We Hold These Truths
The White House recently told the press there couldn’t be more difference between my position on gay marriage and President Obama’s.
On reflection, I agree.
President Obama’s position on marriage is constantly “evolving,” as he so often says. He’s not sure what marriage is, or what it should become, and no doubt right now he’s consulting highly-paid polling experts to determine how his position – and marriage itself – should morph next. This should come as no surprise given the President’s musings about the other great moral issue of our time, the protection of human life.
In a 2008 campaign forum, Pastor Rick Warren asked, “at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Obama answered, “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a science perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” But as an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama articulated a very clear view of when a baby was granted rights. He was the only senator to vote against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in committee; legislation that protected babies who survived an abortion and were born alive. He was the only senator to speak against it on the senate floor.
At the time, the constitutional law professor boldly asserted, that “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a–a child, a 9 month old–child that was delivered to term.” He says children only have rights who are 9-months old and delivered at term. So, does that mean any child born before 9 months is not entitled to rights?
By contrast, millions of Americans, including myself, know what we think about human life and marriage. We know not only what we think but why we believe what we believe. We know that some truths are bigger than the next election and should not shift with political consultants’ advice. And among those great, enduring, and foundational truths, I believe, are life and marriage.
An unborn child is not just a clump of cells. He or she is a human life, as worthy of basic dignity and respect as any one of us. Each precious, irreplaceable human life is too infinitely valuable to permit courts to redefine its meaning away. I fought against Partial Birth Abortion, a horrific procedure supported by President Obama, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. When the highest court found the law banning the practice unconstitutional, I sent it back to the justices a second time so they could get it right.
Marriage is, and has always been through human history, a union of a man and woman – and for a reason. These unions are special because they are the ones we all depend on to make new life and to connect those new lives to their mom and dad.
A husband is a man who commits to a woman, to her and any children she may give him. He commits to his wife without any reservations, to share with her all his worldly goods and to exclude all others from this intimate communion of life. From this vow of marriage comes a wonderful and unique good: any children their union creates will have a mom and a dad united in love, in one family.
That’s the special work of marriage in law – to connect things that otherwise fray and fragment: love, life, money, moms, and dads.
A man who does not seek to do this – who doesn’t choose to give himself to a woman and any children they may have together in this unique and special way – may well be a very good man and have wonderful other kinds of relationships, but he isn’t seeking to be a husband. We can’t redefine reality to accommodate politically fashionable wishes. Words matter because they capture enduring and timeless truths about human nature and about the common good.
Lawyers cannot create life and did not create marriage. And lawyers (whether on the bench or in politics) have no business redefining either to suit the shifting winds of fashion, or worse, for political expediency.
I know so many single moms who work so hard and do such a great job raising children. We need to applaud every heroic parent working hard to raise good kids regardless of whether or not they are married; just as we need to protect all our children, born and unborn, those lucky enough to have the gift of a married mom and dad and those who do not.
We can do this without cravenly surrendering timeless truths about marriage and human life. We don’t want liberal media-approved lawyers and politicians massaging the meaning of words, or judges implementing vast social changes without the consent of the governed, or, frankly, politicians like President Obama who cannot even tell you what marriage will be next week.
In positions of power, we need men and women of character, willing to stand up and defend what they think is right and to level with the American people. America is hungry for leadership. I have found everywhere I go across this great land that people appreciate it if they know you’re the kind of man they can trust to tell the truth on important issues even if they do not agree with you on every issue.
Marriage is a society’s life blood. Not everybody can or will marry, but all of us (married or not) depend on marriage in a unique way. Marriage is foundational: it creates and sustains not only children but civilization itself. This is an institution which protects our liberty.
A president who, after thousands of years of human history, a Harvard law degree, and four years in the White House, cannot tell us with certainty what he thinks marriage or life is, is not worthy of the trust of the American people or a second term in office. It is time for leadership in America. It is time again to stand for self-evident foundational truths.
- Comment (435)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (10)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
You're wrong, Basil. This is what I do for a living.
The suit would be filed by gays asserting that denying them a license was a constitutional violation.
The court would not rule on a hypothetical as you propose: Whether a non-existing law extending rights to them would be constituional (courts are not permitted to rule on hypotheticals - law school 101).
