>> on behalf of our owners of like to welcome

dr. martha nussbaum to politics and prose bookstore. [applause] we're always honored to be located at the juncture of the general reading public but of course, these world leaders are pretty world-class themselves agreed are what welcome to go dr. ms. nussbaum -- dr. 29 "from disgust to humanity" sexual orientation & constitutional law" coming from the university of chicago she is the academic who comes from the ivory tower into the public mood has brought many conversations about practical justice back into the academy with her and as a philosopher professor tries to be advocate for humanity she has moved into

classics and constitutional law taught 20 years at harvard and brown was a distinguished professor of law and ethics at the university of chicago and divides her time there between the philosophy department, a divinity school, was quote and if that were not enough the department of south asian studies and also the human rights program. shares written and talked extensively on the ethics of sexuality international development and the emotions of shame and disgust as relate to constitutional law. this is the topic she picks up once more in this reason to put part of oxford university press unalienable rights a series. as was the top 100 intellectuals and awarded the american philosophical society is price of jurisprudence also has the

distinction of a philosopher not to have lost sight which is to be good and think you dr. nussbaum for coming. [applause] >> thank you so much street you all for coming out here it is great to see such a large group in this wonderful bookstore. thank you. i will introduce a book a little bit then focus on the chapter of same-sex marriage. i knew this the path i wanted to young gay men about his early sexual experiences with male teens and i knew that some could have sort of experienced what i was another people would think of it as being pretty disgusting. this book also concerned with abstract issues of constitutional law is about that divide between people

who can sorts of experience was a gay teenager goes through and what those desires and the teenagers themselves as being disgusting. for a long time, our society, like many others has confronted the same sex orientation and acts with the politics of discussed as many people react to the uncomfortable presence of gays and lesbians with a deep aversion akin to slimy in sex, boiled food and bottled the waist and then they cite the very reaction to support a range of legal restrictions to ban on same-sex marriages and sodomy laws. they can barely think what the gay teenager did with his friends and say it makes me want to throw up and turn away from a loathsome to contaminant of politics

although the political approach has lost a lot of ground in recent years it continues to influence the way in which many people think. discussed so described seems pretty nasty. what might therefore think it is obvious that it is bad in society but discussed has had a highly respectable and influential defenders and in britain and the 1950's the lord argued very prominently the disgust of the average member of society was a sufficient reason to make a practice illegal even if it was consensual and cause no harm to non consenting third parties. the was writing directly and response to the commission to decriminalized the same sex consensual acts which he strongly opposed. he argued society would

decay from within if it did not make law in response to the majority's feelings of disgust. were recently, in the u.s. u.s., leon until very recently who was the head of the president's council for ethics under president bush argued that repugnance had the inherent wisdom, a device implanted in our nature that spears us away from terrible choices. eight discussed is not a sufficient reason to ban the practice nor are these positions only academic they are in tune with wide spreads social forces and in recent years lowered its -- large segments of the christian right practiced upon discussed who along route lesbians and especially of gay men as file and revolting. basic just of such practices

contaminates producing social decay and the generation. they seem to believe discussed is a reliable guide to lawmaking although the influence of those pete influence in the '80s and '90s and declining the politics of discussed is a more subtle and underground ways 72 understand why it is not a good politics approach but to begin with the politics of disgust is at odds with the abstract idea of a society base of the equality of all season based citizens with equal protection under the law. the mere reason you inspire some pretty strong emotions it is reason enough for me to seek the aid of a lot to treat you as a social pariah of their most basic

entitlements. even the u.s. supreme court felt in romer vs. edwards that make a reference to this type of animus and violates the very idea of the co-production of the laws and the most basic and general form. also violates the but fundamental paradigm of the rationality in response to such an ms that lacks a rational basis. despite such legal setbacks in recent years you aren't -- the politics of disgust is alive and well as groups often put forward other arguments on the surface but when you press them and you will see this with the same sex marriage the politics of disgust alternately reveals its hand. so a closer study of disgust and the way it is used throughout history will help us to understand what is going on to understand powerful arguments against

