The Washington Post gave over most of its OpEd space today to two thumping (almost Bible-thumping) calls for what amounts to religious war … against the radicalchristianright.
Colbert King, Deputy Editor of the Post’s editorial page (What is “Op” about papers filling up their “OpEd” page with their own editors?), writes that “ideologues on the right” are engaging in “despicable demagoguery” and “religious McCarthyism” by telling an “unmitigated lie” and “Hijacking Christianity.” He also says some things that are not as nuanced, balanced, and even-tempered, but his basic point is clear: rightwingchristians are attempting to impose their warped view of Christianity on other equally religious Christians, and everyone else:
Americans of faith — and those lacking one — ought to vigorously resist attempts by power-hungry zealots to impose their religious views on the nation. That means standing up to them at every turn.
It means challenging them when they say of Americans who support a woman’s right to choose; the right of two adults to enter into a loving, committed, state-sanctioned, monogamous relationship; the right to pursue science in support of life; the right of the aggrieved to launch aggressive assaults against racism, sexism and homophobia, that they are not legitimate members of the flock. Where do those on the religious right get off thinking they have the right to decide who is in and who is out? Who appointed them sole promoters and defenders of the faith? What makes them think they are more holy and righteous than the rest of us?
They are not now and never will be the final arbiters of Christian beliefs and values. They warrant as much deference as religious leaders as do members of the Ku Klux Klan, who also marched under the cross.
And, in an interesting display of fair and balanced, Washington Post style, a good part of the remainder of the OpEd space that same day is taken up by Paul Gaston saying … pretty much exactly the same thing. Gaston, a distinguished professor emeritus of Southern history at the University of Virginia (and a fine fellow as well, which I say not only because he’s a fellow Alabamian), argues that rightwingfundamentalistchristians, aka “Right-wing religious zealots,” whom he refers to as “[p]eople calling themselves Christians” and “self-avowed Christians,” are “Smearing Christian Judges.” Here is Gaston’s central point, which restate’s King’s in more coherent fashion:
What these self-avowed Christians do not acknowledge — and what the American public seems little aware of — is that the war they are waging is actually against other people calling themselves Christians. To simplify: Right-wing and fundamentalist Christians are really at war with left-wing and mainstream Christians. It is a battle over both the meaning and practice of Christianity as well as over the definition and destiny of the republic. Secular humanism is a bogeyman, a smoke screen obscuring the right-wing Christians’ struggle for supremacy.
Of course, if one camp of Christians are not “really” Christians but merely “self-avowed Christians” [in what branch of Christianity, at least in its Protestant versions, is self-avowal not enough?], this point loses its force, but let’s grant Gaston a little rhetorical license here. He does make an interesting point, but it suffers from a fundamental and fatal internal inconsistency. On one hand Gaston argues that the
founders of our nation welcomed and planned for spirited debate over public policies, including the role of the judiciary. But as sons of the Enlightenment, they looked to found a republic in which the outcome of those debates would turn on reason and evidence, not on disputed religious dogma.
But on the other he immediately then says that “mainstream Christians” must “mount a spirited, nationwide response to what constitutes a dangerous distortion of Christian truths.”
But if what we have here, as Gaston claims, is a civil war between warring camps of Christians — “Right-wing and fundamentalist Christians are really at war with left-wing and mainstream Christians” in a “war within the Christian fold” — why is it “a threat to the most fundamental of American principles” for one group to try to have its values regarding abortion, gay marriage, etc. reflected in law (and respected by judges who interpret the law) but not the other?
As I stated in a comment below, there are Americans, both secular and religious, on both sides of this cultural and political civil war. Since the political positions of the religious people on both sides are no doubt informed and inspired by their religious views, why is it that only one side is accused of threatening to undermine the separation of church and state by imposing its religious views on others?
UPDATE
For a slightly different take on this issue, although one with which I largely agree, see this excellent column by John Leo.
UPDATE II [26 April]: Theocracy, “Religious McCarthyism,” Anti-Semitism … Is Everyone Nuts?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: rightwingchristians (I’m adopting the terminology of the liberals here) are just as entitled to try to have their values reflected in the law as mainline Christians and secular humanists, but the faith on which they act does not make them immune from criticism. It was wrong, moreover, for them to imply that Democrats oppose all “people of faith.” They don’t. They oppose only people of rightwing faith, and then only when they act on that faith, and that difference is significant.
Now Professor Bainbridge has implied that that difference might not be so significant by suggesting an analogy between Democratic opposition to judicial nominees whom they regard as “extremist” and “out of the mainstream” — all of whom are allegedly rightwingchristians — and the “disparate impact” theory of discrimination, which holds that actions can be discriminatory even in the absence of discriminatory intent. Professor Bainbridge was criticizing a column by Cathy Young, who replied here. Eugene Volokh sides with Young. (Hat Tip to Instapundit for these links.)
This debate is interesting and on a high level, and I commend all the above posts. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have worked themselves up to a frothy high dudgeon at the very idea of the rightwingchristians accusing them of religious bigotry, and yet it seems to me that they are largely responsible for bringing it on themselves. If the only reasons they gave for blocking votes on the judicial nominees were their positions on such things as environmental regulations then religion would never have entered the picture. You think I exaggerate? Sen. Schumer says the opposition has nothing to do with religion:
… Mr. Schumer said their nominations are being blocked for unrelated reasons – including their views on the limits of congressional power relative to the states and their opposition to some environmental regulations.
