Certainly social reform is coming, but it's already taking a certain form.  The 
movement toward same-sex unions is pretty clearly proceeding down the track of 
expanding our conception of government marriage, rather than removing the 
government from marriage.  Such a dramatic shift in the object of reform 
efforts at this stage would require reorienting the entire movement, and the 
impetus for the reorientation is not obvious.  Further, pushing marriage back 
to religious (and non-religious) mediating communities is not going to erase 
the culture war tension surrounding the issue.  As we see in a variety of 
contexts, suggesting that the state retreat from contests over religiously 
shaped conceptions of the good can prove immensely unpopular.  Especially in 
the post-Roe environment, many religious voices (most prominently, but of 
course not exclusively, evangelicals) are not going to retreat into their 
respective corners, content to maintain marriage as a religiously pure, but 
legally marginalized, subculture practice.  (In theological terms, the work of 
Richard John Neuhaus has a much wider following than the work of Stanley 
Hauerwas.)
 
To be clear, I think it's an attractive idea.  I just don't see how it's going 
to happen.
 
Rob Vischer

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Steven Jamar 
        Sent: Tue 3/15/2005 5:57 PM 
        To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
        Cc: 
        Subject: Re: Rights of clergy regarding same-sex marriage?
        
        

        On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 04:44  PM, James Maule wrote:
        
        > What major social reform effectuated through legal change was NOT a
        > political non-starter when it first was proposed?
        
        "Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
        citizens can change the world. Indeed, it s the only thing that ever
        has."
        
        Margaret Meade
        
        >
        > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/15/2005 3:12:30 PM >>>
        >
        >  The idea of cleanly separating religious
        > marriage from state-recognized relationship is appealing, but a
        > political non-starter, in my view.
        >
        > Rob Vischer
        >
        --
        Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                 vox:  202-806-8017
        Howard University School of Law                       fax:  202-806-8428
        2900 Van Ness Street NW                     mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
        Washington, DC  20008      http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar
        
        "God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be
        changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the
        wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
        
        Reinhold Neibuhr 1943
        
        _______________________________________________
        To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
        To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
        
        Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; 
people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) 
forward the messages to others.
        

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to