Suggesting that the New York Times’ columnist Frank Rich has failed to “respect ordinary standards of decency, reasonableness, and fair play” in writing about David Blankenhorn, he and two of his colleagues at the Institute for American Values have written the Times‘ public editor asking him to speak on the matter himself. Rich, they write, has been in three articles since February made
three main accusations against Mr. Blankenhorn. The first is that Blankenhorn is unqualified to serve as an expert witness on the topic of marriage. The second is that Mr. Boise [the pro-homosexual marriage lawyer at the Proposition 8 trial] ”demolished” Mr. Blankenhorn on the stand . And the third and most important by far (to us) is that Mr. Blankenhorn is an anti-gay bigot and propagandist.
Rich did all this, as readers will guess, in the broad, contemptuous Richian style. You are to understand that Blankenhorn is a buffoon and a bigot, and safely to be ignored.
The letter includes testimonies to Blankenhorn’s qualifications by a diverse and impressive list of family scholars, some on the other side of the gay marriage issue, like William Galston, Leon Kass, David Popenoe, and Mary Ann Glendon. Unless Rich will say that these people are all incompetent, and I doubt he would, that takes care of that charge.
The letter also includes a revealing report from the New Yorker’s blog on the exchange between Boies and Blankenhorn, in which the lawyer does not come out well, and an analysis of Blankenhorn’s views on homosexuality, which are far from bigoted — unless having reservations about extending marriage to homosexual couples is in itself bigoted, as it apparently is in Frank Rich’s (bigoted) view of things. (That last comment was mine, not the writers’.)
Blankenhorn is the founder and president of the IAV, and author of the very, very useful book Fatherless America. The other writers of the letter are the eminent political scientist Jean Bethke Elshtain, chairman of the IAV’s board of directors and a member of our editorial board, and Elizabeth Marquardt, author of My Daddy’s Name is Donor (see here for a short description of the book and links).
July 7th, 2010 | 10:37 am
Having reservations about extending marriage to homosexual couples IS in itself bigoted.
Frank Rich is correct.
You know this in your heart.
July 7th, 2010 | 10:56 am
Jill,
Thank you for making clear that you did not read the letter to the Times and also for not wasting space on an actual argument.
July 7th, 2010 | 11:13 am
I find this letter highly disturbing, but for reason different than the author intended, I am sure. Two supporters of Mr. Blankenhorn’s credentials note that his affirmation of “the equal dignity of homosexual love.” One notes that these “are not words of grudging tolerance. They are words of affirmation, approval, and acceptance.” I agree and I find that disturbing.
I certainly understand the benefit of limiting the legal case against same-sex marriage to purely secular and social scientific arguments based on reputably, non-religious based research into the well-being of children. But to affirm “the equal dignity of homosexual love” is to give up the broader struggle in order to win a victory which, if won at all, must only be a temporary one if it is conceded that “homosexual love” has “equal dignity” (presumably to heterosexual love). If that is the case, then eventually it will be impossible to convince the coming generation of adults that marriage rights should not be extended to such relationships.
We have traveled down a long road of rejecting the wisdom of our ancestors on the nature of human sexuality and the sanctity of marriage. Either we reverse course and begin retracing our steps or we travel continue to travel yet further in the wrong direction. Mr. Blankenhorn’s affirmation of “the equal dignity of homosexual love” but opposition to same-sex marriage based solely on the social science research is simply to continue to travel down the road in the wrong direction more slowly. The concession gives away too much. Supposing those upholding Proposition 8 ultimately succeed in this case on this bases, I can only believe that we are in the same position as King Pyrrhus after the battles of Heraclea and Asculum. Many more such victories will undo our larger cause. Even worse, should this battle be lost, the concession will still be remembered and used against those of us who refuse to concede what Mr. Blankenhorn has conceded.
July 7th, 2010 | 11:23 am
“You know this in your heart.”
I also know “in my heart” that unicorns exist.
Doesn’t make it so.
July 7th, 2010 | 11:24 am
@ Jill,
To be bigoted is to have no rational basis for one’s opposition. Mr. Blankenhorn and others (myself included) have rational bases for our opposition to same-sex “marriage”. Those who demand recognition of same-sex “marriage” even when a state offers identical rights to same-sex couples under laws recognizing civil unions do so because they insist that there is no meaningful difference between homosexual love and heterosexual love. That simply is not the case. Only heterosexual acts can result in procreation. Historically, a marriage could be annulled until it was consummated and that was because marriages were intended as unions which would and could be open to procreation. A marriage did not have to be procreative but it must be open to procreation. There is, therefore, a most fundamental distinction between heterosexual love open to procreation and homosexual love which cannot by its very nature be open to procreation. That distinction will continue to exist whether states recognize same-sex unions as “marriages” or not. The only difference is that we will not longer have a word which labels or describes that differences. States which recognize same-sex “marriages” are, in fact, both telling a lie and robbing their people of a word that describes a real and natural distinction.
And that, I believe, is why many same-sex “marriage” advocates refuse to accept civil union status which offers the same legal rights as marriage. This is not about legal rights. Its about pretending that there is no distinction between homosexual love and heterosexual love when in fact there clearly is.
July 7th, 2010 | 12:14 pm
Mr. Laughlin: You say in your comments that affirming the equal dignity of homosexual love constitutes giving up on “the broader struggle.” if I may ask, what exactly is the “broader struggle” to which you refer?
July 7th, 2010 | 12:42 pm
Having reservations about extending marriage to incestuous couples IS in itself bigoted.
Having reservations about extending marriage to non-monogamous couples IS in itself bigoted.
Having reservations about extending marriage to under-18 couples IS in itself bigoted.
Frank Rich is correct.
You know this in your heart.
Just being consistent here…..
July 7th, 2010 | 1:28 pm
The debate over gay marriage is about equality under the law–the question is whether there are any differences between similarly situated gay couples and heterosexual couples that would justify treating them differently in the legal realm. That is, if a gay couple is similar in all the areas *important to the law*, there’s a real question of how denying them access to the legal institution available to heterosexual couples can be justified. And this, I think, is why the appeal to procreative potential of heterosexual unions is unconvincing. As it stands the law just doesn’t care about that one way or another. In the eyes of the law child bearing and rearing is a matter of personal preference, not an essential element of marriage.
July 7th, 2010 | 1:29 pm
There must, by now, be a logical fallacy named for this current mode of argumentation: “You disagree with me, therefore you are a bigot.” Jill above and Frank Rich are not alone in its use.
