Edward Tabash is a constitutional and civil rights lawyer in Beverly Hills, California. He has chaired the National Legal Committee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State since 1995, and has argued and won before the California Supreme Court. He also sits as a part-time judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court system. He has successfully represented the scientific outlook and secular humanism in public debates against the leading Christian philosophers around the world. In addition to serving on the Board of the Center for Inquiry and chairing the Council for Secular Humanism’s First Amendment Task Force, he chairs the Center for Inquiry’s Los Angeles branch.

In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Edward Tabash explores issues valued by secularists and why they hang in the balance in this U.S. Presidential Election.  He talks about gay marriage and abortion, and how both of these rights depend on a government neutrality in matters of religion. He details ways that pseudoscience and junk science are used to advance religiously derived public policy arguments against gay marriage and abortion. And he talks about global warming skepticism, and the need for scientific integrity in public policy. He emphasizes how the next U.S. President will reshape the Supreme Court, and what that portends for science and secular values. He also explains his role in gay rights victory with the Supreme Court of California earlier in 2008, and why he opposes Proposition 8, a proposed ballot measure in California that would amend the State Constitution to deny marriage rights to homosexuals.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org

The link for “download MP3” doesn’t link to a file, it just returns to the top of the description for the episode.

Update: The link was corrected about 10 minutes after my initial post, so now it works perfectly.

I am not sure where to start. This is my first post. I listened to this podcast and was so incensed that I had to post.

The logical argument against abortion comes down to whether children are people or not. This is due to the arbitrary choice of where to call a fetus human. Except for conception and birth any other choice is arbitrary. I will err on the side of caution.

If you look at countries where gay marriage is legal you will see that the meaning of marriage is diluted. This cannot be a good thing.

I think I trust the trust the conservatives more than the liberals.

BTW, I am an conservative atheist.

morlockberry - 22 October 2008 07:08 AM

If you look at countries where gay marriage is legal you will see that the meaning of marriage is diluted.

What do you mean it is diluted? Isn’t it strengthened by allowing more people to marry?

What will you do when a polyamorous group asks to be married?

I realize this is not a strong argument. I am not opposed to same-sex marriage. I just worry about unintended consequences.

BTW, it is very hard to find any unbiased research on this subject.

Actually, I think that the meaning of marriage is fairly simple, legally: two consenting adult humans create a contract describing mutual personal and financial responsibilities. Other arrangements, such as what Mormon’s now politely refer to as “plural marriage” or a relationship between a person and an animal or an inanimate object, would certainly not qualify. If one accepts the axiom that marriage is a good institution because it promotes stability in relationships, compared to other relationships without the force of a contract, then more marriages would be good for society—even if they are marriages between individuals of the same gender.

The question of whether there is any research might focus on the relative stability of marriages between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. However, there is no data on this issue available in the US. I’d like to hear more about data available from countries that have a longer history of allowing same-sex marriage, and how that compares to the opposite-sex population.

That is the reason I did not bring up the stability of same-sex marriage. I don’t see that as having any bearing on the basic question.

But I am also not convinced that just because one doesn’t believe it will happen that it won’t. These other groups may make the same or similar arguments that same-sex marriage proponents are making now.

morlockberry - 22 October 2008 08:21 AM

These other groups may make the same or similar arguments that same-sex marriage proponents are making now.

But as you note, this is a very weak argument. It’s completely irrelevant to the case of making gay marriages legal that someone else may ask to make something else legal.

We’ll take the other case when and if it happens.

morlockberry - 22 October 2008 07:23 AM

What will you do when a polyamorous group asks to be married?

What about allowing them to marry too?.

I just worry about unintended consequences.

Not sure what consequences are you thinking about. Can you explain a little more?

BTW, it is very hard to find any unbiased research on this subject.

I don’t see why a research is needed. It is about freedom , not about convenience.

