Posted on 01/08/2012 12:46:11 PM PST by bkopto
One of my superstar former students, writing about his experience at one of our nation's premier law schools, sent me a note after reading my MOJ post on marriage, religious liberty, and the "grand bargain." Here is the text, with names removed to protect the innocent:
I had a first-hand experience with this reality in law school. One of my constitutional law professors taught the section of our course relating to same-sex marriage under the "inevitability" banner. I met with him in office hours later to talk to him about something else, but I brought up a question that I have been wrestling with: if the SSM advocates are right and opposition to SSM becomes analogous to racism in our society, what will happen to Catholics and others whose views on SSM cannot and will not change? Are they to be excluded from public office, political and judicial appointments, or places of trust and responsibility within private institutions (e.g., law firm partnerships)? I posed the question to him because I was curious to hear his response, since he is generally a kind and reasonable person who seemed open to other viewpoints.
His response was very disappointing, and it shook my confidence in him. He responded to me by saying something along the lines of: "Well, they [Catholics and others] will either have to change their views or be treated in the same way that white supremacists and the segregationist Senators were treated. They were excluded from the judiciary entirely for decades because of the South's views on race."
He evinced no sympathy for the traditional marriage position or those who hold it. They were to be relegated to the ash heap of history. He said all of this to me knowing full well (because I had foolishly just told him) that I was a Catholic who opposed SSM.
Is anyone prepared to say that the view expressed by the professor is merely a fringe opinion in the contemporary academy? Is anyone prepared to say that it is the view of only a small minority, or a minority at all, in what University of Virginia sociologist Jonathan Haidt calls the liberal tribal-moral community of contemporary academia? Would anyone deny that there is a significant element in the elite sector of the culture---an element with real power over the lives and careers of people like my former student---that wishes to penalize or discriminate against those who refuse in conscience to yield to the liberal orthodoxy on issues of sex and marriage? Consider the professor's own words. He made no effort to hide his goals and intentions. On the contrary, he made it abundantly clear that Catholics and others who persist in their dissent are to be treated the way we treat white supremacists. They are to be stigmatized, subjected to discrimination, and denied the right to hold certain offices.
And this professor, as my student observed, is a "generally a kind and reasonable person who seems open to other viewpoints." What are we to expect, then, from those who are even less "open to other viewpoints"?
I don’t think you quite understand what’s going on here. You need to grasp how the professor could so calmly and cooly say what he said and not realize how chilling its implications are.
The professor is probably correct in his prediction. This situation will come about because legal positivism triumphed in America beginning with Oliver Wendell Holmes ca. 1900. Legal positism believes that “the law” is simply what people declare it to be, that Law is not limited by perennial principles or natural law principles. That’s why already in the 1980s Robert Bork was borked over “natural law” and Clarence Thomas was almost borked. Believe in unchangeable natural law principles is anathema to legal positivists.
The legal positivists have won the war over the various sexuality issues and they are in control. Believers in natural law and unchangeable principles and inalienable rights are the only remaining threat to their “might makes right”victory. In legal positivism, those in power make laws, and no one can rightly or intelligently or credibly reject such “already-made” laws because they violate natural law.
The professor’s matter-of-factness is illuminating—he just takes it for granted that the shift from heterosexual-only marriage to “marriage is whatever one proclaims it to be” has taken place, it’s a fact, it’s positive (enacted) law or inevitably will be. To claim that marriage has some intrinsic, perennial, natural meaning is meaningless to the legal positivists. They are, pure and simply, might-makes-right believers.
Those who believe otherwise are simply destined to become outlaws. They have no moral “right” to complain and should not expect sympathy as being persecuted for their beliefs. If law and right is whatever we say it is, then those who disagree should accept that as simple fact. If they choose not to accept it, it’s their own fault and they are to blame for their own persecution.
To reply, as you did, with natural law principles is right, yes, indeed. But it’s meaningless to the professor. Really and truly meaningless. We need to grasp this if we are to understand what we are up against.