July 7th, 2010 | 1:35 pm
There is, of course, ad hominem. But this new mode short circuits the usual method of ad hominem, where the personal attack is mainly a distraction to avoid argument. Nowadays the personal attack is claimed to directly arise from the disagreement.
July 7th, 2010 | 1:44 pm
“What exactly is the ‘broader struggle’ to which you refer?”
Fair question, Mr. Blackenhorn. The broader struggle is to return society (not just the U.S., but all of what was once known as Christendom) to a understanding of sex, marriage, and the family that accords with natural law and the historic teaching of the Church, namely,
1. That sexual intercourse has two purposes as created by God and revealed in nature: procreative and unitive.
2. That those two purposes are joined together by God and nature and man may not tear them asunder. That is, the only licit sexual acts are those which are by their nature open to life and to strengthening the union of man and woman. Man may not seek to have sexual intercourse that it not open to both the unitive and the procreative purposes nor may he seek to have procreation without sexual intercourse.
3. That marriage (a joining together of one man and one woman til death do them part) is the only licit state in which sexual intercourse may occur. And, again, what God has joined together, man may not separate.
4. That marriage is ordained by God for three purposes: for the procreation of children; for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication, and for the mutual society, help, and comfort and that, again, these three which God has joined together, man may not separate.
The movement toward same-sex “marriage” is not the cause of societies maladies. It is but another result. But to accept it will further the spread of those maladies. Homosexual love, to use your terminology is no more of equal dignity with heterosexual love within a lifelong marriage of a man and woman open to life than are fornication, adultery, divorce, and voluntary infertility. To say so is not only to ascribe to homosexual love a dignity to which it is not entitled, it is to call evil good and it is, in fact, a lie.
That may sound harsh, but that is the clear teaching of Scripture and of the Church. Either Christians must stand of those truths or they must admit that they lack not only the courage of their own convictions, but lack fidelity to our ancestors in the Faith and to God Himself. Further, as I stated earlier, to call homosexual love of equal dignity with heterosexual love is to concede ground to the advocates of same-sex “marriage” to which they are not entitled. Compromise which moves us back down the path we have been traveling the last few centuries may be acceptable; compromise which moves us further in the wrong direction is not.
I have followed the case in California and the earlier case which upheld Proposition 8. Those who oppose same-sex marriage and support Proposition 8 have conceded far too much. They have, in fact, laid the groundwork for further eroding of the family in order to gain temporary, Pyhrric victories. Instead of making further compromises and ascribing to homosexual love a dignity to which it is not entitled, the time has come to remind Christians of how earlier compromises have led to this point and how returning to the traditional, historic Christian understanding of sex, marriage and the family is essential. No other course can hope to succeed, because no other course accords to the laws of God and nature.
July 7th, 2010 | 2:00 pm
@ Tristian
“In the eyes of the law child bearing and rearing is a matter of personal preference, not an essential element of marriage.”
You are, I am afraid, correct. It wasn’t always so. Indeed, until 1965, when the U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut struck down the laws criminalizing the use of contraceptives by married couples, the law recognized that openness to procreation was an essential element of marriage and not a matter of personal preference. With that decision and its progeny, the law has blinded itself to that fundamental truth. And that has led directly to the case now pending a decision in California, as well as to Roe v. Wade and the evil of legalized abortion.
However, the fact is that California already recognizes civil union which afford exactly the same rights and privileges in that state that marriage does (to the extent that the state of California can do so — it cannot afford rights and privileges which are controlled by the federal government). So, in reality, as was made clear in the earlier case upholding Proposition 8, this is really all about the label “marriage” and whether the use of that label by homosexual couples is a right and privilege which the law must accord. Whatever else a union between two men or two women my be, it is not a “marriage” as that term has been understood for time immemorial. A marriage is the union of two humans who engage in the act by which procreation occurs. Only heterosexual couples may be married, therefore. If we insist on calling homosexual unions marriages, we change the meaning of the word. In gaining that label, homosexuals will have gained nothing because the label will cease to have the meaning it had before it was applied to homosexual couples. It will mean something entirely different and new. But they will have succeeded in removing from our language a word which describes a distinction which now exists, which has always existed and which will always exist. Our language, and therefore our people, will be the poorer for it. We may even pretend that no such distinction exists because we no longer have a label for it, but that will be merely self-delusion. Homosexual couples can never have what heterosexual couples can have even if we call the two widely distinctive unions by the same name. But they will add to the damage done over the past few centuries, accelerated in the past 100 years, to a right, natural, and God-revealed understanding of sex, marriage, and the family.
July 7th, 2010 | 2:07 pm
“the equal dignity of homosexual love”
Why on earth do we all have to coo over the word “love”? You can’t get your marriage annuled, in secular law or in the Church, because you did not feel sentiments about each other, and you can only get a secular divorce over it because you can get a divorce over anything.
July 7th, 2010 | 2:23 pm
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if people just shrugged their shoulders when others accused them of being bigots (or racists or sexists or ageists or …). Why is it that we as a society have allowed name-calling to become a more powerful political tool than reasoning?
July 7th, 2010 | 3:03 pm
Bigotry is a vice of the mind and the heart. It is to exercise the powers of both in a disordered fashion. But this assumes a teleology to the intellect and the sentiments, that there are properly ordered ways to think and love.
But same-sex marriage depends on rejecting natural teleology. For the legitimacy of same-sex unions requires that we believe that our sexual powers do not have a proper end to them that can only be consummated in the unity of male and female.
So, who is being irrational here? Frank Rich, who capriciously selects those ends–that of heart and mind–that he prefers, while ignoring those ends he does not? Or, those who see a seamlessness in human ends, that our parts work in concert of the good of the whole?
The “bigot” charge is a conversation stopper. It is intended to forestall dialogue, to silence the other. It is the tactic of the bully.
That is why Frank Rich is neither.
July 7th, 2010 | 3:41 pm
Mr. Laughlin:
Thanks for your answer. It’s an argument for which I have considerable respect. But it does turn out, as you suspected in your first comment, that you and I are not comrades in the “larger struggle” that you here so cogently adumbrate.
One reason that I’m not a part of your struggle is that I am involved in trying to influence broad public opinion and public policy in the here and now, and there is not the slightest chance this side of Judgement Day, in the U.S. or in any modern democracy, of your agenda being broadly accepted or adopted. It can serve as the powerful moral and religious inspiration and teaching for a countercultural minority, but … that is all.
The second reason is that I do not believe that homosexual conduct is evil. I am glad that I am heterosexual, and, like some homosexuals I know, I view homosexuality as in some senses a disability — but a fairly mild one, and one not all that different from a range of other disabilities, at least some which afflict almost any of us, certainly including me.
Now, you seem quite sure that this belief of mine is contrary to Christianity. You may be right, and if so, so be it; but I am not as sure as you are. A wonderful, wise man I knew (he’s now dead) told me that in his view as a pastor, Jesus’ ministry could be beautifully expressed by the concept that, to the self-righteous, Jesus’ main question is, “Are you so sure you’re in?” and to the lost and rebuked, his main question is, “Are you so sure you’re out.” What I miss in your comments is any sense of this kind of doubt or uncertainty. As for me, call me weak-minded, but I’m not so sure that you are in, and they are out.
July 7th, 2010 | 4:01 pm
[...] the consistently interesting First Things blog, David Mills has a piece on my little blow-up with Frank Rich. Some (to me) good discussion is emerging in the comments. Share on Facebook Share on Twitter [...]
July 7th, 2010 | 4:18 pm
Mr. Laughlin,
Here’s the problem. Gays did not undermine the legal and cultural understanding of marriage that linked it essentially to procreation. In fact, it is only because that understanding has been largely replaced by one in which the meaning of a marriage is negotiated privately by those party to it that gay marriage is even thinkable. This evolution has been driven by the choices many, many couples, mostly heterosexuals, have been happy to embrace contraception, divorce, cohabitation, single parenting and so on. Let’s suppose Mr. Blankenhorn and others are right that we are paying a price for these choices in the form of high divorce rates, absentee parents and so on. The fact remains that the political and legal resistance to gay marriage does nothing to restore the traditional understanding of marriage to its place of cultural orthodoxy, and so does nothing to undo the damage, such as it may be, of the last decades.
So where does that leave us? It seems to me that in the current cultural setting, refusing to recognize gay marriage makes gays carry the burden of protecting an image of marriage largely abandoned by the rest of us. They must pay the price of our trying to reverse the damage caused by the choices of others, and that is simply unfair. Even if some tangible benefit to marriage or the family could be achieved by continuing to defy the logic of our cultural evolution, we will be buying those achievements at the cost of denying equal consideration to those who are not uniquely responsible for those high divorce rates, cohabitation, absentee fathers, and what have you. That too is simply unfair.
As for “marriage” vs. “civil unions.” Consider this. Suppose we told some group–let’s say Catholics–that we can’t call them “citizens” because they really aren’t quite the same as the rest of us. Not that they should worry. We’ll call the “schmitizens” and make sure they have all the same rights–we just want to reserve the term “citizen” for real Americans, as we see it. Acceptable? No. These things matter.
July 7th, 2010 | 4:21 pm
“But same-sex marriage depends on rejecting natural teleology. For the legitimacy of same-sex unions requires that we believe that our sexual powers do not have a proper end to them that can only be consummated in the unity of male and female.”
No. Same sex marriage depends on the belief that in a liberal democracy it’s not for the state to decide the meaning of human sexuality.
July 7th, 2010 | 4:25 pm
@ Mr. Blankenship,
To your points briefly.
1. I agree that in our lifetime it is highly unlikely that we will return to the traditional view of sex, marriage and the family. As to it being this side your observation that “here is not the slightest chance this side of Judgement Day, in the U.S. or in any modern democracy, of your agenda being broadly accepted or adopted,” I would say that you simply are making an assumption unwarranted by anyone familiar with history. Had the possibility of same-sex marriage been suggested 100 years ago, most Americans would have made the same observation . . . and they would have been wrong. It is a fact that for much of our history laws enforcing the tradition view were on the books in many American states. I believe some of those laws were unwise, but they were passed in state legislatures around the nation and signed by governors in a wide variety of states. Presumably this was done with significant support among the population. Neither you nor I can predict what future generations may do and its folly to suggest otherwise.
2. I believe Scripture and traditional Christian understanding of it are clear that homosexual conduct (as opposed to homosexual orientation) is a sin and grave one at that. It is not the only grave sin. I’m a sinner too and have committed some fairly grave ones. I have my own areas of weakness where my sin nature is active. I’m not judging homosexual conduct any more harshly than my own sins. I’m glad that homosexual orientation is not my weakness, but I equally hope and pray that He removes from me the sinful orientations that I do have. However, from a Christian standpoint, to deny that homosexual conduct is a sin is to deny the need for repentance. I pray that I am in, as you put it. I also pray that other sinners are in.
As to your comment, “What I miss in your comments is any sense of this kind of doubt or uncertainty. As for me, call me weak-minded, but I’m not so sure that you are in, and they are out,” that is a cheap shot and demonstrates that you are not above abandoning rational arguments to adopt the tactics of men like your critic, Mr. Rich. It is, in fact, worse than what Mr. Rich did. He called you a bigot; you’ve suggested I may well be damned. I have not questioned your salvation nor that of any of your supporters or opponents. I’ve not addressed that point at all. I’ve addressed the problem as I see it and I believe your concessions will make it worse, not better. Address my arguments, and not the state of my soul. You know nothing about me except for what I’ve stated here and what I’ve state here is the position of the Church throughout its history, a position which was held universally despite the Church’s unfortunate schisms, as far as I can discern, until the 20th century. Your argument on those points is not with me, but with the Author of Sacred Scripture and with the teaching of the Church.
I’ll stand by my prediction. If the side opposed to same-sex marriage takes the lukewarm position that you offer, that same-sex marriage is bad from a social science perspective, but equal in dignity to heterosexual love as expressed within the marriage of a man and woman for life open to the procreation of children, the effort against same-sex marriage is futile. You concede too much. It is, in fact, irrational to oppose same-sex marriage simply on the grounds of social science. The more heterosexual marriage resembles homosexual unions, the weaker the case against same-sex marriage. That is not an observation of my own imagining; it is a case which has been made by same-sex advocates. I just recognize its logic. For Christians who support traditional marriage, there is no choice. We can’t be lukewarm. We must be either hot or cold. That is not because we have animus toward people who have homosexual orientations; it’s because marriage matters. I do not support a return to the laws criminalizing such conduct, laws which had been enforced in at least some American states continually from the founding of the Republic until the Lawrence decision less than a decade ago. I merely oppose state recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages and I do so because I accept and defend the historic definition of “marriage”. If you don’t do that, then why bother?
July 7th, 2010 | 4:30 pm
I apologize for my many typos. I was interrupted by telephone calls during the typing of it. I think my points are clear and I won’t resubmit it.
July 7th, 2010 | 4:54 pm
“Here’s the problem. Gays did not undermine the legal and cultural understanding of marriage that linked it essentially to procreation. In fact, it is only because that understanding has been largely replaced by one in which the meaning of a marriage is negotiated privately by those party to it that gay marriage is even thinkable. This evolution has been driven by the choices many, many couples, mostly heterosexuals, have been happy to embrace contraception, divorce, cohabitation, single parenting and so on.”
I agree Tristian. That’s essentially my argument against Mr. Blankenhorn’s position. Unless we reject all those choices which you have highlighted, there is no case against same-sex marriage that can possible survive because it is irrational to accept the choices you’ve outlined and to, at the same time, reject same-sex marriage. And that is the stark choice which must be presented to Christians. It is nothing short of hypocrisy to not only tolerate, but accept and approve the current rejection of marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman open to the procreation of new life while rejecting same-sex marriage. We must remove the log from our own eyes before attempting to remove the speck from the eyes of same-sex “marriage” advocates. Mr. Blackenhorn should take note of this argument by you, for it shows clearly the instability and irrationality of his own position. You and I agree on your observation, but we disagree as to the conclusion to which it should lead. Again, lukewarmness (Mr. Blackenhorn’s position) won’t do. One must be either hot (call for a return to traditional marriage and all that it entailed as I do) or cold (accept same-sex marriage in light of society’s already existing rejection of traditional marriage as you do). Those are the only logic positions.
As to your “Catholics not citizens” analogy, it simply doesn’t work. The essence of marriage is an openness to procreation and always has been (despite the rejection of this essence by heterosexuals in the past century). It is inherent to the very concept. It is one of the inseparable purposes for which marriage was ordained. Again, it is not actual procreation which is essential, but an openness to it. The essence of citizenship is not Protestantism. One’s religious beliefs are not essential to citizenship.
I am not opposed to people with homosexual orientation and agree that some rights and privileges should be extended to such couples (for example, I agree with the recent decision by the Obama Administration to require hospitals to give next-of-kin privileges to same-sex partners). My opposition is to equating such relationships with marriages. It is in society’s interest to promote and protect traditional marriage. Denying its distinct nature by equating same-sex relationships with traditional marriages will just further undermine marriages as has the other examples you cite.
July 7th, 2010 | 5:26 pm
Mr. Laughlin:
Thank you again for your careful, well-considered answer. I think it’s probably best, at this time, and in this forum, simply to agree to disagree on most of the big points that you have raised. Maybe in a more flexible format, we could identify more areas of common ground. In that vein, it’s worth remembering that we both oppose same-sex marriage!
One other point, if I may: When I said that I do not see much, in your comments, that could be called doubt or uncertainty, and used the “Are you in or out?” formulation from my pastor to show how important I think that quality is, when it comes to reaching the goal of wisdom, I was only intending to say … that. I certainly did not mean to “question” your “salvation.” Goodness! That’s about the last thing I would want or try to do.
It’s just that, based on my reading of your comments, you seem like a fellow who has a very worked out position, about which you have little if any doubt or uncertainty. That’s really all I was trying to say.
I’ve enjoyed our exchange, and again thank you for it.
July 7th, 2010 | 5:40 pm
For better or worse, “marriage” is a matter about which reasonable persons of good will disagree. That is a fact, and so the question we face is what should we do about this fact. It seems to me contrary to the principles on which our system of government is founded to have the state simply impose one answer to the question “what is marriage?” simply because it is more traditional, or was once orthodoxy, or because it best adheres to my or anyone’s particular beliefs about what marriage “really” is. Let’s instead work towards a consensus that respects matters of conscience while being fair to all.
July 7th, 2010 | 5:46 pm
I accept your explanation of your words, Mr. Blankenhorn.
I am certain of my position, but not because it is mine. I am certain of it because it is the position clearly revealed in Scripture and held by the Church consistently throughout history. I am merely submitting to my superiors on this subject. It is because I believe I cannot reason better than two millennia of faithful, holy and wise men nor than the clear teach of Scripture that I accept what they taught. I have not worked out my position; they worked out the position I accept and present here long ago. Scripture warns us not to move boundary stones set by our fathers. We have and the sad results are all around us.
I do appreciate your efforts to support Prop. 8. I just believe, in the end, that you (as did Ken Starr before you) conceded too much and that those concessions will condemn the effort to resist the eventual acceptance of same-sex marriage.
July 7th, 2010 | 6:12 pm
@Tristian, July 7th, 2010 | 5:40 pm
While your sentiments are undoubtedly sincere, that is not an option. The state will decide what it calls and considers marriage. It has two choices before it; it cannot accept both. To retain the tradition view is to reject the view you support; to accept the view you support is to reject the traditional view. The two views are mutually incompatible.
Our system has always had to decide issues in which one side gets all that it wanted and the other loses all that it fought for. Some cases simply require black or white answers. Gray is not an option. This is one of those cases.
Throughout its history, until the Goodridge case, our system accepted, promoted and defended the traditional view. Those states, like Massachusetts, that now recognize same-sex “marriage” have not merely broadened the definition of marriage, they have overthrown and rejected the traditional definition and replaced it with a new, incompatible one. Either marriage is what it has always been or it will become something entirely new. That is the issue we face. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
July 7th, 2010 | 6:35 pm
“No. Same sex marriage depends on the belief that in a liberal democracy it’s not for the state to decide the meaning of human sexuality.”
Opponents of same sex marriage believe the same thing. They do not believe that the state should decide the meaning of human sexuality, for its meaning is part of the nature of things. The state can no more decide the meaning of human sexuality than it can decide that trees are really fish.
But, in fact, the state does make judgments based on what it knows about human sexuality. It, in some jurisdictions, bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, and thus makes the judgment about the relevance of that category to things as wide ranging as employment, school admission, and tenant law.
Laws against rape assume that there is something fundamentally different about sexual assault in comparison to other sorts. This is why, for example, a man who lets his infant son suck on his finger, rather than another appendage, to replace a dropped pacifier does not risk years in prison.
