RE: Religion Clauses question
Professor Newsom, This thread has pretty much been played out and I don't intend to re-enter the debate, but since you asked for the research, I am providing it below. (1) What is your authority for your claim that social research shows that adults in heterosexual marriages do better than adults in stable homosexual relationships? Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially, (New York Doubleday, 2000), p. 64.; James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), p. 16.; Katherine Reissman and Naomi Gerstel, Marital Dissolution and Health: Do Males or Females Have Greater Risk? Social Science and Medicine 20 (1985): 627-635; Robert Coombs, Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A Literature Review, Family Relations 40 (1991) 97-102; Lois Verbrugge and Donald Balaban, Patterns of Change, Disability and Well-Being, Medical Care 27 (1989): S128-S147; I.M. Joung, et al., Differences in Self-Reported Morbidity by Marital Status and by Living Arrangement, International Journal of Epidemiology 23 (1994): 91-97. (2) What is your authority for the claim that children do better in traditional marriage families (apart from government benefits that are denied non-traditional families)? Glenn T. Stanton, Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Postmodern Society, (Colorado Springs, Pinon Press, 1997); Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994); Deborah Dawson, Family Structure and Children's Health and Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health, Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 573-584; Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), p. 103; Richard Koestner, et al., The Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A Twenty-Six Year Longitudinal Study, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (1990): 709-717;E. Mavis Hetherington, Effects of Father Absence on Personality Development in Adolescent Daughters, Developmental Psychology 7 (1972): 313 -326; Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1986), pp. 30-31; David Ellwood, Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family (New York: Basic Books, 1988), p. 46; Ronald J. Angel and Jacqueline Worobey, Single Motherhood and Children's Health, Journal of Health and Social Behavior 29 (1988): 38-52; L. Remez, Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems, Family Planning Perspectives, January/February 1992; Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, Second Chances: Men and Woman a Decade After Divorce, (New York: Ticknor Fields, 1990); Judith Wallerstein, et al., The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, (New York: Hyperion, 2000); Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, Long-Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment, and Achievement in Young Adulthood, Journal of Family Psychology, 7 (1993):91-103. 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] attachment: winmail.dat___ 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
The Ninth Circuit yesterday held unconstitutional a cross displayed in a federal park.)(Buono v. Norton,03-55032) The cross was originally erected privately as a memorial to World War I vets. A federal statute enacted when the case was pending prohibits the use of federal funds to remove the cross (It also allows for a land swap to allow the cross to remain standing) Leaving aside the land swap question, is the ban on the use of federal funds to comply with a feral court order requiring its removal, constitutional. Marc Stern -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of marc stern Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Religion Clauses question Members of this list might be interested in J. Pelikan, Interpreting the Bible and the Constitution (Yale 2004).I found it fascinating. Marc Stern ___ 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
Members of this list might be interested in J. Pelikan, Interpreting the Bible and the Constitution (Yale 2004).I found it fascinating. Marc Stern ___ 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
Marc, Can you elaborate an the premise and approach of the Pelikan book, if you have a minute to do it? Offline if you think it off-topic. Thanks. Mike Schutt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of marc stern Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Religion Clauses question Members of this list might be interested in J. Pelikan, Interpreting the Bible and the Constitution (Yale 2004).I found it fascinating. Marc Stern ___ 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
Unlike some justices of the US Supreme Court, I do not think that the practice in France is particularly informative or relevant (except, perhaps, in Louisiana) (since the treaty making final the purchase of the territory guarantees to the residents of the territory all the rights they enjoyed prior to the conveyance). Nor do I think that matrimony is the business of the state. I am more inclined to the catholic view that matrimony is sacramental and imports an inner working of grace in the life of its participants. But we were discussing marriage, not matrimony. Sure they are related topics, but not the same. As for the "underwhelming" nature of the point made, experience thus far shows that there is no argument about this subject that you do not find underwhelming. Moreover, there is no argument that has been offered that you have not managed to malign by suggesting its ready comparison to some deep dark racist, facist, malevolent past. The insistence that men may marry women and women may marry men is the same thing as only white men may marry white women and only white women may marry white men represents a startling failure of logic. Given the approach you seem to be arguing for, I may marry that to which I have an attraction with the intention to maintain a level of support and affiliation different than other relations that exist. Thus Justice Scalia is proven correct when he anticipates that your argument justifies adult incest and polymarriage. It would be candidly refreshing if proponents of same sex marriage would acknowledge that their arguments destroy the unique nature of marriage. Of course, some leading voices in the homosexual special rights community have done just that, have acknowledged and declared that their intention is to acquire access to marriage so that they can change its essential nature and role in society. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
