship is in itself
manifestly incompatible with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as with the fundamental principles enunciated
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But what has above all to be empahasized is the extent and seriousness of the conflict
between the conduct of the Iranian State and its obligations under the whole corpus of the international rules of which diplomatic and
consular law is comprised, rules the fundamental character of which the Court must here again strongly affirm."  United States
Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3, 42 (May 24).

"Naturalization is not a matter to be taken lightly. To seek and to obtain it is not something that happens frequently in the life of a
human being. It involves his breaking a bond of allegiance and his establishment of a new bond of allegiance. It may have
far-reaching consequences and involve profound changes in the destiny of the individual who obtains it."  Nottebohm (Liech. v. Guat.),
1955 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 6).

"It was submitted that international law is concerned with the actions of sovereign states, and provides no punishment for individuals;
and further, that where the act in question is an act of state, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by
the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State. In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. That international
law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon states has long been recognized. . . . Crimes against international
law are committed by men, not by abstract enemies, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of
international law be enforced."  The Nuremberg Trial, 6 F.R.D. 69, 110 (1946).

CaseQuotes*