By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
-Gary North, “The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right,” (Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, Number 1, Spring, 1982)
In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S 1 (1967), the Supreme Court held that Virginia’s prohibition of interracial marriage violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The freedom to marry,” wrote Chief Justice Warren, “has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” 366 U.S. at 12. Many people were hoping that the Court would formally accord that status to same-sex marriage last month. But it did not happen. Edith Windsor will receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax refunds from the federal government, but the Court did not find it necessary to address the issue of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, and elected not to do so. United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013).
While that central constitutional issue remains unresolved, opponents of same-sex marriage are on the move. The Freedom Federation, a coalition of civil and religious right-wing organizations ranging from Americans for Prosperity to Wallbuilders, has issued a pre-emptive strike in the form of a signed letter declaring that “the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage… .” The letter, which can be found on the Freedom Federation website, asserts that should the Court grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage, it “will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role,” and concludes with the vaguely ominous warning that “this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”
We have witnessed in recent years an increasing willingness by state legislatures to adopt nullification statutes, facially unconstitutional but politically potent. Now the religious right has determined to extend the nullification doctrine to the judicial branch, employing the language of religious freedom to hide a theocratic dominionist vision of government and society.
In 2004 and again in 2005, legislation known as the Constitution Restoration Act was introduced in both the House and the Senate. If adopted, the act would have stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider any case challenging the acknowledgment of God as a source of law by any federal, state or local governmental unit. The act would have also mandated impeachment for any violation. The legislation did not make it out of committee, but its intention was crystal clear: the rejection of the secularist notion of separation of church and state.
The drafting of the statute was largely the work of Herb Titus, a lawyer who served as the first dean of the law school at Regent University and who famously represented Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama jurist removed as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for his refusal to comply with a federal court order compelling the removal from the courthouse rotunda of a monument to the Ten Commandments.
The failure of the attempted legislative assault on established jurisprudence construing the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, combined with the pronounced hatred of the LBGT community by many religious fundamentalists, virtually guaranteed that something resembling the Freedom Federation letter would emerge when it did. The co-author of the letter is Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. In March of this year, Liberty Counsel welcomed the Florida Faith & Works Coalition to its member organizations. The Coalition represents approximately 600 conservative pastors engaged in promoting universal Christian dominionism. From its website: “Subduing and having dominion over all the earth commands responsibility over the entire animate and inanimate world including the moral values that form the basis of society. We affirm that, historically, America was established as a Christian nation and its policies were based on biblical principles. The guardian of those biblical principles has always been His church. And His church, in recent history, has passively abdicated its guardianship responsibility.”
The arguments in the Freedom Federation letter are boldly theocratic. First, it is urged that marriage solely between a man and a woman is mandated by “natural moral law,” a product of reason. But it approaches natural law in the same manner that Justice Scalia approaches the Constitution, as a rigid and dead body of law. (It also fails to identity which system or systems of natural law it endorses, but that’s another topic.) The truth is that our understanding of natural law theory and of the Constitution have evolved precisely because reason evolves as it is informed by knowledge and experience.
The letter next asserts that natural moral law is “affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by Christian teaching,” thus adding the biblical foundation for the treatment of marriage between a man and a woman as divinely ordained and not subject to expansion or modification by positive law. This is not only an argument against a secular view of marriage; in accordance with dominionist theology, it is also a rejection of religious pluralism.
Finally, the letter claims that same-sex marriage, once legitimized, will inevitably lead to its compulsory recognition by Christians, thereby undermining freedom of religion and conscience. This position is demonstrably absurd, of course, since no religious sect has ever been compelled to grant sacramental status to any marital union that conflicts with its own doctrinal requirements. And in the eyes of the law, no marriage has ever required religious approval as a condition of legitimacy.
Fundamentalist Christians must recognize by now that they are losing the battle against the ultimate acceptance of same-sex marriage. But they are also patient and vigilant. The Freedom Federation letter is a reminder that the preservation of secular government and religious freedom will also require patience and vigilance.
