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 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
-- 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
