Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals
The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 09, 2003 | Alan Charles Raul

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; culturewar; gaymarriage; hedonists; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; homosexualvice; ifitfeelsgooddoit; libertines; marriage; marriagelaws; perversion; prisoners; reprobates; romans1; samesexmarriage; sexualfetish; sexualvice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-452 next last
To: NutCrackerBoy
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." -- Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person...resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." -- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

421 posted on 12/15/2003 8:16:01 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Bullcrap...it's about taxation.
422 posted on 12/15/2003 8:17:06 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
"It is just illogical to include a class which never procreates into a legal status whose main purpose has to do with procreation."

My God man, but you are thick!

Here's a news flash!!!

Procreation can be achieved by same sex couples!!!!!

423 posted on 12/15/2003 8:18:35 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Procreation can be achieved by same sex couples!!!!!

How can the sexual act of a same-sex couple produce an offspring?

424 posted on 12/15/2003 8:42:55 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
If I am wrong that your position is absurd, then it should be no problem for you to explain your way out of the conundrum I posed. To repeat:

Let's say there is a law passed that says only folks who can use their mouths to twist a cherry stem into a knot may be officially licensed as Stem-Twisters.

It seems you will throw out the law as unconstitutional because the constitution did not specifically empower government to ask that question.

Please engage this instead of running to generalities like you did the last time.

425 posted on 12/15/2003 8:47:11 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
It's about taxation.

I didn't get how that related to my post.

426 posted on 12/15/2003 8:48:54 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Lesbian couples, just like heterosexual couples unable to procreate, can use in vitro, surrogates, etc.

Homosexual men can use surrogates.



427 posted on 12/15/2003 8:48:58 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Try sticking to adult arguments, and not idiotic statements like that.

Do you, or do you not recognize that all power that government has stems from the people, and is detailed in the Constitution?
428 posted on 12/15/2003 8:50:42 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
State laws define civilian rights ... look at your driver's license, Luis. Homosexual degeneracy is not civil life, Luis, so how is it that folks want to give the practitioners of this degeneracy special definition and special civil standings contrary to historical society, historical civil order?
429 posted on 12/15/2003 8:51:50 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Actually, my friend, it is possible (though very risky at present) for a male to carry an embryo/fetus/baby to term with cesarean delivery by implantation in the liver tissues. Two male gametes may soon be fused to create a 46 chromosome complement for cloning purposes, also.
430 posted on 12/15/2003 8:53:52 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The day men have to give birth will signal the end of mankind.
431 posted on 12/15/2003 8:55:08 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Homosexuals may 'want to', but your reference to 'have to, well, I don't see men giving in to the feminazis in our species' future ... God arranged things too well the way they are.
432 posted on 12/15/2003 9:00:07 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Marvin, you and I hjave gone around and arounbd this subject before, and we don't agree on this.

People are citizens, and their choice of adult, consensual, non-incestuous sexual partner is not decided by your opinion, my opinion, nor the government's opinion.

God is in charge of passing judgement on that, not you, me, or the civil government.

Your choice, if you believe homosexuality to be "degeneracy" is not to engage in it, or make homosexuals aware of your particular religious beliefs of theor life style.

Period.
433 posted on 12/15/2003 9:00:14 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Procreation can be achieved by same sex couples!!!!! -Luis Gonzalez,423

How can the sexual act of a same-sex couple produce an offspring? -NutCrackerBoy,424

Lesbian couples, just like heterosexual couples unable to procreate, can use in vitro, surrogates, etc.

Homosexual men can use surrogates.

Irrelevant! You are giving me scientific procedures and social arrangements and I am talking about the simple fact that the sexual act is the fundamental act of procreation.

434 posted on 12/15/2003 9:02:11 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Are you preachin', my friend?... I don't think it serves any good for our fellow humankind who are trapped in degeneracy , to pretend that God winks at their degeneracy ... just as adulterers should be confronted for their sake, also.
435 posted on 12/15/2003 9:03:22 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Do you, or do you not recognize that all power that government has stems from the people, and is detailed in the Constitution?

Yes, I do.

Now answer the conundrum I posed. It is quite simple.

436 posted on 12/15/2003 9:05:15 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
The union of gametes is 'sexual reproduction'. The fun part is the getting the gametes together ... and is a behavior best undertaken within marriage and vows of fidelity.
437 posted on 12/15/2003 9:05:38 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
"You are giving me scientific procedures and social arrangements and I am talking about the simple fact that the sexual act is the fundamental act of procreation."

BS NutBoy, ejaculation is the fundamental act of procreation, and this society of yours, the one you are constantly holding up as defending marriage in the name of procreation, kills one million fetuses a year in the name of "choice".

So you will excuse me when I don't buy a single word of your crap about "society" preserving the fundamental act of procreation by defending heterosexual marriage.

438 posted on 12/15/2003 9:06:30 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
"I don't think it serves any good for our fellow humankind who are trapped in degeneracy , to pretend that God winks at their degeneracy."

Do you pretend to speak for God Marvin?

I'm talking abouit civil government, not about what God may or may not do.

439 posted on 12/15/2003 9:07:52 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I certainly do point to what He says in His Word regarding their degeneracy. As you are aware, I would not presume to speak 'for' God, as merely a stumbling servant soul.
440 posted on 12/15/2003 9:09:37 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-452 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson