OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR: A New Topic for an Old Argument [Adams and Jefferson "speak out" on gay marriage]

NY Times ^ | February 29, 2004 | JOSEPH J. ELLIS

[Pharmboy]

Abraham Lincoln once observed that America was founded on a proposition, and that Thomas Jefferson wrote it. He was referring, of course, to the section of the Declaration of Independence that begins, "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . " The reality, though, is that we are founded on a debate over what Jefferson's proposition means. And the current struggle over gay marriage is but the most recent chapter in that longstanding American argument.

The words that started the current controversy were written by John Adams. In 1779, Adams almost single-handedly drafted the Massachusetts Constitution. It was passages from that document that the state's supreme court cited to support its decision to overturn all legal restrictions on same-sex marriage. "All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties," Adams wrote. "In fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

It is most unlikely, of course, that Adams had gay rights in mind. But like Jefferson's more famous formulation of the same message, Adams framed the status of individual rights in absolute and universal terms. Certain personal freedoms were thereby rendered nonnegotiable, and any restrictions on those freedoms were placed on the permanent defensive. At the very birth of the republic, in effect, an open-ended mandate for individual rights was inscribed into the DNA of the body politic, with implications that such rights would expand gradually over time.

In 1848, for example, the women at Seneca Falls cited Jefferson's magic words to demand political equality for all female citizens. In 1863 Lincoln referred to the same words at Gettysburg to justify the Civil War as a crusade, not just to preserve the Union, but also to end slavery. In 1963 Martin Luther King harked back to the promissory note written by Jefferson to claim civil rights for blacks. Now the meaning of the mandate has expanded again, this time to include gay and lesbian couples wishing to marry. With all the advantages of hindsight, it now seems wholly predictable that America's long argument would reach this new stage of inclusiveness.

Are Adams and Jefferson rolling in their graves? This is not just a rhetorical question, since opponents of same-sex marriage are sure to argue that neither man intended his words to be interpreted as a sweeping endorsement of gay rights. While such opponents would be historically correct, their argument would also apply to civil rights for blacks and, at least in terms of Jefferson, to voting rights for women. A literal enforcement of their original intentions, in short, would necessitate rolling back a full century of liberal reforms now broadly regarded as beyond debate.

But the open-ended character of their language on individual rights is a crucial clue to a more relevant version of their original intentions. Both Adams and Jefferson regarded the American Revolution as a long-term experiment to test the limits of personal freedom. Present at the creation, they did not want to place any cap on the potential achievement of the experiment in the future. Jefferson was particularly eloquent in urging each new generation to interpret his famous words anew. Adams was a more cautious revolutionary, emphasizing way stations on the road forward to allow time for popular opinion to catch up with jarring changes. He may well have favored civil unions as a sensible compromise in the current furor.

Most important, the way they framed the question gave great advantage to the side in favor of expanding the scope of individual rights. Notice, for example, that recognizing gay marriage will not require a constitutional amendment, but blocking it will. And the founders made passage of a constitutional amendment very difficult indeed. Our debate over gay rights has just begun, so it would be foolish to predict all the legal and political contortions that lie ahead. If history is a guide, however, everyone who has bet against the expansive legacy has eventually lost.

Joseph J. Ellis is the author of "Founding Brothers."

[Pharmboy]

Although Ellis makes some interesting points here, his argument falls down for me because the Founders DID discuss slavery and women in society, but never would have even CONSIDERED legal marriage between homosexuals as being "on the table."

What other holes in his argument do other Freepers see?

(And, BTW, I really enjoyed Founding Brothers)

[longtermmemmory]

It also fall down because he is assuming the constitution GIVES rights.

The amendment codifies what exists it take nothing away but keeping polygamists, homosexuasl, necrophiliacs, incetuous, animals sex people OUT of marriage.

Marriage is also NOT an INDIVIDUAL right, it is a PUBLIC INSTITUTION.

They are trying to phrase it as a ban when in fact it is not a homosexual ban. It is saying what marriag IS. and affirmaitve act. It is not saying anying about homosexuals (or polygamists or pedophiles etc.)

OF course this is from the NYT.

Why is that rag still finding money fo publishing?

[KC Burke]

Ellis knows better.

Volumn after volumn, Adams adheres to "ordered liberty" and proposes constructs of constitutions to frame the same.

I refer to such phases used in introductions of framing documents as "animating" -- clauses that explain that we build from our liberties, not from revolution alone. We aren't inventing something, we are claiming what is established.

