Following your reasoning below, if one believes (in good faith) that homosexual orientation/proclivity to homosexual conduct is not immutable, then that person would not be akin to segregationists, et al. Right?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Finkelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Amar D. Sarwal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question > I do not know enough about transgendered relationships to comment; as > for "incest" -- my first thought is that unlike gay people, it would be > hard to argue that adults can only marry close family members. Part of > my arguemnt is that Mr. Summerlin makes a strong case that marriage is > good for people -- he wants to narow this to straight people but with > not much evidence that gay people cannot also benefit. My point is that > on equal protection grounds if marriage is good for all people then > all people should be allowed to participate in the way they can; gay > people cannot be expected to marry straight people so they should be > able to marry other gay people. But, this argument would not work for > and "incest" marriage. We have no reason to believe that a straight > adult male can *only* marry his sister; he might want to marry her, but > that would be a different issue. Similarly, this arguent would cut > against polygamy; there is no evidence that the benefit of marriage is > possible *only* if a straight man has three wives; or a straight women > had three husbands. There may be 1st amndment arguments for allowing > polygamy, but that is a different argument. > > Amar D. Sarwal wrote: > > Does your analysis (in your POV) apply with equal force to the transgendered > > and adult incest situations? If not, why not? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul Finkelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:07 PM > > Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question > > > > > > > >>We are actually not entirely talking by each other; you just are > >>uninterested in the possibility that allowing same sex marriage might > >>improve the lives of gay people; you make a very good point that > >>marriage improves life; You are just unwilling to give that opportunity > >>to all Americans. Instead, you fall back on the argument that there is > >>no proof same sex marriage is good for people so therefore we should > >>never allow it. In the context of this list I would suggest you ponder > >>the concept of "doing unto others" and ask yourself the simple question: > >> if some gay people might benefit from the right marry, should we not > >>give them that right? If most do not benefit from it, what harm will > >>have been done? > >> > >>Gene Summerlin wrote: > >> > >>>Paul, > >>> > >>>I think we are talking past each other here, so I will leave it at this: > >>>the statistics don't show that "marriage" improves the quality of life, > >> > > but > > > >>>that "heterosexual marriage" improves the quality of life. The limited > >>>statistics that we do have concerning same-sex marriage indicates that > >> > > it > > > >>>will not provide these same benefits. The proponents of such a major > >> > > change > > > >>>in social policy should, in my opinion, provide more justification than > >>>"let's try this experiment and see what happens." > >>> > >>>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: Paul Finkelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:37 PM > >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Cc: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' > >>>Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question > >>> > >>> > >>>this only shows that the exeperiment is not working as well as opposite > >>>sex marriage (but you don't offer number on those marriage in Holland); > >>>neverhteless if the statistics show that marraige improves life then all > >>>people should be allowed to be married. If the succdess rate of gay > >>>marriage is half that of straight marriage, that woulc certainly be a > >>>benefit to those who are in it; and in any event you offer no statistics > >>>on same sex marriage for women; what happens if we get numbers which > >>>show that same sex marriages for women last *longer* that opposite sex > >>>maraige in the US. Would that be an argument for banning opposite-sex > >>>mrrriage because it is not as successful as women in same sex marriage? > >>> > >>>Gene Summerlin wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Paul, > >>>> > >>>>You have to consider the statistical argument within the context of what > >>> > >>>it > >>> > >>> > >>>>measures, so if the measurement is based on heterosexual marriages, we > >>>>aren't free to remove the term "heterosexual" and say, "See, all > >>> > > marriage > > > >>>of > >>> > >>> > >>>>every type creates these benefits." That is an intellectually dishonest > >>> > >>>use > >>> > >>> > >>>>of statistics. (Please understand, I am not saying you are being > >>>>intellectually dishonest, merely that arguing from statistics in that > >>> > > way > > > >>>>would be). > >>>> > >>>>Paul is correct that we lack the breadth of data regarding same sex > >>>>marriages that we have concerning heterosexual marriage, but the data we > >>> > >>>do > >>> > >>> > >>>>have indicates that the benefits to society we gain from heterosexual > >>>>marriage would not be generated from same sex marriage. A recent study > >>> > >>>from > >>> > >>> > >>>>the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage is legal, reports male > >>> > > homosexual > > > >>>>relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average > >>> > > of > > > >>>>eight partners a year outside of their "committed" relationships. Maria > >>>>Xiridou, et al., “The Contributions of Steady and Casual Partnerships to > >>> > >>>the > >>> > >>> > >>>>Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS, 17 > >>>>(2003): 1029.38. Contrast that with the fact that 67 percent of first > >>>>marriages in the United States last 10 years, and more than three > >>> > > quarters > > > >>>>of heterosexual married couples report no sexual partners other than > >>> > > their > > > >>>>spouse. > >>>> > >>>>To refocus the discussion on the law aspects of this list, it appears to > >>> > >>>me > >>> > >>> > >>>>that a strong argument can be made that the government is justified in > >>>>withholding the legal benefits of marriage, that is the