disgust in possible theory and practice by showing how bad emotion and expresses a universal discomfort with bodily reality but then uses that discovered to target and subordinate vulnerable minorities i use perot's to misogyny and the history of the role played by disgust as contamination in american races to make my case. now disgust today has to opponents each increasingly powerful in our social political and legal wife respects sympathy. the idea of equal respect for persons a key concept throughout the history of american democracy combined -- combined with personal liberty suggests to many citizens that even when they don't think well of some one sentiment choices they should give them space so long as they don't violate other people's

rights. such politics of equal respect and liberty has long been the norm of the area of religion. we were used to the idea we must live on terms of the cold respect with people whose voices we think are not very good or simple and to the related idea that such deeply meaningful choices require the protection for all of the basis of a quality on personal liberty the object of respect not the person's actions but respecting one fellow citizens requires seeing them as users and seekers to meet a lot wide area of liberty around them whether they use that the party from 1.2 or poorly so long as they don't trample on the rights of others. some sea sexual orientation a similar connected with a person's search for a

meaningful life and therefore with legal restriction in flicks profound harm to the various idea of citizens the quality. equal respect precludes the affliction of such limitation of those who simply seek on their desires without violating the rights of others.@@ú@ú

in the sphere of liberty enjoyed by others but before he is likely to get those things is something else also has to be present in our world as his own perceptive comments suggested. the capacity to imagining his experience in that of other gay and lesbian citizens. disgust on morality it is possible to do another human being as a slimy slugs or a piece of revolting trash only if they never made a serious good-faith attempt to see the world to the person dies or that person's feelings. humanity is not automatically revealing itself to strangers the

blackguard hung on the fellow citizens announcement not a bug or a piece of refuse a seeing the shape of the human being before us we always have choices to make will be impute full humanity to that shape or something it last? only by imagining how the world might look through that person's eyes, to get to the point* to see the other person as a someone but not a something. becker show imaginative engagement has been sorely lacking in the majority dealings with lesbian and gay lives. that sounds like that is quite far from the law but the obtuseness of imagination is a key feature with the bad legal decisions in this area that transfers from bowers versus hard work where they were seen as a class that had nothing in common with straight people and also lawrence vs. can

six where these are shared pursuits of something of considerable importance. it is just that transition and imagination so the book begins by eight investigating disgust and what the politics is like and how it has worked in the different areas but then i turn systematically to the different areas of constitutional law. first of all, the history of sodomy laws, a vindication and bowers as the final overthrow and lawrence but then the on clarity of where we are after words which i think is very clearly argue that i turn to the whole area of anti-discrimination to the colorado conflict in which i played a part of the experts witness in reverse this edwards whether the state referendum could pass a law that forbade citizens

protection for gay and lesbian some decisions and the decision romer v edwards returned to an of us. and then in the final chapter i talk about public sex and sex clubs and the whole question of the whole public-private distinction and the confusion in thinking well of the whole issue of sex outside the home. any of those things i will be glad to talk about in this discussion but same-sex marriage broker will talk about the arguments against it and why i think they don't add up to very much. as we examine the arguments against same-sex marriage we have to keep two questions firmly in mind.

first of a diseased argument justify a viggo restriction of same-sex marriage for everyone or only some of group attitudes of moral and religious disapproval? we live in a country with which they have a wide range of different religious beliefs and we agree in respecting the space in which people pursue those believes. we do not however agree those believes in and of themselves are sufficient grounds for legal regulation. typically we understand that some arguments including some but not all moral arguments are public arguments bearing on the lives of all citizens in a decent society and others are religious arguments thus the orthodox jews who don't eat pork and certainly don't want to do with a few would ever think this religion is a reason to make that eating of pork illegal for everyone. the prohibition rest on

religious text of that not all citizens embrace and cannot even be translated into a public argument that people of all religions except. in the case of same-sex marriage we need to ask if the arguments are expressed in a neutral language or all the in the sectarian doctrinal language. if they are moral rather than textual arguments then they start to look better than we have to ask if they are compatible with the core values of a society dedicated to giving all citizens equal protection of the law. many legal aspects of gender discrimination were defended by what looked like secular moral arguments but that's not insulate them from constitutional scrutiny. second, whether each argument justifies confusion and/or whether there is reason to see the argument as a rationalization of a deeper version.