[AmericaUnited]

It also fall down because he is assuming the constitution GIVES rights.

The founding fathers believed our inalienable rights came from God, the Creator. The creator has declared very plainly that homosexuality is an ABOMINATION. What is there to be confused about here?

[Always Right]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . "

A few things are more self-evident as marriage is between a man and a woman.

[stopem]

Thats exactly correct, that passage of inalienable "RIGHTS"
could be interepreted in many different ways that is exactly why we passed FEDERAL LAWS that DEFINED WHAT THOSE RIGHTS ARE!!!

Folks, look at haiti and the rioting, looting, killing all blamed on political unrest, (thats what the g/l "marriages" looked like to me in SF = FreakShow.) There is rioting, killing etc in haiti because there are no LAWS to protect their citizens!!!!!

If the GOP doesnt take an extremely FIRM STAND NOW and stop this lawlessness NOW and enforce ALL LAWS and that includes keyword, ILLEGALS from entering our country and stop companies from employing them ILLEGALLY and STOP g/l MARRIAGES we will be a country like haiti is!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Condor51]

My daughter got a goldfish yesterday from a friend - I kind of 'like it' a lot. It likes me too, I can tell. Can I take it to SF and get married?

[longtermmemmory]

Note how every single person advocating homosexual marrige ignores children. They are INTENTIONALLY working to exclude children from marriage.


They are making "family" be just sex partners.


Not sacrifice to raise children. Just commitment as longs as the other person gets you to pop an orgasm.

No providing to ourselves and our posterity. its jsut providing to our sexual satisfaction.

[cynicom]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

Lincoln and the author got this wrong. "to be self evident" are the words of Ben Franklin, not Jefferson.

[longtermmemmory]

Which is why the AG is pushing for the courts to decide this. As long as judges decide they they can social engineer based on their socialist models.

Some of these judges HAVE NEVER WORKED A DAY IN THEIR LIVES.

Heck if I want to get a work I would not have gone into law. (ha ha)

[Avenger]

Here is my question: Where should we stop and why? If we allow gay marriage then what reasons do we have to not allow marriage between father and son or mother and daughter or brother/brother and sister/sister? If we allow gay marriage then why not marriage between groups of people or between man (or woman) and animal? What about bigamy and polygamy?

I once brought up the marriage between man and animal to a proponent of gay marriage and this person told me that it was fundamentally wrong only because the animal could not consent. I asked that person if her pet labrador had consented to being her pet. She was silent.

I am wondering if there are any nice benefits tax benefits, etc. that one could gain by marrying oneself. Perhaps some people need to go up to San Francisco and see how far they can push this thing?

[patriot_wes]

"Are Adams and Jefferson rolling in their graves?"

I wish that America still had such Patriots as these, but alas "all we like sheep......"

[gitmo]

Bump for later read. Looks interesting.

[Always Right]

They are making "family" be just sex partners. Not sacrifice to raise children. Just commitment as longs as the other person gets you to pop an orgasm.

Yep, and children are the reason we provide marriage couples with certain benefits. Two gay guys are not dependant upon each other like a child and a stay home mom are.

[buridan]

"Notice, for example, that recognizing gay marriage will not require a constitutional amendment, but blocking it will." That's true only after judicial activists have made the Constitution 'live.' Previously, one would have said the reverse.

[ChadGore]

IMHO, the whole comparison, womens sufferage, slavery, civil rights, are based on attributes the oppressed were not in control of.

Women couldn't change how they were born, african americans could not change how they were born, and the same can not be said of same sex marriage.

Only a liberal could look at a constitution written by John Adams and see strap-ons.

[metesky]

Ellis knows better.

Of course he does, but most sheeple have already for gotten that he's a proven, confessed liar.

[abclily]

The homosexuals cannot have the word marriage. Marriage is for opposite-sex couples. The homosexuals will just have to come up with a new name for their arrangements. Anybody can make legal contracts for partnerships. There is no need of the homosexuals trying to hijack marriage. Let them draw up their legal contracts and call themselves 'contracted' instead of 'married'.

[mvpel]

But like Jefferson's more famous formulation of the same message, Adams framed the status of individual rights in absolute and universal terms. Certain personal freedoms were thereby rendered nonnegotiable, and any restrictions on those freedoms were placed on the permanent defensive.

Then why is it, in Massachusetts, that I can be sent to jail for a year for the so-called offense of carrying a firearm with which to defend my life and obtain my safety?

[Drango]

Neither Adams or Jefferson contemplated that the courts would decide this issue.