DavidM: On the contrary, I object to abortion because I consider it a person, and I do not think one person has the right to end the life of another person without very good reason.
Unlike some others here, I do not subscribe to the idea that “birth” is some magical transformation from non-personhood to personhood; that makes no sense to me at all. Stepping through a doorway cannot change me from a person to a non-person; my personhood should not be conditional upon my geographical location. I think my personhood (and yours, and anybody’s) is an inherent property of my functioning brain. Not my potential, not my location in space, and not the mundane and (to me) irrelevant fact that I once made a 24-inch trip down a birth canal (or that some made a zero-inch trip to the air by means of a C-section).
To me birth does not involve any magical transformations. To me the normally developed fetus is in fact a person at least a month before being born; and perhaps a few months longer. I do not think their rights need to be defined, the rights of persons are already defined; what needs to be done is balancing the rights of the mother and infant. To me, neither automatically prevails over the other.
Tony C wrote: “… I object to abortion because I consider it a person…”
For a vitalist biologist, there is more involved than a trip through the birth canal, but I understand your point for a mechanist.
So how do you propose defining when that person comes into existence?
I don’t consider the human brain developed until adulthood, a substantial number of years after birth, so using the brain seems problematic to me.
How can we evaluate viability while the unborn is still in the womb? Do we just use the shortest gestation period on record? How can the law get a grasp on this issue?
Tony C wrote: “… not the mundane and (to me) irrelevant fact that I once made a 24-inch trip down a birth canal …”
Even from a strictly empirical approach, it really is more than the trip through the canal. The umbilical cord is cut, severing nutrient supply from the mother. Lungs begin to function and breath enters the child for the first time. Blood becomes much more highly oxygenated. Eyes open and significant brain activity increases. There truly is a significant degree of independence created at the moment of birth.
I don’t think religion should play any part in making our laws. However, a significant group of people in our country use religion to form the basis for their political affiliation and ideology. Therefore, it is sometimes useful to communicate with them on their own terms. In my opinion, nothing in the Bible compels Christians to oppose abortion or marriage equality. Therefore, we should promote personal liberty by allowing individuals to make their own decisions regarding same.
Juliet,
I think your comment is exactly correct, except for one minor detail. Instead of “breath” in the present or past tense, my view is more toward viability to take a breath. In other words, the capability of the fetus to live outside the womb, and that of course implies breathing. Up until that point it is not a baby in the true sense of the word, but a parasite living off the mother’s ability to breathe.
The anti-abortion crowd has done a pretty good job with the use of some of the propaganda techniques described by Gene in his excellent series on the subject. I remember seeing some literature and a film back in the late 1960s. It was produced by some anti-abortion group. The material emphasized that presenters must be careful with their use of language and framing the definitions of words so as to be emotionally loaded. Dr. Frank Luntz has made a decent living off his skillful ability to help the right wing frame debate through the use of catch phrases.
Notice in this comment I have avoided the use of “pro-life” because I think that is a lie. It is “forced pregnancy and birth” rather than pro-life. Some of the most staunch supporters of this position are against funding free health care for pregnant women, and are trying to cut funds for programs such as WIC and post-birth health care for the children and mothers. There is a concerted effort to destroy Planned Parenthood, despite the fact a huge portion of PP’s budget is for prenatal and other preventative programs.
It is really about power and control, the lifeblood of the authoritarian, paternalistic personality who is drawn to issues such as this.
I agree, OS. I am about as anti-abortion as a person can get, while still being pro-choice, so I never had one. Whether someone else has an abortion is entirely her business, and in my opinion, nothing in the Bible compels me to act in such a way to cause that choice to be limited. If the “pro-life” folks really were in favor of life, they’d want children fed, housed, educated and born into families who really wanted them. Birth control would be free and available at any pharmacy. Sterilization would be easily obtained, on demand.
Juliet wrote: “I am about as anti-abortion as a person can get, while still being pro-choice, so I never had one.”
