DOMA and Religion

[Jim Maule]

richard duncan <rduncan at UNLINFO.UNL.EDU> writes:

> Jim Maule chastised me for relying on the common sense of the
> community as an argument in favor of traditional marriage.

Chastisement not intended. I'm just trying to push you into what
I think is a more sharply honed approach.

> Jim, my reference to the common sense of the community was not an
> *argument* in support of the traditional definition of marriage
> (although public morality is a powerful justification for limiting the
> preferred state of marriage to dual-gender couples). Rather, I
> mentioned common sense only to suggest that what seems to be an
> unpersuasive argument in the small world of legal academia is often
> most persuasive in the larger (and more significant) court of the
> common sense of the community.

Gotcha. I dread some real world common sense manifestations, though.
And remember, I'm not an intellectual locked into an ivory tower. One
reason that most academic types consider me a "problem."

In terms of structuring arguments I sometimes think that if one of
several grounds is weak, those who oppose the argument will try to
make it appear as though the weakness of one prong demonstrates the
weakness of the other prongs. Some of those folks in the phone book
don't necessarily understand the nimbleness of the artisans. Too much
snake oil has been sold, and I doubt you have been a purchaser
thereof!

In any event, it is a useful discussion to try to define the secular
(or nonreligious/nontheological) justifications for positions easily
justified on religious or theological grounds.


Jim Maule
Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law
Villanova, PA 19085
maule at law.vill.edu
http://www.cilp.org/~maule
(610) 519 - 7135