Paul Finkelman wrote: well, Jim, some countries do not define marriage that way at all; the French don't let the state do marriages. I suspect that Finkelman used the word state where he meant church. Below is a section on French marriage law provided by the State Deparment: French law recognises only the civil marriage. This must be performed by a French Civil Authority (officier de l'état civil), which includes the mayor (maire), his legally authorised replacement - the deputy mayor (adjoint) or a city councillor (conseiller municipal). ''American diplomatic and consular officers do not have legal authority to perform marriages. Because of the French legal requirement that civil marriages take place in a French mairie (city hall), marriages CANNOT be performed within the Embassy or within an American Consular office in France. Religious ceremonies are optional, have no legal status and may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day.) 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
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
Re: Religion Clauses question
In a message dated 6/4/04 7:57:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (except, perhaps, in Louisiana) (since the treaty making final the purchase of the territory guarantees to the residents of the territory all the rights they enjoyed prior to the conveyance). Jim- You would have to say "except, perhaps, in Louisiana and all or part of Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Colorado and Montana." Art ___ 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
Actually it gets even more fun. Louisiana was a French territory when purchased, but for much of its history it was Spainish, so you would need to be able to look at Spainish law as well. Furthermore, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo contained a similar provision with regard to the territory ceded from Mexico under the treaty (CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, UT). So Spainish and Mexican law would become relevent for those states. French law might then also be important as a source of persuasive authority, it being another civil law jurisdiction and all. Hence, it turns out that MOST of the geographical area of the United States has a submerged civil law substratum of one kind or another. Nate Oman -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:26:49 EDT In a message dated 6/4/04 7:57:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (except, perhaps, in Louisiana) (since the treaty making final the purchase of the territory guarantees to the residents of the territory all the rights they enjoyed prior to the conveyance). Jim- You would have to say except, perhaps, in Louisiana and all or part of Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Colorado and Montana. Art -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
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
RE: Religion Clauses question
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
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
RE: Religion Clauses question
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
Re: Religion Clauses question
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
Re: Religion Clauses question
And of course, neither the French legal tradition nor the Spanish legal tradition would permit the residents of those territories to refuse the constitutional wisdom and insights of Supreme Court that finds in the text of the Constitution a "wall of separation," a right to take the life of another simply because that other is not yet born, or a right to commit acts of such ignomy that they have been referred to in the English legal tradition as the abominable and detestable crime against nature. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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
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
Re: Religion Clauses question
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
Re: Religion Clauses question
but that is like believing the earth is flat, and even in good faith, that would not be a pssing answer on a science test! Amar D. Sarwal wrote: 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
Paul, With all due respect, your are stating a conclusion without providing any evidentiary support. What scientific studies do you believe support your conclusion to such a degree of certainty as to warrant your comparison of the opposing view to flat-earthers? John Eastman Dr. John C. Eastman Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence One University Dr. Orange, CA 92866 (714) 628-2587 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:03 PM To: Amar D. Sarwal Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question but that is like believing the earth is flat, and even in good faith, that would not be a pssing answer on a science test! Amar D. Sarwal wrote: 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
