It seems that your problems are alrady out there, in large numbers. I would love to see the opponent of same sex unions spend as much time worrying about the lack of resources for raising children of poor people and single parents.
I have no problem with laws that support families; we can call it the tax code. But, is there a difference between supporting families and prohibiting them from forming? You make a good case for more supprot for famlies; how about universal health care for ALL children and all mothers and fathers fo young children? Lots of ways to supprot families. The anti-gay marriage crowd does not seem to be supporting measure to help families or children; they only seem to want to prevent the formation of families that do not look like *their* families.
Gene Summerlin wrote:
Paul,
I think an argument can certainly be made that compelling, or at least rational, reasons exist to preclude same-sex marriage. For example, (a) Same-sex families always deny children either their mother or father; or (b) Same-sex family is a vast, untested social experiment with children. Can't the government find that there are social and economic benefits to raising children in families that include a mother and a father, and enact laws and policies which promote, support and encourage citizens to form heterosexual, two parent families? Wouldn't this pass the rational basis test?
Gene Summerlin Ogborn Summerlin & Ogborn P.C. 210 Windsor Place 330 So. 10th St. Lincoln, NE 68508 (402) 434-8040 (402) 434-8044 (FAX) (402) 730-5344 (Mobile) www.osolaw.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question
Richard: It seems to me that if you oppose rights for people you can't say you support equal rights. It is pretty clear to me that this is about fundamental rights. I absolutely agree with Prof. Beckwith that there should be no need to endorse or agree with people being gay (although the science seems pretty clear that many if not all gay people are born the way they are, so it is sort of like endorsing or not endorsing people being male or female). One can believe that being gay is immoral; just as one can dislike being around Jews or Moslems or Blacks, or Asians. But, the issue for those of us interested in law is one of rights and equality. I think if you deny a huge class of people the right to marry, to raise children, to share in the civil benefits of marriage (such as shared health insurance, right to inherit, right to make end of life decisions for your partner, right to even visit your loved one in the hospital) then you are in fact against equal rights for all people.
I personally would favor the government not marrying anyone -- that is for the clergy; the government should set up regulations for family units; civil unions, and the like. Then let the clergy marry people. But, as long as the government is the "marriage business" it should not be allowed to discriminate unless there is a strong compelling interest; no one on this list has ever offered a compelling interest (or even a rational basis) argument for opposing same sex unions. The only arguments offer are that it violated God's law (which of course is disputed and truly irrelevant to our legal sysystem) and that it sets a bad example. Well, we can all think of lots of things that set a bad example. I think having more children than you can raise sets a bad example; The Catholic Church clearly does not think that is true, or at least does not think it is true enough to support birht control. I think sixteen year olds set a bad example when they get married, but a number of states disagree. I think parents who yell at little league umpires set a bad example for their kids; but there are not compelling interests or even a rational basis for banning these sorts of behavior.
Paul Finkelman
Richard Dougherty wrote:
Clearly, however, as you note, you are not advocating disrciminating against gay people, and so I welcome you to to fold of many people of faith who support equal rights for all Americans!
Paul Finkelman
Respectfully, isn't this the kind of point that Prof. Beckwith is getting
at? Opponents of gay "marriages" or "civil unions" are not necessarily opponents of "equal rights for all Americans."
Richard Dougherty
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
