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.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA needle-nosed moralizer. I bet you think that cannibal in Germany and his friend/meal were pretty cool.
That's a load of crap, The government engages in regulation of marriage for revenue purposes, it government was truly interested the future of society through regulation they would A) not make it so easy to divorce, B) not tax married couples higher than non-married people, and C) not legalize the murder of fetuses (read: the future).
"That is, the society establishes an ideal environment for the raising of the next generation of citizens."
Is this the same society that murders a million citizens yearly prior to their birth?
By the way, how would the openly gay couple living down the block having the ability to marry one another impact my marriage, or my enviroment for raising my kids?
"A 'homosexual' couple will never be the best environment for children"
I love it!!!
It's the "it takes a village" argument!!!!!
"People are supposed to marry the person they love, not the person you approve of."
"So if you love your goat you should be allowed to marry it?"
Do I need to detail the difference between a person and a goat?
"What about if you love your two-year old?"
Of course I love my two year-old, but I don't see a whole lot of parents out there demanding the right to marry their two year-old kids...do you?
"Now you will probably respond that neither of those examples are valid because they are not mentally capable of entering into a marriage contract."
No, neither are capable of entering into ANY contracts, be they with a credit card company, or a recording company.
"What about your severely mentally disabled friend?"
Do they have legal standing to enter into contractual agreements?
"Or perhaps the guy who lives in the group home down the street who thinks he's Napoleon. What?"
Has he met his Josephine?
"They aren't capable either? What about the person who struggles with severe depression or paranoia? Still not capable?
Let me put your ridiculous "what ifs" into proper perspective, you are in effect arguing that since some people will commit violent crimes with guns, no one should have a gun.
Sound familiar to you?
I know that the rabbis today do not recognize it. I'll have to check and see if it is overruled by the rest of the torah and scriptures.
Of course this is beside the point as we were talking Bible and not Jewish scripture. (As I understand it there is another body of writings that they also follow. More of a interpretation of how the law is to be applied. Any Jewish Freepers out there who can clarify for me?)
me->"The bible clearly states that those who practice homosexuality are to be destroyed (OT)."
You->In other words, when it comes to civil rights, for instance the right not to be killed because of something the Bible says, the law supports NOT following Biblical dogma.
More correctly stated as the Bible gives the civil authority the sword to enforce biblical principle and that those civil authorities are failing to do so. In the NT even though 'homosexuals' were recognized as still being abomination there is no command to destroy them. They are recognized as being curable however.
You have to look at the entirety of scripture before you can jump to such judgements as you make.
So then, what's the objection to same sex marriages, other than "we've never done this before"
Marriage is a covenent between one man and one woman. Not between two men. (For those who refuse to recognize the spiritual aspect of life,) Physiology rules here. Marriage is designed to provide the best environment for raising children. A 'same-sex marriage' will never meet that requirement. The practice of homosexual behavior is damaging to those who do it, those who are exposed to it, and to society as a whole. It should not be allowed let alone encouraged
It has nothing to do with what the Rabbis think, no one can engage in polygamy.
So then, marriage laws are not necessarily based on Biblical dogma.
As such, these laws are subject to challenges by individual citizens, and should be applied equally to all citizens with no distinction to sex.
Laws apply to individuals, not society.
And why is it important to protect the individual? because society is built on individuals. Society cannot afford to have a bunch of 'damaged' children conceived. So pains are taken to reduce the chance of that.
If society had no interest in healthy children then all incest laws would vanish instantly.
Laws do apply to individuals but laws are made for society's benefit. (I know of no law that benefits just individuals without a greater benefit to society as a whole. Can you name one?)
Then again, the Bible also demands that anyone who works on Sunday be put to death...are you in favor of that?
Homosexuals do not conceive children, so what "damaged children" are you talking about exactly?
And does your statement mean that you support a "woman's right to choose"?
I get it!
You are in favor of aborting that severely mentally retarded individual you mentioned in a previous post!
You would abort that guy who believes he was Napoleon!
What about a cleft pallate?
Abort them as well?
