On topic discussion regarding homosexuality
denversam at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 14 08:16:33 PDT 2004
I'm afraid I've failed the test, as I do not see the thread in those cases
to which Prof. Newsome refers - or at least one which would imply that the
Constitution requires recognition of homosexual marriage. I wonder if that
same thread also runs through Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885), which
rejected challenges to the prohibition against plural marriage, and in so
"For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary
founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of
the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it
on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from
the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony;
the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the
best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all
beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
One can argue that Murphy was wrongly decided, but I'm at a loss as to how
one could claim that Murphy was rightly decided, but there is some
*constitutional* distinction which requires a different result for a claim
that homosexual marriage is protected.
I do not suggest that those who approve of homosexual marriage on a moral
level must also approve of plural marriage. However, I do suggest that if
one is going to draw a *Constitutional* distinction between the two, one is
required to offer a basis *in the language of the Constitution* for the
conclusion that the two cases are different. How can Constitutional
guarantees of "liberty" or "equal protection" be read to cover the desire to
enter a homosexual marriage, but not the desire to enter a plural marriage
or adult incestual marriage? The fact that a certain person's comfort
levels allow for homosexual marriage, but not plural marriage or adult
incestual marriage, should not be the basis for Constitutional
>From: "Newsom Michael" <mnewsom at law.howard.edu>
>Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
><religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>Subject: RE: On topic discussion regarding homosexuality
>Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:46:15 -0400
>How would you explain the following cases: Engel v. Vitale, Abington Tp. V.
>Schempp, Epperson v. Arkansa, Stone v. Graham, Wallace v. Jaffree, Edwaards
>v. Aguillard, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, Bd. of Ed. V.
>Mergens, and Good News Club v. Milford Central School? Isn't there a
>common thread I those cases which makes my point precisely?
>Out of common decency, I won't respond to the effort to analogize same-sex
>marriage to polygamy and incest.
Tax headache? MSN Money provides relief with tax tips, tools, IRS forms and
More information about the Religionlaw