the first and most common objection is it is a moral or widespread in the debates and in both cases these are typically made in ase sectarian and doctrinal way and anti-misogyny shin judges refer to the will of god to keeping the races apart that was said in georgette -- judges they said it is against the will of god it is difficult to cast such arguments in a form that could be accepted by a those whose religious teaching is different. they'll look like jewish arguments for pork they look good but not sufficient to make it legal for all citizens in a pluralistic society. the second objection and perhaps the one most often heard today from thoughtful people insist the main

purpose of state sanctified marriages procreation and the rearing of children. protecting the institution that serves the important purpose it is an important legitimate public interest in supporting marriages. already still there is a problem because we don't see why it should also follow that there is also a public-interest and restricting marriage too only those cases where there may be procreation broker of course, i think we should agree the procreation and save rearing of children is an important public purpose but it is not clear we ever thought that important purpose but -- best search to those appropriated if we ever did think like this we have not done anything about it are unlimited heritage to the virtual or potentially fertile it is very difficult in terms of the state's interest in appropriation to explain why the marriage of to heterosexual 70

year-old's should be permitted and a marriage of two men nor to women should be forbidden although many same-sex couples have and raised children. as it stands the procreation argument looks to faced approving in heterosexuals would refuses to tolerate in this same-sex couples. if they should add that sterile heterosexual marriages some house support the efforts of the procreative we can certainly imply lesbian and gay couples that don't raise children mack also supports the work of other couples. sometimes the argument is put a little differently, marriage is about the protection of children and we all know that children do best in a home with one mother and one father. there is a legitimate public interest to support an institution that fills this important purpose.

put it this way the argument again puts forward a legitimate public reason to restrict same-sex marriage namely the interest in protecting children. the main problem however is with the facts. again and again psychological studies have shown that children do best when they have love and support and some evidence that two-parent households do better at that job then single-parent households for obvious reasons of economic stress. there is no evidence however at all that same-sex couples do any worse than opposite sex couples. there is a widespread feeling that those results can be right to living in the moral atmosphere must be bad for children but that feeling rest on the religious judgments of the first argument when the wellbeing of children is in a relatively neutral way there is absolutely no difference. a third argument is by

conferring state approval and something that many people believe to be immoral and unnatural, same-sex marriage will force them to bless or approve of it is thus violating their conscience. this has been put forward this has been put forward from a professor at harvard law school a very fine book called modern liberty where it is argued sodomy laws, with liberty around people but draws line at same-sex marriage because of the idea that he has about forced approval. what precisely is the argument? that the same-sex marriage would be a violation of the free exercise clause of the first amendment and that would be an impossible position to take. presumably the position is somehow or other the

legitimate interest in banning same-sex marriage on the grounds that offends many people it raises the establishment clause problem might on religion and and as now does conservative judea's son and been assured there is wide variation. the state following the argument would side with one of the believers against another and more a generally there are lots of things a modern state does that many people deeply dislike and often cited religious grounds teaching things that parents don't like such as evolution and equality of women and parents often bring that to court but they typically lose because these

are essentials values for our society. public health regulation and licensed bush shares to cut up pigs the jewish to not want to be associate with the practice but nobody believes they have the right to ask the state on their objectionable on all citizens the old order amish to one their children to attend public schools and past the age of 14 that that's going is destructive of community and the state respects that choice for the amish children. and even allows them to break the law that requires them to be in school past age 14 but no one would dream of thinking the homage have a right to expect that the state will make in school and at age 14 for everyone. part of that is the values of the non establishment of religion is live and let live. whenever we see a nation that does allow the imposition of a religiously grounded preference of all

citizens as some israeli laws limiting activity on the sabbath and as with laws and india banning the slaughter of cows, we see a nature of a religious establishment rather defacto we have chosen to take that route quite wisely and to the extent that the jewish set-tos workdays to coincide with the religious preferences of the majority we bend over backwards to be sensitive to the burdens so i don't think that fried's arguments works i think it is revealing in this part of his book he does mentioned namely i think we can get to the plight of understanding why sodomy laws are a bad idea only if we stop ourselves meaning the street readers of the book, a stopper sells from thinking

