Posted on 12/08/2003 7:12:17 PM PST by Kay Soze
How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals
By Alan Charles Raul
WASHINGTON - The promotion of gay marriage is not the most devastating aspect of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's recent decision. The more destructive impact of the decision for society is the court's insidious denial of morality itself as a rational basis for legislation.
This observation is not hyperbole or a mere rhetorical characterization of the Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health decision. The Massachusetts justices actually quoted two opinions of the US Supreme Court (the recent anti-anti-sodomy ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas and an older anti-antiabortion ruling, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey) to support the proposition that the legislature may not "mandate (a) moral code" for society at large. The courts, it would seem, have read a fundamental political choice into the Constitution that is not apparent from the face of the document itself - that is, that individual desires must necessarily trump community interests whenever important issues are at stake.
These judicial pronouncements, therefore, constitute an appalling abnegation of popular sovereignty. In a republican form of government, which the Constitution guarantees for the United States, elected officials are meant to set social policy for the country. They do so by embodying their view of America's moral choices in law. (This is a particularly crucial manner for propagating morality in our republic because the Constitution rightly forbids the establishment of religion, the other major social vehicle for advancing morality across society.) In reality, legislatures discharge their moral mandates all the time, and not just in controversial areas such as abortion, gay rights, pornography, and the like.
Animal rights, protection of endangered species, many zoning laws, and a great deal of environmental protection - especially wilderness conservation - are based on moral imperatives (as well as related aesthetic preferences). Though utilitarian arguments can be offered to salvage these kinds of laws, those arguments in truth amount to mere rationalizations. The fact is that a majority of society wants its elected representatives to preserve, protect, and promote these values independent of traditional cost-benefit, "what have you done for me lately" kind of analysis. Indeed, some of these choices can and do infringe individual liberty considerably: For example, protecting spotted owl habitat over jobs puts a lot of loggers out of work and their families in extremis. Likewise, zoning restrictions can deprive individuals of their ability to use their property and live their lives as they might otherwise prefer. Frequently, the socially constrained individuals will sue the state, claiming that such legal restrictions "take" property or deprive them of "liberty" in violation of the Fifth Amendment, or constitute arbitrary and capricious governmental action. And while such plaintiffs sometimes do - and should - prevail in advancing their individual interests over those of the broader community, no one contends that the government does not have the legitimate power to promote the general welfare as popularly defined (subject, of course, to the specific constitutional rights of individuals and due regard for the protection of discrete and insular minorities bereft of meaningful political influence).
Even the much maligned tax code is a congeries of collective moral preferences. Favoring home ownership over renting has, to be sure, certain utilitarian justifications. But the fact is that we collectively believe that the country benefits from the moral strength growing out of families owning and investing in their own homes. Likewise, the tax deduction for charitable contributions is fundamentally grounded in the social desire to support good deeds. Our society, moreover, puts its money (and lives) where its heart is: We have gone to war on more than one occasion because it was the morally correct thing to do.
So courts that deny morality as a rational basis for legislation are not only undermining the moral fabric of society, they run directly counter to actual legislative practice in innumerable important areas of society. We must recognize that what the Massachusetts court has done is not preserve liberty but merely substitute its own moral code for that of the people. This damage is not merely inflicted on government, trampling as it does the so-called "separation of powers." It does much worse, for when judges erode the power of the people's representatives to set society's moral compass, they likewise undercut the authority of parents, schools, and other community groups to set the standards they would like to see their children and fellow citizens live by. Indeed, it is a frontal assault on community values writ large.
It is thus no wonder that many feel our culture's values are going to hell in a handbasket. Yet, neither the federal nor Massachusetts constitutions truly compel such a pernicious outcome. Indeed, to this day the Massachusetts Constitution precisely recognizes that "instructions in piety, religion and morality promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government." It cannot be stated better than George Washington did in his first inaugural address: "The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the pre-eminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world."
• Alan Charles Raul is a lawyer in Washington. This commentary originally appeared in The Washington Post. ©2003 The Washington Post.
Do you not look around you and see that children of stable families tend to be good citizens and produce stable families of their own? Does our relatively stable society not owe its success in great part to the fact that church, society, and government all were intolerant of the flouting of marriage norms?
Not so fast, John. SCOTUS made it a violation of human rights to force someone into therapy. That's why there are so many mentally ill walking the streets.
I mean besides the homosexuals.
But otherwise you are right on.
If we could give homosexuals a pill which would change nothing else about them except their "sexual orientation," does anyone argue they would be better off to take the pill?
Shalom.
You don't know any. A properly adapted person is attracted to members of the opposite sex. That's the way their bodies are designed and that's how they are if properly adapted.
Supposed I really liked to eat with my feet (although I have fully functioning hands). That would be a maladaptation because I am made to do such intracate work with my hands. I might figure out how to do it all with my feet (I saw a man who was born armless on TV once who was incredible) but it would still be a maladaptation. I might force my friends and restaurants to all put up with my strange behavior, but it would still be a maladaptation.
It would also be easy to correct since I could simply use my functional hands as intended.
Shalom.
If they were happy that way, we wouldn't have so many threads about them on FR.
They won't allow that way.
Shalom.
I just don't know how you can cite the tradition of marriage when it is so varied and sometimes contrary to modern sensibilities.
If they are trying to use heterosexual physiology for homosexual purposes then they are maladapted.
Don't blame yourself. You've accepted the popular notion that their sexual perversions don't change their basic nature. The Dim's tried to float it around BJ Clinton, too. They were largely successful. Were they with you?
I notice you didn't bother to address the rest of my post.
Shalom.
