by "permission" I mean "convey an equivalence to." My apologies.
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:54 PM, David Cruz <dc...@law.usc.edu> wrote: > Since Michael Worley asked these questions of Marty in a post, rather > than private email, I'd like to ask for a clarification of what he's asking > with number 2: Permissions from whom? Who/what is entitled to, is able > to, and/or is in the habit of conveying such “permissions”? > > > David B. Cruz > Professor of Law > University of Southern California Gould School of Law > Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 > U.S.A. > > On May 3, 2015, at 9:22 PM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> wrote: > > Marty, > > Sorry to pick hairs, but I'm curious. You think it is "easy" for the > Court "to say that the denial of SSM does not satisfy rational basis > review." You also said to Alan that you do not believe "that religious > beliefs opposing same-sex sexual relationships are purely an irrational > bias." > > It seems to me hard, if not impossible to argue both that laws prohibiting > same-sex marriage are not rational and for that to not impact our culture. > This cultural impact, to me, will imply "that religious beliefs opposing > same-sex sexual relationships are purely an irrational bias." > > I simply don't trust the state of public discourse enough for people to > distinguish between rational basis review with a bite and religious > rationality. > > So I ask: > > 1) Do you support a decision that man-woman marriage laws fail rational > basis review? (This isn't a gotcha question; I just think it is important > to start at the basic level either way) > 2) If the court rules that man-woman marriage laws fail rational basis > review, will that convey permission for citizens to labal those who > continue to support man-woman marriage laws as irrational, or at least, > "insensitivity > caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection" as ruled in > *Garrett*. > 3) If, contrary to your hopes, one or more of the following become a part > of our culture, will that hurt religious people and institutions? > A) that religious beliefs are "simply" a "product of time and culture", > B)"are purely an irrational bias," or > C) are dependent upon, or necessarily reflect, "bigotry" (or "animus," for > that matter) > > D) "that conservative Christian teachings about sex have the same place > in the church that former teachings about race did." > > 4) Assuming opposition to same-sex marriage is seen as irrational, is > there any reason universities should be allowed to discriminate against > same-sex couples? > > I ask these questions because in my mind, a ruling based on "no rational > basis" impacts the public square in such a way that makes any university > that holds the religious values we've mentioned (and at least 10 or 20 will > continue to do so) up for attack? I feel like you see a distinction I'm > missing here, or oppose a ruling based on the lack of rational basis. > > I look forward to your and any others responses. > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Michael Worley J.D., Brigham Young University
_______________________________________________ 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.