incentive to > >>> > >>>marry, > >>> > >>>>from any family arrangement other than heterosexual marriage. > >>> > >>>>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: Paul Finkelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 12:54 PM > >>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > >>>>Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Mr. Summerlin's statistical arumement is interesting. Remove the word > >>>>"heterosexual" from it and it makes great sense. *Married* people live > >>>>longer, have greater life satisfaction, etc. > >>>> > >>>>Summerlin seems to be arguing that only "heterosexuals" benefit from > >>>>marriage, but of course we have not statistics on gay marriage because > >>>>up until now it is illegal. Thus, this "social research" on marriage is > >>>>a strong argument for allowing gay marriage because it will lead to > >>>>healthier people because they are married. Furthermore, it illustrates > >>>>the equal protection aguement. Most gay people cannot marry members of > >>> > > > >>>>the opposite sex. After all, the marriage would not work, since > >>>>physical attraction and sexual relations are, after all, an important > >>>>part of marriage. Therefore, by denying gay people the *right* to marry > >>>>you are in effect, as Summerlin's suggests, denying them the right to > >>>>"live longer, express a higher degree of satisfaction with life, enjoy > >>>>higher levels of physical and mental health, recover from illness > >>>>quicker, earn and save more money, are more reliable employees, suffer > >>>>less stress, and are less likely to become victims of any kind of > >>>>violence." > >>>> > >>>>Mr. Summerlin's posting, it seems to me, is the strongest argument I > >>>>have heard on why allowing gay marriage is legally *and* morally right. > >>>> Surely, no one on this list would aruge that we should deny the right > >>>>to "live longer...." etc to people who are incapable of marrying member > >>>>of the opposite sex. > >>>> > >>>>Paul Finkelman > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Gene Summerlin wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Bob, > >>>>> > >>>>>Your point is valid, so let me try to answer the question of why should > >>>> > >>>>the > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>government care? If we separate the sacrimental value of marriage from > >>>> > >>>>the > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>legal aspects of marriage, we can agree that if a church or other > >>>> > > entity > > > >>>>>wishes to "marry" same sex partners, the church is free to do so. But, > >>>>>because the same sex marriage does not meet the legal definition of > >>>>>marriage, the same-sex partners are not entitled to the legal benefits > >>>> > > of > > > >>>>>marriage. The question really becomes why does/can/should the state > >>>> > >>>>provide > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>incentives to some couples to marry (in the legal sense) and withhold > >>>> > >>>>those > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>benefits from other couples? > >>>>> > >>>>>Social research indicates that adults in heterosexual marriages do > >>>> > > better > > > >>>>>than single, divorced or cohabitating couples in virtually every > >>>> > > measure > > > >>>>of > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>well-being. Heterosexual married couples live longer, express a higher > >>>>>degree of satisfaction with life, enjoy higher levels of physical and > >>>> > >>>>mental > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>health, recover from illness quicker, earn and save more money, are > >>>> > > more > > > >>>>>reliable employees, suffer less stress, and are less likely to become > >>>>>victims of any kind of violence. As mentioned in an earlier post, > >>>> > > children > > > >>>>>residing in intact heterosexual marriages also gain a number of > >>>> > > advantages > > > >>>>>over peers in other living arrangements. On the other side of the > >>>> > > coin, > > > >>>>>there is a significant social cost to care for and treat the problems > >>>>>associated with broken marriages. That is, to the extent that people > >>>> > > and > > > >>>>>children chose (or are forced) into non-heterosexual marriage living > >>>>>arrangements, they are more likely to have health problems, economic > >>>>>problems, abuse issues, etc. Society ultimately pays a financial price > >>>> > > to > > > >>>>>treat and attempt to remedy these issues. > >>>>> > >>>>>By enacting policies which promote heterosexual marriages, the state > >>>>>preserves resources which would otherwise be spent on social welfare > >>>>>programs. Therefore, the state provides economic incentives to > >>>> > > encourage > > > >>>>>people to form the type of family unit that best utilizes the state's > >>>>>resources. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>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 Robert Obrien > >>>>>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 8:11 AM > >>>>>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > >>>>>Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>I am at a loss to understand why the issue of marriage is such a big > >>>> > > deal. > > > >>>>>Protestants do not consider marriage a sacrament; therefore, whether > >>>> > >>>>people > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>get married is religiously irrelevant. > >>>>> > >>>>>The Roman Catholic Church refuses to recognize divorces granted by the > >>>>>state. Judaism grants divorces which are not recognized by the state. > >>>>> > >>>>>In fine, the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage > >>>> > > has > > > >>>>>long been recognized. If the state is willing to allow two or more > >>>> > > people > > > >>>>>to marry while a particular church refuses to recognize such a > >>>> > > marriage, I > > > >>>>>do not see why that church should care. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Bob O'Brien > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education > >>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>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] > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>-- > >>>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] > >>> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>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