Environmental regulations? On the contrary, it’s difficult to find a filibuster supporter who doesn’t shake with fear, or rage, about the “theocracy” the righwingchristians want to impose. The Democratic leader Sen. Reid sanctimoniously reminds his Republican colleagues that “[t]his is a democracy, not a theocracy.” (Sen. Reid also says that policies that “incite divisiveness and encourage contention [are] unacceptable,” as though his and his party’s unwavering support for racial and ethnic and gender preferences do not “incite divisiveness and encourage contention.”) Howard Dean says “[t]he issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do?” Democratic Underground fulminates against the “right wing theocratic movement.” Sen. Pat Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, thunders against “religious McCarthyism” at every opportunity. If the opposition to these judicial nominees has nothing to do with religion, why all this fear and loathing of an allegedly impending theocracy? Why not limit the criticism to the sacrosanct environmental regulations and whatever else the nominees have unacceptable opinions about?
And speaking of “religious McCarthyism,” as Sen. Leahy seems to whenever he opens his mouth these days, it was his colleague Sen. Schumer who has just used McCarthyite rhetoric, calling the Family Research Council “un-American.”
I think both the accusations of Democratic religious bigotry and Republican theocracy are nuts, but the cake of craziness has just been taken by a journalist, or at least TV talking head, Cokie Roberts, referring to a letter to supporters written by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.
Mr. Perkins wrote, “For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU, have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms.”
Many nominees “are being blocked because they are people of faith and moral conviction,” he wrote. If the filibuster is not stopped, “the best we can hope for are likely to be mediocre judges who meet the approval of Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
Television commentator Cokie Roberts questioned the mention of Mr. Schumer, despite his leading role among Democrats in Senate judicial politics.
Citing Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy is expected, because they are “bugaboos of the right,” she said. “Then they throw in Chuck Schumer, you start to think they were looking for a Jewish name, and I think that is a real problem,” Ms. Roberts said.
So, now it is anti-semitic to criticize a Senator with a Jewish-sounding name who called a leading group of conservative Christians “un-American” even as his fellow-traveling colleague Sen. Leahy accuses those same rightwingchristians of “religious McCarthyism” for arguing that hostility to rightwingchristianity motivates Democratic opposition to conservative judicial nominees.
Andrew Sullivan and the other liberals believe that they have found the key to splitting the coalition that defeated them in 2004. Count on them to pull out all stops in their cynically DNC orchestrated effort to split the evangelicals from the others. If they succeed they will have the votes to impose the liberal paradigm on America and we will all be living on campus. Will most centrists see through this cynical effort? I bet they do and it backfires on the liberals, but not without some scary moments. Expect Hollywood to weigh in heavily.
John has, by implication, made the valid point that critics of right-wing-fundamentalist-Christians almost never mention specific denominations. It would be helpful to me to have a list of which ones are on which team. This list might be different for different op-ed writers.
“why is it “a threat to the most fundamental of American principles” for one group to try to have its values regarding abortion, gay marriage, etc. reflected in law (and respected by judges who interpret the law) but not the other?”
Because he’s miscast the battle between america and the radical clerics as internecine christian war, ignoring that there are plenty of americans who are affected by that war but who don’t consider themselves churchgoers or christians.
“… the right of the aggrieved to launch aggressive assaults against racism, sexism and homophobia…”
I’m not a fundamentalist Christian, but language like this only makes me label the writer a dinosaur.
Enough is enough. I immediately tune out and ignore anybody who keeps beating this dead horse. I suspect both writers are attacking a strawman… or strawmen.
The 60s really are over, folks, and the great civil rights battles are… well, they’re over in the U.S. One of the most difficult problems for political movements is to know when to pack it up and go home. It’s time for the those who are engaging in these aggressive attacks” leave us alone and find something better to do with their time.
actus unwittingly makes my point, another reason I’m happy that he regularly comments here. He writes of “the battle between america and the radical clerics,” which more than implies that all the Americans are on one side and only rightwingchristians are on the other.
On the contrary, there are Americans, both secular and religious, on both sides. Since the political positions of the religious people on both sides are no doubt informed and inspired by their religious views, why is it only one side that threatens to undermine fundamental principles by imposing its religious views on others?
“which more than implies that all the Americans are on one side and only rightwingchristians are on the other.”
There’s a median, and there’s the extremes.
“why is it only one side that threatens to undermine fundamental principles by imposing its religious views on others?”
Because only 1 side is imposing?
“why is it only one side that threatens to undermine fundamental principles by imposing its religious views on others?”
Because only 1 side is imposing?
Silly me. Why didn’t I think of that? But now that you’ve explained it, I can see that the side that wants to limit marriage to one man and one woman is imposing its views, but the side that wants to legalize same sex marriage is not imposing its views. (Although I confess to still being confused about whether that latter group is imposing its views insofar as it wants to limit marriage to two people, and people of a certain age.)
“but the side that wants to legalize same sex marriage is not imposing its views.”
Not very many people want to legalize same sex marriage. Civil unions, on the other hand, do have majority support.
But I don’t see how someone else getting married imposes on me at all. Unless I’m expected to be a part of the wedding party. My brother graciously did not require that of me.
Maybe this is another distinction. One side feels like what other people do is imposing on them. I supoose for these people, if my belief is that I be let alone, it is imposing on another to try to claim that right against a prosletyzer.
