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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 441-452 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
ah, a hypothetical ... never mind previous comment. ... the analogy doesnt compute.

pedophiles and non-pedophiles are equally told not to molest children. Equal protection problem against pedophiles?

(oy vey, I shouldnt ask!)
41 posted on 12/08/2003 9:40:38 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WOSG; gogipper
Well said ... equal protection is a process

It was gogipper who made that point.

42 posted on 12/08/2003 9:41:17 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The only thing you lack however, is the chalk to draw that line with.

Honest debate requires honesty Luis.

Let's try again.

Would your redefinition of the word marriage include whatever individuals wanted it to include or would you limit it to couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual?

Jump in Luis, the morality is fine.

43 posted on 12/08/2003 9:41:18 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"More polyphobia. I think you are a repressed polysexual who is acting out against polysexuals."

I guess I should point out the obvious to you.

I have Biblical precedent to argue in favor of polygamy.

Now, you cite the Constitutional passage that grants the Federal government the power to deny Mormons the right to engage in polygamy.

44 posted on 12/08/2003 9:41:47 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
The US Constitution guarantees that even those who you would leave on the other side of your "line" get a voice."

Indeed, and nobody is proposing denying anyone the vote, here.


"The mistake lies in the very fact that there is government involvement in marriage to start."

oy vey - WE HAD TO DESTROY THIS VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SAVE IT.

45 posted on 12/08/2003 9:43:25 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: weegee
while we're at it can we dump those hore meat prohibitions.
46 posted on 12/08/2003 9:43:57 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Would your redefinition of the word marriage include whatever individuals wanted it to include or would you limit it to couples."

I guess the reason I don't answer that question is that I don't suffer from a runaway case of megalomania which leads me to believe that I get to make those sorts of decisions.

47 posted on 12/08/2003 9:44:03 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
There is a vast difference between Holy Matrimony, and marriage.

If you need, I can explain it to you.
48 posted on 12/08/2003 9:44:54 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I have Biblical precedent to argue in favor of polygamy.

Then argue for individual "transcendent liberty" for all. Take a position, any position.

Now, you cite the Constitutional passage that grants the Federal government the power to deny Mormons the right to engage in polygamy.

You're confused Luis, I believe in a republican form of government for all the states as the Constitution requires. You are the fellow arguing in favor of judicial fiat from a central authority. Try to keep the scorecard straight.

49 posted on 12/08/2003 9:45:28 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I guess the reason I don't answer that question is that I don't suffer from a runaway case of megalomania which leads me to believe that I get to make those sorts of decisions.

LOL, ah this is rich, Luis Gonzales is bereft of an opinion on FR because it doesn't become the law of the land.

50 posted on 12/08/2003 9:46:54 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
"...pedophiles and non-pedophiles are equally told not to molest children. Equal protection problem against pedophiles?"

No, protection of the rights of children who are not legally allowed to consent to sex, enter into contracts, or a myriad of other things.

As I said, your rights end where the rights of another start.

"...the analogy doesnt compute."

Then address it.

51 posted on 12/08/2003 9:47:32 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The law of the land is the law of the land.

Now, are you going to get around to answering either question I possed to you?
52 posted on 12/08/2003 9:48:50 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Protecting traditional marriage is also "protection of the rights of children" of course.

I can cite you many statistics where children do best in 2 parent heterosexual married biological parents than any other 'family' configuration. No matter how the anti-traditionalists slice it, undermining family values causes child abuse, lower child performance at shool, juvenile delinquency, and deaths of children.

Protection of children is a very good reason to defend traditional marriage from being washed away in the effluent of cultural socialism.

53 posted on 12/08/2003 9:52:57 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I can walk out of my front door and knock on the doors of four heterosexual married couples who either can't or won't have children...I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Around and around we go with the same tired arguments. Traditional marriage, one man and one woman, doesn't make a distinction for cases that don't fit the pattern of producing children. That emphatically does not mean that the reason marriage exists (and is regulated by government) has nothing to do with children.

54 posted on 12/08/2003 9:53:39 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"You are the fellow arguing in favor of judicial fiat from a central authority."

Not at all, you are (as usual) defining the laws of the land as something which can be used to deny others of a right that you enjoy...in this case is that right of marrying the poerson of your choice (I am assuming that you are a heterosexual).

This argument (State's rights) always is used to argue in favor of laws which oppress the rights of some, and against legislation/judicial decision which go against those laws.

We are all two things, the most important pof which is "Americans" and as such, protected by the US Constitution from having our rights violated. States neither have the power or the right to violate someone's Constitutional rights.

55 posted on 12/08/2003 9:54:14 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Now, are you going to get around to answering either question I possed to you?

Nope, not until you answer the one I posed originally and you answered with a question. But when you do take a position, restate your questions and I'll be glad to answer them.

56 posted on 12/08/2003 9:54:16 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
"That emphatically does not mean that the reason marriage exists (and is regulated by government) has nothing to do with children."

LOL!!!

Marriage existed before governments regulated it.

57 posted on 12/08/2003 9:55:14 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
We are discussing one issue here, gay marriage.

As usual, you want to discuss everything but the issue at hand.

Why is that?
58 posted on 12/08/2003 9:56:15 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Marriage existed before governments regulated it.

So?

59 posted on 12/08/2003 9:57:38 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"I believe in a republican form of government for all the states as the Constitution requires."

And you also apparently believe that US citizens can have their Constitutional rights violated by the States.

60 posted on 12/08/2003 9:58:01 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 441-452 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