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 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 -- 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