“It means challenging them when they say of Americans who support a woman’s right to choose; the right of two adults to enter into a loving, committed, state-sanctioned, monogamous relationship; the right to pursue science in support of life; the right of the aggrieved to launch aggressive assaults against racism, sexism and homophobia, that they are not legitimate members of the flock.”
This has got to be a serious contender for “Most Euphamism-Filled Sentence of the Year” award. Seriously, some of these slight-of-words are awe-inspiring.
“ideologues on the right” are engaging in “despicable demagoguery” and “religious McCarthyism” by telling an “unmitigated lie” and “Hijacking Christianity.”
If only the Left would oppose Islamic fundamentalism with 1/100 of the fervor that they show towards Christian fundamentalism.
“If only the Left would oppose Islamic fundamentalism with 1/100 of the fervor that they show towards Christian fundamentalism. ”
When the US army is flattening Colorado Springs, stronghold of the radical cleric Dobson, I promise I’ll be protesting.
Thanks, actus for that enlightened comment. But we already knew whose side you are on.
–There’s a median, and there’s the extremes.–
If the left had been paying attention to the median on abortion for the past 30-odd years, we still wouldn’t be fighting about it.
Polls have been remarkably consistent.
Don’t like it, won’t pay for it, but won’t tell you what to do.
Then med tech shows an 8 week old fetus and what does the Peoples’ Republic of IL do by a pubbie legislator? Restricts ultrasounds because the fetus might be harmed.
Sounds like the WP is running scared. Must have sent a lot of foreign reporters to the hinterlands and they’ve come back terrified.
NYT is getting shrill, too.
Now, actus has brought up an interesting point. I’ve seen clergy, speaking in that capacity, support gay rights and perhaps I missed the thunder from the left about that. There is something called the Religious Coaliton for Abortion Rights and I don’t think they’ve been excluded from pro-abortion activities. I don’t recall an outcry when Catholic bishops issued statements favoring a nuclear freeze.
And for that matter, here in Detroit black churches are an active and important part of the political structure. If the ACLU is fussing about that I’ve entirely missed it.
I’m sure there’s a reason for this distinction and I’m just too dense to get it.
Now, actus has brought up an interesting point. I’ve seen clergy, speaking in that capacity, support gay rights and perhaps I missed the thunder from the left about that. There is something called the Religious Coaliton for Abortion Rights and I don’t think they’ve been excluded from pro-abortion activities. I don’t recall an outcry when Catholic bishops issued statements favoring a nuclear freeze.
And for that matter, here in Detroit black churches are an active and important part of the political structure. If the ACLU is fussing about that I’ve entirely missed it.
I’m sure there’s a reason for this distinction and I’m just too dense to get it.
I love the logic of the following:
What makes them think they are more holy and righteous than the rest of us?
Hmmm. Pot, meet kettle.
How about the religious zealots of 150 years ago who led the abolitionist movement? Were they wrong to try to force their views on other people?
As an ex-Democrat, I am enjoying watching the continuing self-destruction of that party.
Abortion has become an absolutely non-debateable issue in the Democratic Party. The religion vs. secularist argument is a cover for this refusal to allow the public to debate this issue. The reason for this is that the Democrats know they will lose. Every poll shows this. And, I seriously doubt that the dividing line on this issue is religion vs. secularist.
We can only hope that the Democratic Party continues down this road of obstinate refusal to allow this issue before the electorate. The contempt for the will of the people is obvious. There might not be a Democratic Party 25 years hence as a result, and, if so, good riddance.
The Democratic Party in now held hostage by a small extremist group… feminists.
actus, I had a really nasty day yesterday and a really nasty morning today, so I have to apologize for not replying to this sooner. But when you say
the battle between america and the radical clerics
you’re in exactly the position of the Family Research Council, &c. whose now-famous and endlessly-denounced ad opposed “Democrats” to “people of faith.” I’m assuming that that was your point, that you wanted us all to think, “Oh, such irony!”, and chuckle or muse as the mood took us.
But I’ll take you seriously for a moment. If you really think “the radical clerics” are the only people who could possibly object to (e.g.) abortion or euthanasia or gay marriage, or that anyone who does object to any of these things is therefore not part of “america,” I am not sure where you live, but you’re not much noticing your neighbors. I’m living proof that it’s possible to believe, say, that Roe was wrongly decided without coming under the influence of dastardly anti-American radical clerics. I’ve never in fact met a radical cleric — not the kind you mean, anyway. They aren’t thick on the ground in Marin County.
Environmentalism, anti-semitism, b. o., bad manners, racism if they can possibly find a way to play the card; the Demos are pulling out all the stops in their effort to peel off the most liberal in the coalition that defeated them. From what I have seen so far (take a look at this
‘But I’ll take you seriously for a moment. If you really think “the radical clerics” are the only people who could possibly object to (e.g.) abortion or euthanasia or gay marriage, or that anyone who does object to any of these things is therefore not part of “america,”‘
I’m not of the mind that the disagreement between the median of aamerica and the radical clerics is due to abortion, euthanasia or gay marriage.
It does have to do with reproductive and family rights, with the right to have your wishes carried out in your dying days, and a policy of non-discrimination against homosexuals.