I know who my parents are because of sex. I was sired by father and birthed by my mother. The state cannot change that, even if they declared it otherwise. Adoption presupposes that, since it is only those who sired and bore that have the special obligation to care, or put up for adoption, their children.
So, the state cannot not deal with human sexuality as long as we have a civilization. That is, a culture that subsists through time and is known by its generations, i.e., those who have patrimony and progeny, that is, the products of human sexuality and the institutions that arose from it. That seems so obvious, I find it hard to believe that somebody does not actually know that. Perhaps it is like water is to the fish; its ubiquity makes it almost invisible.
July 7th, 2010 | 6:48 pm
Re: The “broader struggle”: Two articles provide a framework for thinking about this , and other deeply volatile cultural issues. One appeared in the December, 2009, First Things. It is entitled, “The Nature of Desire” by Prof. Paul J. Griffths. The other, “On Alasdair Macintyre” by Stanley Hauerwas appeared in October, 2007. Also helpful is the small book on abuse of language by Josef Pieper. We will not progress by shooting at one another across the barricades. We must reason our way to a solution of this question. One aspect affecting any discussion of human sexuality that is almost never mentioned – whether in the context of heterosexual promiscuity or homosexuality – is that of individual and public health. This particular focus has every possibility of trumping all other concerns regarding human sexual relations should questions of pestilence become part of the equation. Another matter not mentioned is that of children and their production to satisfy human desires which sometimes entails the child being denied access to or even knowledge of his or her mother or father. It is, after all, still true that every child has a mother and a father.
July 7th, 2010 | 6:49 pm
David, I”m not sure its fair to ascribe to Gregory’s remarks the idea that he is certain he is in and that others are out.
I don’t know about Gregory but to me to express a certainty that anyone is “out” in the sense of salvation comes pretty close to blasphemy and possibly the mysterious sin against the Holy Spirit. God makes those decisions, not me. We can raise concerns but never judge another’s soul.
What Gregory has expressed certainty about is that certain kinds of sexual behavior are “in” and others are “out” if you accept the teaching authority of either the Scriptures or the Catholic Church. (which of course as you point out many do not).
Would you make the same response to someone who asserted with great moral confidence, “No Christian can approve adultery?” Is it moral confidence that is the problem in itself?
Myself I have no trouble believing that any particular gay man is better than I am (Jon Rauch in particular!), and may get to heaven before me. I hope and pray we all get there in the end, by the grace of God.
That doesn’t change the meaning of marriage, or the standards of sexual virtue either, nor the long and very clear historical position of Christianity on these questions.
Humility is an important virtue, thanks for reminding us. We can be right about sexual morality and wrong in the way we treat others, including those who disagree with us on sexual morality. The road to Hell is paved with the morally self-confident.
I haven’t reviewed Gregory’s comments in detail so I don’t know if I agree with all of them.
I certainly think that “civil marriage” as we now call it requires its own defense on its own terms, and as you know I agree with your defense of it.
But I do think you went a little ad hominem on Gregory.
July 7th, 2010 | 7:24 pm
Mr. Laughlin, in your 4:54 comment, 2nd paragraph, you seem to argue that the culture and state have already rejected the traditional definition of marriage.
Marriage can’t be “what it has always been” given the legal and cultural changes that it has undergone in the last 50 years.
July 7th, 2010 | 7:46 pm
Dr. Beckwith, you seem to have misunderstood me in two ways.
I accept the claim that sexual morality is something objective, and whatever facts determine its meaning and the moral character of various kinds of sexual behavior, government acts or laws aren’t high on the list. But that’s not the sense of “determine” I was talking about. Whatever the facts are, I as an individual have to come to some conclusion as to what to believe about the matter–I have to determine as best as I can what the facts are. That’s the sense I had in mind. We do expect the government to consider some questions, arrive at conclusions, and implement policies as a result–when it comes to foreign policy, for example, or managing the economy. We shouldn’t, I am suggesting, expect or want the state to take up the matter of the ultimate meaning of human sexuality and impose its answer to those questions on those who deepest beliefs lead to other answers.
In saying this I am not suggesting, and nor does it follow, that the state can never pass laws pertaining to sexual matters. Of course it must, and of course it does. What does follow from the view I hold is that when it does involve itself in sexual matters the state should have a compelling interest to do so, an interest that can be claimed in a way that does not assume answers to the deeper questions that are properly left to conscience. To take a couple of your examples, we do not need to settle the question of whether we can only truly understand human sexuality from the point of view of natural law theory to know that rape is an especially traumatic form of assault, or that acts that would be sexual when done by adults may not be when done with one’s children. Those kinds of things we can know through everyday experience and uncontroversial science.
July 7th, 2010 | 7:56 pm
Gregory, you say “those states, like Massachusetts, that now recognize same-sex “marriage” have not merely broadened the definition of marriage, they have overthrown and rejected the traditional definition and replaced it with a new, incompatible one.” Consider a different interpretation. Can’t we say instead that they have concluded that the traditional understanding is no longer a good basis for marriage laws? Someone could say this, I think, and still believe the traditional view is true, and that we’d be better off if more people returned to it. The difference would be in seeing that this understanding should not be imposed by the state but rather freely chosen.
July 7th, 2010 | 10:46 pm
Marriage can’t be “what it has always been” given the legal and cultural changes that it has undergone in the last 50 years.
It can still be legal approval of conceiving offspring together using the couple’s own genes. That part hasn’t changed in the last 50 years, or ever in history: there has never been any married couple that was prohibited from conceiving children with the couple’s own genes, told they may not attempt it and must not create offspring. Same sex couples should be prohibited from conceiving together using their own genes. It is not a right and not ethical and bad public policy.
July 8th, 2010 | 7:54 am
@Tristian,
Same-sex “marriage” advocates view this issue as their being deprived the rights and privileges of marriage. I view it entirely differently. The rights and privileges of state recognition (as opposed to religious recognition) of marriage are not inherent rights (like the right to life or free speech)), they are incentives granted by government in order to encourage behavior which benefits society. For those incentives to be efficacious, they cannot be granted to everyone, even those who do not engage in the behavior the state wishes to encourage, or else they cease to be incentives. They must be reserved for those who engage in the favored behavior. The state has a profound interest in favoring two-parent families with children, families in which children are reared by both a father and a mother. Only traditional families may do that. Therefore, at least some rights and privileges of marriage should be reserved for married couples (e.g., tenancy-by-the-entirety ownership of real estate, tax filing status, spousal benefits for Social Security). The state favors some behaviors over others all the time. It’s what law is largely about.