of this mack reformed by lesbian and gay people i think that was a revealing footnote. a fourth argument which appeals to be a of legitimate public purpose focuses on the difficulty that marriage seems to be facing in our society pointing to rising divorce rates and children aren't ,ñrt

but in the past women stayed married because they had no marketable skills and employment options so often the simplest explanation is the growing option for women but let's concede for the sake of argument there is a problem what about the claim under negative traditional marriage in a society does want to defend traditional marriage many policies suggest themselves family and medical leave, a drug and alcohol counseling on demand and generous support of health policies for mental health counseling and

strengthening laws against domestic violence and employment counseling and financial support for those under stress during the presentation present economic crisis and tighter enforcement of child-support laws such measures have a clear relationship to the stresses and strains facing traditional marriage today the prohibition of same-sex marriage does not. . .

the finals of traditional marriage. well, how should we evaluate this? first of all, we should challenge it on the facts, same-sex couples are not like be great athletes or cheating athletes. or at least no more so than heterosexual couples. they want to get married for reasons similar to those of many

heterosexuals, to express love and commitment or to gain religious sanctification for their union or to obtain a package of possible benefits and often who have and raise children. traditional heterosexual marriage has its share of creeps, and there are same-sex creeps as well, no doubt. but the existence of creeps among heterosexuals has never stopped the state from marrying heterosexuals. nor do people talk that way. i have never heard even one person say the state's willingness to marry britney spears or o.j. simpson the means their own heterosexual marriage. but somehow without knowing a thing about the character or intentions of the same-sex couple down the road they think their own marriages would be sullied by public recognition of that union. if the proposal were to restrict marriage to the were the people who've passed a character test, it would at least be consistent though i think very few people would support such an interest

of regime. what is clear is those who make that argument don't fret about the way in which unworthy or immoral heterosexuals selling the institution of marriage or lower its dollar you. given that they don't worry about this and given that they don't want to allow marriage even for gays and lesbians who have proven their good character it is difficult to take their argument at face value. the idea that same-sex unions will solely traditional marriage, therefore, can't ultimately be understood. without moving onto the train of discussed and contamination. the only distinction between heterosexuals and the whole class of gays and lesbians that can possibly explain the difference in people's reaction is the sex act of the former dumont discuss the majority however, were the the particular people may be whereas the sex act of the latter do. the fault must be that to associate traditional marriage with the sex act of same-sex couples is to defile or

contaminate as it were the body of marriage in much the we eating food served by used to be taken by many people in india to contaminate the podcast body. nothing short of a primitive idea of stigma and taint can explain the widespread feeling that same-sex marriage is defiling while the marriages of immoral and sinful heterosexuals are not. if the hour dever should reply that marriage between two people of this seems acceptable cannot result in the procreation of children and so must be a kind of pity or sham marriage will then we are right back to the earlier argument, the procreation argument and those who insist as so strongly on procreation do not of course feel the marriage of to heterosexual 7-year-olds is a sham or parity and the and try to get lawmakers to make such marriages theegal either. if we are looking for a historical parallel to the anxiety associated with same-sex

marriage, we can find it in the history of views about massage nation. at the time of loving versus virginia, in 1967 amazingly late, 16 states both prohibited and punished marriage across racial lines for the more all the states were required to honor divorces' performed in other states that had a more lenient divorce, residence requirements than their own that was not the case with interracial marriage. so it's the only parallel to the defense of marriage act. states that have always against miscegenation refuse to recognize marriage between blacks and whites legally contract elsewhere and the even crawl lies those marriages. the supreme court case that brought about in overturning of antimiscegenation lobbies, loving versus virginia was such a case. madrid, african-american, and richard lyng, quite got married in washington, d.c. in 1958 but their marriage notice in race,

too, d.c. was in the vanguard, this interesting. their marriage, however, was not recognized as legal in their home state of virginia. when they return they were arrested in the middle of the light in their own bedroom with a framed copy of their marriage certificate hanging over their bed and they were if convicted, sentenced one year in jail and told if they leave -- they could leave the state for 25 years in lieu of going to jail. so they left but they began a litigation that land to the landmark decision. now, like same-sex marriages, cross racial unions were a post with a variety of punitive arguments both political and theological. in hindsight however, we can clearly see that it discussed was at work. indeed it didn't hide its hand the idea of racial purity was proudly proclaimed for example in their racial integrity act of 1924 in virginia. ideas of taint and contamination were ubiquitous. if people felt disgusted and contaminated by the thought that