It is on those issues that the radical clerics are anti-american. And it is on those issues that they wish to move with their anti-penumbra language that affects all reproductive and family rights, their ‘gay marriage ammendments’ that affect all relationships, married or not, gay and straight.
On the abortion issue, I happen to think that the courts have gotten us to the situation that reflects the median position: no restrictions on abortion before viability, any restriction permitted afteward, so long as there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother.
Of course there are details to be worked out, but in general that’s where the constitutional right is, and that’s where the population is too.
actus, opposing gay marriage is not discrimination. I hope you keep talking that way. Every time you do, it costs the Democrats another vote.
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Insisting that it is, is the vanity of spoiled children.
actus, you are a walking recruiting poster for the Republican Party. Please keep it up. One would think the Democratic Party would pay you handsomely to keep your opinions to yourself. The retread Marxism you favor is precisely what has poisoned the Democratic Party.
I’d argue with you, but, why bother? The damage that extremists like you are doing to the Democratic Party is greater than any opponent could ever hope to inflict.
Bring it on!
actus,
I’m not of the mind that the disagreement between the median of america and the radical clerics is due to abortion, euthanasia or gay marriage.
It does have to do with reproductive and family rights, with the right to have your wishes carried out in your dying days, and a policy of non-discrimination against homosexuals.
Clarify, please. I know what “reproductive rights” are (at least, in general they seem to involve the right not to reproduce; I’ve not known them to include the right to reproduce), but I don’t know what “family rights” are.
The “right to have your wishes carried out in your dying days” is a formulation broader than you probably would want it to be. I’ve often wondered what would happen if a terminally-ill person didn’t particularly want to drift off peacefully on whatever barbiturate cocktail they use these days in Oregon (or Amsterdam), but would rather have a bullet through the heart or a fall off a picturesque cliff.
As for “a policy of non-discrimination against homosexuals,” I do realize it’s the most hackneyed right-wing argument in the book, and I feel silly making it, especially as I’m in favor of gay marriage myself, but . . . how do you feel about a “policy of non-discrimination against polyamorists,” and what do you think that would entail legally?
On the abortion issue, I happen to think that the courts have gotten us to the situation that reflects the median position: no restrictions on abortion before viability, any restriction permitted afteward, so long as there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother.
You know, this is the most perfectly self-defeating argument in history, and it’s depressingly more common every year. The old, strong, frankly anti-democratic argument for judicial action not clearly supported by Constitutional or statutory text was “This action is necessary in the cause of justice, and the people won’t take it of their own accord, so we must.” Your “improvement” is “This action is necessary in the cause of justice, and anyway it’s exactly what the people want, so let’s impose it.” Surely I’m not the only one who can see a certain falling-off in logic here.
“actus, opposing gay marriage is not discrimination. ”
It can be. But I said that’s not what I was talking about
“Clarify, please. I know what “reproductive rights” are (at least, in general they seem to involve the right not to reproduce; I’ve not known them to include the right to reproduce), but I don’t know what “family rights” are.”
The right to have a certain number of children in your family, to structure a household the way you want, to have access to contraception and family planning, etc . . . The government can’t tell you that a grandmother can’t live with a grandchild. And thats thanks to a non-textrualist reading of the constitution.
As to dying wishes, I was overbroad in describing the very specific idea that someone has a right to refuse medical treatment, much to the gusto of christian scientists.
“how do you feel about a “policy of non-discrimination against polyamorists,” and what do you think that would entail legally?”
I have no idea. I have a hard time picturing them as a class, picturing in what ways they face barriers to accessing things that non-polyamorists take for granted.
“Your “improvement” is “This action is necessary in the cause of justice, and anyway it’s exactly what the people want, so let’s impose it.” Surely I’m not the only one who can see a certain falling-off in logic here.”
I’m not comfortable with the fact that the force that most seems able to represent the median interest in america on abortion is justice o’connor. But it does have relevance to the argument that judges are “undemocratic,” that liberals turn to the court because they can’t win in public opinion, or that the courts are somehow out of touch with america on the issue of abortion.
It doesn’t improve the arguement that since courts are defenders of minority rights they are in essence undemocratic and counter-majoritan.
actus,
The right to have a certain number of children in your family, to structure a household the way you want, to have access to contraception and family planning, etc . . .
Wait, someone imposed official limits on the number of children in a family? What is this, China?
The zoning case you keep referring to was about an unusually stupid law. The obvious thing to do with unusually stupid laws is to repeal them. If you don’t think that would’ve happened, you have less confidence in the public than I.
(I have to say that I’m tired of “family planning,” another euphemism. Does anyone actually visit a family planning clinic in the hope that it wil help him (or her) plan a family? Anyone ever ask, “Well, I’d like two daughters two years apart, then maybe a son three years after that; tell me how I do that”? Um, I really don’t think so.)
I have a hard time picturing [polyamorists] as a class, picturing in what ways they face barriers to accessing things that non-polyamorists take for granted.
Oh, don’t you? Well, why not start with the fact that polyamorous marriages aren’t recognized by the state. Which means that if one member of such a marriage is injured and in hospital, the other members are not legally relatives and don’t have legal visitation rights. Something we straight married folks take for granted? Something that has been a key point in the argument for gay marriage?
“Wait, someone imposed official limits on the number of children in a family? What is this, China?”