You might like to know that many people who identify as “pro-life” has had an abortion. In some ways it seems like dealing with their guilt is what causes them to become pro-life.
Juliet wrote: “If the “pro-life” folks really were in favor of life, they’d want children fed, housed, educated and born into families who really wanted them.”
Many of them are involved with all of that, along with adopting an enormous number of unwanted children. Their dedication sometimes astounds me.
Juliet wrote: “Birth control would be free and available at any pharmacy. Sterilization would be easily obtained, on demand.”
Ugh. You just went off the deep end here. One reason that life is considered sacred is because we cannot produce it. Treating life and the ability to create life with such flippant disrespect is repulsive to me. It is especially objectionable that you would force me as a taxpayer to help others participate in things I find unconscionable.
I do not understand what the problem is with the concept that if somebody wants to do these things, let them pay for it. Why is it so important to you that they are free? If you want it to be free, create your own non-profit charities to which you and others who think like you do can contribute. Then let them get it free from these charities. Please have just a little bit of respect for someone who thinks differently from you.
David: I haven’t been the slightest bit disrespectful, but you seem to be incapable of being anything but. Frankly, much of what you post is idiotic and offensive, yet we continue to extend you the courtesy of responding. It is the height of stupidity to claim babies shouldn’t be aborted, yet make it difficult to impossible for women to avoid getting pregnant.
Juliet N wrote: “It is the height of stupidity to claim babies shouldn’t be aborted, yet make it difficult to impossible for women to avoid getting pregnant.”
It is not stupidity but respect for life that leads a person to favor that which promotes life. The common thread of logic is that nature leads adults to reproduce and that interfering with nature by blocking the reproductive ability of women is contrary to nature and therefore discordant with the path that nature would lead a person. Therefore, it is not what is best for the individual making the errant decision to block her reproductive ability; it is not what will lead to her best happiness and sense of fulfillment in life.
Women should embrace their natural ability to give birth as a wonderful virtue. Children are a wonderful gift of life. Actions which block life, whether contraception or abortion, should not be embraced lightly. Nevertheless, if someone insists on being able to do it, then I don’t think the law should prohibit them. In the same way, however, I don’t think the law should force me and others who object to be involved with this anti-life decision. From my perspective, this seems like a fair and equitable way to establish the law, whereas your proposal for free contraception forces a segment of society to be complicit with something they perceive to be immoral.
Having people pay for their own contraception does not make it difficult or impossible for them. Lots of women do it just fine. Apparently it costs less than $10 a month at Target. Is that really an unbearable burden to someone intent on taking this path? I would say that not only is it possible, it is really easy. Charities can accommodate any that might have difficulty with it. Hopefully other charities will persuade them not to take the anti-life path.
David: “Having people pay for their own contraception does not make it difficult or impossible for them. Lots of women do it just fine. Apparently it costs less than $10 a month at Target. Is that really an unbearable burden to someone intent on taking this path? I would say that not only is it possible, it is really easy. Charities can accommodate any that might have difficulty with it. Hopefully other charities will persuade them not to take the anti-life path.”
It’s not just $10 a month to get birth control. It’s also an initial doctor’s appointmen, plus follow-ups to adjust medication or be fitted for a device. Not all types of birth control — the “cheap” pills, for instance — are medically appropriate for everyone. And, believe it or not, there isn’t always a Target or Walmart around to fill prescriptions.
For instance, I live in rural Kentucky and I am uninsured because a chronic illness prevents me from working. My husband cares for me and our three special needs children. The doctor’s office in my small town charges $170 for an appointment. The pharmacy is locally owned and their prices are quite high. We have to carefully plan our trips to the grocery, each month, because an extra, unplanned one is a budget-buster. Even $10 extra would be a big deal. There are no “charities” in this area that pay for birth control. At this point, we are self-sufficient and receive no government money. Are you seriously saying that it is in society’s interest, in my best interest, and the best interest of my already born children, that I have another baby? Are you so intellectually challenged as to be unable to see that the government will already have to support my other three kids, when I’m gone, so providing me with a few doctor’s visits and $30-40 prescription each month isn’t just financially prudent, it’s a moral imperative?
