Re: Religion Clauses question

[Paul Finkelman]

well, Jim, some countries do not define marriage that way at all; the 
French don't let the state do marriages.  Indeed, I find it odd that 
people of serious faith would want the state involved in marriage; state 
defines marriage it then defines who can perform it.  I am a devotee of 
ROger Williams; I think that they less the state has to do with 
religion, the better off religion is, and as it happens the better off 
the state is.  I cannot comprehend why people of faith would want the 
state involved in religious ceremonies, in determining who is a bona 
fide member of the clergy, what prayers kids can say, etc.  One of the 
oddities of this Country is that for centuries dissenting Protestants 
were in the vanguard of the fight FOR separation of Church and State; 
the Baptists was alwasys in the lead, because they could recall when 
their ministers were jailed and whipped for -- of all things -- 
performing marriages in Virginia.  Now you want ot have th state running 
all this stuff.  I can't wait to hear your tune when some other groups 
are in the majority; I wonder, for example, what the line will be when a 
Moslem majority in some city or even state wants to follow in your 
footsteps.

As for your arguments below, they are the exact same arguments used by 
opponents of interracial marriage -- any white man can marry a white 
women, any black man can marry a black woman, any Chinese man can marry 
a Chinese woman, etc. Or in Germany in 1937, any Jewish man can marry a 
Jewish woman, any Aryan can marry an Aryan.  I am underwhelmed by the 
sophistication of your argument.

Paul F
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have held my peace for a bit.  But Professor Finkelman has fallen for 
a bait and switch tactic.  The net result is that something the state 
calls marriage, defined according to its terms, is changed to suit 
something that homosexual activists call marriage, but which is, in 
nature and essence, a relationship completely different from the one 
known to the state.
 
Marriage is a relationship legally sanctioned by the state between 
persons of opposite genders.  The right to enter into such a 
relationship is not conditioned on heterosexuality.  Any gay man may 
enter into a marriage with any willing female.  Any Lesbian female can 
enter into a marriage with any willing male.  No heterosexual male can 
enter into a marriage with a willing male.  No heterosexual female can 
enter into a marriage with a willing female.
 
I suppose this will be described by some as sophistry.  Yet to say that 
homosexuals are being denied equal rights when they are prevented from 
placing their unions within the classification of marriage, is to ignore 
what marriage is, and demand a right to have marriage change into what 
it may become.  Such a right would be more correctly described as the 
right to have things my way.  But even heterosexuals do not enjoy the 
absolute right to have things "my way." 
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ

--
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