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.
Oh, okay, I'll clean your clock again. I was hoping you would be so kind as to point out the propaganda from the following:
Good point (and I hate to admit it, but I hadn't thought of that one), except that if both woman are relatively poor, I am not sure what the benefits would be really financially (other than social security survivor benefits, but you said woman with children), and if one woman is much richer than the other, than the rich woman is bearing the finanacial risk.
So then, should heterosexual couples who are physically unable to produce children naturally not be allowed to marry?
The law would make perfect sense because no man would be allowed to marry any woman with whom he could not produce children with...applying to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
And there are a lot of reasons for marriage other than procreation.
There could be any number of reasons why people may get together and formalize their arrangements, but procreation is certainly the main reason that the state regulates marriage.
One man and one woman marrying and producing children and forming a family unit is the pattern that the state has a compelling interest in preserving. The state does it by supporting the traditional institution of marriage. I ask again: what is the compelling reason to change this state of affairs?
Since more blacks commit murder per capita than other races, does this mean the black guy down the street from me is dangerous.
You post a lot of stuff about pedophilia, but I've never seen you post that the cops and social workers don't know the real rates because so much is believed to be within families and goes unreported.
Even excepting your non-scientific crap about pedophilia, would my daughter be safer with a homosexual or heterosexual male teacher. In short, your crap has no pratical application except to hold this site up as extremist and to be ridiculed by thinking people.
As long as the owner allows your type of posting, have fun. But let's not pretend anything you're doing resembles american or conservative values.
However, your argument is not at all convincing that therefore, to be fair or some such thing, the state must rigorously step in and outlaw marriage between heterosexual couples who cannot or do not want to produce children.
These silly arguments have been answered again and again on these threads.
Justice, as defined by the Justinians is "Constans et perpetua voluntas, jus suum cuique tribuendi."
"The constant and perpetual will to secure to every one HIS OWN right."
The law exists as a servant to Justice.
Individual rights, all genderless in the eye of the Law.
Read this when you get a chance.
Getting late, I'll follow up when I can. Adios.
Even excepting your non-scientific crap about pedophilia
Oops. There you go again, making statements without any supporting evidence. Well, here's your chance to find what your'e looking for: Homosexuals, being around 2% (including bisexuals) of the population, account for a third of child molestations. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
I have more if you're interested.
Perhaps you should start your own project for other groups that demand rights based on behavior... behavior that results in such severe health hazards as stated above.
Let me get this straight.
You are in a Conservative forum arguing that the State is acting in the best interest of our children, and that's why homosexuals who are unable to bear children are not allowed to marry?
Would you be making reference to the same State that legalizes killing a million fetuses a year?
Do you deny the health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle?
Why do you use the word "limiting"? I agree there are many reasons why a man and a woman decide to get married. But the procreation that results from sexual union is the fundamental social fact that motivated the institution of marriage to be created, and is still vitally important to it. Is it not?
By the way, you do know that Israel lets out of the closet gays into its military didn't you?
What's the connection?
You don't know the difference between recognizing rights and "encouraging" something. Weak!
You know the percentage of the population that is homosexual and you know the % of pedophilia committted by homosexuals. Since most people including the police and social workers don't know these stats, you could make a lot of money selling your information.
Oh, I forgot, you don't have any of your own info, just unscientific postings and propaganda.
You answer to my challenges has been weak and spotty. Sleep on it and ask around. Then maybe you'll have an epiphany.
Good luck. C-YA
If the state indeed has an interest in promoting family life, then it should support the extension of marriage to homosexuals in order to stabilize and legalize their relationships. And as I pointed out to you, many homosexuals do have children.(as do many unmarried heterosexuals.)
In my experience discussing this issue, anyone who rabidly opposes gay marriage virtually always does so for two reasons 1) unthinking prejudice (I hate homos ) and 2) traditional religious teaching( God hates homos)
Any purported public policy rationales are just a pretext for (1) or (2) or most often (1) and (2)
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.