This is a place where we will keep other people’s ridiculous laws out of our families. So that the morality police can’t pass laws banning someone from having children in the household they share with their unmarried partner. Can’t pass laws banning ‘living in sin’ and cohabitation. I agree with you that these are ‘unusually stupid’ laws. Sure they can be repealed, but that doesn’t provide a remedy to the person who is now being aggrieved and seeking help from the judiciary.
“Anyone ever ask, “Well, I’d like two daughters two years apart, then maybe a son three years after that; tell me how I do that”? Um, I really don’t think so.)”
Really? i mean, they’ll educate you on how not to have a child. and they’ll tell you how far in advance you have to, say, stop taking the pill in order ot have a child, so I guess, that’s all that you need for family planning, so its a family planning clinic.
“Oh, don’t you? Well, why not start with the fact that polyamorous marriages aren’t recognized by the state. ”
Oh you mean polygamous? I’m used to polyamory meaning lots of sexual / love partners, not several concurrent marriages.
I don’t think polygamy has anything to do with the gay marriage debate. It does have a claim to being a form of ‘traditional’ marriage, I guess that’s a plus on its side.
I don’t know what the arguments against polygamy normally are. I find those arrangements to be either oppressive or unstable — a lot like polyamory. I also think that marriage as we now conceive it is based around rights of coupling — not the traditional view of an unequal and uneven partnership — and it is those rights that homosexuals seek access to. These don’t map well to the polygamist setting.
actus,
This is a place where we will keep other people’s ridiculous laws out of our families. So that the morality police can’t pass laws banning someone from having children in the household they share with their unmarried partner. Can’t pass laws banning ‘living in sin’ and cohabitation.
I have never heard of a law against cohabitation. I think what you must be thinking of is an old case in which a woman who refused to rent a room to an unmarried couple was made to do so. Liberty marches on!
I agree with you that these are ‘unusually stupid’ laws. Sure they can be repealed, but that doesn’t provide a remedy to the person who is now being aggrieved and seeking help from the judiciary.
You really want a judiciary empowered to strike down any law it doesn’t like? No wonder you’re so worried about who sits on it. Me, I’d prefer a judiciary that enforces the law as legislators write it. De gustibus . . .
I still don’t get the “right to have a certain number of children in your family” bit. What on earth were you talking about? Was it some housing complex that excluded children or wouldn’t allow more than three per apartment, or what?
Re “family planning,” surely you realize that not taking the pill doesn’t automatically make you pregnant. The most a “family planning” clinic will do is tell you how not to get pregnant if you don’t want to, and give you some advice (which you could get any number of places) on how to get pregnant if you really want to. Said advice won’t get you your “family” necessarily; if your aim is to get pregnant and you’re having trouble doing that, you go to, not a “family planning clinic,” but a “fertility clinic.” Interesting, is it not? I suppose a family planning clinic will assist in planning your family, but if you want actualization . . . not our job, what?
Polyamory isn’t, as I understand it, just “screw whatever you see”; there are people in what are basically group marriages, not harems with one man and many women, but two or more members of each sex. Tell me what rights gay couples should have that group marriage-members shouldn’t. And why.
“You really want a judiciary empowered to strike down any law it doesn’t like? ”
No. I don’t think our discussion so far has been about ‘any law’ in any way.
“I still don’t get the “right to have a certain number of children in your family” bit. What on earth were you talking about?”
No specific case. Just something thats not enumerated in the constitution, something the textualists would allow.
I do know that some states have laws against fornication — virginia, for example, though it may have been struck down. Googling ‘laws against cohabitation’ gives me a few examples of those too.
“Interesting, is it not? I suppose a family planning clinic will assist in planning your family, but if you want actualization . . . not our job, what?”
I don’t understand where you’re going with this tangent. If you have a nomenclature beef, I’m not your man. But I do know that fertility treatments can lead to miscarriages, and zygotes that don’t attach to the uterus’s walls, so they might also be in the sights of the life-begins at conception extremists. though I’m sure lotsa babies are also manna from heaven.
“Tell me what rights gay couples should have that group marriage-members shouldn’t. And why.”
Polygamy or polyamory? You’re still confusing the two. I dont’ see how people who are having lots of sex are in any way a class that has different rights than people who don’t have lots of sex. Like, do you want to de-criminalize adultery?
I think polygamy doesn’t really map well onto how we currently understand marriage as a coupling of equals. How our rights of health care decisonmaking, for example, are structured. Same with the dependency rights, for example.
Can you come up with a more specific phrasing of your problem?
actus,
[re: how many children can a family have]
No specific case. Just something thats not enumerated in the constitution, something the textualists would allow.
You can hardly expect the Framers to imagine every possible stupid law and forbid them all individually. You say that that’s why we have the judiciary. I say that that’s why we have the Tenth Amendment.
“Family planning” — why, yes, that was a “nomenclature beef.” I thought I’d made that clear. So it doesn’t irritate you. Never mind, then.
Re polygamy/polyamory, I have heard “polyamory” used to describe group marriages in which there were more than one of each sex. I see on Googling it that it has also another meaning that is obviously what you’re thinking of. If it helps to substitute “polygamy,” I don’t mind; it doesn’t affect the point.
I think polygamy doesn’t really map well onto how we currently understand marriage as a coupling of equals. How our rights of health care decisonmaking, for example, are structured. Same with the dependency rights, for example.
