Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning

Matthew J. Franck argues at The Public Discourse that the Prop 8 federal ruling in California is "the nadir of absurdity." I've wondered, and not only in this case, what does it take a judge to do to warrant removal from the bench? Well, such reasoning doesn't come out of nowhere; it comes from some place, and has roots.

Comments

[Steve Nicoloso]

"the nadir of absurdity."

A nice line, but when your sliding down a wet hill in absolute blackness, the nadir is really only as far as you've yet gotten.

[Matt]

In the linked article, the author states, " ... conveys that palpable sense that one is being mugged by a progressive." Judge Vaughn Walker is also being called a "liberal activist" by Fox News. I don't think this ruling fits quite so neatly into the partisan narrative. Walker is actually a libertarian conservative and a Republican. He was initially nominated by Reagan. Concerns that he was "too conservative" delayed his nomination, and he was later, this time successfully, re-nominated by Bush 1.

If one really wants to protect marriage, wouldn't it be better to forbid divorce or to involve big government in adultery cases?

[Aleksei]

If one really wants to protect marriage, wouldn't it be better to forbid divorce or to involve big government in adultery cases?

Matt, you need to be honest about what this is--a judgment against the entire history of man up until this point. Thank God these people are here, otherwise, how would we know our ancestors were wrong about everything?

Besides--how can you think it possible to forbid or put any restrictions on divorce after this?

[Steve Nicoloso]

Walker is actually a libertarian conservative and a Republican. He was initially nominated by Reagan. Concerns that he was "too conservative" delayed his nomination, and he was later, this time successfully, re-nominated by Bush 1

Well, that settles it! Judge Walker must be correct in every judgement he makes!! How could Fox News have been so wrong?!

[Jane Beck]

I saw the comments that your leader Wendy Wright displayed the other day in a broadcast regarding the "gay marriage" on the program Hardball. It seems to me that she was displaying her own beliefs on gay marriage and imposing her morale point of view against gay marriage. She displayed ignorance and begotry in her comments and she looked like a fool who could not get away from her narrow minded comments about this subject. Who gave her the right to be the God almighty!NO ONE! I would think God would be offended by the self righteous attiutudes she was displaying. I would think also that God loves all his children no matter who they marry gay ior lesbian.I think your organization should go back to the BC era because you do not belong to this in this day and age thinking.

[Hoarfrost]

The government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether since they do not represent anyone of us on this issue. People need to register their domestic arrangements for tax purposes only. If a particular faith group who wishes to sanctify that relationship as a marriage then it is up to them to do so based on their belief system. We will then use more explanatory adjectives in general parlance to modify a persons marital status. (e.g. a traditionally sanctified Catholic marriage or a traditional sanctified Greek Orthodox marriage or a Common Law marriage, or a traditional Muslim marriage.)

[Aleksei]

Y'know, it's not a bad idea. I was just talking with two priests after Vespers, and that seemed to be the consensus. It's been a perfectly acceptable practice throughout Church history to have a civil marriage blessed by the Church. The Orthodox service for the blessing of a marriage is, in this case, the same as the full marriage service.

[Ken]

How can a state-issued marriage license be a fundamental right? And more so, how can it be a fundamental right, but then it is okay to "get the state out of marriage entirely"? That's a false compromise, and some of the people who want that end sound to me like the woman who told Solomon to go ahead and cut the baby in half.

I do believe in limited government. That's why I believe the state's main interest when it comes to voluntary personal relationships of this sort is a bride+groom pairing. It is the only kind of pairing that can naturally create new citizens who do not consent to the situation, and provide them with a legally bound role model from each of the two sexes who are in a cooperative union. Even presumably homosexual-since-conception children will grow up to deal with both sexes.

The state simply does not have the same interest in the pairing of two men or two women, and we'll regret asking it to get involved in such relationships.

