Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United

[Steven Jamar]

I take your point Brad, but where is any evidence, other than perhaps  
Loving, that any such thing has been or is being attempted?  And where  
is the argument being made other than by you and a few from that anti- 
gay rights perspective that this is even a remote possibility?  Even  
if there are a few radicals who would assert such a position, that  
hardly makes it a likelihood or even possibility.  There is a  
difference between condemning a church for its position and actions  
and saying that they will be or should be or must be legally compelled  
to alter that position.

I don't interpret the term "fear-mongering" as necessarily implying  
hypocrisy or dishonesty.  I do associate it with hyperbole.  You say  
your position is your honest position and your fear is your honest  
fear.  Ok.  But it seems so beyond the pale of possibility that it  
reads as naught but hyperbole intended to arouse alarm and emotional  
responses rather than rational evaluation of the law and the likely  
extensions of it.  If there were any likelihood of it coming to pass,  
it may be something to be legitimately afraid of.  Given that there is  
no such likelihood, then it seems to have no rational purpose.

Nonetheless, I take you at  your word that you see evidence that I  
don't see and so you are genuinely afraid that this is not just some  
hypothetical possibility and that you did not intend to use hyperbole  
to pander to fears.  And so I apologize for the use of the word  
because it is inappropriate both as you define it and as I intended it  
to mean in light of your assertion of a genuine, rational belief in  
the possibility.

Things have been proven to be possible that in my entire lifetime I  
would never have dreamed to come to pass before 2001 when torture  
became the official U.S. policy.  So your crystal ball on what is  
possible may be better than mine.  On this issue I think not, but I  
must admit that amazing things have been done in the last 7 years I  
never dreamed I could see here in the U.S.  I knew that torture and  
abuse of prisoners would take place, that innocents were sometimes  
(albeit rarely I think) put to death, and that such individual actions  
could and did happen here -- but I never dreamed such things as  
torture could become official policy.

Steve

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                     vox:  202-806-8017
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social  
Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law           fax:  202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/


"The most precious things one gets in life are not those one gets for  
money."

Albert Einstein



On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:53 PM, Brad Pardee wrote:

> You're talking about different religions, though, Steve.  The  
> standard model that we see in the debate over gay rights is to  
> compare it to the civil rights movement in the 60s.  People who  
> don't support gay marriage are characterized as being no different  
> than people who didn't support interracial marriage.  Do you think  
> it is a stretch to say that there are those who would support saying  
> a church can't refuse to perform marriages of African-Americans?   
> Using the way the debate is waged as a measuring stick, it seems  
> safe to say that it's only a matter of time before there will be  
> those who also support saying a church can't refuse to perform  
> commitment ceremonies of homosexuals.
>
> And "fear-mongering"?  I can accept that we disagree on the  
> possibility of this line of argument coming to fruition.  I fully  
> believe that your views are based on an honest assessment of what  
> you believe to be true.  But I don't think I've EVER heard the term  
> fear-mongering used where it wasn't inferring some manner of  
> dishonest manipulation, propagandizing, and pandering.  Is that a  
> fair assumption to make about what I wrote?  I might be wrong.  I  
> hope I'm wrong.  But I'm honestly speaking what I believe to be  
> true.  Disagree with me if you believe I'm wrong.  I wouldn't want  
> you to pretend to agree if you don't.  But it's not fear-mongering  
> just because we disagree on whether there is something to  
> legitimately be afraid of.
>
> Brad
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Jamar" <stevenjamar at gmail.com 
> >
> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu 
> >
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On  
> MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United
>
>> It is quite a stretch to say someone must not discriminate in  
>> renting property or providing secular services to say that  
>> religious organizations and their officiants must perform an action  
>> like  marrying two other people contrary to their beliefs.  We  
>> don't force  priests to marry a catholic to a jew or an orthodox  
>> rabbi to perform  the ceremony between an athiest and a orthodox  
>> jew, even when the  people are of different sexes.
>>
>> Brad is overstating the danger in the typical fear-mongering of  
>> those opposing gay marriage.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> 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.