July 8th, 2010 | 9:58 am
Maggie:
You ask, is moral confidence itself the problem? My answer is, yes, that is itself the problem.
It’s of course a big topic, and I’d enjoy the chance to discuss it with you in careful detail. My sense, though, is that, were the formidably intelligent Mr. Laughlin and I to spend lots of careful time trying to work through the reasons for our different views, this issue would be at the very heart of it.
You say, I am a liberal. I am, and I think that the two main traits that at least should separate liberal from non-liberal thought are: 1) a belief in values disssensus (there is no one system of harmonious values that is or should be regnant); and 2) the imperative of uncertainty, as described best in my experience by Eric Vogelin.
Anyway, much more to say, and I hope we can find the time to explore it more …
PS Apologies again to you and Mr. Laughlin on the “salvation” matter … as I said to him above, raising that tectonic issue was not even remotely what I had in mind when I made the “in/out” remark. I think I need to spend more time around religiously serious people!
July 8th, 2010 | 10:28 am
“It’s of course a big topic, and I’d enjoy the chance to discuss it with you in careful detail. My sense, though, is that, were the formidably intelligent Mr. Laughlin and I to spend lots of careful time trying to work through the reasons for our different views, this issue would be at the very heart of it.”
Mr. Blankenhorn,
I would love to sit down with you over a beer or two and thrash this out. I’m sure neither of us would change our essential positions, but we might each refine them and we might enjoy a hearty laugh or two at each other and at ourselves. You would find that I love to debate and do it rather hard, but I also enjoy the company of those with whom I disagree . . . so long as they are civil. You are a liberal and I’m a conservative (in the Burkean and Chestertonian senses of the word, not in the modern mis-usage of the term). I believing in conserving what has made society function for millennia and sincerely doubt that we contemporaries are wiser than our ancestors.
Again, I am grateful for the sacrifices you have made to oppose same-sex marriage and for your earlier work on the family.
July 8th, 2010 | 11:52 am
GL
There is no fundamental right to marry, that is true. But the case for gay marriage doesn’t depend on the claim that there is. Rather the case is based on a right to equal standing under the law, which is a fundamental right. The question is whether denying legal recognition to gay unions amounts to unjust discrimination–whether the intent and effect is to enshrine the chosen relationships of some citizens with a legal status and attendant privileges denied to the chosen relationships of others without a compelling justification. I’ve tried to indicate why the tie between sex and procreation no longer provides such a justification in earlier posts so I won’t repeat myself. Suffice to say that since legally and socially we’ve effectively severed any essential ties between sex, procreation, and marriage, such links should no longer distinguish heterosexual and homosexual unions in the eyes of the state.
July 8th, 2010 | 11:58 am
Gregory, since Mr. Blankenhorn is listening to you, please try explaining to him that society should not declare that same-sex couples have equal rights to marriage-eligible or married male-female couples, because same-sex couples should be prohibited from attempting to create genetic offspring together, while married couples should be affirmed and approved to create genetic offspring together. Declaring that they have equal rights both makes the claim that same-sex couples should be allowed to attempt to procreate together using new technologies, and simultaneously denies the claim that people have a right to attempt to conceive with their spouse using their own genes. Of course, logically it would have to be one or the other, but by putting off the question and trying to hide in an implausible plausible-deniability of not being aware of the possibility of same-sex conception, people that want to achieve both results are able to advance far enough down both roads so that marriage both no longer affirms a right to attempt to join the couple’s own genes to create offspring AND same-sex couples are allowed to join their genes to create offspring.
Please join me in calling for a federal law prohibiting people from attempting to create people using anything method other than joining the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man. All other methods are unethical, unsustainable, unecological, bad public policy, bad use of resources, bad for international relations, bad for basic human rights and equality.
July 8th, 2010 | 12:07 pm
GL writes of the incentives granted by state recognition of marriage: “They must be reserved for those who engage in the favored behavior. The state has a profound interest in favoring two-parent families with children, families in which children are reared by both a father and a mother.”
If I were to leave my wife and children for another woman, the state will help me in that endeavor, and will allow me to marry my new partner. Am I to imagine that this behavior falls under the umbrella of “favored behavior”?
July 8th, 2010 | 1:48 pm
@Peter,
The premise of your argument is that because public policy is bad as regards some issues surrounding sex, marriage and the family we should make it bad in other ways. (I know that you may not believe recognition of same-sex marriage is bad, but that appears to be the premise of your example.) No. The correct policy change would be to change the existing bad policies into good policies, not to use those bad policies to justify more bad policies.
@John,
I am not Catholic, but I hold to Catholic teaching on the matter of the issue of human fertility and reproduction. See, for example, Dignitas Personae, available at http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/. And I believe that those principles should be reflected in public policy.
@Tristian,
My point is that if the state treats two sets of behavior the same, it has no ability to give incentives to the one it favors. It is not people who are being denied equal treatment, it is behavior that is being treated differently. All law discriminates in favor of or against targeted behavior. That’s the essence of law. That is, in fact, what public policy is all about, encouraging behavior which benefits society and discouraging behavior which harms society. Behavior that is neither particularly beneficial or harmful can be left alone without laws designed to either encourage or discourage it.
Traditional marriage is good for society. Public policy can and should be permitted to discriminate in its favor. Until the Lawrence decision, states were permitted to discriminate against same-sex behavior by criminalizing it — and seven states continued to do so at that time. No public policy is neutral in that regard — or closer to neutral. The call for recognition of same-sex marriage is a call for public policy to go from discouraging such behavior before Lawrence to encouraging it. Not only do I disagree with doing so, I contend that doing so weakens the states ability to encourage traditional marriage by making the rights and privileges afforded traditional marriage easier to obtain without entering into a traditional marriage.
This has been edifying, but I must now turn my attention to other matters. I’ve enjoyed the thoughtful discussion.
July 8th, 2010 | 3:05 pm
Mr. Laughlin, you made a similar argument in your 4:54 comment above: “It is nothing short of hypocrisy to not only tolerate, but accept and approve the current rejection of marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman open to the procreation of new life while rejecting same-sex marriage.”
July 8th, 2010 | 3:21 pm
Thanks Gregory, I totally agree with Dignatas Personae so if you do too, join me in calling for a law to prohibit creating people by any means other than through the union of a man and a woman, as Dignatas Personae makes clear is the only licit way.
