How so, Bob? Please explain why the state may interfere in our decision whether
to have children or not, or HOW, and why procreation should be a prescribed
goal of marriage?
Marriage is a contract between two consenting individuals. The terms of that
marriage are up to the parties involved, presumably so long as no laws are
broken.
I think a good argument may be made that population growth is unsustainable,
but I don't recall that its ever been asserted by government that whether one
has children or not is a state interest. Except in China, and we see it's
working well for them.
----- Original Message -----
From: b...@jmcenter.org
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:26:02 PM
Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
Len,
Given the extreme overpopulation of the U.S. and the world, the state does
indeed have a substantial interest -- at least in the number of children
parents produce. (The current population footprint is not environmentally
sustainable.)
Bob Ritter
On July 3, 2013 at 10:17 PM Len <campquest...@comcast.net> wrote:
This is going to sound awfully libertarian of me, but it's none of the state's
business whether a couple has children or not, regardless of age. Rather it is
my understanding that the care and treatment of children resulting from a given
union (by whatever means) are appropriate state interests.
(Not only was Abraham not a model parent, but also reads as an extortionist and
pimp.)
From: "Sanford V Levinson" <slevin...@law.utexas.edu>
To: "Mark Scarberry" <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>, "Law & Religion issues
for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2013 9:49:40 PM
Subject: RE: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
I realize that my following question gets into another hot-button area, but is
Mark suggesting that there is a strong constitutional interest in procreation
at any age? Why can’t the state come to the altogether rational conclusion that
it is really unwise for, say, a 55-year-old couple to have children unless the
couple has enough resources to cover the costs of taking care of children even
after their retirement (not to mention covering the costs of likely medical
care)? I agree that is probably not a compelling state interest, at least in a
quasi-libertarian society, but I certainly think it is at least a rational,
say, as the defenses being asserted for DOMA. Of course it may be that medical
advances in the future will make Sarah and Abraham models to emulate, though I
tend to be skeptical. In any event, Abraham was a dreadful father who proved
willing to kill his child because of a totally arbitrary command to do so. (It
is irrelevant that, at least according to the Bible, God sent the innocent lamb
to be sacrificed instead There are Midrash, incidentally, that suggest that no
lamb appeared, which explains why only Abraham climbed down the mountain and
Isaac was not heard from again for three years, by which time Sarah was dead.
One can only imagine the conversation that ensued when Abraham came back to the
tent without Isaac and had to explain why he was alone. He’s lucky that she
didn’t kill him then and there. But I digress….)
sandy
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:12 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
The biological issues with regard to different sex couples mostly can be
answered fairly easily, I think, including with these points:
With regard to medical or similar issues that prevent procreation, a state
inquiry would intrude substantially on privacy, which would justify the state
in not inquiring. (Also, some couples who have given up on conceiving, later
are surprised to find that they have.)
With regard to age, no bright line can be set that accurately distinguishes
those who can from those who cannot procreate. Any line based on experience as
to an age after which procreation cannot occur would either be impossible to
set - men can procreate to a very old age - or would have to discriminate
against women, who lose the ability to become pregnant by a particular upper
bound (absent miracles as with Sarah and Abraham) that is much younger than any
age that could possibly be set for men. Thus there are good reasons not to set
an age limit.
Mark Scarberry
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
