Dear Mr. Worley:
Your claim that pastors can do what they want is a non-starter. We all know
they can do that now, but it is the law that creates and protects the
relationships of marriage in a complex society that is important.
If the law does not validate the marriage then one spouse cannot visit another
in hospital, there is no spousal immunity in court, child custody and child
rearing issues are uncertain, and a wrongful death suit for the death of one
spouse would not be possible. These are just some obvious ways which married
gay people are denied the rights the rest of us have.
I agree that I will probably not convince you of anything, but at the same
time, it is important not to ignore the intellectual sleight of hand you try to
pass off by saying you support the right of pastors to do what they want.
I would love to know how the vicious persecution of LDS in the 19th century is
different from the persecution of gay people. The main persecution was based
on marriage choice, and all the federal laws focused on that. The US was so
obsessed with LDS marriage practices -- plural marriage, polygamy -- that the
Supreme Court upheld prosecutions for mere "belief" rather than practice.
Mormons were tossed in jail before harvest time so they could get their crops
in. Federal officials stormed into bedrooms in the night to catch polygamists.
[look at Firmage and Mangrum, Zion in the Courts] Yet for all of the state and
federal persecutions of Mormonst, probably more gay people have been murdered
than Mormons because of their marital and love relations. You would honor the
persecuted LDS adherents of the 19th century by opposing marriage persecution
or laws today try to force religious values on others.
The difference here is that I believe persecution is wrong and that consenting
adults should be able to arrange their families as they wish (subject to the
usual caveats of protecting children and spouses from violence, abuse, etc.)
and have the same legal protections as other married people. That would true
for Brigham Young with his many wive and 57 children or my gay friends who are
married and raising their two children. You, however, would deny my friends
the right to raise their children and protect their union with the law.
Put another way, you would use the power of the law to compel people to follow
your view of marriage -- or at least to prevent them from having the
protections of the law which I have in my marriage (and if you are married you
have in yours).
You would deny basic rights to people with whom you disagree. I prefer
liberty, even for practices I would not personally want to engage in.
******************
Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism
University of Pennsylvania
and
Scholar-in-Residence
National Constitution Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
518-439-7296 (w)
518-605-0296 (c)
paul.finkel...@yahoo.com
www.paulfinkelman.com
From: Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Ireland
Professor Finkleman:
We disagree on many fundamental levels, and this is an emotional thing for us
both.
You raise complex and interesting questions, but I have increasingly found it
is hard to change minds on this issue, and lengthy debates only tend to
polarize because of different assumptions a variety of people have on the role
of marriage, and the emphasis placed on various societal goods.
I think many of the most prestigious, well-educated, careful lawyers in the
country agree with you, and equally prestigious, well-educated and careful
lawyers agree with me. I know there are several lawyers who have ascended to
the highest legal circles, have family members who are members of the LGBT
community, perhaps even attend same-sex weddings and yet have written in
support of my view.
Because of these complexities, I do not respond to your arguments in full. I
merely note that the persecution of the Mormon faith you note is
distinguishable. I, for one, think pastors have a constitutional right to
marry any person they want, so long as the law isn't required to validate that
marriage.
Thank you,
Michael
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Finkelman, Paul <paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu>
wrote:
Dear Michael:
when children have children it is a bad thing. That is true whether they are
married or merely very young and forced into marriages.
But out-of-Wedlock births is a very broad category.
When my adult gay friends had children, twelve years ago, they could not be
legally married because our legal system would not sanction their commitment to
each other, their love, or their respect of the institution of marriage. Some
fifteen years ago they had a wedding, performed by a bona fide member of the
clergy, who was legally permitted to marry people in New York state, but not
them. Their twins (one of my friends is the birth mother -- who used a sperm
donor -- the other is the other mom) are about to enter high school. They are
bright, and as well adjusted as most 12 year old girls, doing well in school,
and will probably be dating boys soon.
That you condemn my friend (who by the was is now a sitting judge!) as an unwed
mother is more than outdated or even irrational. It is unconscionable and
shameful.
I note you are at BYU (or at least you have a BYU email address). The Mormons
faced horrendous persecution by the United States government, the cold blooded
murder of their founder (Joseph Smith), and a forced migration that took them
outside the country -- all because of their views on marriage and faith. It
would seem to me that you should honor those who were persecuted for faith and
marriage and thus you ought to be cheering on Ireland -- and my gay friends who
were finally able to legally marry after New York State adopted marriage
equality.
If opponents of marriage equality spent their energies on dealing with real
social issues -- such as poverty, the lack of birth control for teenagers, and
sex education -- instead of condemning people who only wish to be married, the
whole society would be better off.
*************************************************
Paul FinkelmanSenior FellowPenn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and
ConstitutionalismUniversity of PennsylvaniaandScholar-in-Residence National
Constitution CenterPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 518-439-7296 (p)518-605-0296 (c)
paul.finkel...@albanylaw.eduwww.paulfinkelman.com*************************************************
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Michael Worley [mwor...@byulaw.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 8:16 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Ireland
I understand many disagree with my concern about out-of-wedlock births. This
apathy over my concern worries me, because without an acknowledgement of the
importance of opposite-sex marriage to our society, the concerns shared by many
who oppose same-sex marriage will be incorrectly seen as outdated and
irrational.
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote:
I'll rest easier when out-of-wedlock childbearing is widely condemned worldwide
as harmful to kids; when people acknowledge there are good arguments on both
side of this difficult issue, and when the re-writing of a multitude of family
laws is seen for the broad consequences that they have--rewriting the
significance of marriage.
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Baer, Judith A<j-b...@pols.tamu.edu> wrote:
We shall overcome!Judy Baer
Sent from my iPhone
On May 23, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ireland!, of all places. 62 percent to 38, and in 42 of 43 districts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html
_______________________________________________
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.
--
Michael WorleyJ.D., Brigham Young University
--
Michael WorleyJ.D., Brigham Young University
_______________________________________________
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.
--
Michael WorleyJ.D., Brigham Young University
_______________________________________________
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.
