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 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] > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > 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] > > > > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