We have the ability to identify "damaged" children before they are born...kill them all in the name of "society"?
Laws protecting abortion "rights".
Holy Matrimony is a covenant, civil marriage is a legal contract.
Well, no... The Left may be imposing their moral codes more successfully than some other groups. But they're hardly the only ones trying to impose morality.
"Some" also consider that having handguns in your house can be detrimental to kids, should we outlaw guns as well?
By the way..."some" used to support miscegenation laws, did that make them right?
"Some" used to support Jim Crow laws, did that make them right?
Actually, the Bible records multiple wives, but it never supports it. David is warned not to accumulate wives or horses and Solomon pays a high price for accumulating wives. There are few other mentions of polygamy, but they are only mentioned, never condoned.
The definition of marriage as given in Genesis is one man and one woman. Jesus reaffirmed that definition as did Paul.
One can only justify polygamy via the Bible by ignoring much of the Bible. That is generally a bad way to read the Bible.
Shalom.
Laws apply to individuals in society.
Both must be maintained.
Shalom.
Luis, it would be easier to take you seriously if you could maintain the context of an argument. When John O. gives you the historical context of marriage, pointing to relatively recent changes in that context doesn't make his argument a "load of crap."
The same disease that has allowed our society to embrace queer sex also allowed our society to embrace abortion. In fact, (IIRC) many of those who argued against legalized abortion in the beginning were concerned it would lead to grosser immoralities such as homosexual marriage.
Shalom.
Just because the last generation twisted it doesn't mean that the original purpose ceases to exist. All of the issues you mention are things we need to roll back. All of them are immoral and anti-biblical. They are all contrary to the ideals of our founding fathers. They are 'bad law'
Is this the same society that murders a million citizens yearly prior to their birth?
Again bad law made by liberals. The same folk who are trying to force sexually deviant behavior down our throats
By the way, how would the openly gay couple living down the block having the ability to marry one another impact my marriage, or my enviroment for raising my kids?
Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse. Any children raised in that house will have a far greater likely hood of being social misfits, criminals, perverts etc. They will be more sexually promiscuous (at a younger age) then children rasied in a healthy household. They will have a greater incidence of mental disease (above and beyoind SAD). The damging effects go on and on.
Now lets assume that the 'gay couple' have no kids in their own household.
The chance that a typical 'gay' person will molest a child is something like 15-30 times more likely than a healthy person would. (Remember Jesse Dirkhising. Raped, tortured and murdered by a monagomous 'gay' couple). Even if these two do not molest, they will have friends over, resulting in your children being exposed to a greater and greater number of likely molesters.
It is highly likely (if they are men) that they will break up in two years or less. Domestic violence runs rampant in the 'homosexual' lifestyle. Your children are likely to be witnesses to language and activities that you don't want them to see (and which no child should see).
The concept of fidelity doesn't really exist in the 'gay' community. your neighbors will be bringing a stream of sicknesses through your neighborhood as they sleep around.
All in all they are not a good influence on your kids.
(Of course there plenty more bad effects listed in the databse. Follow scripters link and read up on it)
me->"A 'homosexual' couple will never be the best environment for children"
you->It's the "it takes a village" argument!!!!!
I'm totally at a loss here LG. How does recognizing that sexually perverse households are not the best environment for children equate to 'it takes a village'? Especially since the 'it takes a village' person is decidely pro-homo?
Every law imposes a morality on the one who would choose to break the law.
Don't be confused by the fact that you think some moralities are universally recognized without religion. All laws distinguish "right" from "wrong." Without an absolute moral standard, all notions of "right" and "wrong" can change with time.
All of them.
Shalom.
How can you possibly miss the entire point?
Let me lay it out for you clearly. People who practice homosexual behavior are mentally ill to the point where they cannot enter into contracts. They are no more able to enter the marriage contarct than a goat or a two year old.
(Disagree with or argue the facts if you must Luis but I've read some of your writing. You are much too intelligent to ignore things just to defend your point. This sort of twisting is far beneath what I've always thought of you. I'm disappointed)
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.