But that wasn’t the question, was it? The question was what a “policy of non-discrimination against polygamists” would look like. Or do you think we should in fact have a policy of non-discrimination against polygamists? Because at the moment we have a policy of discrimation against polygamists, as I’m sure you know. I don’t see how you can go on at length about the injustice of Government being able to determine who can live in what home, speculate on the possibility of Government limiting the number of children a family can have, and then say that polygamists present a “mapping” problem, so that you needn’t deal with them.
You don’t have to deal with them! The courts will have to, obviously, but at the moment all you have to say is that (a) this is a question of private family matters that are none of any Government’s business; and (b) we mustn’t discriminate against anyone because we don’t approve of his/her lifestyle. The courts won’t thank you for that, but your own hands will be spotlessly clean.
“But that wasn’t the question, was it? The question was what a “policy of non-discrimination against polygamists” would look like”
I think the fact that we can’t really tell tells us that it is inapposite to the situation. The that I don’t know how to tell if it is unequal that someone with 1 wife can have that 1 wife make health care decisions while somoene with 19 wives can’t have those 19 (?) wives make health care decisions. Or even what that right means in the polygamous setting.
So I don’t know what it even means to have a non-discrimination policy on this, compared to one against homosexuals. Thats why the mapping is important.
As to the privacy of the home, I’ll be damned if the government will tell me that I can’t live in a co-ed house, or pry into what relations I have with my housemates.
actus (there he goes again):
I don’t think polygamy has anything to do with the gay marriage debate.
I’m sure you don’t, but in fact it has quite a lot to do with it. Polygamy, like same-sex marriage in the non-Mass. parts of the U.S., is illegal because most people (not all of whom are rightwingchristianfundamentalists) think it is wrong. If, when, and were same-sex marriage is allowed, it will be because of the success of the argument that society has not right to impose its view of right and wrong on so intimate a matter as marriage. Or, conversely but the same argument, that individuals have a fundamental right to form intimate relationships into which the state cannot intrude. On what basis, then, would the state recognize that it has no right to tell one man that he may not marry another man while still exercising the right to tell three men that they cannot marry each other? Do those three men who want to marry each other have fewer individual rights than two men who want to marry? If so, please explain the source and nature of the individual right, and why it is not also possessed by the three men.
“If, when, and were same-sex marriage is allowed, it will be because of the success of the argument that society has not right to impose its view of right and wrong on so intimate a matter as marriage.”
If it would make you feel better I’m willing to accomodate and have there be gay marriage for no reason at all.
I framed it as an issue of equality, which I don’t think we can compare polygamy and coupling. Since I don’t see a way of comparing the essentially binary rights that married couples have — that I understand gays to be seeking — to polygamy.
But if simple social opprobium is your baromoter, I think we can safely distance polygamy from people who are in monogamous, long term, homosexual relationships.
actus,
I think the fact that we can’t really tell tells us that it is inapposite to the situation. The that I don’t know how to tell if it is unequal that someone with 1 wife can have that 1 wife make health care decisions while somoene with 19 wives can’t have those 19 (?) wives make health care decisions. Or even what that right means in the polygamous setting.
We could start here: never mind who makes the health-care decisions — who’s allowed to visit the guy (or gal) in hospital? One of the strongest arguments for same-sex marriage has always been that long-term partners, since they aren’t officially married, aren’t counted as close kin and aren’t allowed hospital visitation rights. So would you favor some sort of legal arrangement such that all the members of a “group marriage” (for want of a better term) each had rights like kinship rights to visit any other member in hospital?
And if not, why not? There is no mapping problem here, no complication. It’s just adding people to a permitted visitors’ list. Not difficult.
(The potential legal problems with group marriages that break up, I might add, are nasty, but this is not a tough question. You count them as relatives or you don’t, and it really shouldn’t matter how many of them there are.)
actus,
One further question (OK, two): Should polygamy be illegal? And if the answer is “yes,” can you reconcile it with the idea that the Government has no business prying into anyone’s domestic arrangements?
The Jane Galt website had the most interesting discussion of gay marriage about a month ago. (By the way, the term “gay marriage” is virtually Stalinist in its intentional subversion of language. The term is a self-contradiction.)
Megan noted that the reformers who fought for divorce and welfare also argued that no harm could possibly come from these “reforms.” Yet, 50% of marriages now end in divorce and 70% of black children are now born out of wedlock. Unintended consequences, indeed. And Megan stated, correctly I believe, that had these consequences been forseen, those “reforms” would never have been enacted.
When we advocate a radical change to human tradition, intellectual conviction and argument do not suffice. This is the mistake that the advocates of gay marriage are making. They are assuming that if (1) they can prove to themselves intellectually that gay marriage is a good and just idea (2) no sensible person should oppose it and (3) society should enact this reform out of a simple desire for justice. This thinking is dead wrong.
The discussion around this subject is an exercise in self-delusion. Unless you can get in a time capsule and survey the entirety of human evolution, you simply do not know why human society has built itself around hetero marriage and proscribed homosexual conduct. You may be tinkering with something far beyond your understanding. Best to assume that society had very good reasons for creating traditional marriage. Those who seek to change this bear an almost overwhelming burden to prove that they are not destroying a critical structure of society. Those who advocate the continuance of tradition have no burden of proof on them at all.
Stephen,
You’re talking about the post in which Megan quoted Chesterton to the effect that no one who “can’t see the use of” something should be allowed to destroy it, but someone who does see the use of it and thinks it honestly a wrong use might be permitted to have at it. I don’t want to get into gay marriage here, Stephen, but suffice it to say that there are a lot of people who have thought hard about this, and who have thought through what heterosexual-only marriage was for and still think same-sex marriage is a good idea.