Not really. The reality is, the vast majority of hetero couples who marry have kids. Not a single homo couple can have children.
". In fact many people seem to be reporducing without the benefit of governmental sanction."
Yep, and look what a mess it makes when that occurs. It's always best to have children when there is a mommy and daddy who are committed to one another for life. Anything less facilitates maladjustment.
We're not talking about anthropology, we're talking about history.
And in history, although there are variations you cite, marriage is always between men and women. Men and men are not an option.
Of the list you cited, I can only grant you the issue on polygamy. With that said, you'll notice that in most cultures were polygamy is legal it is not widely practiced. That's because wives (when not treated as property) are expensive. Only the wealthy can afford more than one.
Contracted marriages do not challenge my assertion whatsoever. They strengthen it. While a marriage is between a man and a woman it creates a stable family even if the man and woman are not "in love." Buying brides is but a subset.
So, care to take the challenge and note one tradition that is similar to marriage?
Shalom.
Sexually a girl would be slightly safer with a homosexual male than with a heterosexual male. Although the damage done by exposure to homosexual behavior would still concern me. Then again many people who practice homosexual behavior also practice (or have practiced) heterosexual sex. I think I'd trust my daughter with a normal person sooner than I'd trust her with a SAD. A SAD is more likely to molest and given the opportunity may even cross over to do it. SADs also have a higher incidence of other mental deviations which I wouldn't want her exposed to, let alone actual physical diseases.
Don't worry though. I don't let my kids be exposed to liberals either
Actually the odds of pedophilia by a homosexual or a heterosexual is quite low. Otherwise, we have a lot of kids not speaking up.
2% of the population commits 30% of the molestations. I'd say the odds of molestation by a SAD are far higher than is tolerable.
In the eys of whose God? There church says your wrong. If you're posting from the US then you know the government cannot favor one religion over another.
I listed them. The real God (the God of the bible) and the god that the moslems worship. Accounts for about 99% of western civilization. So in the eyes of the real God they are not married. God doesn't recognize 'homosexual' marriage.
And of course the laws, ideals and traditions of this country (USA) also don't recognize perverse marriage
How do you propose I prove the number of unreported pedophila cases in families. That's why it's a problem for you crusaders. You can't know the number. You just have to go with the people who work with kids and crime.
Scripter has the crime statistics. You propose that the number is woefully unreported. If so then the statistics form a pretty healthy sample for a statistical analysis. (A pollwith a healthy sample from all fifty states tends to be pretty accurate) Therefore the resultant numbers would end up being about the same. 2% of people (SADs) commit 30% of the molestations.
My guess is that if the numbers are indeed underreported, the percentage of molestations by 'gays' would be much higher. It is a much more shameful thing for a boy to admit that he was raped/seduced by a man than it is for him to say he laid the teacher. And 'homosexual' molesters have a far higher number of victims per molester than heterosexual ones do.
Oh, and even then it's always men marrying women. I don't know if a man's two wives are considered related to each other.
Shalom.
If they had kept their disease and behavior private and did not seek to recruit then I'd have no problem with them living as they wish. The problem is that they are a hazard not only to themselves (see Scripters disease data) but to society as a whole (see the molestation,crime,drugs etc data) and they refuse to keep their perverse behavior private.
Of course the humane thing is to get them cured but if they won't seek the cure then they will bear the responsibility for it. Can't force someone to get better, you can only quarantine them away from the healthy population
Physiology doesn't speak to the number of partners only to the structure of those partners. Men were designed to fit into women. Perfectly.
The issue of polygamy vs monogamy is purely cultural, not physiological
Your definition of mental illness is rare and I'm sure you can find someone to agree with you or perhaps some fringe author.
Actually my definition of mentally ill was the DSM definition before it was removed due to political pressure in 1973 (Early seventies in any event). The people involved in that decision admit that it was political and that there was no medical reason for removing homosexuality from the list of mental diseases. (see scripters database again for the info on this)
They may also be democrats, but it's propaganda to apply the term mental illness to them.
While I privately believe that most democrats are mentally ill I have no data to back that one up. Just anecdotal evidence. :^)
You are part of the clique here who can say anything about homosexuals and get away with it. As long as you have the protection of the owner.
It's nice to belong I guess. The truth is that we get to say what we say because we can back it up with fact. Some things get pulled but normally we have the facts to back up any statement made. JR is a great respecter of truth. (I don't know whether he agrees with either side in this discussion or if he even cares but he has always allowed provable truth to be posted)
you->Not so fast, John. SCOTUS made it a violation of human rights to force someone into therapy. That's why there are so many mentally ill walking the streets.
Correct. I should have said If the laws were written correctly and the courts were interpreting those laws in light of the constitution...
BTW. I love it when you show up on threads I'm on. Although your phrasing always makes me look somewhat clumsy in comparison, your posts are a joy to read. Clear, concise and always well written.
For your reading pleasure when you return. Catch the paragraph about "The Gay Report" by two 'homosexual' researchers where it states that 76% of 'gays' admit to having sex with boys. So we can now state that 76% of male 'homosexuals' are molesters
Aw, shucks!
You're only saying that because it's true. ;)
Seriously, I read a lot more of what you write than I post to. I don't want to travel in packs for two reasons. One is so that the homo-enablers won't be massacreed.
As you say, we come in and we dump facts on them. Then they say it doesn't matter anyway and go away.
I'm standing by my conclusion that some spiritual line is being crossed when discussing homosexual "marriage." With our "anything goes" culture, I'm amazed that the public balks at this idea. It must be a spiritual battle line of epic proportions.
I wish I could believe that the good guys will win.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.