On topic discussion regarding homosexuality

[Denversam samuelv]

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 
doing stated:

"For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary 
in the
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 
decision-making.

Sam Ventola
Denver, Colorado

>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! http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/workshop/welcome.asp