I’m going to ignore the rest of that drivel you spewed. It’s not worth responding to.
Juliet N wrote: “At this point, we are self-sufficient and receive no government money.”
I know you don’t want to talk with me, but I do wonder this: if you are self-sufficient and able to get along fine without government money, why would you assume that others would require government assistance in the form of free contraception? Why not take the attitude that if you can do it with all your difficulties and disadvantages, then so can others?
Don’t get me wrong. There are some people in society who need a subsidy because they are unable to hold a job. But the fact that more than 50% of our population now is receiving some kind of government subsidy, and about half the country does not pay any income tax, well, it is getting a bit out of control IMO. It is especially disconcerting when we hear every week about some government spending abuse. If it continues, we will start to look like Detroit. It is not sustainable.
If you are interested, consider the following analysis:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/2012-index-of-dependence-on-government
David: I opened the door to my personal life. It is reasonable to expect you might have a question. The answer is that I don’t actually need contraceptives, since I had that remedied prior to losing my insurance. However, I very nearly rescheduled my surgery because I was ill and, had I done so, I would now need assistance to keep from becoming pregnant, again. It takes all of my considerable intelligence and resourcefulness to manage as well as we do, and I am fortunate the most important of my many medications is covered by the manufacturer’s assistance program. However, my health is not what it could be, and I will continue to be unable to work, because I don’t have access to the medical care I need. It’s a shame. So many people could actually leave government programs like SSI and SSDI, if they had access to medical care. So many women could be productive workers and better parents to the children they already have, if they had easy, inexpensive access to birth control.
If you’re arguing abortion rights from a religious perspective, perhaps you might look at this excerpt from joeschwartz.net on what the Bible says about when life begins:
The bible tells us when a fetus becomes a living being. Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath. After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath. In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.” In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.
According to the bible, destroying a living fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being. One can not kill something that has not been born and taken a breath. This means that a stillborn would not be considered a human being either. Of course, every living sperm has the potential of becoming a human being although not one in a million will make it; the rest are aborted.
God has decreed, for one reason or another, that at least one-third of all pregnancies shall be terminated by a spontaneous abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy and that a number will be terminated after the first trimester. It would appear that God does not have any more regard for the loss of a fetus than he does for the loss of a placenta or a foreskin despite the fact that these were living tissue as the result of conception.
In a number of versions of the bible, one of the commandments in Exodus 20 that was spoken by God to Moses states: “You shall not kill”. According to the Mosaic text, this should read “You shall not murder” since the bible has commandments stating that people shall be put to death for a number of different offenses. Exodus 21:17 states: “Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death.” There are other capital offenses in Exodus 21. Of course, the commandment “You shall not kill” is not present in the commandments written by God on the stone tablets. For those who are not familiar with the commandments on the stone tablets that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant, they are enumerated in Exodus 34. The popular ten commandments that are enumerated in Exodus 20 were spoken by God to Moses who then relayed them to his people; they were never written.
There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.
DavidM: Using the same kind of logic that Tony did, I could make a strong case that pro-life people also are pro-choice,
That is true, and illustrates the dilemma: The political labels do not capture the pragmatics of the political positions; they are mis-matched. 78% of people are NOT absolutely pro-life in all circumstances. I would bet 78% of people are NOT absolutely pro-choice in all circumstances; I certainly am not.
When talking about a political label, “pro-life” as you use it does not indicate an absolute belief; and “pro-choice” does not indicate an absolute belief. At one extreme, I do not believe a woman should have the right to abort a normally developed fetus that would survive outside the womb without assistance (other than standard care such as nutrition and warmth).
But until the fetal brain has developed a functioning brain-stem, reflexes and cortex, I do not regard it as a “person” under the law, therefore I don’t think it has any rights.