The origin of human life has its authentic context in marriage and in the family, where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. Procreation which is truly responsible vis-à-vis the child to be born “must be the fruit of marriage”.[9]
Marriage, present in all times and in all cultures, “is in reality something wisely and providently instituted by God the Creator with a view to carrying out his loving plan in human beings. Thus, husband and wife, through the reciprocal gift of themselves to the other – something which is proper and exclusive to them – bring about that communion of persons by which they perfect each other, so as to cooperate with God in the procreation and raising of new lives”
That is explicitly both-sex, and rules out use of genetically engineered gametes to allow two men or two women to reproduce. It takes a surprisingly soft line on germline genetic engineering, but I think only in deference to the goal of medicine. It certainly agrees that it is currently illicit and will be for the forseeable future, though I wish it would have ruled it out entirely, as well as same-sex conception, which isn’t really addressed and requires deduction to see that it is illicit and should be prohibited.
I hope you aren’t one of those “all-or-nothing” advocates who opposes any law that stops short of banning abortion and IVF and stem cell research and all the other illicit things that currently are allowed. I think we should start by banning the stuff that hasn’t even happened yet, and that will make it possible to consider the other practices. If we don’t get cloning and genetic engineering and same-sex procreation banned, if those continue to be legal, then IVF and stem cell research and abortion will have to be legal too.
July 8th, 2010 | 3:43 pm
Gregory, the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise also affirms that every marriage protects the right of the couple to procreate new life from their union. And the third part of it gives federal recognition and equal benefits to state Civil Unions that are defined as “marriage minus conception rights”, which I think is a fair and just remedy for people with homosexual orientation.
July 8th, 2010 | 9:12 pm
Conservatives and those who value tradition should not give an inch on this issue. There is no such thing as “homosexual marriage”. It is an illusion that has been forced on us by a handful of arrogant judges, with the help of many “enlightened” people in the media and government. And it has nothing to do with “equality”. It has to do with nature – male, female, procreation, raising children. Can’t tell you how sick I am of all these well educated clowns who try to tell us that two men can get “married”. Fools!
July 9th, 2010 | 12:03 am
Can someone tell me how I can go from being a pompous arts critic with a history BA to a philosopher and supreme moralist, whose every whim and opinion are offered as sheer enlightenment?
July 9th, 2010 | 10:33 am
FEeney, researchers are working on ways to allow people to conceive with both sexes, or as either sex, using “female sperm” or “male eggs” created from stem cells and genetically modified to function as if the person were actually the other sex. They want to help same-sex couples conceive related offspring, and help transgendered people conceive as their new sex. Both of them would be unethical and wasteful and harm civil rights and equality, but when they are presented as a “reproductive right” then the idea is: we can’t stop them. But you are totally correct, we can stop them with a simple federal law prohibiting all that stuff, and we can hold the line on natural conception and marriage.
July 9th, 2010 | 5:55 pm
You are kidding, right? The state will not “help” you, it will only stay out of your way to a tiny extent. If you do indeed dump your wife and kids for someone else, you can expect to pay through the nose in divorce court – with possible jail time if you balk. And unless you are divorced – legally divorced, with the state’s expensive stamp of approval – you cannot legally marry again. This is helping?
Those who argue that the state has no business regulating marriage have no idea what they are talking about. Unless they actually believe that family and divorce laws are just a case of right-wing rumor-mongering. Marriage is one of the most heavily regulated aspects of our life.
July 9th, 2010 | 6:40 pm
John Howard: Thanks for your interesting response. I had no idea such research was going on. Frankly, it leaves me speechless, for the moment. I hope you’ll be able to keep us posted on these “research” efforts.
July 9th, 2010 | 7:01 pm
Mr. Laughlin,
I have spent much time thinking about the purpose of laws in a free society. The genesis of that thought process was trying to come to grips with the abortion issue. One really needs to think about the legal framework under which a society functions.
In the end should our laws be the result of an attempt by humans to produce a life lived closest to God’s ideal for us? Or should laws be our best attempt to promote a civil, relatively smoothly functioning society where people can feel secure in their physical safety, all their property rights and their civil rights? After much thought, I think it has to be the latter. To be simplistic then, we should have laws that prohibit murder, but it is not very important, or wise, to have laws that prohibit adultery, to pick two of the ten commandments.
Now I know that our nation was born out of a largely Christian populace and people can cite these beginnings in support of a legal structure that tries to reinforce, or enforce, Christian values. But, ultimately, that framework cannot be reconciled with some of the most important core values of our great country, such as no state sponsor of religion, freedom of religious practice, etc.
As a Christian myself, I understand the power of the arguments you use, but in the end cannot endorse your approach. To do so opens the door for the day when religion is used to promote laws that we would otherwise find abhorrent (Sharia law, anyone?)
None of what I have just written pre-disposes me to be for or against gay marriage. I do not view marriage as a right, and therefore, not something that is currently being withheld from a class of citizens. It is an act, played out over many decades hopefully, that the state has endorsed because it is viewed to be highly beneficial for society to have couples (heterosexual to date) in long-term committed relationships that lead to the creation and proper upbringing of the next generation of human beings. It is on this question that the debate should focus, as I believe Mr. Blankenhorn does, though I certainly do not want to speak for him. He can take care of himself I am quite certain. I am agnostic on this issue, believing it should turn on research and not “belief”, but have a large degree of skepticism that we know enough yet to say with any degree of confidence that gay marriage can be as beneficial to society as heterosexual marriage is. That may be too high, and too unfair, a standard for gay marriage proponents, but I think in the end is the key question. I suspect that 20-30 years from now we will have a much clearer idea about this issue than we do currently and therefore my default position is to leave the definition of marriage as it is now and wait for further, exhaustive research to be produced and analyzed.
July 9th, 2010 | 9:19 pm
Gay marriage is about money. Money. Money. There are societal benefits to those who are married. People not currently eligible for marriage want those benefits. It has nothing to do with sexuality or love or the goodness or badness of various couplings.
That is why gay marriage will inevitably lead to multiple partners, group marriage, non-sexual marriage or any other grouping that can be framed strongly enough to be pushed through a court.
It means the end of marriage as we know it.
And it will be a really cool way to subvert inheritance laws once I can marry my parents.
