I think Brad's fears are unfounded because they are based on implausible speculation. I would note one point, though. For such fears to come true, it would seem that courts and the rest of society would need to lose sight of the critical distinctions between religious marriage and civil marriage. Ironically, it is the forces opposed to same-sex marriage that have done the most to seek to elide, if not erase, that distinction.
_____________________________________ Steve Sanders Attorney <http://www.mayerbrown.com/lawyers/profile.asp?hubbardid=S597744167> , Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice group, Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago Co-editor, Sexual Orientation and the Law Blog <http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/lgbtlaw/> Adjunct faculty, University of Michigan Law School (Winter term 2010) Email: steve...@umich.edu Personal home page: www.stevesanders.net > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton > Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 9:38 AM > To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' > Subject: RE: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court RulingOn > MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United > > I think Brad's comparison to interracial marriage in the > context of churches being forced to perform gay marriages > cuts against his argument. There are certainly churches that > do refuse to perform interracial marriages in this country, > probably a whole lot of them. Do you know of any case in > which anyone has even suggested, much less been successful in > arguing, that they be forced to do so? To say that it's "not > a stretch to say that there are those who would support > saying a church can't refuse to perform marriages of > African-Americans" is a far cry from showing that there is > even the most remote chance of success if anyone actually > tried to force them to do so. > There simply is no constituency with any influence that would > push such an idea, either with regard to interracial marriage > or same-sex marriage. The vast majority of people who support > same-sex marriage (like me) reject the idea of forcing > churches to perform them and would strongly support the > inclusion of explicit exemptions in any law establishing such > unions. It seems to me that this is most obviously covered > under the ministerial exception and I find it almost > inconceivable that any court would rule otherwise. It has now > been 42 years since Loving v Virginia and no one has ever > attempted to do what you use as evidence of the slippery > slope here. I think that tends to show just how unlikely your > imagined future is. > > Ed Brayton > > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brad Pardee > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:54 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On > MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United > > You're talking about different religions, though, Steve. The > standard model > > that we see in the debate over gay rights is to compare it to > the civil rights movement in the 60s. People who don't > support gay marriage are characterized as being no different > than people who didn't support interracial marriage. Do you > think it is a stretch to say that there are those who would > support saying a church can't refuse to perform marriages of > > African-Americans? Using the way the debate is waged as a > measuring stick, it seems safe to say that it's only a matter > of time before there will be those who also support saying a > church can't refuse to perform commitment ceremonies of homosexuals. > > And "fear-mongering"? I can accept that we disagree on the > possibility of this line of argument coming to fruition. I > fully believe that your views are based on an honest > assessment of what you believe to be true. But I don't think > I've EVER heard the term fear-mongering used where it wasn't > inferring some manner of dishonest manipulation, > propagandizing, and pandering. Is that a fair assumption to > make about what I wrote? I might be wrong. I hope I'm > wrong. But I'm honestly speaking what I believe to be > > true. Disagree with me if you believe I'm wrong. I wouldn't > want you to pretend to agree if you don't. But it's not > fear-mongering just because we disagree on whether there is > something to legitimately be afraid of. > > Brad > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Jamar" <stevenja...@gmail.com> > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:05 PM > Subject: Re: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On > MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United > > > It is quite a stretch to say someone must not discriminate > in renting > > property or providing secular services to say that religious > > organizations and their officiants must perform an action like > > marrying two other people contrary to their beliefs. We > don't force > > priests to marry a catholic to a jew or an orthodox rabbi > to perform > > the ceremony between an athiest and a orthodox jew, even when the > > people are of different sexes. > > > > Brad is overstating the danger in the typical > fear-mongering of those > > opposing gay marriage. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To > subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be > viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; > and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To > subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be > viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; > and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the > messages to others. > > >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