Hmm. Since when does the ad hominem pass for science, Paul? You made a specific contention earlier--that the science on this was so clear as to not warrant discussion. You added to that below with the comparison of those who would hold otherwise to flat-earthers. All I asked was for a single citation to back up your claims, a single study that actually demonstrates what you think to be irrefutable. I don't think it exists, but I would genuinely like to know of this science if you can point me to it. John -Original Message- From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:20 PM To: Eastman, John Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Amar D. Sarwal Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question what evidence do you have that people in this homophobic and oppressive society choose to be gay, facing discrimination and inability to marry or in other ways live their life as other people do? Are you arguing that being gay is a choice, like voting Republican or choosing to go to college? I would urge you to talk to some gay people and read about their lives. Eastman, John wrote: Paul, With all due respect, your are stating a conclusion without providing any evidentiary support. What scientific studies do you believe support your conclusion to such a degree of certainty as to warrant your comparison of the opposing view to flat-earthers? John Eastman Dr. John C. Eastman Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence One University Dr. Orange, CA 92866 (714) 628-2587 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:03 PM To: Amar D. Sarwal Cc: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question but that is like believing the earth is flat, and even in good faith, that would not be a pssing answer on a science test! Amar D. Sarwal wrote: 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? ___ 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
I think Gene is right. You both are talking past each other. Unfortunately, it is hard for discussions on this subject to move beyond that. I certainly haven't figured out how to avoid that result -- which is the reason I don't participate in this kind of a discussion on the list. If I had the time, I might try to engage Gene or others off list to see if longer and more detailed posts could somehow bridge the gap. But I don't -- and I'm not sure longer, less public discourse would necessarily make a difference. With all due respect to both Paul and Gene, I don't think these relatively short tit for tat posts get us anywhere. For my own edification, has anyone who strongly supports same-sex marriage read anything that makes the case for opposing same-sex marriage in a way that gives them pause, that challenges them, and makes them re-evaluate their own position -- even if they ultimately end up holding the same position. And has anyone who opposes same-sex marriage read anything that makes the case for supporting same-sex marriage in a way that gives them pause, that challenges them, and makes them re-evaluate their own position -- even if they ultimately end up holding the same position. I'd like to read what people on each side of this debate find persuasive in the arguments on the other side -- assuming that anything does. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 01:56 PM 6/4/2004 -0500, you 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
Since this is a list serve on law, I guess I misread your argument to include the idea that gay people should not be accorded the same rights as the rest of us, which would include the right of marriage, equal protection of the law, etc. If your position is merely that a religious person has a right to disapprove of gave people, that is surely true. As for a disreputable tactic -- on the contrary, it is worth recalling that religious and biblical arguments were at the center of the intellectual support for segregation and slavery. To this day some churches preach that the story of Noah and the curse of Canaan as a way of arguing for racial inferiority. Thus, I do not think it disreputable at all to note that people of faith have often used their faith as a rationale, and explanation, or a reason for their willingness to discriminate against people. 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 Francis Beckwith wrote: On 6/2/04 10:52 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Beckwith: It is hard to imagine how one can treat someone with respect and at the same time believe that such a person is not entitled to the same rights that you have. Yes, it is hard to imagine that I would hold that belief, since I don't hold it. Quite frankly, your position reminds me of those southern whites who treated blacks with respect while segregating them, denying them full legal rights, and turning a blind eye to their persecution. It is worth remembering that for more than 150 years Christians defended both slavery and segregation with religious and biblical arguments. This is precisely the sort of disreputable tactic that I was talking about in my last post. Instead of engaging the modest case I put forth (which, by the way, never dealt with the legal rights of gay citizens, but rather, the legal rights of religious citizens), I am passive-aggressively compared to someone who defended segregation and/or slavery. Here's what I wrote: I think that the gay rights movement has corrupted our public discourse by the rhetorical trick of changing the topic from the plausibility of one¹s position to whether the one who embraces that position is a virtuous person. So, for example, if a concerned parent sincerely believes that homosexuality is immoral, and has informed himself of all the relevant arguments and remains unconvinced of the other¹s position, that parent is `homophobic.' I am not convinced that is how adults ought to conduct their disagreements in public. All was I suggesting is that the parent's concern is legitimate and ought to be treated with respect, since she, after