July 10th, 2010 | 1:02 am
I’d buy a ticket to the Blankenhorn vs. Laughlin debate. Though frankly, Laughlin is wiping the floor with him – and the rest of you folks. It’s not the cogency of his arguments (they are quite cogent). It is the simple fact that he is describing the objective recent historical reality of the ‘gay rights’ movement. They don’t want acceptance – they want equivalence. And because of that, Blankenhorn’s position is, ultimately, a delaying tactic. Absent a Constitutional amendment, this battle will be lost, in the courts, given sufficient time.
July 10th, 2010 | 10:40 am
The question, by the way, need not be viewed as being about gay marriage or the “equal dignity” of homosexual romances per se.
It can just as logically be viewed as being “about” the falsification of Christianity.
For, of course, if homosexual romances are of “equal dignity,” et cetera, with their heterosexual counterparts, why, then: Every Christian theologian, moralist, and clergyman in history was 100% wrong about a major item of Christian sexual morality…even though it was one about which they felt so certain of their views that they voiced them loudly and with casual confidence.
If indeed Christian teaching has been in error all this time, then this error began before the time of Christ, existing among all the Jewish teachers, was never denied by Christ or the gospel authors, continued through the apostolic era, through the patristic era, in every branch of Christianity, through the canonization of the New Testament, through the fall of the Roman Empire, through the Great Schism, through the eras of Sts. Francis of Assisi and Thomas Aquinas, through the Reformation (which rather than altering it, emphasized it), through the “Enlightenment” era, through the Industrial Revolution, right up until…the 1960′s or 70′s.
If 100% of the Christians who ever wrote about the doctrines of Christianity can be, despite utter confidence in their correctness, 100% wrong about a foundational notion of Christian sexual and social morality, for 98%+ of the history of the Christian faith, then the question is not whether we think that now, in the most recent 2%, we have somehow figured out what Christ wanted us to know all along about sexual morality!
The question is: IF 100% of thinking Christians could be so mistaken about a critical issue, for so long, including the apostles, THEN: how could we possibly have any confidence that anyone, at any time, really knows what is true or false, what is right or wrong, what is actually Christian or not-Christian?
To reiterate: IF we leaving out the question of law for the moment, and considering only the question of what a thing really is and its moral value, THEN: If it is true that homosexual unions are morally equal to heterosexual ones, or that homosexual romances are morally equal to heterosexual ones, then Christianity as we know it is falsified.
There might be some other Christianity lost in the mists of time which wasn’t wrong, but no Christian teacher whose writings we have seems to have known anything about it.
One cannot, therefore, be a Christian, and support the notion that homosexual romances and unions are morally equivalent to heterosexual ones. The latter view leads logically to the elimination of the former.
By the way, the same is certainly true of Islam. I suspect it is also true of Judaism, though branches of the latter have undergone some significant redefinition in the modern era. In fact I am not certain that there is, anywhere, a religious faith in which one could adhere to its tenets as they have been understood continuously for more than 1,000 years, and still hold homosexual romances and unions to be morally licit.
Anyway, the proposition that homosexual romances and unions are morally equivalent to heterosexual ones is certainly an arrogant claim: It is to say that at least 95% (maybe 99%) of all human beings, in all places and in all times, have been entirely wrong about a moral intuition they considered basic, elementary, and obvious. A small minority of moderns, in geographically limited enclaves of the post-Christian West, who have only been in existence for forty years, and in whom we can find no other evidence of exceptional moral insight, are apparently the only persons who aren’t dead wrong on this topic.
What’re the odds?
July 10th, 2010 | 1:02 pm
R.C., does not the current civil acceptance of divorce and remarriage also constitute a direct challenge to what nearly “every Christian theologian, moralist, and clergyman in history” taught about a “major item of Christian sexual morality”?
July 10th, 2010 | 6:11 pm
R.C.: You’re onto something there. In the push for homosexual rights and “gay marriage”, there has been a strong component of malicious hostility towards Christianity and the institution of marriage. Midge Decter wrote a column years ago in the National Review in which she proposed that “homosexual malice” (particularly male homosexual malice) was the primary force behind the gay rights movement. I for one have no doubt that they have seen an opportunity to destroy Christianity and traditional marriage, and, with the help of the decadent elites, are making the most of it.
July 10th, 2010 | 10:02 pm
Personally I don’t understand the big conceptual dividing line between laws against murder or theft and laws against adultery.
Adultery used to be an important concern of the civil authorities, not primarily because it could lead to Hell but because it did lead to enormous social disorder. Adultery was as obviously a problem as theft. In fact adultery was theft–it’s stealing something that doesn’t belong to you. Gee, with all the unmarried folks in the world how can you have a civil right to commit adultery?
The situation we have now where sex is in some totally separate category, and that it is legitimate to regulate property with law but nothing that touches on sex (except rape), is kind of intellectually strange.
Criminal law is not the only form of law, btw. I have proposed reviving a tort of adultery (something similar is on the books in many states under a different name) that gives an injured spouse some alternative beside the self-mutilation of divorce as redress for the civil wrong of adultery.
All of this presumes that there is a visible public interest in sexual order. We may have given up on that concept, but not because the harms are somehow not apparent: abortion kills children; unwed parenthood and divorce disadvantages children and costs the state money; adultery produces fatherless children and breaks up existing marriages, hurting children. It not infrequently leads to violence.
We’ve certainly all learned to disregard these kinds of harms, but not because they are somehow not empirically verifiable.
July 10th, 2010 | 11:11 pm
Ms. Gallagher’s post raises I think the critical question. The underlying issue here is the privatization, as we might call it, of sex. But a serious legal response to the problems caused by this would have to burden heterosexuals enormously more than gays, for obvious reasons. And yet there is no serious move to embark on such a campaign. Instead we vehement resistance to gay marriage, an effectual response to these problems that doesn’t burden heterosexuals in the slightest. Of course it’s obvious why things are going this way. A Prop. 8 in California that would drastically tighten divorce laws, criminalize adultery, use state funds to try to re-stigmatize bastardy and cohabitation–would something like that ever pass? Of course not.
July 11th, 2010 | 4:22 pm
Ms. Gallagher,
The problem with your notion of the state having an interest in sexual order is that any control resulting thereof would come in direct conflict with freedoms we take for granted as Americans. While the problems of unwed parenthood are well-known, should the state do anything to criminalize it? I would not want to live in such a country. Would you make divorce illegal, given that divorce is widely recognized to have harmful effects on any children. I suspect not, because then marriages would become more scarce. It is just too slippery a slope for the state to be in the business of regulating private sexual relationships.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact