Re: Religion Clauses question
Unlike some justices of the US Supreme Court, I do not think that the practice in France is particularly informative or relevant (except, perhaps, in Louisiana) (since the treaty making final the purchase of the territory guarantees to the residents of the territory all the rights they enjoyed prior to the conveyance). Nor do I think that matrimony is the business of the state. I am more inclined to the catholic view that matrimony is sacramental and imports an inner working of grace in the life of its participants. But we were discussing marriage, not matrimony. Sure they are related topics, but not the same. As for the "underwhelming" nature of the point made, experience thus far shows that there is no argument about this subject that you do not find underwhelming. Moreover, there is no argument that has been offered that you have not managed to malign by suggesting its ready comparison to some deep dark racist, facist, malevolent past. The insistence that men may marry women and women may marry men is the same thing as only white men may marry white women and only white women may marry white men represents a startling failure of logic. Given the approach you seem to be arguing for, I may marry that to which I have an attraction with the intention to maintain a level of support and affiliation different than other relations that exist. Thus Justice Scalia is proven correct when he anticipates that your argument justifies adult incest and polymarriage. It would be candidly refreshing if proponents of same sex marriage would acknowledge that their arguments destroy the unique nature of marriage. Of course, some leading voices in the homosexual special rights community have done just that, have acknowledged and declared that their intention is to acquire access to marriage so that they can change its essential nature and role in society. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
Paul Finkelman wrote: > well, Jim, some countries do not define marriage that way at all; the > French don't let the state do marriages. I suspect that Finkelman used the word "state" where he meant "church." Below is a section on French marriage law provided by the State Deparment: "French law recognises only the civil marriage. This must be performed by a French Civil Authority (officier de l'état civil), which includes the mayor (maire), his legally authorised replacement - the deputy mayor (adjoint) or a city councillor (conseiller municipal). ''American diplomatic and consular officers do not have legal authority to perform marriages. Because of the French legal requirement that civil marriages take place in a French mairie (city hall), marriages CANNOT be performed within the Embassy or within an American Consular office in France. "Religious ceremonies are optional, have no legal status and may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day.)" 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
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
Re: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
I was making only Marty's point (ii). As to his point (i), If the church wants to buy media time for political ads, it can do that through the 501(c)(4) affiliate as well as anyone else. But if the pastor, or the rabbi, or the archbishop, wants to urge his faithful to support the candidate that is more willing to feed the hungry, it is not remotely the same to have that message come from Joe Doaks at the 501(c)(4) affiliate. And if the religious leader wants to speak on this issue from the pulpit, or in a pastoral letter, it doesn't help to put him on the payroll of the 501(c)(4) affiliate for 10% of his time. I think that lawyers for churches -- at least those who pay attention to the periodic warnings from the IRS on this issue -- believe that if the religious leader of the church speaks, his speech will be attributed to the church itself and not to any affiliate. The bottom line is that the rule censors pastors in the pulpit, and that is a constitutional problem. At 02:12 PM 6/3/2004 -0400, you wrote: I'm a bit unclear on one part of Doug's post. Are you saying, Doug, (i) that the church is differently situated because, unlike secular nonprofits, it can't (or realistically won't be able to) set up an affiliate through which to engage in political speech (if so, why is that true?), or, alternatively, (ii) that for some reason the partisan political speech of the spiritual leader is qualitatively "very different" -- in a way that should matter for statutory or constitutional analysis? -- from the partisan political speech of her nonreligious counterpart? - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:10 PM Subject: RE: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status I agree that the absolute limit on candidate advocacy is a problem. Of course it is a problem for all other non-profits as well, and the usual solution is to set up a political affiliate. The one other way in which churches are differently situated is the speech of the clergy. When the church addresses a moral issue, including the positions of competing candidates on that moral issue, it is very different for the spiritual leader to make the statement versus the head of the 501(c)(4) affiliate making the statement. I agree with Marty's analysis of current law, but the restriction on the speech of the clergy is a constitutional problem. At 10:52 AM 6/3/2004 -0400, you wrote: content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C4497A.74159228" "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> The "susbtantial" limit on lobbying does provide ample breathing room for most religious institutions, including any bona fide house of worship I could imagine. And there's probably no limit on religious groups' advocacy re moral issues, where the advocacy isn't also lobbying. But there's no such latitude re advocacy for candidates, and we are, after all, in an election year. So I expect that the candidate part of the limit will be asserted frequently in the months to come, and it could well represent a meaningful threat. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc stern Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 9:44 AM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status There really is nothing to the threat. Churches are free to take stands on political issues provided they do not spend a substantial amount on these activities. The late Dean Kelly obtained an internal IRS memo which indicted that insubstantial was between 5-20% of an organization s budget. The document was informal and would not bind the IRS, but it describes a fairly safe harbor. Non-church groups can opt for a different and more predictable set of rules, but at the behest of churches which then insisted that the government could not stop them from advocating for legislation at the expense of exemption, churches were not offered the option. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Francis Beckwith Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:16 AM To: Religion Law Mailing List Subject: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status Importance: Low Just got this from a friend. It is published by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian outfit in Colorado Springs. Frank --- June 1, 2004 Church's Tax-Exempt Status Threatened by Steve Jordahl, correspondent Pro-homosexual group lodges complaint with the state against a Montana church that aired the "Battle for Marriage" satellite broadcast. A Montana church, one of hundreds across the country to broadcast a pro-marriage TV special on May 23, ha
Re: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
If I'm understand you corerctly, Doug, you're arguing that the restrictions as applied to the religious leader are more constitutionally problematic than as applied to the leader of a nonreligious 501, because urging the faithful from the pulpit to vote for X is "not remotely the same" as the nonreligious leader urging a different (diffuse and/or secular) audience to vote for X. Of course, the impact generally will be different, because the religious leader speaks from religious authority to the faithful, and thus presumably is more effective at persuading her audience than is the nonreligious leader. I understand why the state therefore would have an even greater interest in ensuring that tax benefits are not used to facilitate that (very effective) partisan speech. But why would the religious leader's constitutional injury be any greater than that of her secular counterpart? - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 11:21 AM Subject: Re: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status I was making only Marty's point (ii). As to his point (i), If the church wants to buy media time for political ads, it can do that through the 501(c)(4) affiliate as well as anyone else.But if the pastor, or the rabbi, or the archbishop, wants to urge his faithful to support the candidate that is more willing to feed the hungry, it is not remotely the same to have that message come from Joe Doaks at the 501(c)(4) affiliate. And if the religious leader wants to speak on this issue from the pulpit, or in a pastoral letter, it doesn't help to put him on the payroll of the 501(c)(4) affiliate for 10% of his time. I think that lawyers for churches -- at least those who pay attention to the periodic warnings from the IRS on this issue -- believe that if the religious leader of the church speaks, his speech will be attributed to the church itself and not to any affiliate. The bottom line is that the rule censors pastors in the pulpit, and that is a constitutional problem.At 02:12 PM 6/3/2004 -0400, you wrote: I'm a bit unclear on one part of Doug's post. Are you saying, Doug, (i) that the church is differently situated because, unlike secular nonprofits, it can't (or realistically won't be able to) set up an affiliate through which to engage in political speech (if so, why is that true?), or, alternatively, (ii) that for some reason the partisan political speech of the spiritual leader is qualitatively "very different" -- in a way that should matter for statutory or constitutional analysis? -- from the partisan political speech of her nonreligious counterpart? - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:10 PM Subject: RE: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status I agree that the absolute limit on candidate advocacy is a problem. Of course it is a problem for all other non-profits as well, and the usual solution is to set up a political affiliate. The one other way in which churches are differently situated is the speech of the clergy. When the church addresses a moral issue, including the positions of competing candidates on that moral issue, it is very different for the spiritual leader to make the statement versus the head of the 501(c)(4) affiliate making the statement. I agree with Marty's analysis of current law, but the restriction on the speech of the clergy is a constitutional problem. At 10:52 AM 6/3/2004 -0400, you wrote: content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C4497A.74159228" "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> The "susbtantial" limit on lobbying does provide ample breathing room for most religious institutions, including any bona fide house of worship I could imagine. And there's probably no limit on religious groups' advocacy re moral issues, where the advocacy isn't also lobbying. But there's no such latitude re advocacy for candidates, and we are, after all, in an election year. So I expect that the candidate part of the limit will be asserted frequently in the months to come, and it could well represent a meaningful threat. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Latest "released time" controversy
http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$22599 ___ 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
Re: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
Maybe if a secular 501(c)(3) has a well known leader who has built up special credibility with his members, there might be a similar problem. But the IRS may also be much more likely to accept the defense that that leader is partly on the payroll of the 501(c)(4). It looks impossibly fictional when the pastor claims to speak for the 501(c)(4), because he does not, and really cannot, shed his religious authority. The fiction is more tenable for a secular leader who speaks in a secular capacity for either organization. I don't know what the IRS says or thinks about a secular leader wearing two hats, but the reason I don't know may be that prominent examples hardly ever arise. In any event, I have no stake in arguing that no secular groups have a similar claim to the one I suggested with respect to churches. If some of their leaders are effectively prevented from speaking on candidates addressing issues important to the organization, I think they have a troubling free speech claim too. A pastor addressing moral issues from the pulpit is about as core an example of free speech and free exercise as one can imagine, and an asserted compelling interest in censoring that speech would have to be compelling indeed. At 10:21 AM 6/4/2004 -0500, Douglas Laycock wrote: I was making only Marty's point (ii). As to his point (i), If the church wants to buy media time for political ads, it can do that through the 501(c)(4) affiliate as well as anyone else. But if the pastor, or the rabbi, or the archbishop, wants to urge his faithful to support the candidate that is more willing to feed the hungry, it is not remotely the same to have that message come from Joe Doaks at the 501(c)(4) affiliate. And if the religious leader wants to speak on this issue from the pulpit, or in a pastoral letter, it doesn't help to put him on the payroll of the 501(c)(4) affiliate for 10% of his time. I think that lawyers for churches -- at least those who pay attention to the periodic warnings from the IRS on this issue -- believe that if the religious leader of the church speaks, his speech will be attributed to the church itself and not to any affiliate. The bottom line is that the rule censors pastors in the pulpit, and that is a constitutional problem. At 02:12 PM 6/3/2004 -0400, you wrote: I'm a bit unclear on one part of Doug's post. Are you saying, Doug, (i) that the church is differently situated because, unlike secular nonprofits, it can't (or realistically won't be able to) set up an affiliate through which to engage in political speech (if so, why is that true?), or, alternatively, (ii) that for some reason the partisan political speech of the spiritual leader is qualitatively "very different" -- in a way that should matter for statutory or constitutional analysis? -- from the partisan political speech of her nonreligious counterpart? - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:10 PM Subject: RE: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status I agree that the absolute limit on candidate advocacy is a problem. Of course it is a problem for all other non-profits as well, and the usual solution is to set up a political affiliate. The one other way in which churches are differently situated is the speech of the clergy. When the church addresses a moral issue, including the positions of competing candidates on that moral issue, it is very different for the spiritual leader to make the statement versus the head of the 501(c)(4) affiliate making the statement. I agree with Marty's analysis of current law, but the restriction on the speech of the clergy is a constitutional problem. At 10:52 AM 6/3/2004 -0400, you wrote: content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C4497A.74159228" "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> The "susbtantial" limit on lobbying does provide ample breathing room for most religious institutions, including any bona fide house of worship I could imagine. And there's probably no limit on religious groups' advocacy re moral issues, where the advocacy isn't also lobbying. But there's no such latitude re advocacy for candidates, and we are, after all, in an election year. So I expect that the candidate part of the limit will be asserted frequently in the months to come, and it could well represent a meaningful threat. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc stern Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 9:44 AM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status There really is nothing to the threat. Church
RE: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
(An earlier version of this got lost in cyberspace, apparently.) >From the religious standpoint, I think the concern is that the leader of the faith community -- say, the diocesan bishop -- should also be the leader and teacher in public pronouncements on moral and social issues, and should be able to do so in his capacity as spiritual leader -- as Doug puts it, from the pulpit or in a pastoral letter. The concern would be that the IRS would view such an overlap in organizational leaders and spokespersons -- and in the forum for the two pronouncements -- as evidence of a failure to segregate the two organizations. If the IRS withdraws the tax exemption on that basis, it would mean that the church lost the exemption -- for its charitable, non-political activities as well -- as the price of following its doctrinally mandated organizational structure. By losing the exemption for *all* of its activities, the church is suffering a penalty. As I said, in theory a secular organization could have a similar doctrinal belief that the leader and public teacher/spokesperson on its exempt activities must also be the leader and public teacher/spokesperson on its non-exempt (i.e. legislation-related) activities. But like Doug, I can't think of a secular example where the organization believes this as a matter of conscientious doctrine. It may be more convenient, less costly, more effective, etc. for the same people to do both -- that would indeed be true for all organizations, not distinctively so for