Category: Marriage (real)

More on Definition versus Rights

I was starting to feel like I was pushing the limit of fair use in block-quoting Peter Sprigg Saturday, but I really am reminded how outrageous was the majority opinion and how impressive the dissenters in Massachusetts Goodrich case.

The most offensive aspect of the majority opinion was its slap in the face (I don’t say that lightly, as it’s inflammatory) of the legislature:

Discussing the proper standard for review, she found that the Court did not need to consider whether the plaintiffs’ claims merited strict scrutiny, a more thorough than usual standard of review, because the state’s marriage policy did not meet the most basic standard of review, rational basis.

(Wikipedia) Not. Even. Rational. That’s a whopper of a lie and an insult. It’s insouciant liberal bigotry writ large.

The dissenters were having none of it. Sprigg:

Justice Francis X. Spina pointed out that individual rights were not even at stake: “There is no restriction on the right of any plaintiff to enter into marriage. Each is free to marry a willing partner of the opposite sex.”

Justice Robert J. Cordy described succinctly the “rational basis” for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, noting that “an orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is that mechanism.”

The late Justice Martha B. Sosman (herself a liberal—a former Planned Parenthood board member) made the important distinction between what the law permits and what it requires. The fact that there are exceptions to the rule of marital procreation, she wrote, “does not mean that the State is required to provide identical forms of encouragement, endorsement, and support to all of the infinite variety of household structures that a free society permits.” Justice Cordy also identified what the Court was actually doing—“using the liberty and due process clauses as vehicles merely to enforce its own views regarding better social policies.”

…

Justice Sosman (the liberal dissenter) was equally clear in her explanation of one “rational basis” for keeping marriage as the union of a man and a woman:

It is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences.

It’s most disheartening that the people of Massachusetts took the majority’s insult “lying down.” I guess I assume way too much heedfulness by voters. If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, liberty’s in for some really rough times.

But Sprigg sort of holds out a ray of hope. If only the issue is framed correctly, public opinion (that increasingly anachronistic consideration as our betters tell us we’re not even rational) is still supportive of the traditional conception of marriage:

Why does this matter? It matters because it directly contradicts the way advocates of gay marriage, ten years later, almost always try to frame the issue at stake. They would have us believe that the issue is the “right” to marry, or access to the institution of marriage—a right or access which homosexuals are arbitrarily denied because of “who they are.”

The framing of the issue—as a matter of definition, or as a matter of “equality” of rights or access to marriage—is important for another reason. It makes a huge difference in the results of public opinion polls on the issue. The media has largely accepted the line that “a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage.” That is true, however, only if one looks at polls which frame the issue in terms of “rights,” “equality,” and “participation” in marriage.

Polls that frame the issue more honestly, as a question of the definition of marriage, produce a very different result. No less than seven national polls taken from 2011 through 2013 have shown that clear majorities of Americans oppose changing the definition of marriage. For example, when asked a question in the abstract, Americans support the traditional, one-man one-woman definition of marriage by almost two-to-one. A poll in April 2013 asked, “Do you support or oppose a measure defining marriage as between one man and one woman?” 60 percent said they would support such a measure, while only 32 percent said they would oppose it.

Even when the impact on same-sex couples is expressly mentioned, opposition to changing the definition of marriage remains strong. A June 2013 poll asked, “Would you approve or disapprove of changing the definition of the word marriage to also include same-sex couples?” Only 39 percent said they would approve of such a redefinition, while 56 percent said they would oppose it.

(Peter Sprigg, Marriage is a Matter of Definition)

(I add that although HJR 6 is much in the news, I was not thinking of it, pro or con, when writing this. I’m not endorsing HJR 6 as a suitable definition of marriage, nor am I here repudiating it.)

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.

Tuesday supplement

My Tuesday collection was turning in Rod Dreher’s greatest weekend hits, many of which were on polygamy, homosexuality, same-sex marriage or, finally, the pornification of society. So I pulled them off for separate treatment.

  1. On not carrying things to their logical conclusions
  2. A few thoughts on bigotry
  3. Something that may soon be utterly forgotten

1

One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion.

(Scalia, dissenting, in Lawrence v. Texas) It’s not just snark from me to repeat that. It’s a point I’ve been making about the logic of judicial decisions starting Saturday, when I first reported on the Utah polygamy decision. I forgot that Scalia had said it so succinctly. (H/T Rod Dreher)

It may be worth it, in the end, to permit polygamy — as our courts eventually will — for the sake of establishing same-sex marriage rights. Let us note, though, that the idea that one would lead to the other was strenuously denied by same-sex marriage proponents, and still is today. Don’t you believe it. Here’s [Jonathan S.] Tobin:

All that is needed is a little candor on this issue on the part of critics of the dwindling band of opponents of gay marriage. The floodgates have been opened, and if that makes some of us uncomfortable, especially those who understandably view polygamy as synonymous with the exploitation of women, then we should be honest enough to acknowledge that it is merely part of the price that had to be paid to give gays the same right to marry afforded to other citizens.

Good luck with that. Honesty would impede gaining the results advocates want.

(Dreher again, hyperlink added)

2

When contemporary people make sweeping assertions like Paul Raushenbush’s — that the only reason anybody could oppose gay marriage is bigotry — they reveal themselves to be close-minded and ignorant of history, philosophy, and theology. One doesn’t expect modern people to agree with the classical Christian way of thinking about sexuality and teleology. They don’t accept it for heterosexuals, certainly, and the main reason the taboo against homosexuality fell so quickly is because gays made straights confront the fact that all gays were asking for was a more consistent application of the post-Sexual Revolution standards to themselves. While one doesn’t expect agreement from moderns like Raushenbush, one does expect more intelligence and charity than people like Raushenbush show to their opponents.