all, has the same rights as the rest of us. Your slavery analogy, however, raises an interesting question that is outside the scope of this listserv though relevant to your view on the relationship between law and morality: why was slavery wrong? Was it wrong because the slaves did not consent to their imprisonment, or was it wrong because human beings are by nature the sorts of beings that are not property? If the latter, then there are acts between consenting adults--namely voluntary slavery--that the law could proscribe on clearly moral and metaphysical grounds. On the other hand, if the former, then slavery is not intrinsically wrong; it is only conditionally wrong, depending on whether the prospective slave consented to his servitude. Perhaps I was unclear in my posting, and for that I apologize. All I was doing was trying to do was humanize the predicament of the serious, caring citizen who feels under siege by cultural warriors who will call her names and marginalize her perspective simply because she is thoughtfully unconvinced that her critics are correct. Frank ___ 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
If the sentence below were correct, then most civil rights laws would be wrong. Markets are not neutral, and it is necessary, from time to time, to intervene in order to protect important social interests -- like jobs, housing, education and the like. Or at least that is the way we have been doing things for quite some time now. The arguments, it seems to me, are at the margins, not at the core. -Original Message- From: Francis Beckwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 8:22 PM To: Religion Law Mailing List Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question Capitalism, like copulation, is an act between consenting adults. Frank ___ 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
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 ___ 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
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
Re: Religion Clauses question
This discussion puts me in mind of Waldron's observation about the difficulty of rights based discourse: Rights purport to be fundamental commitments to which we can appeal to neutrally resolve basic disputes, but what counts as a right is precisely what people disagree about. I suspect that those who oppose same sex marriage do so precisely because they don't regard same sex marriage as a right (in the Dworkin, rights as trumps meaning). It seems to me that the language of equal rights only becomes useful once one has defined what counts as a right and what doesn't count as a right. However, once one has those definitions most of the arguing has been done. Nate Oman -- Original Message -- From: Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:17:55 -0500 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 -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
Robin: I actually don't disagree with you in principle. But what I was doing was just speculating on what sort of tactic could be used to say that an apparent neutral law really did target a religion. Frank On 6/2/04 10:50 AM, Robin Charlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know we've had related discussions on this list before. To reiterate what others then said, I don't see why we should construe such an anti-homosexual view as only (necessarily) religious. Even if it is often or usually based on religious motivation, a law that targets such a view is not presumptively targeting religion. I suppose it's possible in a given set of facts that such a law might have been aimed at religion, but why should we presume so in the usual case? According to this notion, would you assume a criminal prohibition of murder is a law that targets religion? Not that we have to accept his view, but I doubt this is what Scalia meant in Smith when he spoke of laws targeting religion. Robin Charlow Hofstra University School of Law Hempstead, New York 11549 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone (516) 463-5166 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/1/2004 8:21:32 PM Nathan: Since so many intellectuals--including Supreme Court justices--affirm that religion deals with issues of spirituality and moral virtue especially sexual ethics, it seems to me that any law meant to target an area that has been traditionally the domain of theology could be construed as not facially neutral at all. A law, for example, that forbade meetings on Sundays in buildings owned by 501c3 organizations could be construed as targeting religion even if facially neutral. Since it is only religious beliefs, or rich philosophical views of the human person that are religious is quality, that morally forbid homosexual acts between consenting adults, it is not unreasonable to argue that such an anti-discrimination law is partially motivated by an intent to expunge those religious understandings from the public square. To employ the rhetoric of liberalism, one could say that religion is so personal, and one's views of sexual morality so deeply connected to one's view of the universe and human life, that it is beyond the competence of government, especially courts, to instruct employers, landlords, etc. on how to conduct their business concerning prospective employees on such delicate matters. Capitalism, like copulation, is an act between consenting adults. Frank On 6/1/04 3:41 PM, Nathan Oman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve, I don't understand how your claim that extending anti-discrimination laws to cover priests and pastors can be squared with the holding in Employment Division v. Smith. It seems to me that such a law would be facially neutral and would not be singling out religion for any special disability. Of course, it is always possible for the Supreme