This depends on your definition of “person,” we do not grant rights to the clumps of human cells we kill on a daily basis. Just being alive and having human DNA does not make a clump of cells a “person;” a drop of blood is not a “person,” a muscle biopsy can be a visible chunk of living flesh but it is not a “person,” a tumor can be a living, growing fist-sized ball of human flesh, but it is not a “person.”
A definition of what is a “person” is central to any argument that refers to fetal rights.
Tony C wrote: “A definition of what is a “person” is central to any argument that refers to fetal rights.”
I do not think that even a baby in the third trimester with a heart and substantial brain activity should be labeled a “person” while in the womb. It would be more appropriate to define it as a potential human being with certain rights that should be defined.
You seem to agree with the idea of viability granting some rights to the fetus. You object to abortion at that point, but you would not consider it a person, right?
DavidM: You assume the unborn has “rights,” but rights go to persons, so that assumption rests upon your contention that a fetus is already a legal person, which is far from established.
Why is that an assumption? We require humans to have a considerable amount of brain function to be considered a living “person” with a right to life; there is a significant period of time between conception and a fetus getting anywhere near that state. In particular, it needs a functioning brain stem (and not just a heart beat).
Tony C wrote: “You assume the unborn has “rights,” but rights go to persons, so that assumption rests upon your contention that a fetus is already a legal person, which is far from established.”
As I have said many times before, I do not believe that a human person exists at the moment of conception. Many people do think that way, however, and it forms the basis for their position on abortion.
Regardless of the fact that you and I agree on this point about personhood, I do think it would be appropriate for the law to acknowledge rights that belong to a potential person. Just as children are not afforded the same rights as adults (e.g., the right to contract), in like manner it would be appropriate to define a different subset of rights for the unborn. In Roe v. Wade, this is what they attempted to do by defining that the mother’s right to choose to abort the fetus superseded any right of the unborn to live, up until the third trimester. They acknowledged that States could regulate abortion within the third trimester of pregnancy, even allowing the States to consider abortion to be murder in the third trimester, if they so chose.
As for Juliet’s comment, are we opening the door to religious arguments now? While I am tempted to correct some of her incorrect statements, I don’t think most here care about theology. I personally prefer to stay away from religious arguments in this forum because a major tenet expressed by many here has been that civil law should have nothing to do with religion or religious arguments.
To moderator: I made a post last night between 8:00 and 8:20 pm that has not shown up.
Self-Correction: I have learned (offline) I am wrong about the placenta being the mother’s DNA, it is formed from fetal DNA. Sorry ’bout that — but I was correct in my claim that the placenta plays a role in whether the androsterone surge occurs or not, and therefore whether brain organization is distributive or localized.
That event is apparently tied to maternal environment and maternal DNA, so it is an epigenetic phenomenon (the interaction of the womb, nutrients, and maternal stress and other hormonal levels (which may also be tied to maternal DNA).
If you accept the premise of equality and equal rights, i.e. the value of egalitarianism, then the intolerance of intolerance is not vice but virtue.
discrimination /dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
[mass noun]
1: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex
egalitarian /ɪˌgalɪˈtɛːrɪən/
adjective
believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities
noun
a person who advocates or supports the principle of equality for all people:
“Within the system of men we reject the idea that people are not created equal with equal rights. It makes no sense, even within your flawed system of beliefs, to presume the Creator purposely creates 10% of people to be unequal to the other 90%, that the other 90% should be allowed to deny them a right solely because their sexual orientation differs from their own.”
Spot on, Tony.
To be clear, David, I lumped you into the anti-choice group.
Because that is what you’ve demonstrated your position to be.
Gene H wrote: “To be clear, David, I lumped you into the anti-choice group. Because that is what you’ve demonstrated your position to be.”
And to be clear, in order to salvage your misinterpretation of the CNN poll, Tony classified me as pro-choice, as being part of the 78% pro-choice people you were talking about. The majority of people you consider to be anti-choice are part of that 78% majority.
