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.
I'm not swayed an inch by the tradition argument. Many traditions have been lost because they were contrary to human rights, fell out of favor, or just didn't fit anymore. Of course my favorite is that if the women doesn't prduce a child we can try another woman. I miss the old days. Besides my wife has some beautiful sisters.
What are you talking about? Marriage continues to be, as it has been for over a thousand years, defined as a union of one man and one woman. There is no fertility testing involved.
In certain instances, justice requires a secular government to eradicate a tradition. For example, the burning of wives upon a man's death was the tradition in India before the British jettisoned it. Beyond those rare instances, government rule should take great care not to disturb the customs of a people. I am surprised you do not believe in this principle. It helps to retain our liberty. Otherwise, governmental authority becomes too powerful when it becomes the sole arbiter of social structures.
Many traditions have been lost because they were contrary to human rights, fell out of favor, or just didn't fit anymore.
Which of these applies to the traditional definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman?
We know homosexuals are mentally ill, or more accurately, maladapted. They have heterosexual bodies that they want to use in non-heterosexal ways.
Whether that maladaptation goes so far as to say they can not enter contracts I can't say. What I can say is if they were healthy they would seek treatment, not tolerance.
As the psychiatrist said to John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind," you can't reason your way through a problem when the problem is in your mind.
Shalom.
Let's distinguish definition and purpose. Right now the definition is very clear, and the governmental purpose is very clear. Your proposed sterility testing muddies the definition. It also has no basis in tradition.
Another case of bad law. If the laws were written correctly, to reflect our founding fathers ideals and the truth that 'homosexuality' is a symptom of an underlying mental trauma then these people would be in therapy instead of in our faces
I subscribe to the rubber band theory of social change. If you pull a rubber band out to it's extreme limit and then let go it lands way back toward it's initial position only stretched out a little bit. I think there are extremists puching the homosexual agenda that you see posted here often. They are on the outside of what most people think is acceptable. However the discussion around there activities will result in some change in the way society looks at homosexuals.
When I was a kid homosexuals weren't supposed to work in the state department or the CIA etc because if our enemies found out they would blackmail them. How could they blackmail them, well they were supposed to stay in the closet and not be know as homosexuals.
Things changed a lot since then. I think all of us are looking at the question what are homosexuals asking for and which of it should be denied. When NAMBLA says sex with kids, that's an easy one. Kids need to be protected from adult manipulation and abuse until they can take care of them selves. But there are those who would deny homosexuals teaching jobs and so on.
To sum it up, some changes will be acceptable in the US and some will not.
The second area is the use of governmental power to deny legal status to some and not to others. As a republitarian I support limited governmental power and when it is used then it must provide the same to all.
You explained but provided no proof. I could explain that I am the rightful King of England but that wouldn't fly very far without my being able to prove it.
This example is meant to counter the argument that marriage is for procreation and therefore homosexuals cannot get married. But infertile heterosexuals can do so.
What about your son? definitely safer with a normal woman than with a SAD male
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?
Because the odds are so overwhelmingly in favor of the SAD also being a molester or having a 'friend' who is a molester and the costs are so great that the risk cannot be allowed
No we don't. I know sevarl homosexuals that are very well adapted. In fact I know none who are maladapted. I'll admit it's a small sample. Your first comment about mental illness reveals something weird about your position. Then you seemed to catch yourself.
Be careful on the homosexual sex stuu. You may know, if not from personal experience, that many heterosexuals engage in the same sexual positions and techniques as do homosexuals. There just seems to be one more option for many of us.
They are not married in the eyes of God. (at least not the Christian or Judaic God, or even in the eyes of the Islamic God) They are not married in the eyes of society.
The child is biologically related to only one of them. The other is an unrelated cohabitant.
The child is proof that one of them and an unnamed man who donated the sperm can have a child. "They" did not have a child.
Actually the odds of pedophilia by a homosexual or a heterosexual is quite low. Otherwise, we have a lot of kids not speaking up.
Stone cold serious. Our physiology is heterosexual. Any behavior contrary to that is the result of mental illness. There is no genetic or biological cause for this behavior. It is entirely chosen as a result of trauma. Heal the trauma and the behavior goes away. Therefore anyone exhibiting this behavior is operating under influence of a severe debilitating illness and should not be allowed to enter into contracts. They are just not capable of understanding them.
Now admittedly this particular disease mainly effects only one facet of their behavior but that one facet has been shown time and time again to bleed over into everything else.
To the mentally diseased ('homosexual') person, sex is everything they are.
I advocate a third way: pursue their happiness in relative private.
In most instances in our faces is uncalled for. Gay "marriage" is one of those. But we as individuals should be tolerant, certainly absolutely so about responsible private homosexual behavior.
Based on these stances, I think I can remain sort of neutral on what you say about therapy. I believe it to be irrelevant to the issues on these threads.
Your definition of mental illness is rare and I'm sure you can find someone to agree with you or perhaps some fringe author. People that can function in society, have a grasp of reality, and engage in everyday social intercourse are not mentally ill. They may also be democrats, but it's propaganda to apply the term mental illness to them.
I think my sister is crazy to marry who she married, but I really don't think she's mentally ill.
You are part of the clique here who can say anything about homosexuals and get away with it. As long as you have the protection of the owner.
In the interests of discussion, can you name one that:
During the slave years, the southernors kept the slaves from becoming powerful enough to fight for their own rights in part by destroying their families.
Once the blacks could form good family institutions they rose quickly to the point where they could demand their civil rights.
The dimocrats didn't like that, so they created "The Great Society" to destroy black families again. Now look where the blacks are (except conservative ones).
Shalom.
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.