And I say that as one who thinks that particular maxim of GKC’s is one of the few genuine insights about politics in the last century.
“And if not, why not? There is no mapping problem here, no complication. It’s just adding people to a permitted visitors’ list. Not difficult.”
I think that happens now no?
“Should polygamy be illegal? And if the answer is “yes,” can you reconcile it with the idea that the Government has no business prying into anyone’s domestic arrangements?”
I think you’re confusing domestic arrangements with other effects of polygamy. Right now polygamy like domestic arrangements aren’t illegal. I live in a co-ed house, and as far as I know there are no laws about what I do with my housemates. Other than fornication laws in Virginia.
As to whether you want the legal recognition and marriage like rights to polygamy, as I’ve said before, I don’t think they make sense.
But I think there’s still room for moral opprobrium in lawmaking, balanced against the invasion upon privacy. Thus, for example, we can find that laws agaisnt sodomy invade privacy to a much greater extent than laws against gay marriage. So that one is strong enough to overcome whatever majoritarian moral opprobrium there is against homosexuality.
“Those who seek to change this bear an almost overwhelming burden to prove that they are not destroying a critical structure of society. Those who advocate the continuance of tradition have no burden of proof on them at all.”
To me the burden is shown by seeing homosexuals enter into monogamous coupling relationships, make households and families, and live fulfilling lives. Or try to have that just like straight people.
Then again others think that’s precisely the thing which ought to be stopped.
If it would make you feel better I’m willing to accomodate and have there be gay marriage for no reason at all.
How I “feel” isn’t relevant, but then neither is your comment. In order to legalize same sex marriage in the foreseeable future courts will have to invalidate state laws. Somehow I don’t see them doing that “for no reason at all.”
I don’t think we can compare polygamy and coupling. Since I don’t see a way of comparing the essentially binary rights that married couples have — that I understand gays to be seeking — to polygamy.
Well, you’ve said a couple of times that you don’t see the connection, and I certainly believe you. You don’t see it. But, pray tell, where did you find “the essentially binary rights married couples have”? What exactly is the right, and what makes it binary? Isn’t it binary because society has deemed marriage to be binary? But that same society has limited it, so far, to two people of opposite sexes, but you’re saying individuals (but only in pairs) have rights that trump society’s right. Again, what are they? Where do they come from? Why do only two people at a time have them and not three or six?
Unless you mean something like “Rights are what actus sees, and nothing more.”
“In order to legalize same sex marriage in the foreseeable future courts will have to invalidate state laws.”
I don’t think thats a good way to proceed either. Spain looks like it can show us the way.
“Unless you mean something like “Rights are what actus sees, and nothing more.””
I just don’t see a way to compare the binary rights to other non-binary ones. Like the idea that I have empowered someone else to make decisions for me. Or that it is an unequal deprivation that I have 1 dependant that collects social security spousal benefits and someone else would like that for 13 people.
But like I said, there’s still plenty of room for moral opprobrium in policymaking, in relation to how invasive such opprobrium is. That shouldn’t be a bar to gay unions, there is popular support for some form of gay unions, though not marriage. It will, however, bar polygamy.
Carnival of the Vanities #136 – Blogger Refugee Edition
Welcome to the #136 Edition of the Carnival of the Vanities. This weeks edition is brought to you by your local coffeehouse, because nothing says misanthropy better than a local coffee house (particularly if it only brews fair-trade coffee). Next week …
Carnival of the Vanities #136 – Blogger Refugee Edition
Welcome to the #136 Edition of the Carnival of the Vanities. This weeks edition is brought to you by your local coffeehouse, because nothing says misanthropy better than a local coffee house (particularly if it only brews fair-trade coffee). Next week …
actus,
I just don’t see a way to compare the binary rights to other non-binary ones. Like the idea that I have empowered someone else to make decisions for me. Or that it is an unequal deprivation that I have 1 dependant that collects social security spousal benefits and someone else would like that for 13 people.
All you’re actually saying is that plural marriage would be logistically complicated. As a matter of fact it’s not nearly as complicated as you’re making it out to be.
Medical decisions: Have each member of a plural marriage, at solemnization, establish a medical-decision-making “chain of succession”: “A is my primary decision-maker; if A is deceased or incapacitated, B; if not A or B, C;” &c. Changeable whenever you want to alter it, just like a will or a living will.
Social Security spousal benefits: divide equally among surviving spouses.
There, was that so hard?
I imagine custody battles over children of plural marriages would be intricate, and so would division of assets if one member divorced the group. But if Robert Heinlein could sort it out in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (sorry, I forget how he handled it, but he did), so can we.
Seriously, the complications involved in tenancy-in-common are every bit as nasty, and we already have TICs and the world has not ended yet. And we are talking about the most intimate, private decisions about the way one lives one’s life here, aren’t we? — the ones you keep saying the Government should damn well keep its big interfering nose out of?
“All you’re actually saying is that plural marriage would be logistically complicated. As a matter of fact it’s not nearly as complicated as you’re making it out to be.”
Its not just logistics. They’re also icommensurable on any level other than the “you can do what you want why can’t I do what I want.”
“There, was that so hard?”
