I realize that my following question gets into another hot-button area, but is Mark suggesting that there is a strong constitutional interest in procreation at any age? Why can’t the state come to the altogether rational conclusion that it is really unwise for, say, a 55-year-old couple to have children unless the couple has enough resources to cover the costs of taking care of children even after their retirement (not to mention covering the costs of likely medical care)? I agree that is probably not a compelling state interest, at least in a quasi-libertarian society, but I certainly think it is at least a rational, say, as the defenses being asserted for DOMA. Of course it may be that medical advances in the future will make Sarah and Abraham models to emulate, though I tend to be skeptical. In any event, Abraham was a dreadful father who proved willing to kill his child because of a totally arbitrary command to do so. (It is irrelevant that, at least according to the Bible, God sent the innocent lamb to be sacrificed instead There are Midrash, incidentally, that suggest that no lamb appeared, which explains why only Abraham climbed down the mountain and Isaac was not heard from again for three years, by which time Sarah was dead. One can only imagine the conversation that ensued when Abraham came back to the tent without Isaac and had to explain why he was alone. He’s lucky that she didn’t kill him then and there. But I digress….)
sandy From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:12 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent The biological issues with regard to different sex couples mostly can be answered fairly easily, I think, including with these points: With regard to medical or similar issues that prevent procreation, a state inquiry would intrude substantially on privacy, which would justify the state in not inquiring. (Also, some couples who have given up on conceiving, later are surprised to find that they have.) With regard to age, no bright line can be set that accurately distinguishes those who can from those who cannot procreate. Any line based on experience as to an age after which procreation cannot occur would either be impossible to set - men can procreate to a very old age - or would have to discriminate against women, who lose the ability to become pregnant by a particular upper bound (absent miracles as with Sarah and Abraham) that is much younger than any age that could possibly be set for men. Thus there are good reasons not to set an age limit. Mark Scarberry Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
_______________________________________________ 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.
