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
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
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
: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
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
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
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
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,
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
(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
)
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
]; 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
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
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
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
, 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
. 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
, 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
: 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
]
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
)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