churches. But I'm talking about a different concern, the conscientious tenet about who should speak. Is there a secular organization that is comparable to certain religious groups in that it has a conscientious belief, as part of its doctrines, that certain leaders must be the public teachers and spokespersons on all issues? Again, perhaps the most that this shows is that all such groups have some distinctive normative claim to accommodation, whether they are religious or secular. If there is such a claim, then since it seems that the vast majority of such groups would be religious, wouldn't the better course be to accommodate them under RFRA, and then fashion a similar accommodation for the occasional secular group that might come along? (Analogous to Harlan's expanding the draft exemption in Welsh.) Tom Berg *** Thomas C. Berg University of St. Thomas School of Law Mail # MSL 400 1000 La Salle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015 Phone: (651) 962-4918 Fax: (651) 962-4996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:44 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status I'm not sure I fully understand this argument, but I don't know all that much about church doctrine or tax law. Can you help me, Tom. Is the argument that the religious leaders of certain faith communities are prohibited by church doctrine from serving in leadership positions or taking on speaking roles in 501(c)(4) organizations? Or is it a tax law problem? Do IRS regulations make it difficult for clergy to participate in 501(c)(4) organizations, perhaps because they receive compensation from a 501(c)(3)? Can someone work part time at both a 501(c)(3) and part time at a 501(c)(4)? Can a church categorize itself as a (c)(4) organization and lose its tax exempt status? If so, that takes us back to problems relating to the impracticality of segregating one's activities and the cost in lost subsidies and exemptions of maintaining organizational and operational unity -- but that problem applies to both secular and religious individuals and institutions. I understand the argument that clergy have to be able to be free to speak out on political issues. What I'm less clear about is why they have to be able to do so from a tax exempt status. I suppose the second issue suggested by Tom's post is whether church rules about polity effectively respond to the free speech concern. If only associations expressing a particular viewpoint have certain kinds of rules about who can speak for the organization, and that distinction is accepted as a justification for regulating the speech of those associations less rigorously than the speech of associations with different viewpoints, does that resolve the debate distorting consequence of accepting this distinction? Avoiding debate distorting government action is, after all, why we are concerned about viewpoint discrimination in the first place. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 11:37 AM 6/3/2004 -0500, you wrote: >I'm not sure about the following argument, but what do you think of it? The >ban on lobbying can be circumvented by setting up a separate 501(c)(4) >organization, which the Court in Regan said was relevant (if not crucial) to >its constitutionality. Suppose that it doesn't cost much in terms of >admini
Re: Religion Clauses question
In a message dated 6/4/04 7:57:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (except, perhaps, in Louisiana) (since the treaty making final the purchase of the territory guarantees to the residents of the territory all the rights they enjoyed prior to the conveyance). Jim- You would have to say "except, perhaps, in Louisiana and all or part of Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Colorado and Montana." Art ___ 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
RE: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
I wonder if thinking about the President of the United States might be useful here. Clearly, the fact that he is President gives him a certain charismatic authority, and that authority is linked to the office that he holds. At the same time, Presidents generally serve as the de facto head of their political parties. Now obviously the Presidency is not a 501(c)(3) in danger of losing its tax exempt status if the President engages in partisan speech. On the other hand, we do have regulations about his ability to use the office of President for partisan political purposes. We require that Presidents set up seperate entities for political purposes. Furthermore, it seems that these requirements are about more than simply the use of government funds. For example, it is my understanding that the President cannot use the presidential seal on partisan political materials, etc., even though the "presidentialness" conveyed by the seal is at the heart of the political message that every incumbent President wants to use at reelection time. Does this constitute a secular example of the sort of problem that Berg and Doug see? Nate Oman -- Original Message -- From: "Berg, Thomas C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:08:41 -0500 >(An earlier version of this got lost in cyberspace, apparently.) > >>From the religious standpoint, I think the concern is that the leader of the >faith community -- say, the diocesan bishop -- should also be the leader and >teacher in public pronouncements on moral and social issues, and should be >able to do so in his capacity as spiritual leader -- as Doug puts it, from >the pulpit or in a pastoral letter. The concern would be that the IRS would >view such an overlap in organizational leaders and spokespersons -- and in >the forum for the two pronouncements -- as evidence of a failure to >segregate the two organizations. If the IRS withdraws the tax exemption on >that basis, it would mean that the church lost the exemption -- for its >charitable, non-political activities as well -- as the price of following >its doctrinally mandated organizational structure. By losing the exemption >for *all* of its activities, the