I'm relatively new to this list, but can you possibly believe this?: The morality of homosexual relationships can only be maintained by someone who is unaware of - or ignores - the arguments that are actually made.
On Jun 30, 2013, at 8:41 PM, "Esenberg, Richard" <richard.esenb...@marquette.edu<mailto:richard.esenb...@marquette.edu>> wrote: The morality of homosexual relationships can only be maintained by someone who is unaware of - or ignores - the arguments that are actually made. You can certainly disagree with these arguments but they do not proceed from theological premises. Posner's characterization on Slate of Altio's recitation of the argument regarding the effect of SSM on marriage in general is of that piece; it fails to address what the argument actually says. It may well be that Burkean conservatives are being driven from the field by shrill accusations of "hate" and "bigotry" but I wouldn't count that an argument in favor of the outcome in Windsor. ________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] on behalf of Paul Horwitz [phorw...@hotmail.com<mailto:phorw...@hotmail.com>] Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:38 PM To: hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent On the first point only, the reservation is just that--a reservation. For EC purposes, doctrine aside, I'm not sure whether I believe the religiosity of a statement or display can be fixed only by contemporary understanding. I suspect my conclusion would be that both historical and contemporary meaning are relevant if not inextricably linked, but I'd have to think it through more carefully. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone while driving On Jun 30, 2013, at 12:00 PM, hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: I am not sure what Paul's reservation is with the concept that for First Amendment purposes, a belief is the belief being held right now by the believer, regardless of tradition or history. I had thought the courts had settled on that concept, and its adjunct theory, which is that no court can tell a religious believer that their belief is not religious or that it is not true. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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.