Also, regarding semantics, pro-life people generally do not like being called anti-choice any more than pro-choice people like being called anti-life or pro-abortion. If you are going to use the term anti-choice, would it be fair for me to label you as anti-life?
The issue of abortion involves competing rights: the rights of the unborn versus the rights of the mother. Rarely recognized by those who self-identify as pro-choice, there also are the rights of the father to consider. In many situations, there also is the choice of the medical professionals who might be providing health care for the pregnancy. As a self-identified pro-life person, I believe in the right of choice, but this right of choice of the mother does not stand alone; it is mitigated by the right of choice of others involved. In the case of the unborn, which cannot make or express any choice, the right to life is assumed. The entire abortion debate rests upon identifying the rights and choices of all parties involved. Using the same kind of logic that Tony did, I could make a strong case that pro-life people also are pro-choice, especially the presumed choice of the unborn to choose to live.
Well said Tony C. and Juliet N.
DavidM: Identical twin studies have long ago disproven this non religious dogma, but the belief is embraced anyway and those studies are rarely discussed at all.
Because, as I have told you, the difference is not necessarily in the genetic makeup of the homosexual, but in the genetic (and physiological) makeup of the homosexual’s mother, which controls the development of the placenta, which controls the initiation of the androsterone surge that will determine brain organization, which differs dramatically between heterosexual males and females; and differs between homosexual males and females in the opposite way.
Within a logic system that believes it can infer the intent of a Creator, presumably the Creator does not make mistakes and intended to create all of the physical attributes we find in people, including mothers. It seems a basic logical error to focus on one physical attribute already set at birth (sexual organs) to the exclusion of another physical attribute already set at birth (brain organization). There is plenty of scientific evidence, empirical evidence and sincere testimony of thousands that correlate brain organization (distributive functionality versus localized functionality) to sexual orientation. Brain organization is determined by the mother’s DNA and conception environment (including mother’s nutrition, age, health, and the number of previous births). It makes no sense to conclude a Creator, like the type you envision, would intentionally create a gestation system in humans that fails 10% of the time. If the Creator makes mistakes, we shouldn’t trust it, if the Creator does not make mistakes, then making 10% of people attracted to their same gender is the Creator’s intent.
Sexual orientation is not a choice. Even bi-sexualism is not a choice; if both genders are sexually attractive to a person then there is good reason to presume that is also the way they were born.
Within the system of men we reject the idea that people are not created equal with equal rights. It makes no sense, even within your flawed system of beliefs, to presume the Creator purposely creates 10% of people to be unequal to the other 90%, that the other 90% should be allowed to deny them a right solely because their sexual orientation differs from their own.
I say “solely” because it does no harm to the heterosexual if the homosexuals marry; without the aid of science if allowed to pursue their Creator-given sexual orientation, they would not reproduce anyway, and presumably the Creator did that for a reason (for example, to allow them to devote more resources to the benefit of all).
I am an atheist, but even dirtying myself in the filth and grime of your oppressive philosophy, you make no sense in your own system.
Tony C. hit the nail on the head.
I grew up in a Separate — read “more fundie than most” — Baptist church, wherein I was taught that the acts of homosexuality were sinful. Then, when I was eight or so, I figured out a young boy in our church, who was probably not even three, was gay. He was effeminate. He liked to kiss the other little boys and talked about marrying them. That child was gay straight out of the womb, and he is gay, today. I was a serious child about my faith, even then, and this was a test of it. In my heart, I knew that no loving God would create a gay human being and then expect him not to have a fulfilling sexual relationship with a partner. It was crystal clear to me — either the grownups were wrong or there was no God. I remain of that opinion, today.
Tony C wrote: “Because, as I have told you, the difference is not necessarily in the genetic makeup of the homosexual, but in the genetic (and physiological) makeup of the homosexual’s mother, which controls the development of the placenta, which controls the initiation of the androsterone surge that will determine brain organization, which differs dramatically between heterosexual males and females;”
The twin studies include both monozygotic and dizygotic twins. In none of them was homosexuality 100% concordant. The monozygotic twins were both genetically identical and also subjected to the exact same gestational experience with the exact same shared placenta. So there are difficulties with your analysis. Certainly genetics plays a role, and the hormonal environment during gestation plays a role, but these together do not predict homosexuality with 100% certainty.
