Religion Clauses question

[Gene Summerlin]

Except that churches and religious people all live in and form part of our
society, so they should not be precluded from expressing these same societal
concerns.  But no, I am not arguing that we should create a theocratic
government.

Gene Summerlin
Ogborn Summerlin & Ogborn P.C.
210 Windsor Place
330 So. 10th St.
Lincoln, NE  68508
(402) 434-8040
(402) 434-8044 (FAX)
(402) 730-5344 (Mobile)
www.osolaw.com
gene at osolaw.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Obrien [mailto:obrien at wvwc.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:06 PM
To: gene at osolaw.com; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question


Then you agree that chuches, as churches, and religious people, as religious
people, have no reason to be interested in the subject?  (My puzzlement did
not concern why the state should care.)

Bob O'Brien



----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Summerlin" <gene at osolaw.com>
To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:40 PM
Subject: RE: Religion Clauses question


> Bob,
>
> Your point is valid, so let me try to answer the question of why should
the
> government care?  If we separate the sacrimental value of marriage from
the
> legal aspects of marriage, we can agree that if a church or other entity
> wishes to "marry" same sex partners, the church is free to do so.  But,
> because the same sex marriage does not meet the legal definition of
> marriage, the same-sex partners are not entitled to the legal benefits of
> marriage.  The question really becomes why does/can/should the state
provide
> incentives to some couples to marry (in the legal sense) and withhold
those
> benefits from other couples?
>
> Social research indicates that adults in heterosexual marriages do better
> than single, divorced or cohabitating couples in virtually every measure
of
> well-being. Heterosexual married couples live longer, express a higher
> degree of satisfaction with life, enjoy higher levels of physical and
mental
> health, recover from illness quicker, earn and save more money, are more
> reliable employees, suffer less stress, and are less likely to become
> victims of any kind of violence. As mentioned in an earlier post, children
> residing in intact heterosexual marriages also gain a number of advantages
> over peers in other living arrangements.  On the other side of the coin,
> there is a significant social cost to care for and treat the problems
> associated with broken marriages.  That is, to the extent that people and
> children chose (or are forced) into non-heterosexual marriage living
> arrangements, they are more likely to have health problems, economic
> problems, abuse issues, etc.  Society ultimately pays a financial price to
> treat and attempt to remedy these issues.
>
> By enacting policies which promote heterosexual marriages, the state
> preserves resources which would otherwise be spent on social welfare
> programs.  Therefore, the state provides economic incentives to encourage
> people to form the type of family unit that best utilizes the state's
> resources.
>
>
> Gene Summerlin
> Ogborn Summerlin & Ogborn P.C.
> 210 Windsor Place
> 330 So. 10th St.
> Lincoln, NE  68508
> (402) 434-8040
> (402) 434-8044 (FAX)
> (402) 730-5344 (Mobile)
> www.osolaw.com
> gene at osolaw.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Robert Obrien
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 8:11 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Religion Clauses question
>
>
> I am at a loss to understand why the issue of marriage is such a big deal.
>
> Protestants do not consider marriage a sacrament; therefore, whether
people
> get married is religiously irrelevant.
>
> The Roman Catholic Church refuses to recognize divorces granted by the
> state.  Judaism grants divorces which are not recognized by the state.
>
> In fine, the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage has
> long been recognized.  If the state is willing to allow two or more people
> to marry while a particular church refuses to recognize such a marriage, I
> do not see why that church should care.
>
>
> Bob O'Brien
>
>
> NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education