The professor is in the minority in raw terms. But his views are dominant among the Ruling Class. Really. Truly. And he knows it. Which is why he was so matter-of-fact and unempathetic about it.
THAT is what we are up against.
Sorry, but to the Ruling Class, the Constitution is infinitely malleable. You can know it and appeal to it all you want. But they hold the power and they are cold as ice about Might Makes Right.
We can and must try to turn things around electorally. We can and must try to turn things around by argument, by reaching the minds and hearts of the vast middle.
But we should have no illusions about what we are up against. The Ruling Class for decades has operated by “might makes right” (legal positivism). This is as true of the old Blue Blood/Country Club GOP Establishment as it is of the Democrats. That’s why the Blue Blood Repubics hated the Reaganites (including especially the Catholic Reaganites, converts to the party).
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Gulags and re-education camps for those whose religions faith condemns immorality and perversion - not too far off. Unless those of us on the right side develop more courage and fighting spirit.
yeah, I want to quit except I can’t.
I want off the merry go round. It seems to me that if you are a Christian, and a Catholic, everything should get better not worse. However, I am God’s puppet. I have to follow His will as best I can discern it. I am very different from my neighbors.
This is why the Bible says “love the family of believers”. ‘Love your enemies”. It does NOT say love everybody.
Indeed. Thanks for the ping, dear sister in Christ!
AMEN! Perfectly put rashputin!
I’m with Biggirl. I think it won’t be long now when sane and good people are shoved against the wall so much that change will come. Troubles, and change. I mean real change, for the better. As my tagline says.
Unfortunately you are spot on.Say anything publically,that isn't outright glorious praise towards homosexuals and you can pay dearly.
Even the typical Aussie male,who used to consider 'poofter bashing' almost as a right of passage,is now tentative talking about it and very quickly apologetic when something unsavoury about homos slips out.
I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "not that there's anything wrong with that" when homosexuality is discussed,either privately or publically.
The media here is either $*#t scared of,or in full agreement with, the gay-lobby.
For a lot of Aussies,Christianity and practically anything alse religious is looked upon as a sort of leprosy.
That;s how I'm seeing it FWIW.
This article isn’t surprising to me in the least. Many people equate anti-homosexual beliefs to be the same thing as racism. If you want to know where that leads, just study the civil rights movement. These people want to use the full force of government, federal, state, and local, to squash opposition, because that is what they did before.
Citizens might be permitted to believe what they want in the privacy of their own homes, but anyone opposed to the homosexual agenda who dares express that opinion will be ostracized. Anti-homosexual public expressions will be deemed hate speech, and no one will be permitted to discriminate against homosexuals in any way, constitutionally protected religious exceptions notwithstanding.
This is what happened for black civil rights, and this is what the left plans for the homosexual rights movement. The legal precedents have already been set.
To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Fascinating...I have a problem with apocalyptic prophecies in general, I’ll have to look more specifically at this one.
5 posted on Sun 18 Dec 2011 11:15:46 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)
I say it’s going to be worse than anything we’ve experienced: heterosexuals will have to submit to participating in gay sex once a month as a sign of their allegiance and solidarity to sexual diversity. It will be paying like union dues. The Catholic Church will have died and in its place will be the Church of the Anus, worshiping a god — Orifice Rex — who jumped out, fully formed from somebody’s rear end.
As proof, if my memory is correct, late last year, on news reports, gun sales were very high, that does say something as well as send a warning signal.
The question needs to be asked.
Do we go quietly or not?
I fear we are getting closer to that time where it must be asked.
You've been reading way too much Tim LaHaye. That's fiction, not reality.
Authentic Christianity will be driven underground within one-two decades in America. Our role today is to prepare our children to such a life.
As I have said, a second American revolution down the road, make no doubt about it.
Editing: “a second American revolution will happen” down the road.
I can envision the people watching Noah build the Ark saying the same thing. You’re not in good company.
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.