This does not mean that all people opposed to gay rights have these beliefs. Many opponents of gay rights are not religious and are opposed for other reasons; but I reiterate, it is important at least to acknowledge that for centuries "religious" people have been making arguments that the Bible supports their hostility and desire to oppress other people. This history should make us aware that religous people have no monopoly on the higher ground or fundamental morality.
Paul Finkelman
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Hmm; seems to me that I can respect people who want to have a multiple marriage, for instance, and yet think that the law ought not sanction such marriages. Likewise, I can respect people who want to marry their siblings, but think that the law ought not allow such marriages.
Of course, one can draw distinctions between such situations and same-sex marriages; as a matter of fact, I probably would draw such distinctions, since I tentatively support same-sex marriages but would probably oppose polygamous marriages (I'm not sure where I'd come down on adult sibling incest).
But it seems to me that Paul's argument below does not draw such distinctions. Under the argument below, either one allows consenting adults to get married, or one is like southern racists. It seems to me that such a position is unsound, and while I disagree with Francis Beckwith on the bottom line, I do not think that respect for another person as a person necessarily entails support of government recognition of the particular marital relationships (among other things) that this person would like to have.
Eugene
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Paul Finkelman Sent: Wed 6/2/2004 11:52 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question
Mr. Beckwith:
It is hard to imagine how one can treat someone with respect and at the
same time believe that such a person is not entitled to the same rights
that you have.
Quite frankly, your position reminds me of those southern whites who
treated blacks with "respect" while segregating them, denying them full
legal rights, and turning a blind eye to their persecution. It is worth
remembering that for more than 150 years Christians defended both
slavery and segregation with religious and biblical arguments.
It seems to me that it is possible to consider some behavior which
involves consenting adults to be immoral and still understand that you
have no right to seek to deny those people legal rights. I may find it
immoral for some people to try to convert others, or to denounce their
faith, but I would not deny them the legal and constitutional right to
do so. True tolerance is believing the other guy is dead wrong, but
also believing he has right to live his life with the same legal rights
that other people have. That would include the right to marry; to help
your partner make end of life decisions, to visit your partner in the
hospital; in inherit from your partner without undue probate or tax
consequences.
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francis Beckwith wrote:
> Paul:
>
> I don?t see it as a matter of like or dislike; in fact, I think that
> this mischaracterizes people?s objection to homosexuality. Clearly,
> some people don?t like Christians and Jews, but that doesn?t mean that
> one may not have arguments against the veracity of those religious
> points of view without disliking its members. I am, for example,
> friends with two gay men, one of whom has been a close friend for years.
> He know that I morally object to homosexuality, but we treat each other
> with respect. That is true tolerance: believing the other guy is dead
> wrong but nevertheless treating him as a moral agent entitled to all the
> dignity that goes with that status. >
> I think that the gay rights movement has corrupted our public discourse
> by the rhetorical trick of changing the topic from the plausibility of
> one?s position to whether the one who embraces that position is a
> virtuous person. So, for example, if a concerned parent sincerely
> believes that homosexuality is immoral, and has informed himself of all
> the relevant arguments and remains unconvinced of the other?s position,
> that parent is ?homophobic.? I am not convinced that is how adults
> ought to conduct their disagreements in public. It?s just the ?you?ve
> got cooties? rejoinder for grown-ups.
>
> That?s my story and I?m sticking to it.
>
> Frank
>
>
> On 6/2/04 11:58 AM, "Paul Finkelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think Robin is clearly right here; some people just don't like the
> idea of gay people; end of story. It is about homophobia. So, they
> will oppose same sex marriage and any other thing that helps or
> protects gay people. I am sure there are many people who don't
> attend any church, synagogue, temple, or mosque and are not
> "religious" but are nevertheless opposed to giving rights to gay people.
>
> Similarly, a law is not religious in nature just because thre is
> some biblial or religious support for it. Cultures that did not
> recognize (or even know about) the Bible still had laws prohibited
> murder or theft or perjury. Thus, even though such behavior is
> proscribed in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5, the laws against such behavior
> are not religious in any way.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ 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