church is suffering a penalty. > >As I said, in theory a secular organization could have a similar doctrinal >belief that the leader and public teacher/spokesperson on its exempt >activities must also be the leader and public teacher/spokesperson on its >non-exempt (i.e. legislation-related) activities. But like Doug, I can't >think of a secular example where the organization believes this as a matter >of conscientious doctrine. It may be more convenient, less costly, more >effective, etc. for the same people to do both -- that would indeed be true >for all organizations, not distinctively so for churches. But I'm talking >about a different concern, the conscientious tenet about who should speak. >Is there a secular organization that is comparable to certain religious >groups in that it has a conscientious belief, as part of its doctrines, that >certain leaders must be the public teachers and spokespersons on all issues? > >Again, perhaps the most that this shows is that all such groups have some >distinctive normative claim to accommodation, whether they are religious or >secular. If there is such a claim, then since it seems that the vast >majority of such groups would be religious, wouldn't the better course be to >accommodate them under RFRA, and then fashion a similar accommodation for >the occasional secular group that might come along? (Analogous to Harlan's >expanding the draft exemption in Welsh.) > >Tom Berg > > >*** >Thomas C. Berg >University of St. Thomas School of Law >Mail # MSL 400 >1000 La Salle Avenue >Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015 >Phone: (651) 962-4918 >Fax: (651) 962-4996 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >-Original Message- >From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 1:44 PM >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >Subject: RE: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status > > >I'm not sure I fully understand this argument, but I don't know all that >much about church doctrine or tax law. Can you help me, Tom. Is the >argument that the religious leaders of certain faith communities are >prohibited by church doctrine from serving in leadership positions or >taking on speaking roles in 501(c)(4) organizations? Or is it a tax law >problem? Do IRS regulations make it difficult for clergy to participate in >501(c)(4) organizations, perhaps because they receive compensation from a >501(c)(3)? Can someone work part time at both a 501(c)(3) and part time at >a 501(c)(4)? Can a church categorize itself as a (c)(4) organization and >lose its tax exempt status? If so, that takes us back to problems relating >to the impracticality of segrega
Re: Religion Clauses question
Actually it gets even more fun. Louisiana was a French territory when purchased, but for much of its history it was Spainish, so you would need to be able to look at Spainish law as well. Furthermore, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo contained a similar provision with regard to the territory ceded from Mexico under the treaty (CA, AZ, NM, NV, CO, UT). So Spainish and Mexican law would become relevent for those states. French law might then also be important as a source of persuasive authority, it being another civil law jurisdiction and all. Hence, it turns out that MOST of the geographical area of the United States has a submerged civil law substratum of one kind or another. Nate Oman -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 12:26:49 EDT > >In a message dated 6/4/04 7:57:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> (except, perhaps, in Louisiana) (since the treaty making final the purchase >> of the territory guarantees to the residents of the territory all the rights >> they enjoyed prior to the conveyance). >> > >Jim- >You would have to say "except, perhaps, in Louisiana and all or part of >Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, Texas, South Dakota, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, >Wyoming, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Colorado and Montana." >Art > > > -- Nathan Oman http://www.tutissima.com http://www.timesandseasons.org -- ___ 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
New religious speech at school controversy
A student at the public high school in Poway, California has sued the school district, challenging his suspension for wearing a T-Shirt on national gay rights day (or the "Day of Silence," I think it was called) that stated his religious objection to homosexuality. See http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20040603--1mi3suit.ht ml Any thoughts on this suit? On the School's action suspending the student? John Eastman ___ 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
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
RE: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
Thanks, Tom. Your post and Doug's are helpful (at least to me). I think you are both right that a religious leader technically on the payroll of a (c)(4) organization who delivered regular partisan political sermons from the church pulpit or through pastoral letters would raise questions from the IRS. But it seems to me that this alters the discussion a bit. The focus is not so much on an individual's role as a spiritual leader, but on the location, format, and forum in which they engage in political activities. I certainly agree that any government control over what occurs in a religious service in a house of worship raises free exercise issues. It is far less clear to me those issues can be resolved in the manner you propose. Here, free exercise and free speech values are intractably intermingled. And if the focus is location and forum, then the range of analogies from a free speech perspective is far broader than you suggest. I am not sure there is any sound basis for limiting this issue from a speech perspective to the ability of non-profits to engage in partisan political activities. The question should be whether it is constitutionally problematic for government to