an african-american had drawn from the same public drinking fountain or had gone swimming in the same public swimming pool were used the same toilet or plates and glasses all widely held southern views and the laws enforced by the law and i should add you is that my own father who grew up in georgia and was a practicing lawyer in philadelphia as i was growing up retained to the end of his life battery of course educated and other respects refined man, but he did believe 15 african-american had drunk from a glass you could never use that glass again so it's remarkable the tenacity of these ideas. so, you know, if all of that was true we could see the fall of sex and marriage between black and white carry a powerful fleet of revulsion. the supreme court concluded such ideas of racial stigma were the only ideas that supported those laws what ever else people said. they said, quote, there is painting clean no legitimate overriding purpose independent

of invidious racial discrimination, which justifies this classification. and i think that we should draw the same conclusion about the preparation of same-sex marriage, irrational ideas of stigma and contamination, the kind and ms the court recognized and rumor, they are powerful forces in support of that provision. so thought the supreme court of california in october, 2008. they wrote beyond moral disapprobation gay persons also face maryland homophobia that rests on nothing more than feelings of revulsion of the persons and the intimate sexual conduct with which they are associated. such a servile prejudice is reflected in the large number of crimes that are perpetrated against the persons. the irrational nature of the prejudiced or dig a person who are ridiculed, ostracized, despise, demonized and condemned merely for being they are is entirely different in kind than the prejudice offered by other groups that previously had been denied suspect or clause i

suspect status and then they go on with the technical legal argument. we have now seen the prominent argument against same-sex marriage. they don't seem particularly impressive. we haven't seen any that supply government with a compelling state interest in this seems likely given romer versus evans that these arguments motivated by mms fail even the rational basis test. the argument in favor of same-sex marriages straightforward. if two people want to make a commitment of the miracle sort a right that has been held in a series of cases to be a fundamental constitutional right for all citizens the should be permitted to do so and excluding one class of citizens for the benefits of some dignity demeans them and insults their dignity. thanks. [applause]

>> i have a comment and question. the comment is there is an interesting book called greed and sex by countryman about leviticus singing that even within leviticus to ready laws and morrill walz can be distinguished from each other which is fascinating. the question i have, i am a physician and in fact the genders are not as divided as people think in the sense that there is a population of people who are born with indigenous genitalia. so, would this be a legal way of getting around people thinking the are approving same-sex marriage and other words marriages between two individuals and we can't define, people don't have to define their gender or sex is. some people can't. small minority granted a slight increase is a real divide between white people and black people because something in

between would that be a way to put it we get around this and to say marriages between two individuals, humans. >> i think intellectually it is a very good move. politically i think it is such an exotic idea for many people that to get them to swallow that before they get to the conclusion is going to be harder because i think they are much more ready to see same-sex couples as couples they can identify with couples who really are pursuing happiness and so and they are choosing these exotic thoughts. so that is where it ends up. it ends up with being a right of individuals and that is where lawrence and with a right to sexual twice as a right of individuals. but, you know, the road to that probably we shouldn't sprinkle with such a strange notions. >> it seems to me that your arguments apply just as well against laws that prohibit public of me as long as there is no element of coercion. could you comment on that?

>> this is a tough one for me because i have written only in newspapers and not in any book about polygamy actually when i last year had the portion of deuteronomy in the second version of the command and saying it was quite intrigued to notice polygamy is presupposed in the wording of the comment because the prohibition to covet your neighbor's spouse is applied to men only because in a footnote in my commentary said women are fine with the cutting because they can be the second wife and the prohibition of to cut property if lies equally both said that was interesting so the whole society of the old testament is polygamous and of course joseph smith and noticed that but very few other people did. and so i had long fought the persecution of the mormons is horrendous and our history and that the demonization of mormon polygamy is grossly inaccurate in the sense that women in

polygamous marriages in utah the had problems but so too did women in a monogamous marriages elsewhere no property rights in fact in one respect the women in the polygamous marriages were better off name the they could vote, women could vote in the territory of utah %@úpñ,ñ2ñst