Court to carve out a minister/pastor exception to Smith, but unless I am mistaken about the current shape of the doctrine no such limitation on the Smith neutrality position exists. Nate Oman -- Original Message -- From: Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 15:51:52 -0400 Priests can be just men, right? Mormons can and do exclude blacks from the upper ranks of the church hierarchy. Every anti-discrimination law that I have heard of exempts either religious organizations or certain religious offices (priests, ministers, certain other religious officials) from the reach of the law. Nonetheless, assuming that a law as unlikely as that posited were to be passed, I think a free exercise claim might well work to limit its effect to janitors and others not directly involved in the direct pastoral work. (along the same lines as the distinctions are made now in statutes). That is, I think the constitution may limit the reach of such a law. As to the latter, I think you would be into free exercise problems there as well -- ministers can refuse to marry people on any or no grounds now. I can't imagine that changing. Of course I would hope to never see the issue arise as a constitutional issue. I would hope that legislators would respect the bounds well enough that it would not. But dumber things are done by our elected officials regularly. Like yanking the tax exempt status of a Unitarian Universalist church in Texas because of a lack of mandated belief in god meant that it was not a proper religion. Steve On Tuesday, June 1, 2004, at 02:07 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: An interesting question from a Weblog, http://southernappeal.blogspot.com/ 2004_05_30_southernappeal_archive.htm l#108591655546056564; any thoughts about it? [Begin quote] . . . . Suppose that same-sex marriage (SSM) gets codified into law (in MA or somewhere else) and the
Re: Religion Clauses question
Title: Re: Religion Clauses question Paul: I dont see it as a matter of like or dislike; in fact, I think that this mischaracterizes peoples objection to homosexuality. Clearly, some people dont like Christians and Jews, but that doesnt mean that one may not have arguments against the veracity of those religious points of view without disliking its members. I am, for example, friends with two gay men, one of whom has been a close friend for years. He know that I morally object to homosexuality, but we treat each other with respect. That is true tolerance: believing the other guy is dead wrong but nevertheless treating him as a moral agent entitled to all the dignity that goes with that status. I think that the gay rights movement has corrupted our public discourse by the rhetorical trick of changing the topic from the plausibility of ones position to whether the one who embraces that position is a virtuous person. So, for example, if a concerned parent sincerely believes that homosexuality is immoral, and has informed himself of all the relevant arguments and remains unconvinced of the others position, that parent is homophobic. I am not convinced that is how adults ought to conduct their disagreements in public. Its just the youve got cooties rejoinder for grown-ups. Thats my story and Im sticking to it. Frank On 6/2/04 11:58 AM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Robin is clearly right here; some people just don't like the idea of gay people; end of story. It is about homophobia. So, they will oppose same sex marriage and any other thing that helps or protects gay people. I am sure there are many people who don't attend any church, synagogue, temple, or mosque and are not religious but are nevertheless opposed to giving rights to gay people. Similarly, a law is not religious in nature just because thre is some biblial or religious support for it. Cultures that did not recognize (or even know about) the Bible still had laws prohibited murder or theft or perjury. Thus, even though such behavior is proscribed in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5, the laws against such behavior are not religious in any way. ___ 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
Mr. Beckwith: It is hard to imagine how one can treat someone with respect and at the same time believe that such a person is not entitled to the same rights that you have. Quite frankly, your position reminds me of those southern whites who treated blacks with respect while segregating them, denying them full legal rights, and turning a blind eye to their persecution. It is worth remembering that for more than 150 years Christians defended both slavery and segregation with religious and biblical arguments. It seems to me that it is possible to consider some behavior which involves consenting adults to be immoral and still understand that you have no right to seek to deny those people legal rights. I may find it immoral for some people to try to convert others, or to denounce their faith, but I would not deny them the legal and constitutional right to do so. True tolerance is believing the other guy is dead wrong, but also believing he has right to live his life with the same legal rights that other people have. That would include the right to marry; to help your partner make end of life decisions, to visit your partner in the hospital; in inherit from your partner without undue probate or tax consequences. -- 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] Francis Beckwith wrote: Paul: I don?t see it as a matter of like or dislike; in fact, I think that this mischaracterizes people?s objection to homosexuality. Clearly, some people don?t like Christians and Jews, but that doesn?t mean that one may not have arguments against the veracity of those religious points of view without disliking its members. I am, for example, friends with two gay men, one of whom has been