Remember when it was an oppressive, patriarchal thing? Then it was "just a piece of paper"? And now it is a fundamental right that is supposedly necessary to make a same-sex couple happy. They've been miserable their whole lives, according to their testimony, waiting around for a judge to come along and make them happy. Now, magically, a judge's decision means we're all supportive of their actions and we don't see any difference between their pairings and kind of pairing that made all of us.

[AMereLurker]

"she was displaying her own beliefs on gay marriage and imposing her morale point of view"

And you are doing exactly what?

"I would think God would be offended by the self righteous attiutudes she was displaying."

One of the amazing things about God is that he's not offended in an either/or way. He can be offended by a Pharisee's self-righteousness (if indeed Wendy Wright harbors such an attitude) and he can be offended by homosexual sex acts and he can be offended by all sorts of other things that Scripture calls sin. Wendy Wright's alleged self-righteousness (and I do have to wonder, who put you in a position to judge *her*) doesn't make her wrong about the question anymore than an angry, provocative, and judgmental spirit means you are wrong in your view.

[Ian]

Ted Olson, from an interview on Fox, on why he thinks Vaughn Walker's decision was correct and why it does not count as an instance of judicial activism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwSprkiInE

[Chelie]

To Jane Beck:

Unless you refer to someone else with the same name, Wendy Wright is affiliated with Concerned Women for America, not FSJ or Touchstone magazine. You might take your comments to their website rather than to this one.

[Ian]

Social conservatives have already lost this battle and sooner or later they will realize the fact. They’ve as good as lost it already in the culture at large (and their rhetoric at best makes them look, at best, like cultured bigots). They’re going to lose it on the legal side too. Do not expect the supreme court to rule differently on this. If the individual citizen has a right to marry the person or his or her choice (which the court has already determined, as per Mr Olson, etc.), then federal constitutional protections beat state polls in cases like this. Loving vs. Virginia is the appropriate parallel. Religious conservatives can continue to dislike gay marriage and teach their children however they see fit, and of course no one should force religious institutions to sanctify gay marriages if they choose not to. But if this is “the end of western civilization” then I’m a monkey’s uncle; this is western civilization in action. The irony in all of this is that gay marriage actually affirms marriage itself as a valuable civil institution.

[AMereLurker]

Unfortunate as it is, I do agree that, in time, we will have SS marriage. That doesn't make it right or good. It does not in and of itself mark the end of Western Civilization, but, like abortion or no-fault divorce, it continues to erode the Judeo-Christian values of our culture.

Worse, where people seem quite literally hell-bent on doing everything precisely that opposite of what God has commanded, the results are never good. The longer we hold God in contempt, calling good evil and evil good, the more I fear the wrath of his judgment upon our nation.

[LUKE1732]

John FB,

If you're going to make a comparison of ickiness, it should be to something behavior-based.

This "gay is the new black" (or fat or old) meme is intellectually dishonest.

[c matt]

They’ve as good as lost it already in the culture at large

How is it we have lost on this issue in the culture at large, when every time the culture at large has been asked about (i.e., voted) we have won? The only time we have lost is precisely when the culture at large has NOT been consulted (i.e., courts).

Although, I do not quibble much with your prediction that the SCOTUS will get this as wrong as Walker, but I doubt it will be unanimous.

[MCModerator]

Since some people insist on violating the ground rules again in multiple ways, this thread is also being closed.

Read the Ground Rules -- they specifically state that complaints with how the site is moderated should be directed to Jim Kushiner, not posted as comments.

[Ian]

C Matt: A fair question. It's my own opinion, of course. But I suspect that recent votes, such as the one in California, represent a last gasp for the old order on this question. Many opinion polls in CA already suggest that if the vote were held again today, we may end up with a different result. Clearly, the trending on this issue has been moving in that direction a long time. My impression is that the younger generations tend to take a more "live and let live" position on social issues like gay marriage. Even if Prop 8 (and laws like it) survives for now, it won't last long. Another 10-15 years at the very most and it would be overturned by referendum.