equality, the parallel case of bob jones university, u.s. versus bob jones university that evangelical university lost its tax exemption because the band interracial dating and the compelling state interest cited was the protection of racial equality. they said we have a compelling interest in not giving fever to any practice of racial inequality so they could say the same thing about sex inequality. in fact the protection of six equal body has never been used as a compelling state interest and i think they are afraid to use it because it has some interesting consequences like withdrawing the tax exception from all of the major catholic universities whose president is required to be a male deposits required to be a certain order of priests of georgetown would be the only one that would be

okay because they got out of that. but, you know, so i think the court doesn't want to go there been any way that would be compelling state interest. what if we have a practice of polyandry is usually called, namely contractual arrangements among the plural of wiltz where there is no systematic subordination of women so it is sex equal and women can contract with more than one man. i don't think there is any compelling state interest that would tell against that except possibly administrative complexity. now, in their religion cases, you know, they sometimes do allow that. for example the case of a native american family who wanted their child not to have a social security number they did say it is just not in administrable. we can't run a country of somebody doesn't have a social security number. but short of that, they've never allowed administrative complexity to trump religious rights. so, i think it was a religiously motivated six equal polygamy they would have to win if people

were being true to the precedents. but, you know, then the question is what other kind of a legal framework what we think about if it's not a religious thing and presumably we would have to have somebody taking the state to court and cleaning the would be denied a fundamental right under the 14th amendment and i think they would have a strong argument as far as i'm concerned but i just know that it's not in the foreseeable future that the courts will go there and i was torn in this book because i wanted to persuade people on the issue of same-sex marriage and the other issues and it's aimed at a wide public audience, and i knew that if my heretical view about polygamy were to be announced then that might please me -- that's what i thought going in and then i just thought you know it's what i believe so i have to say it so why do say i think polygamy, arguments against polygamy are very weak. i think arguments against incest

for adults are also weak. any kind of parent and child in says is a form of child abuse, that's easy. but let's say an adult brother and sister, the usual reason is health. but right now we can do genetic counseling and people with genes can marry. so i don't really think that one is very strong anymore. so, that, too i think has to be called into question. but anyway that's usually used as the bogeyman if we allow same-sex marriage we have to allow polygamy, incest and bestiality is the crowning one. well, the study is a form of animal cruelty and that was easy to justify an the other two, no. >> i wonder if you can give me your comments on a couple of thoughts i had when listening to you. one, it seems like it is the combination of two very

hot-button concepts, sex and marriage and, you know, when you look at what happened in washington state where the voters overwhelmingly approved what is really known as everything but marriage, domestic partnerships, it's amazing whereas maybe if it had been called marriage there might have been a different result, both substantively there was no difference in terms of the legal things so that is the marriage hot-button. the sec's hot-button is when we look in the first amendment area most americans i think what sea and the supreme court has said it's okay for the nazis to march through skokie and the ku klux klan to do certain things yet we still have pornography as an exception to the first amendment

because there is a sex component to it. so if you could address that and then my second point quickly come to my evangelical friends i actually have some evangelical friends who say i love you and accept you and all that stuff, but the problem i would have is if you were married it wouldn't be accepting you, it would be accepting all of these implications from a relationship and all of the things that flow from it particularly we see these things now with doctors and pharmacists and whatever that it's sort of an affront to their high religious beliefs to have to deal with people who consider themselves and mabey are legally married when that is to the contrary to their religious beliefs that sometimes the law and fact does make

exceptions as you know the federal law makes certain exceptions where certain health care givers don't have to do certain things because of conscience clauses. so if he could talk about those two things that would be great. >> guest >> i agree that americans are phobic about sex, and i would say drugs are the other thing. the minute those topics are raised there is this idea of the unimaginable danger and contingent and so on and i actually tell in the book about a new book that the university of chicago press has by now published called the legal intimacy by tim dena when it was first proposed to the press it is a study, a sociological study of, of less sex and sex clubs and bath houses and it's there for quite valuable to study because it's hard to get information about that and so he studies the pornography of it and the fantasies that people report to him and so on. the university of chicago press, certain powerful people made