We can pretty easily predict gender and race, but we cannot predict sexual orientation. This is a fact.
Tony C wrote: “Within a logic system that believes it can infer the intent of a Creator, presumably the Creator does not make mistakes and intended to create all of the physical attributes we find in people, including mothers.”
Resorting to religious arguments is kind of desperate. There are many different forms of theism, and my perspective is not at all as you try to make it out to be. The clockmaker concept of the Creator is more in line with how I view his creative role.
Tony C wrote: “If the Creator makes mistakes, we shouldn’t trust it…”
So if you make mistakes, shall we also conclude that we should not trust you? I guess you don’t mind me not trusting you then. 🙂
For what it is worth, I have no problem considering a concept of a Creator who makes mistakes. None. I keep telling you that I am not religious, but you refuse to believe it.
Tony C wrote: “Sexual orientation is not a choice. Even bi-sexualism is not a choice; if both genders are sexually attractive to a person then there is good reason to presume that is also the way they were born.”
And so then what? If it is not a choice, does that mean we must enshrine their sexual urges within the law to make sure that they are as happy as everyone else? What does choice have to do with any of this?
What about masturbation? Is that a choice? What about adultery? Is that a choice? What about incest, is that a choice? What about polygamy, is that a choice? What about beastiality, is that a choice? What about pedophilia, is that a choice?
The only argument I have heard concerning the idea that sexual orientation is not a choice is that it is very difficult to change. Some claim it is impossible, despite examples of people who have changed their sexual orientation. Well, many claim pedophilia is a sexual orientation that is not a choice. Consider this quote from a Harvard publication:
“Pedophilia, the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty, remains a vexing challenge for clinicians and public officials. Classified as a paraphilia, an abnormal sexual behavior, researchers have found no effective treatment. Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change.”
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia
So suppose everyone agrees to jump on the homosexual bandwagon and pass laws that prevent discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Now come the pedophiles with lawsuits claiming that their sexual orientation is being discriminated against. Are we going to repeal the laws against pedophilia next? You might claim that is ridiculous, but 50 years ago, most thought gay marriage would be a ridiculous concept. Gay marriage was unheard of.
Exactly what is on your agenda and what kind of problems are we creating by going down your road?
Randy: Being against reparations for slavery does not make one a bigot or racist, it makes one a rationalist. The people harmed by slavery, and the people that harmed them, are all long dead.
The riches gained by slavers could morally be considered ill-gotten gains, but we have a countervailing principle in our law that declaring some already committed act a crime, and then punishing those that engaged in it, is not a valid system of laws, because then nobody can ever know if what they are doing now is potentially punishable by law!
We cannot expect people to presciently predict the entirety of future law and conduct themselves accordingly.
To the extent that slavery, racism and discrimination has put African Americans into a generational cycle of poverty, the country should eliminate that based NOT on the color of their skin but on the status of their finances: Poverty causes a waste of humanity, talent, and productivity. It produces desperation that leads to taking risks that result in both violent and property crime. It leads to “survival sociopathy,” oppression by the poor of those in poverty (coerced prostitution, drug dealers creating addicts) and oppression of the poor by workplace exploitation (like Walmart engages in).
“Reparations” would be society, through the government, funding a better social safety net, better education, better nutrition and law enforcement preventing exploitation of the poor, so that those stuck in cyclic generational poverty can escape it, regardless of how it began. That is something worth investing a trillion dollars in, we would gain many trillions in productive return within a few generations.
Tony C My whole point of mentioning the idea of reparations was to illustrate the rather childish means used to define those you disagree with by accusing them of something. A child says if you don’t let me do this, you hate me or don’t love me. If you don’t get on the gay marriage bandwagon, you hate gays. Sorry, but life and rational thought does not work that way.