The question would be whether the existing licensing law excluding gays is rationally related to a legitimate state interest (which must then be defined). · Jan 14 at 4:18pm
Edited on Jan 14 at 04:18 pm
Well, I was writing as a layperson, not as one schooled in the law. But your legal analysis brings us handily to my question at #228 about the two amorous brothers who seek to wed. They are currently excluded from marrying. They bring suit alleging that there is no legitimate state interest in denying them a marriage license. Would you take their case?
Re: We Hold These Truths
But isn't if also true that if the Court felt marriage itself is a fundamental right (I believe they have ruled otherwise, but could be wrong about that), wouldn't strict scrutiny apply even if there plaintiff is not a member of a suspect class?
Re: We Hold These Truths
Basil Fawlty
Tommy De Seno
You're wrong, Basil. This is what I do for a living.
The suit would be filed by gays asserting that denying them a license was a constitutional violation.
The court would not rule on a hypothetical as you propose: Whether a non-existing law extending rights to them would be constituional (courts are not permitted to rule on hypotheticals - law school 101).
The question would be whether the existing licensing law excluding gays is rationally related to a legitimate state interest (which must then be defined). · Jan 14 at 4:18pm
Edited on Jan 14 at 04:18 pm
Well, I was writing as a layperson, not as one schooled in the law. But your legal analysis brings us handily to my question at #228 about the two amorous brothers who seek to wed. They are currently excluded from marrying. They bring suit alleging that there is no legitimate state interest in denying them a marriage license. Would you take their case? · Jan 14 at 4:38pm
I wouldn't take the case of two gay men who wanted to marry.
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Basil Fawlty
Brian Watt
Basil Fawlty
Brian Watt
The argument is whether the state has the authority to determine who can be married and thereby confer or deny rights and privileges.
No, the argument is about the rational basis for conferring these rights and privileges.
Agree...and that rational basis is what? That same sex marriage will cause the collapse of the Republic?
No. Simply that it will give financial favor to two people for no rational reason.
Perhaps if the state wants to encourage and defend marriage then rights, privileges and benefits should only be available to a couples in a first marriage. Sorry Newt. Perhaps the unintended consequence of these conferred rights and benefits is that it is really encouraging divorce and remarriage. The divorce rate is 50% in America and 65% for those who remarry. Does government policy have anything to do with these numbers? The government doesn't seem to care how often you get married apparently. How can a Defense of Marriage Act not address divorce? What's the rationale for not addressing the single biggest threat to marriage?
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
Basil Fawlty
Tommy De Seno
You're wrong, Basil. This is what I do for a living.
The suit would be filed by gays asserting that denying them a license was a constitutional violation.
The court would not rule on a hypothetical as you propose: Whether a non-existing law extending rights to them would be constituional (courts are not permitted to rule on hypotheticals - law school 101).
The question would be whether the existing licensing law excluding gays is rationally related to a legitimate state interest (which must then be defined). · Jan 14 at 4:18pm
Edited on Jan 14 at 04:18 pm
Well, I was writing as a layperson, not as one schooled in the law. But your legal analysis brings us handily to my question at #228 about the two amorous brothers who seek to wed. They are currently excluded from marrying. They bring suit alleging that there is no legitimate state interest in denying them a marriage license. Would you take their case? · Jan 14 at 4:38pm
I wouldn't take the case of two gay men who wanted to marry. · Jan 14 at 4:44pm
Would you care to elaborate?
Oct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Ed G.
Tommy De Seno
Joseph Eagar
Athenian Democracy. Shall we vote on what we will allow Black people to do while we are at it? How generous of you to offer a majority vote to people you outnumber more than 95 to 5. What political courage you have!
.....
Right, because the civil rights model has been so successful. Black society has only gotten better after politics put populists and gangsters on the top of the black social ladder!
What takes real courage is to understand that the previous model doesn''t work. Blacks may have more rights, but their society was much more cohesive and functional in the 50s. The same thing has happened to gays (to a lesser extent) and recognizing that failed political paradigms are unsustainable, harmful, and ruinous to those they are trying to help is not cowardice.
Finally, state referendums are not Athenian democracy: they have to follow the Constitution, like anything else. Your example of blacks is absurd, since the 14th amendment clearly doesn't allow that.