terrible opposition to this because they said we will be construed as advocating a risky behavior. of course that king had nothing to do with it. he was just studying it but even to study it was thought to advocate. but what seemed to me particularly probably hypocritical was the fact that this press would have no hesitation in publishing books about mountain climbing, car racing and of course we publish all those things, risky behavior and so it's the fact that its risk connected with sex and of course it would be similar with drugs. so i agree that there is that phobia. i guess i don't know whether to go on the tension you appealingly offered me about pornography because i think that issue is very complicated. i guess i think first of all that nothing is actually been under the current obscenity for prohibition. there is almost no cases anymore. and what is the old obscenity

which is still enforced is not about -- the board pornography is usually the word used by feminists, but the obscenity law we is about explicitness, the disgusting mess of it and then in some of the cases, the of the scene from disgusting is made much of and somehow it is fought sex itself has something disgusting about it so it is a very we're set of false and in my book hiding from humanity i do go into some of the strange things that the supreme court has said on that. what feminists' proposed and never got was to reorient our thinking toward harm, that is if there was an sexually explicit material that degraded or humiliated when men and a plaintiff could come forward who showed the body harm was caused by the use of those materials of course very hard to prove, but it was just the wanted this base

to establish that either as an actress in the making of it or somebody on copycat scenarios were enacted then there could be an injunction of course there could be criminal charges against the abuser and there could also be a conjunction against the distributor of those materials similar to a kind of dangerous product litigation that goes against the tobacco companies and the gun companies said the was the model. the model was this was a dangerous product week should causes harm in an individual case that individual could take to court not just the armor but the purveyor of the dangerous product, so that i.t. i actually don't agree with this legal strategy but i think it is a very respectable attempt to target the issue of harm and it has nothing to do with thinking sex is that so that is a very different strategy altogether and it is as it were millions of strategies because it says we have to have harmed before you can have any litigation. so okay, that is the digression

that he offered me. i couldn't resist. but what was the second point that you just -- >> conscience clauses. talked about conscience clauses and people saying the problem is not with so and so as a -- [inaudible] >> it's accepting -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah, yeah, i mean we are used to the fact that we have to work out ways in which people cannot -- can somehow not be burdened with respect to their religious beliefs in the exercise of their functions and we already have ways of getting around let's say pharmacist's filling prescriptions for the abortion pill. i think so long as there is provision for somebody who wants to get that legal surface it should be okay for a given individual to refuse to perform a service that goes against

their conscience. i'm not sure what it would be in the case of same-sex marriage because of course no one is suggesting the clergy should be forced to perform same-sex marriages. they can marry whoever they please and they always have and they always will. my daughter married a non-issue and she -- the rabbi said by what mary. so we have to find someone else. that's the way it's always been, catholic priests would marry someone who's been divorced. so it would be like that. the clergy would do what they want to do. and you mentioned doctors. i'm not sure what the doctors would want to refuse to do. examination? well, you know, if there was usually is a single individual coming in for the insemination any way -- >> [inaudible] -- i do not want the same-sex couple [inaudible] >> that is a nondiscrimination

issue. most cities have nondiscrimination laws and it's covered by that and now in the litigation surrounding romer versus evans, one of the things i was raised as should people have exemptions for religion. what they ended up saying is denver actively denver and aspen did that in the way for small landlords, not for hotels and i think the distinction between personal dwelling and public accommodation is probably the right one to use. it is a hotel you can't do it, but if it is a personal thing and extension for religious purposes okay. what ended up being quite amusing in a row murderesses evans was the witnesses for the catholic expert witnesses used a form of argument coming from the natural wall according to which masturbation is the central fisa and all others are vices because they resemble masturbation and so they actually were arguing

landlords should be able to refuse to rent to people whom they believed they might masturbate in the apartment. [laughter] that's not exactly an argument the rental market would be pleased with. but so anyway. and by the way i don't entirely agree that several unions are not problematic. in illinois we've been fighting for years to get them and the catholic church opposes to and nail. a vast majority of citizens and catholics support it, but it's the fact that certain legislatures do not want to risk the ire of cardinal georgia and other leading. why should they have that aggregations of they don't vote against the bottle it up in the committee. but even if it were acceptable the problem now is is a second-class status in this house we had a thing called transracial union and we said you can have that you just can't ha