a close friend for years. He know that I morally object to homosexuality, but we treat each other with respect. That is true tolerance: believing the other guy is dead wrong but nevertheless treating him as a moral agent entitled to all the dignity that goes with that status. I think that the gay rights movement has corrupted our public discourse by the rhetorical trick of changing the topic from the plausibility of one?s position to whether the one who embraces that position is a virtuous person. So, for example, if a concerned parent sincerely believes that homosexuality is immoral, and has informed himself of all the relevant arguments and remains unconvinced of the other?s position, that parent is ?homophobic.? I am not convinced that is how adults ought to conduct their disagreements in public. It?s just the ?you?ve got cooties? rejoinder for grown-ups. That?s my story and I?m sticking to it. Frank On 6/2/04 11:58 AM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Robin is clearly right here; some people just don't like the idea of gay people; end of story. It is about homophobia. So, they will oppose same sex marriage and any other thing that helps or protects gay people. I am sure there are many people who don't attend any church, synagogue, temple, or mosque and are not religious but are nevertheless opposed to giving rights to gay people. Similarly, a law is not religious in nature just because thre is some biblial or religious support for it. Cultures that did not recognize (or even know about) the Bible still had laws prohibited murder or theft or perjury. Thus, even though such behavior is proscribed in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5, the laws against such behavior are not religious in any way. ___ 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
On 6/2/04 10:52 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Beckwith: It is hard to imagine how one can treat someone with respect and at the same time believe that such a person is not entitled to the same rights that you have. Yes, it is hard to imagine that I would hold that belief, since I don't hold it. Quite frankly, your position reminds me of those southern whites who treated blacks with respect while segregating them, denying them full legal rights, and turning a blind eye to their persecution. It is worth remembering that for more than 150 years Christians defended both slavery and segregation with religious and biblical arguments. This is precisely the sort of disreputable tactic that I was talking about in my last post. Instead of engaging the modest case I put forth (which, by the way, never dealt with the legal rights of gay citizens, but rather, the legal rights of religious citizens), I am passive-aggressively compared to someone who defended segregation and/or slavery. Here's what I wrote: I think that the gay rights movement has corrupted our public discourse by the rhetorical trick of changing the topic from the plausibility of one¹s position to whether the one who embraces that position is a virtuous person. So, for example, if a concerned parent sincerely believes that homosexuality is immoral, and has informed himself of all the relevant arguments and remains unconvinced of the other¹s position, that parent is `homophobic.' I am not convinced that is how adults ought to conduct their disagreements in public. All was I suggesting is that the parent's concern is legitimate and ought to be treated with respect, since she, after all, has the same rights as the rest of us. Your slavery analogy, however, raises an interesting question that is outside the scope of this listserv though relevant to your view on the relationship between law and morality: why was slavery wrong? Was it wrong because the slaves did not consent to their imprisonment, or was it wrong because human beings are by nature the sorts of beings that are not property? If the latter, then there are acts between consenting adults--namely voluntary slavery--that the law could proscribe on clearly moral and metaphysical grounds. On the other hand, if the former, then slavery is not intrinsically wrong; it is only conditionally wrong, depending on whether the prospective slave consented to his servitude. Perhaps I was unclear in my posting, and for that I apologize. All I was doing was trying to do was humanize the predicament of the serious, caring citizen who feels under siege by cultural warriors who will call her names and marginalize her perspective simply because she is thoughtfully unconvinced that her critics are correct. Frank ___ 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
Now this I don't understand: It seems to me that slavery is by definition *involuntary* servitude. One might debate about what the proper scope of consent should be (e.g., should someone be able to consentually surrender at one time the right to withdraw his consent in the future). But to be slavery, there has to be at least a considerable degree of involuntariness -- otherwise we wouldn't call it slavery at all, no? Eugene Francis Beckwith writes: Your slavery analogy, however, raises an interesting question that is outside the scope of this listserv though relevant to your view on the relationship between law and morality: why was slavery wrong? Was it wrong because the slaves did not consent to their imprisonment, or was it wrong because human beings are by nature the sorts of beings that are not property? If the latter, then there are acts between consenting adults--namely voluntary slavery--that the law could proscribe on clearly moral and metaphysical grounds. On the other hand, if the former, then slavery is not intrinsically wrong; it is only conditionally wrong, depending on whether the prospective slave consented to his servitude. ___ 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