require segregation of organizations engaged in subsidized or non-subsidized expressive activities whenever there is a distinct normative claim for operating in a more unitary format. Clearly, the physicians in Rust could raise such an argument about their normative duties as doctors -- and other professionals would have similar arguments. Also, I don't see how grounding the discriminatory rule you propose on a unique, normative distinction that in practical terms applies only to religious institutions resolves the viewpoint discrimination issue here. If courts are unwilling to recognize distinctive aspects of religion as a basis for permitting government to discriminate against religious speakers, I find it difficult to accept that the position that distinctive aspects of religion can be used to justify discrimination in favor of religious speakers. Accommodations that do not directly involve expressive activities, like the draft cases, raise very different questions and are more easily justified through formal generalizations. Accommodations of religion that distinctively empower religious messages and political influence raise particularly problematic concerns. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 11:08 AM 6/4/2004 -0500, you wrote: (An earlier version of this got lost in cyberspace, apparently.) >From the religious standpoint, I think the concern is that the leader of the faith community -- say, the diocesan bishop -- should also be the leader and teacher in public pronouncements on moral and social issues, and should be able to do so in his capacity as spiritual leader -- as Doug puts it, from the pulpit or in a pastoral letter. The concern would be that the IRS would view such an overlap in organizational leaders and spokespersons -- and in the forum for the two pronouncements -- as evidence of a failure to segregate the two organizations. If the IRS withdraws the tax exemption on that basis, it would mean that the church lost the exemption -- for its charitable, non-political activities as well -- as the price of following its doctrinally mandated organizational structure. By losing the exemption for *all* of its activities, the church is suffering a penalty. As I said, in theory a secular organization could have a similar doctrinal belief that the leader and public teacher/spokesperson on its exempt activities must also be the leader and public teacher/spokesperson on its non-exempt (i.e. legislation-related) activities. But like Doug, I can't think of a secular example where the organization believes this as a matter of conscientious doctrine. It may be more convenient, less costly, more effective, etc. for the same people to do both -- that would indeed be true for all organizations, not distinctively so for churches. But I'm talking about a different concern, the conscientious tenet about who should speak. Is there a secular organization that is comparable to certain religious groups in that it has a conscientious belief, as part of its doctrines, that certain leaders must be the public teachers and spokespersons on all issues? Again, perhaps the most that this shows is that all such groups have some distinctive normative claim to accommodation, whether they are religious or secular. If there is such a claim, then since it seems that the vast majority of such groups would be religious, wouldn't the better course be to accommodate them under RFRA, and then fashion a similar accommodation for the occasional secular group that might come along? (Analogous to Harlan's expanding the draft exemption in Welsh.) Tom Berg *** Thomas C. Berg University of St. Thomas School of Law Mail # MSL 400 1000 La Salle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015 Phone: (651) 962-4918 Fax: (651) 962-4996 [EM
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/lis
Re: Religion Clauses question
Then you agree that chuches, as churches, and religious people, as religious people, have no reason to be interested in the subject? (My puzzlement did not concern why the state should care.) Bob O'Brien - Original Message - From: "Gene Summerlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:40 PM Subject: RE: Religion Clauses question > 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 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
Except that churches and religious people all live in and form part of our society, so they should not be precluded from expressing these same societal concerns. But no, I am not arguing that we should create a theocratic government. 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: Robert Obrien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question Then you agree that chuches, as churches, and religious people, as religious people, have no reason to be interested in the subject? (My puzzlement did not concern why the state should care.) Bob O'Brien - Original Message - From: "Gene Summerlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:40 PM Subject: RE: Religion Clauses question > 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 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
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 broke
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 be
RE: Religion Clauses question
The only valid comparison I know of would be between committed homosexual relationships in a country before enactment (of law permitting homosexual marriage) and in homosexual marriages in that same country after enactment. One could study disease in either partner, or number of children being raised. I'd guess that after marriage the amount of disease would decrease while the number of children would increase. Since both changes, if found, would be in the interest of our society, there wouldn't be much left to discuss. Dave, 310-676-4032 David Rothman 14125 Doty Avenue, #23 Hawthorne, CA 90250-8042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! ___ 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
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.
Re: New religious speech at school controversy
Well, if the situation had arisen here in the heart of Dixie (not Alabama but south Georgia), it likely the Eleventh Circuit would uphold the suspension relying on its decisions in a pair of Confederate flag cases. In Denno v. School Bd. of Volusia County and Scott v. School Bd. of Alachua County, it found that potential offensiveness is sufficient for school officials to restrict students' speech (restrict as in disciplinary suspension). Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Associate Professor (school law) Department of Educational Leadership Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 ___ 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
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 aguem
Re: Religion Clauses question
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.o
Re: Religion Clauses question
And of course, neither the French legal tradition nor the Spanish legal tradition would permit the residents of those territories to refuse the constitutional wisdom and insights of Supreme Court that finds in the text of the Constitution a "wall of separation," a right to take the life of another simply because that other is not yet born, or a right to commit acts of such ignomy that they have been referred to in the English legal tradition as the abominable and detestable crime against nature. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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
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
Re: Religion Clauses question
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
Re: Religion Clauses question
but that is like believing the earth is flat, and even in good faith, that would not be a pssing answer on a science test! 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 fr
RE: Religion Clauses question
Paul, With all due respect, your are stating a conclusion without providing any evidentiary support. What scientific studies do you believe support your conclusion to such a degree of certainty as to warrant your comparison of the opposing view to flat-earthers? John Eastman Dr. John C. Eastman Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence One University Dr. Orange, CA 92866 (714) 628-2587 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:03 PM To: Amar D. Sarwal Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question but that is like believing the earth is flat, and even in good faith, that would not be a pssing answer on a science test! 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 i
Re: Religion Clauses question
what evidence do you have that people in this homophobic and oppressive society choose to be gay, facing discrimination and inability to marry or in other ways live their life as other people do? Are you arguing that being gay is a choice, like voting Republican or choosing to go to college? I would urge you to talk to some gay people and read about their lives. Eastman, John wrote: Paul, With all due respect, your are stating a conclusion without providing any evidentiary support. What scientific studies do you believe support your conclusion to such a degree of certainty as to warrant your comparison of the opposing view to flat-earthers? John Eastman Dr. John C. Eastman Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence One University Dr. Orange, CA 92866 (714) 628-2587 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:03 PM To: Amar D. Sarwal Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question but that is like believing the earth is flat, and even in good faith, that would not be a pssing answer on a science test! 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 i
RE: Religion Clauses question
Hmm. Since when does the ad hominem pass for science, Paul? You made a specific contention earlier--that the science on this was so clear as to not warrant discussion. You added to that below with the comparison of those who would hold otherwise to flat-earthers. All I asked was for a single citation to back up your claims, a single study that actually demonstrates what you think to be irrefutable. I don't think it exists, but I would genuinely like to know of this "science" if you can point me to it. John -Original Message- From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:20 PM To: Eastman, John Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Amar D. Sarwal Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question what evidence do you have that people in this homophobic and oppressive society choose to be gay, facing discrimination and inability to marry or in other ways live their life as other people do? Are you arguing that being gay is a choice, like voting Republican or choosing to go to college? I would urge you to talk to some gay people and read about their lives. Eastman, John wrote: > Paul, > > With all due respect, your are stating a conclusion without providing > any evidentiary support. What scientific studies do you believe support > your conclusion to such a degree of certainty as to warrant your > comparison of the opposing view to flat-earthers? > > John Eastman > > > > Dr. John C. Eastman > Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law > Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional > Jurisprudence > One University Dr. > Orange, CA 92866 > (714) 628-2587 > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:03 PM > To: Amar D. Sarwal > Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question > > but that is like believing the earth is flat, and even in good faith, > that would not be a pssing answer on a science test! > > 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? >> ___ 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
RE: Religion Clauses question
I think Gene is right. You both are talking past each other. Unfortunately, it is hard for discussions on this subject to move beyond that. I certainly haven't figured out how to avoid that result -- which is the reason I don't participate in this kind of a discussion on the list. If I had the time, I might try to engage Gene or others off list to see if longer and more detailed posts could somehow bridge the gap. But I don't -- and I'm not sure longer, less public discourse would necessarily make a difference. With all due respect to both Paul and Gene, I don't think these relatively short tit for tat posts get us anywhere. For my own edification, has anyone who strongly supports same-sex marriage read anything that makes the case for opposing same-sex marriage in a way that gives them pause, that challenges them, and makes them re-evaluate their own position -- even if they ultimately end up holding the same position. And has anyone who opposes same-sex marriage read anything that makes the case for supporting same-sex marriage in a way that gives them pause, that challenges them, and makes them re-evaluate their own position -- even if they ultimately end up holding the same position. I'd like to read what people on each side of this debate find persuasive in the arguments on the other side -- assuming that anything does. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 01:56 PM 6/4/2004 -0500, you 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] > > > -Origin
Re: New religious speech at school controversy
But see Holloman v. Harland, 2004 WL 1178465 (11th Cir. May 28, 2004) denying qualified immunity to a teacher who disciplined a student for silently raising a fist during the pledge of allegiance and concluding that the allegation, if proved, would establish a violation of the first amendment. Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Nova Southeastern UniversityFort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314 Shepard Broad Law Center(954) 262-6151 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Well, if the situation had arisen here in the heart of Dixie (not Alabama but > south Georgia), it likely the Eleventh Circuit would uphold the suspension > relying on its decisions in a pair of Confederate flag cases. In Denno v. School > Bd. of Volusia County and Scott v. School Bd. of Alachua County, it found > that potential offensiveness is sufficient for school officials to restrict > students' speech (restrict as in disciplinary suspension). > > Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. > Associate Professor (school law) > Department of Educational Leadership > Valdosta State University > Valdosta, GA 31698 > ___ 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
Re: Religion Clauses question
I don't think anyone who is a serious student of this subject would claim that homosexuality is a matter of "choice" or even a matter of "genes." This, I believe, is a false dilemma. It's probably a lot more complicated than this. I've read a little on this subject, and it seems to me that there is a genetic component to homosexuality as there with "basketball ability," but it requires life experiences and practice to hone those native predispositions. But I suspect this is true of other habits and inclinations, everything from having a sweet tooth to being proficient on the violin. Come to think of it, it's probably not accurate to refer to "religious belief" as a choice in any hard and fast way. Sure, people convert, but conversions are oftentimes a consequence of a long sequence of experiences in which a person slowly comes to realize a particular theological point of view is correct. I, for example, cannot unbelieve at will. If it were merely a matter of choice, I would be able to unbelieve like I would be able to pick a different cereal to eat in the morning. But unbelieving is nearly impossible, since my beliefs are part of my epistemic structure and, in some ways, inform my knowledge about a whole host of other things. For sure, I can probably lose some beliefs over time, or at least lose confidence in them. But it does not seem like a matter of bare choice. Frank On 6/4/04 3:20 PM, "Paul Finkelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what evidence do you have that people in this homophobic and oppressive > society choose to be gay, facing discrimination and inability to marry > or in other ways live their life as other people do? Are you arguing > that being gay is a choice, like voting Republican or choosing to go to > college? I would urge you to talk to some gay people and read about > their lives. > > Eastman, John wrote: >> Paul, >> >> With all due respect, your are stating a conclusion without providing >> any evidentiary support. What scientific studies do you believe support >> your conclusion to such a degree of certainty as to warrant your >> comparison of the opposing view to flat-earthers? >> >> John Eastman >> >> >> >> Dr. John C. Eastman >> Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law >> Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional >> Jurisprudence >> One University Dr. >> Orange, CA 92866 >> (714) 628-2587 >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman >> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:03 PM >> To: Amar D. Sarwal >> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question >> >> but that is like believing the earth is flat, and even in good faith, >> that would not be a pssing answer on a science test! >> >> 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: <[EMA