No harder than it is already. No. Whic brings up the point of what is unequal about the marriage situation. And how we conceive of this inequality in any way beyond “I feel like it doing something not allowed.”
“And we are talking about the most intimate, private decisions about the way one lives one’s life here, aren’t we?
actus,
Its not just logistics. They’re also incommensurable on any level other than the “you can do what you want why can’t I do what I want.”
You do realize that this is exactly the argument made constantly against gay marriage, right?
I agree that the government should keep its nose out of how we divide up our social security checks and who we assign our health care power of attorneys to.
Well, either we can’t do these things now (in which case you ought to be clamoring for changes in the law), or we can, in which case it’s hard to see why you brought them up in connection with plural marriage. (I don’t think, actually, that spousal benefits are transferrable, but I don’t know for sure; I think that medical power of attorney can be transferred to someone other than a spouse, but again I’m not sure.)
Tell me, what are the benefits of gay marriage that you can’t imagine being imparted by small changes in law that don’t involve recognizing gay marriage? I mean, if you saw the spousal-benefit thing and the medical-power-of-attorney thing and whatever examples of “discrimination” you can think of sorted out so that gay and lesbian couples could be in the same position as straight married couples, would you be satisfied? Or would only formal state recognition do?
“You do realize that this is exactly the argument made constantly against gay marriage, right?”
The incommensurability? Thats easy to dispel though. Its not hard to take the rights and responsibilities that come from an opposite sex union and map them onto a same sex union. Its exactly that mapping that has people in a tiff to pass the federal marriage amendment which bars the “incident’s of marriage.”
“I mean, if you saw the spousal-benefit thing and the medical-power-of-attorney thing and whatever examples of “discrimination” you can think of sorted out so that gay and lesbian couples could be in the same position as straight married couples, would you be satisfied?”
I think if homosexual couples are in the same position as straight couples then we have achieved the goal of a policy of non-discrimination towards homosexuals.
actus,
What I’m trying to ask is whether the “incidents of marriage” are enough for you. Let me give you an example — stop me if you’ve heard it before ;-) I fear I’ve told it here already.
A few years back, the government of San Francisco decided that any organization contracting with the City must provide health benefits to domestic partners of its employees on the same terms that it provides them to spouses. Now, Catholic Charities provides a lot of the shelter and other services for SF’s homeless, and gets City funding to do so. So the question was whether Catholic Charities would be forced formally to treat domestic partnerships (gay or straight) on an equal footing with marriages wrt benefits, or whether it would have to sever its City contracts instead.
Archbishop Levada came up with a politically brilliant solution: any employee of Catholic Charities could name any one other member of his or her household to receive the equivalent of spousal medical benefits. It could be your gay partner; on the other hand, it could also be your mother, your sister, or the college friend you’re renting a place with. Anyone sharing your living space.
It was brilliant because it went well beyond what the City demanded, and nonetheless conceded nothing about the status of gay partnerships. And it was not a popular move in the SF gay community, because the point wasn’t really to get benefits for gay Catholic Charities employees’ partners, but either to get CC out of SF’s payroll or else to bring it to heel, and neither thing happened. That CC’s move benefited a lot of actual people was a lot less important in some quarters than that the symbolic victory didn’t take place.
“What I’m trying to ask is whether the “incidents of marriage” are enough for you. ”
like civil unions? They sound fine to me. I do think the ad-hoc approach is pragmatic in making progress, but problematic as an end.
Carnival 136
I was out all day today but I just got back to discover that the Carnival of the Vanities has been posted. This week’s host, John C. A. Bambenek, living up to the best traditions of the Carnival, reviews more…
The hubris of this discussion is astonishing. Michelle, you are a very intelligent woman, so I’ll try to put what I said another way:
In the 30, 40 or 50 years that you’ve been on this earth, your wisdom cannot possibly equal that of the collective wisdom of humanity through, what?, 5,000 years of civilization.
Can’t you see the incredible arrogance of believing that in your very short time on this earth you know how to re-arrange the most fundamental customs of society? You aren’t afraid that you might be missing something that the ancients actually experienced?
Intellectual exercise is, in fact, not at all the point. Think ritual, custom and tradition. That you think that this issue can be resolved through your college educated intellect is where you are failing here.
“Can’t you see the incredible arrogance of believing that in your very short time on this earth you know how to re-arrange the most fundamental customs of society”
I think you’ve got a much better argument against the manhattan project than against the fact that my gay friends are settling down and making households and families just like me.
But hey if we want to go with 5000 years of tradition then lets have us some polygamy!
Your characterization of the Manhattan Project is the ultimate witness to your complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy. You are on the side of the bad guys. What else can be said?
It’s pointless to speak with or discuss anything with you.
“Your characterization of the Manhattan Project is the ultimate witness to your complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy”
It certainly changed the world. Changed 5000 years of tradition: now we can blow up the world many times over. Its unprecedented. I don’t need to say whether that’s good or bad. I just need to say that your argument says its bad. Much worse than my friends making families.
Blogworthies LXIV
Blogworthies: A weekly round-up of noteworthy entries from a variety of weblogs on a variety of topics.
A Reasoned Alternative to the Ongoing Name-Calling in America’s Public Discourse
Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, has written a nasty editorial entitled “Right-Wing Jihadists Chip Away at Americans’ Liberty.” It is yet another example of the intolerant behavior toward people of faith that h…