Yes, Rod Dreher again. This time, he’s discussing a column by Brandon Ambrosino in the Atlantic, Being Against Gay Marriage Doesn’t Make You a Homophobe. Ambrosino is an interesting gay writer, which is to say that he either swims against the gay stream (as he does) or makes arguments from surprising and illuminating perspectives (which I’m not so sure about).

This seems an apt opportunity to quote a few Chesteron aphorisms:

  • It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
  • Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.
  • A man . . . is only a bigot if he cannot understand that his dogma is a dogma, even if it is true.

May I suggest that there are many bigots on the progressive and tolerant side of this issue?

3

I especially worry about the kind of men who will court my daughter, given the pornification of our culture. Will they respect her? Do they even know what it means to respect a woman?

(Rod Dreher, reflecting on Ross Douthat’s suggestion that parents of girls may become more conservative. Emphasis added.)

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.

Impacting Indiana for 33 years!

Advance America, in a Sunday bulletin insert offered to churches, lays out what its leaders see as dangers ahead:
» Authorities jailing pastors for preaching against homosexuality.
» Cross-dressing men violating women’s privacy in their restrooms.
» Government forcing business owners to cater to same-sex weddings.
» Schools teaching children that gay marriage is normal.
The flier, put out this fall, argues that the items are “Just Four Dangers of Same-Sex Marriage” that could be on the horizon if Indiana fails to safeguard its traditional marriage definition, which already is contained in state law.

(Indianapolis Star story reprinted 12/13 by the Journal & Courier on page C1)

The flyer was quickly dismissed by “experts.” I’m an expert of sorts, and in the context of the article (“dangers of same-sex marriage”), I’d say the fourth is almost certain to happen in Indiana if Indiana recognizes same-sex marriage, even if there’s no legislative mandate to do it.

The others really are, in varying degrees, either (a) plausible but not consequences of recognizing same-sex marriage or (b) outright implausible in the United States.

Bear in mind that the defeat of HJR-6 does not mean that Hoosiers favor same-sex marriage or that SSM will become law. I likely would vote against it, with mixed feelings, because the second sentence is so vague that it feels like deliberate sabotage of the Resolution by false friends. (This isn’t an accusation of anyone. I don’t know who dreamed up that second sentence, or what they had in mind.)

A statutory prohibition already exists. The way litigation on homosexuality-related laws progress these days, things like the Advance America bulletin insert likely will end up marked as Trial Exhibits in any lawsuit alleging that Hoosiers only approved HJR-6 because they’re bigots with a “bare desire to harm” gays (not to mention that we’re ugly and our mothers dress us funny). That kind of evidence weighs heavily with Justice Kennedy, and he’ll be sure to accuse us of bad stuff in his 5-4 opinion for the majority.

But how about the specific “dangers ahead”?

  1. “Authorities jailing pastors for preaching against homosexuality.” “Jail,” implies crime. Eric Miller of Advance America, a lawyer, knows this. Free Speech remain pretty secure, though the made-up right to sexual expression, free from any stigma, is ascendant. I’d not bet against jail in 50 years, nor would I bet against extreme social and media hostility toward anti-homosexuality preaching in very short order. And there will be preachers so obsessively fixated on this particular sin that they’ll deserve to be held suspect. But jail? I call “bullshit” on this one.
  2. “Cross-dressing men violating women’s privacy in their restrooms.” Not a consequence of same-sex marriage. There are apparently true stories about “gender identity” mismatches with biological sex, and of a school being forced to allow a boy who identifies as a girl to use the girl’s restroom. Weird marks of cultural insanity, to be sure, and of the sort of insanity that would also think same-sex marriage reasonable. But whoever came up with this “danger” was just free associating about the outlandish things sexually troubled people do, not reasoning about consequences of SSM.
  3. “Government forcing business owners to cater to same-sex weddings.” This is a big topic. Lots of stories about this sort of thing from states that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Indiana has no such law. New Mexico bans SSM adheres to a traditional definition of marriage but does have such an anti-discrimination law, and a New Mexico photographer is on her way to SCOTUS appealing her hefty fine for declining to photograph a “commitment ceremony” that couldn’t be a “marriage” precisely because of the state’s non-recognition of SSM. Some Indiana cities and counties, moreover, have banned (maybe more accurate to say “subjected to free-floating flak from do-gooders on Human Relations Commissions if someone complains”) “discrimination based on sexual orientation.” I think it’s highly likely that caterers, photographer, bakeries and the like will be subjected to petty harassment of Human Relations Commissions in some localities if Indiana recognizes same-sex marriage, but those ordinances are relatively toothless.

Of course, it’s hard to imagine Indiana recognizing same-sex marriage without previously or concurrently banning discrimination based on sexual orientation statewide.  Bear that in mind as you look at my precis on some of these three items.

Advance America, despite its Christian pretenses, appears guilty of transgressing the 9th Commandment which, even Protestant Reformers agreed, includes reckless gossip.

But what do you expect from a group whose website boasts that it’s “Celebrating 33 Years of Impacting Indiana!”? What say we give Indiana a high colonic, to thoroughly rinse out 33 years of accumulated Advance America toxins, and call it a day?

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.