Constitutionalizing Social Values

[Paul Finkelman]

Mt answers: A) We are all born  equal and entitled by our creator the 
rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  that is my theory 
for  B)  I will conceded that you an I differ on when life "begins."  I 
prefer "Born" you prefer something else.  We can disagree about that; I 
would never force you or your wife or daughter to have an abortion; you 
would force my wife or daughter to die (and to violate the commands of 
my religion in the process)

But, lets get to the issue before us, which is your "C"

I do not see how two gay people being married can harm traditionalists? 
 What exactly IS the harm?  

Is it lack of children?  I have lesbian fiends who have born children, 
but while they are raising them jointly they cannot have equal parental 
rights; I have straight friends who have chosen not to have children, 
are they less "human"; I know people over 50 who get married and have no 
plans to have children.  Are theyt less human?
I am trying to think of some other reason, I really am, as to why to men 
being married Harms you?  
I guess I don't get it.  I can't figure out why two men or women living 
together as married  cna harm you.

Scaperlanda, Michael A. wrote:

> Dear Paul:
>  
> We have to have a working theory about what it means to be human in 
> order to a) decide that the human person is worthy of liberty and/or 
> equality, b) who counts as human (both Dred Scott and Roe are 
> implicated here), and c) what is harm to a human being.  So my 
> question to you is what is your working theory of the human person 
> that leads you to conclude that a) persons are entitled to liberty, b) 
> that the unborn don't count as human, and c) that there is no harm to 
> Traditionalists if marriage is "expanded" to include same-sex couples?
>  
> Michael
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu]
> Sent: Tue 2/24/2004 4:11 PM
> To: Scaperlanda, Michael A.
> Cc: Zietlow, Rebecca E.; Parry, John; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Constitutionalizing Social Values
>
> Dear Michael:  
> I am sure Rebecca has her own answer, but here is mine.
>
> Griswold did not force anyone to use birth control, no one is 
> *required* to have an abortion or have a same sex relationship; the 
> difference is that these cases expanded liberty for individuals at the 
> expence of no one; the proposed amendment seeks to limit freedom for 
> some people with no gain ot the proponents,
> other than the psychological gain of knowing they have stopped people 
> from getting married to the ones they love.  To put it another way, 
>  Griswold et al did not constitutinalize social values, they rather 
> let people choose social values; just as Brandenburg did not 
> "constitutionalize" the values of the KKK, it only allowed people to 
> say what they want.  Brandeis's concurrance in Whitney is useful her, 
> reminding us that the end of a democrcy is liberty.  Those cases 
> expanded the idea of  liberty but did not force anyone to engage in 
> that liberty.  The proposed amendment constricts liberty so that one 
>  group can force its values on another group.  
>
> Since Lawrence I have not felt the need to engage in a same sex 
> relationship. So the content of Lawrence have not been forced on  me.  
>
> If the decisions you mention "constitutionalize social valuess" it is 
> the value of individual liberty that they constitutionalize.  The 
> proposed Amendment goes against liberty.
>
> Paul Finkelman
>
>  
>
>
>
>  


-- 
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20040224/e814ef2b/attachment.htm