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.
It has everything to do with what the rabbis think when you're talking about Jewish law.
If you're no longer talking about Jewish scripture and law than say so.
If you're talking about American constitutional law then no one can engage in 'same sex' marriage.
If you say why can't 'same sex' marriage be allowed then you have to say why intergenerational marriage or group marriage or interspecies marriage or incestual marriage or platonic but interested in finacial advantage marriage shouldn't be allowed also. The pedofiles are already following in the footsteps of the 'homosexuals' in trying to get their agenda approved.
So then, marriage laws are not necessarily based on Biblical dogma.
Disagree. You haven't proved this. The law in this country states that one man can marry one woman. Pure biblical precept
As such, these laws are subject to challenges by individual citizens, and should be applied equally to all citizens with no distinction to sex.
The laws are applied equally to all citizens without regard to sex. Every man is allowed to marry a woman and every woman is allowed to marry a man. No discrimination whatsoever.
And yet again read the entirety of scripture before you jump to conclusions. The apostles worked in Jesus' presence on the sabbath and he wasn't to concerned about it. Look it up and read what He said. It'll do you good. (also the bible says the sabbath, never says Sunday, The Jewish sabbath is Saturday)
In this particular sub thread of the discussion you were talking about a brother marrying a sister. Please try to keep up with your own arguments
(Are you OK? I remember you as much quicker than this back during the Elian days. What happened?)
You are in favor of aborting that severely mentally retarded individual you mentioned in a previous post!
Notice that I didn't say born as that would lead to the argument you made. Once the child is conceived it must be protected. We can prevent a damaged child from being conceived but we cannot prevent a damaged child from being born. We don't have that right.
Good job. Excellent example of a law that benefits the individual at the cost of society. I think we'd both agree that it is bad law and needs to be rolled back.
Abortion harms everyone it touches (Kind of like homosexuality and almost every other liberal idea)
Now can you think of a good law that benefits the individual without a greater or equal benefit to society?
In this country they are generally considered the same thing.
Excellent point ArGee. I was thinking how David was a man after God's own heart and yet had many wives. I guess that falls into God's permitting rather than approving.
You've listed a lot of peripheral issues that have arisen around marriage. But I don't think any of them are telling in terms of the criteria that should be used. There is already a perfectly sound definition - union of one man and one woman.
I don't blame gay couples for wanting to opt in to the same legal structures and of course they desire the same financial benefits. But that emphatically does not mean the definition should be changed.
And again, read the entirety of scripture before jumping to conclusions.
Jesus spoke to the woman at the well (who was living in sin) without sentencing her to death. Jesus spoke to the woman who was caught in the act of adultery without sentencing her to death. I guess He sees forgiveness and restoration as better then destruction. Good rule to follow.
What I would support is that the adulterer (or adulteress) lose everything in the ensuing divorce. Children, house, cars, all goods or finances belonging to the marriage. If you break the marriage covenant you lose everything (if the wronged spouse chooses not to forgive you)
Divorce should be in cases of adultery or provable abuse only.
That is profoundly ridiculous. Were anyone to exclude a practicing homosexual from entering into contracts on that basis, they would rightly be thrown into prison.
Now it may well be that homosexuals do more of this. My follow-up point was "what is the practical application of this information?" Is my daughter safer with a hetero or homo male teacher? Why do we paint all people in this category with this brush instead of saying people have individual rights and should be treated as individuals? Why do we paint everyone with the extremist label of the most extreme within their category? We don't do that with freepers do we? Does that mean we say all blacks are murders wince they commit more per capita than other groups.
I just read this. Are you serious or is this just sarcasm?
Of course, as God, His life is ours to take or save.
Divorce should be in cases of adultery or provable abuse only.
Ah, repealing no-fault divorce. I agree with that. The last thing we should be doing is weakening the institution of heterosexual marriage; we should instead be restoring its standards of fidelity and permanence.
Although in truth I personally don't use the bioligical argument when defending my stance against gay marriage, so I'm just nitpicking.
Must there be exactly two persons in a marriage?
Must they be over a certain age?
Must they be a certain genetic "distance" apart? (i.e., can they be brother and sister? Mother and son? First cousins? Second cousins?)
And can you perhaps summarize your basis for imposing these restrictions on marriage? In other words, why shouldn't the full legal status of marriage (even if we call it civil unions) be extended to any mutually consenting group of persons who wishes to acquire it?
Thanks.
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.