The enemy at the Gates

[Jennifer Hendricks]

The conservatives in Vermont were absolutely and vigorously opposed to
that proposal, so that the marriage proponents who had compromised to
that position lived to regret being "reasonable."

Once you take that route, you have two sets of legal relationships that
are identical except that one is called marriage.  The only reason for
the distinction is to express religiously-based disapproval of one of
those sets of relationships, which in my view violates the Establishment
Clause and is contrary to Romer.  It also points up the issue raised
earlier of what business the state has licensing a sacrament.

Far better would be to let religious groups define what is holy under
their beliefs and let government decide the legal benefits and burdens
of domestic relationships, which would also provide an excellent
occasion for re-evaluating how we allocate support and dependency in our
society.



Jennifer S. Hendricks
Associate Professor
University of Tennessee College of Law
1505 W. Cumberland Ave.
Knoxville TN 37996-1810
865-974-6818
hendricks at law.utk.edu

>>> "Eric Freedman" <Eric.M.Freedman at hofstra.edu> 10/30/2005 11:37 AM
>>>
-Would social conservative oppose this proposal? -E.



             ***********
      Eric M. Freedman
Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor
 of Constitutional Law
      Hofstra Law School
      Hempstead, NY  11550
      LAWEMF at Hofstra.edu 
      Tel. 516-463-5167
      Fax 516-463-5129
  Home Office:
   Tel. 212-665-2713
    Fax 212-665-2714
            ***********

>>> <DavidEBernstein at aol.com> 10/30/05 11:30 AM >>>
For those who believe there is a constitutional right for homosexuals
to 
marry: Is the right a right to "marry," or to have available the same
privileges 
and incidents of marriage as heterosexuals?  In other words, would the

constitutional right to marry be satisfied by a state law providing
homosexuals with 
the right to "eternal domestic partnership" that was, in all relevant
legal 
ways, the same as marriage, except that the term "marriage" was
statutorily 
reserved for heterosexual couples?

In a message dated 10/30/2005 11:22:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu writes:
Earl:

Is there much of a distinction between having the right to marry as 
being the "enemy" and the gates and being the person who wants that 
right to marry?   Recall the last great fight over the right to marry,

involving interracial marriage.  The arguments were often the same -- 
such relationships violate the law of god (recall the Bob Jones case);

such relationship will destroy society; such relationships harm 
children; they are a bad moral influence on the commnity; if those 
couples move into our neighborhood, housing prices will go down, etc. 
The poeple who made such arguments against the right to marry (the 
"enemy at the gate" in this context would have been interracial 
marriage) also opposed the civil rights of one half of the group that 
might be involved in an interracial marriage (blacks) and considered
the 
other half to be disreputable, often calling them godless, communists 
(or godless communists), and perverted.  

It seems to me that to argue that the *right* to marry is the "enemy at

the gate" is essentially to argue that those who want that right are
the 
enemy.  Those who oppose same sex unions should not hide behind some 
constitutional technicality about who the enemy is. Those who oppose 
same sex unions are in favor of denying fundamental rights to a class
of 
people based entirely on their gender. They do this out of fear, 
paranoia, homophobia, or the belief that they are entitled to force all

Americans to accept their religious views.  Same sex marriage does not

harm them, they are not forced to participate in it.  Their churchs 
would not be forced to sanctify such marriages.  The marraiges in could

not personally affect them in any way.  They are not even forced to be

close to such marraiges, in the way that an integrated restaurant
forced 
racists to sit next to blacks while they ate. Nor, can this be the 
equivalent of  the issue in Roe, where someone might argue that a fetus

is a person (which many disagree with) and therefore might argue that 
choice harms a person.  Gay marriage involves only consenting adults
and 
harms no one else. Thus, the issus is about fundamental rights for all

people.

Since same sex unions cannot possibly harm those who oppose them, we 
must assume that they oppose them becuase the marriages offend their 
sensibilities.  It srikes me as a sophistry at best to say that the 
"right" to marry is the "enemey at the gates" but that the people who 
want that right are not "the enemy."  It would be the equivalent of 
saying that the right to integrate was the"enemy" at the gates for 
Strom Thurmond or Lester Maddox, but that Martin Luther King, Jr. or 
Rosa Parks were OK folks.  But we know better.  Civil Rights advocates

were the enemy at the gates, such as gay people and their straight 
allies and friends are the enemies of those who oppose civil rights for

all Americans.   Let's at least be honest about who the enemy is!  If 
you oppose giving people equal rights -- especially in a democracy --
it 
can only be because you think they are NOT "created equal" and NOT 
"endowed" with the "unalienable rights" of "Life, Liberty, and the 
Pursuit of Happiness."  

Those of us who believe in equality -- whether gay or straight -- are 
surely are the "enemy at the gates"  to those who oppose equality.  

Paul Finkelman

David E. Bernstein
Visiting Professor
University of Michigan School of Law
Professor
George Mason University School of Law
http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste 




_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 

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.