Okay, as a bisexual man in a polyamorous marriage with my husband and two wives, let me clear up a few issues here:

The actual definition of marriage is: the union of two or more consenting adults.  How do I know this?  Because that is the only definition that accurately reflects world history and practices.  The practice of all forms of polygamy (polygyny, polyandry, and polyamory) is found in all cultures historically, and predates preferential monogamous pair-bonding by several millennium.  Polygamy is legal in countries that practice Theravada Buddhism (Southeast Asia) and Islam (Middle East).  In Western societies, polygamy is common in both the BDSM subculture, as well as the Poly subculture (people who practice polygamy and are not affiliated with a specific religion, i.e., some Mormons practice polygamy, but because they do so as part of a religious observance, are not Poly).

People who are in Gay, Lesbian, or Poly marriages run households, raise children, go to church (or not), are active in the community, pay taxes, and vote.  What they don’t have is the same legal status as Heteros.

This point seems to go over people’s heads quite a bit, so let me spell it out in crayon: We are married, and as married people, we wish to have the legal recognition and rights currently reserved for pair-bonded heterosexuals.

I am open to intelligent discussion and inquiry on the pros and cons of this issue.  However, any argument counter to this that falls into the category of religious dogma, personal phobia, or “Chicken Little” imaginary damage to children and society, are without merit.

The gauntlet is officially thrown

Marriage is just a contractual obligation between parties. Making value judgments about which arrangement if any is better is ridiculous. The institution of marriage is a bad deal, no thanks.

I found bits of this podcast amusing. DJ: “Does a candidate’s position on SC appointments trump all else for you?”, ET: “Yes.”, DJ: “And there was a candidate who expressed those views in the debate last week” ET: “Yes, but that’s not to say I’m endorsing either candidate.

I find Mr. Tabash’s perspective myopic and grossly oversimplifying, even though I likely share all of his cardinal values.
Specifically, the idea that religion is what makes people anti-abortion or anti-gay. This is correlation vs causation problem. He correctly notes that opponents to women/gay/bi rights are religious and therefore assumes religion is causative. I do not accept this to be the case. I don’t even buy it when Christians cite the Bible to establish their position. Why not? because those same people are clueless about the Bible. How is it a person can simultaneously base their life on something and not have any idea about it? They can’t, they don’t. They simply reach for the most convenient means to justify the bigotry they already own.
Of course it is not as simple and clean as I paint it either.. but I’m being concise.

morlockberry - 22 October 2008 07:08 AM

The logical argument against abortion comes down to whether children are people or not. This is due to the arbitrary choice of where to call a fetus human. Except for conception and birth any other choice is arbitrary. I will err on the side of caution.

I agree with your framing of the issue, although it is not as binary as we would like. That said, any choice is arbitrary including conception and birth. Conception is a far messier, greyer area than most people realize. Even if it weren’t it is far from clear why you can say ‘this tiny bag of proteins is a human being, but this one here is not’; likewise for birth. It’s a person after passing through a fleshy canal but not before?

If you look at countries where gay marriage is legal you will see that the meaning of marriage is diluted. This cannot be a good thing.

As opposed to our country, with its 50+% failure rate and driv-thru weddings? Or perhaps as opposed to countries with rigidly defined non-gay marriage such as Syria and Iran? Certainly no dilution of marriage there, ‘though you do have women regularly setting themselves on fire which seems a bit of a negative vote for the status quo.

I think I trust the trust the conservatives more than the liberals.

Who says what is liberal? Conservatives championed for decades the idea of state’s rights, personal responsibility/self determination and small government/limited regulation and oversight. Isn’t that how we go into this financial mess? Through radical deregulation of markets? I’m just saying it is conservative values of gov’t non-interference and self-determination that necessarily philosophically support individual and state’s rights. I might trust the conservatives more than the liberals except that conservatives who actually hold conservative values seem to have vanished from the Earth the same moment the GOP got total control of the federal government.

Why isn’t the new interview available yet?

morlockberry - 22 October 2008 07:08 AM

I am not sure where to start. This is my first post. I listened to this podcast and was so incensed that I had to post.

.....

BTW, I am an conservative atheist.

Welcome -  it’s good for the forum to have a spectrum of views.

Tabash had an earlier interview which I found interesting—
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3665/#32800
You will see that a number of us were skeptical. But he speaks well and makes a good (if over-stated) case for his position.

Jackson