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.
Add that one to your list and when you find the intestinal fortitude to answer the original question I posed, I'll answer that one too.
You're all bluster tonight Luis, lets see if there is any substance.
Of course you won't.
Sure, up is down, left is right.
Finally, you got one right.
There's your original question to me...check it out yourself.
I answered it in post #47.
Now, your turn.
Answer my questions.
I can equally cite statistics that show that children do better with any parent than with no parents at all.
And with my chalk in hand, I am happy to draw a line for you: polygamy and incestual legal unions are out, and unions of two non incestuous consenting adults are in, be they platonic or not. By the way, you seem to have ignored the "problem" of platonic adults of the opposite sex getting married for the financial benefits, which in the brave new order I suspect will continue to be the primary "drain" to the government purse. What do you think?
LiteKeeper - I see you're already on this thread so this is just a reminder. :-)
Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1), (Version 1.0)
Civil unions, the rite performed by a government licensed magistrate, cannot be limited by moral values predicated by the religious beliefs of any segment of the population, the Constitution forbids the government from engaging in such restrictions.
Holy Matrimony, the rite performed by members of the clergy, is not subject to governmental regulations, and as such, Churches cannot be mandated to perform gay marriages.
Clear enough for you?
All the "reasons" and "statistics" they cite are really just a cover to hide the true basis for their opposition
By in and out, we are talking about what the legal definition of marriage should be? (Not what informal unions will be tolerated by law).
What's wrong with leaving it defined as one man and one woman? This is the traditional and sensible definition, based on the fact that their sexual union may result in children that need protection. To cause the legal definition to diverge from a very well established tradition and the states' own centuries-long definition should require an enormously sound reason. What is it?
I await those arguments, but the people who address it just keep asking questions.
All the "reasons" and "statistics" they cite are really just a cover to hide the true basis for their opposition.
I've got a statistic. Number of homosexual unions which has produced a child: zero.
I think the economic effects here are less than marriages of convenience which you cover below and which, believe me, I do not neglect. However, I can find no rational basis for denying them based on Lawrence and Goodridge. The economic effects to government from marriages of convenience can and, I believe, will be quite substantial if the trend toward redefining marriage gathers steam and it will gather steam if it is extended to homosexuals because who is to say what one does in the bedroom.
And with my chalk in hand, I am happy to draw a line for you: polygamy and incestual legal unions are out, and unions of two non incestuous consenting adults are in, be they platonic or not.
And thats why I like you, you take positions. Of course, you have drawn a line based on your moral precepts. I use that as a device to turn the tide when my opponents bring out the "who are you to draw a line based on your moral code" argument. But you already knew that. Of course I don't agree with your lines nor do I agree with redefining words but if those redefinitions are made by a republican form of government rather than judicial fiat, it becomes much more palatable. Of course, I would vote with my feet if my state redefines marriage but they won't be sorry to see me go. :-}
By the way, you seem to have ignored the "problem" of platonic adults of the opposite sex getting married for the financial benefits, which in the brave new order I suspect will continue to be the primary "drain" to the government purse.
Like I said, I haven't ignored it at all. In fact it is my firm belief that you would see many women entering into marriages of convenience and bringing their children with them. Not many men however.
What do you think?
I think we diverge on the question of redefining marriage but I think we agree that courts should not be doing it by fiat and that when courts decide cultural issues one side is always quite bitter. And I think we are good enough friends so that if the twain shal never meet on this or that issue, it's no biggie.
By the way, you do know that Israel lets out of the closet gays into its military didn't you? I just thought I would share that little faclet with you. Notice, I didn't mention Europe, since someone would then assert that that was what "caused" their militaries to become so enervated. Why bother going there, when one can just adduce hyper macho Israel instead.
Sorry, but you're way behind the times. Many gay and lesbians couples have children today through a variety of methods-in vitro, sperm donor, surrogate mother, adoption, already had the kid before went gay, etc.
And there are a lot of reasons for marriage other than procreation
No. Tories position is clear, yours is clear as mud.
But I would caution you on making sweeping declarations about the absence of morality in law since all law is based in morality. Every law Luis, not some, every one.
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.