"For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the
founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
One can argue that Murphy was wrongly decided, but I'm at a loss as to how one could claim that Murphy was rightly decided, but there is some *constitutional* distinction which requires a different result for a claim that homosexual marriage is protected.
I do not suggest that those who approve of homosexual marriage on a moral level must also approve of plural marriage. However, I do suggest that if one is going to draw a *Constitutional* distinction between the two, one is required to offer a basis *in the language of the Constitution* for the conclusion that the two cases are different. How can Constitutional guarantees of "liberty" or "equal protection" be read to cover the desire to enter a homosexual marriage, but not the desire to enter a plural marriage or adult incestual marriage? The fact that a certain person's comfort levels allow for homosexual marriage, but not plural marriage or adult incestual marriage, should not be the basis for Constitutional decision-making.
Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado
From: "Newsom Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: On topic discussion regarding homosexuality
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:46:15 -0400
How would you explain the following cases: Engel v. Vitale, Abington Tp. V. Schempp, Epperson v. Arkansa, Stone v. Graham, Wallace v. Jaffree, Edwaards v. Aguillard, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, Bd. of Ed. V. Mergens, and Good News Club v. Milford Central School? Isn't there a common thread I those cases which makes my point precisely?
Out of common decency, I won't respond to the effort to analogize same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest.
_________________________________________________________________
Tax headache? MSN Money provides relief with tax tips, tools, IRS forms and more! http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/workshop/welcome.asp
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