Randy: Marriage is not redefined to suit our needs, any more than “personhood” was redefined to end slavery. The meaning of both words changed to reflect what people understood about the state they were intended to describe, and in both cases, broadened by discarding specificity based on irrelevant details.
Blacks came under the umbrella of “personhood” when the color of their skin (or more technically their ancestry, as reflected by the word “blood” at the time) was discarded as a distinguishing determinative factor, because it was irrelevant to what people meant by “personhood.”
Marriage also contains an irrelevant determinative factor, mixed gender. But the majority of people now see that, in the law, that is irrelevant. What the law allows for married couples has nothing to do with whether their genders are mixed or not; a “husband” and a “wife” do not get different rights under the law, they are simply “spousal rights.”
If their gender has nothing to do with the rights granted, if their reproductive status has nothing to do with the rights granted, and if gender has nothing to do with their union’s effect upon the rights of others, then there is no rational reason for the government to demand mixed genders as a prerequisite for entering into Marriage. It is an irrelevancy to the law, and should be discarded.
If that broadens the definition of marriage then that is a good thing, the more irrelevancy we excise from the law the less arbitrary discrimination it will permit (or require), and the more freedom the people will have.
Tony C thanks for showing us all the silliness of your position. You start by saying you don’t redefine the term marriage and end up saying it is a good thing to do it. If you can take such a cavalier attitude to legal definitions and terms, it destroys the whole concept of rational discourse, law and politics. Also, if you can expand the definition of marriage this way, marriage can most certainly be expanded to include polygamy since we have a tradition,though limited, of that in the USA. At least in law and politics, one has to be precise in defining terms and sticking to them.
What I did was simple word replacement. Not whole cloth revision. The logical framework laid down by the court is untouched and identical to the original. I didn’t redefine marriage. I understand what the limits to legitimate state interest in the relationship actual are. You don’t. You seem to think a religious definition should be controlling. Are heterosexual couples married in a civil ceremony any less married than those married in a church? No. They are precisely as married and the government has the same valid interests in both.
Bigotry is expressed by bigots. The label is one you applied to yourself by the nature of your pronouncements.
And you should really stop trying to guess what or how I think, Randy. You’re terrible at it and I can, and will, speak for myself. I know. I’ve seen me do it.
You seem to be under the impression that stare decisis is infallible and that laws never changes, Randy.
That’s not how precedent works.
And what you think Loving means is not what it actually means.
Homosexual marriage isn’t addressed directly by that case at all.
In fact, I pointed directly to language in the case that indicates marriage is an interpersonal relationship, that race was insufficient to bar that relationship at law and that the exact same logic applies to homosexual interpersonal relationships under a 14th Amendment analysis.
I understand you may feel the need to double down because your investment in the idea that homosexuals deserve to be treated as second class citizens, but really, you protest loudly, repeatedly and vainly and in circles to the point it is starting to make me wonder if you aren’t self loathing and in the closet yourself. Or maybe you had a wife or girlfriend run off with another woman as the seat of your trauma and subsequent loathing of homosexuals. Or maybe you’re just a garden variety bigot.
Name a specific harm, Randy.
I double dog dare you to try.
OS The main point of contention is the state interest in promoting marriage. Since heterosexual sex results and is necessary for our existence as a species, any state has a legitimate interest and concern in promoting and regulating it to promote society’s interest. The unusual steps taken to have same sex marriage procreation do not void or overrule the states interest in promoting and granting preferences for heterosexual marriage.
That the state cannot prohibit or limit marriage between opposite sex partners was addressed in the Loving decision as being correctly incompatible with the 14th amendment. To then expand that decision to same sex marriage is simply delusional since same sex marriage had not even been thought of at the time, and in fact, anti-homosexual laws were found to be legal and not violating the 14th amendment. by the same court! So how one can somehow say with a straight face that there is a “logic” to that decison which flies in the face of their decisions against homosexuals is beyond rational thought.