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.
Your use of the word "let" or "allow" is misleading. No liberties are being denied. The individuals are free to pursue happiness.
The state's definition of marriage, fixed for centuries, follows the traditional definition. The question is whether the state's definition should be changed. Why should it?
(Having an "alias" called civil unions is almost the same thing as changing the definition, if all legal structures of marriage apply to civil unions as a matter of principle.)
I certainly don't think my marraige or anyone else's is under attack because the women down the street got married. My marraige is strong and doesn't need defending from homosexuals.
My main concern is that I know this profound change will affect the next generations. I cannot predict what that change will be, but noone has yet enunciated a satisfying reason why the change is needed.
If such a law was proposed, I would debate against it, and the law would then be passed, or not. This is not what happened in my state (Massachusetts) - four people with robes "passed the law" - and I am very angry about that. Do you blame me?
The great majority of those who are strongly opposed to gay marriage are motivated by their religious beliefs.
All the "reasons" and "statistics" they cite are really just a cover to hide the true basis for their opposition. -WackyKat
I've got a statistic. Number of homosexual unions which has produced a child: zero. -NutCrackerBoy
What I meant was to highlight the original reason for government's involvement in marriage: to protect the children that naturally come from the sexual union of one man and one woman.
I personally don't use the bioligical argument when defending my stance against gay marriage. -mcg1969
I don't wish to quibble about artificial semination. A repeated fallacy of the anti-traditional-marriage folks is to cite individual exceptions as if they negate the broad sweep. Men and women procreate, and the state, for the good of civilization, involves itself. Without marriage law, chaos would likely have resulted from men abdicating their responsibilities to their wives and children.
The "biological argument" is a generalization yes, but a profoundly true and important one.
Not to be a buttinski, but it's rather convenient to base your argument on stats that "by definition" can not be accurate and therefore can not be verified.
I believe in G-d, but I don't base my arguments against homosexual marriage on that belief with atheists because G-d can not be verified.
Shalom.
I think the traditional argument which is commonly mentioned on these threads doesn't hold much sway. The age requirements and definition of marriage has changed over the years and in various cultures. Hard to rely on the good old days.
I also don't think I would agree that marriage is under "attack" because more people want to do it. Seem to me that's a good sign.
I take somewhat of a libertarian view, get governement out.
However, if government is in, then it would seem to be the obligation of those who want to exclude others to make their case, as opposed to the other way around.
Did you see the custody case in the news last week? One woman gave her eggs, which were carried by the other. Now they're both claiming to be the mother. Oftentimes I long for simplier days.
I don't deny this. I guess I should clarify and say that I don't use the specific biological argument that only a man and a woman can physically produce a child. Rather, I use the more general argument that the ideal family structure for the raising of a child is a stable marriage between a man and a woman. This argument certainly has a common-sense biological basis, but since it also has sociological and psychological support it still applies even when the purely bioligical does not---sperm donation, surrogate motherhood, adoption, and so forth (even cloning, if that ever becomes possible).
You may be interested in my promotion vs. prohibition argument, which I made in another thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032027/posts?page=497#497
You may not agree with the argument, of course :) But it illuminates my reasoning as to why it is at least legally acceptable for the government to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
Also note that the government is not just "discriminating" against gay couples with its marriage policy, but also incestuous couples and polygamous unions as well.
My point of the pedophilia stats is that people post them and they become reality here on the ole FR. When those who work with the problem are telling us thay dodn't know the real numbers, this LITTLE point needs to be made. It is intellectually dishonest to post numbers that you know are not accurate or thorough, without some disclaimer.
I think John O is out looking for his post proving homosexuals are mentally ill and incapable of entering into contracts. You don't have a comment on that little bit of info do you or are you just selective in your inquiry?
Thanx for the level-headed exchange.
You seemed to take the bait that the government could stop to blood related people from getting married/having kids because it would somehow intrude on your rights.
Then again 2 lesbians "father shopped" so that they could bias the odds at having deaf children (and got their evil wish). The government did not intrude in that wicked bit of child abuse.
Sounds like anarchist BS to me.
The law, precedent, and tradition all agree on what individuals are eligible for marriage or any legal equivalent. Those who want to change it have the greater obligation to state persuasively why the change is necessary.
But naturally it is also fair to ask why things are the way they are. That is very straightforward. I repeat my statistics:
Number of people on this planet born of heterosexual unions: billions and billions
Number of people born of homosexual unions: zero.
The idea that we are somehow beyond the need for the state to involve itself in the regulation of procreation is laughable. Marriage is the institution around which this regulation centers.
To stop excluding gay couples from the legal structures of marriage is tantamount to stating that, as a matter of principle, procreation is irrelevant to marriage.
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.