Jun '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Michael Labeit
Joseph Stanko
I'll concede the point, premise #2 is flawed. I had attempted to refine your version of Diane's argument, but I see now it could use further refinement. I would suggest we eliminate the negatives and try a positive version along these lines:
This is a fine informal argument. But I know of no implications regarding gay marriage or gay unions that the above argument yields. · Jan 14 at 4:25pm
It does need refinement because 3 doesn't logically follow from 2. If 2 stands, then 3 should state something along the lines of "Therefore the state will enact laws and penalties that discourage divorce."
Mar '11
Re: We Hold These Truths
Brian Watt
Basil Fawlty
Brian Watt
Basil Fawlty
Brian Watt
Agree...and that rational basis is what? That same sex marriage will cause the collapse of the Republic?
No. Simply that it will give financial favor to two people for no rational reason.
Perhaps if the state wants to encourage and defend marriage then rights, privileges and benefits should only be available to a couples in a first marriage.
Actually, I think they should only be available to those raising kids.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Joseph Eagar
Athenian Democracy. Shall we vote on what we will allow Black people to do while we are at it? How generous of you to offer a majority vote to people you outnumber more than 95 to 5. What political courage you have!
.....
Your example of blacks is absurd, since the 14th amendment clearly doesn't allow that. · Jan 14 at 4:54pm
Now you're on to something...
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
But isn't if also true that if the Court felt marriage itself is a fundamental right (I believe they have ruled otherwise, but could be wrong about that), wouldn't strict scrutiny apply even if there plaintiff is not a member of a suspect class? · Jan 14 at 4:40pm
If I were you, I'd be careful how much I leaned on Loving. There's a good bit in there to argue against your position. Also, the fundamental right discussion is cursory, almost an afterthought. Plus, the Court clearly took "marriage" as an institution between one man and one woman (it was 1967 after all). Finally, they recognized marriage as a fundamental right in conjunction with their holding that anti-miscegenation statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. I have serious doubts Loving offers much ammo to the cause of same sex marriage.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Brian Watt
Michael Labeit
Joseph Stanko
I'll concede the point, premise #2 is flawed. I had attempted to refine your version of Diane's argument, but I see now it could use further refinement. I would suggest we eliminate the negatives and try a positive version along these lines:
This is a fine informal argument. But I know of no implications regarding gay marriage or gay unions that the above argument yields. · Jan 14 at 4:25pm
It does need refinement because 3 doesn't logically follow from 2. If 2 stands, then 3 should state something along the lines of "Therefore the state will enact laws and penalties that discourage divorce." · Jan 14 at 4:55pm
That's why I call it informal. If it was formal, it would have only 3 terms.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Basil Fawlty
Well, I was writing as a layperson, not as one schooled in the law. But your legal analysis brings us handily to my question at #228 about the two amorous brothers who seek to wed. They are currently excluded from marrying. They bring suit alleging that there is no legitimate state interest in denying them a marriage license. Would you take their case? · Jan 14 at 4:38pm
I wouldn't take the case of two gay men who wanted to marry. · Jan 14 at 4:44pm
Would you care to elaborate? · Jan 14 at 4:53pm
This state sanctioning of certain groups who can marry and certain groups who can't is your thing, brother! You defend it! It's rather unfair to ask me to think within the flawed paradigm you've created.
I'm outside the box already.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Matthew Gilley
If I were you, I'd be careful how much I leaned on Loving. There's a good bit in there to argue against your position. Also, the fundamental right discussion is cursory, almost an afterthought. Plus, the Court clearly took "marriage" as an institution between one man and one woman (it was 1967 after all). Finally, they recognized marriage as a fundamental right in conjunction with their holding that anti-miscegenation statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. I have serious doubts Loving offers much ammo to the cause of same sex marriage. · Jan 14 at 5:00pm
Wouldn't bother me either way - I want the whole statist system gone 1300+ rights confered with marriage (whatever they are) and all.
Oct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
Joseph Eagar
Athenian Democracy. Shall we vote on what we will allow Black people to do while we are at it? How generous of you to offer a majority vote to people you outnumber more than 95 to 5. What political courage you have!
.....
Your example of blacks is absurd, since the 14th amendment clearly doesn't allow that. · Jan 14 at 4:54pm
Now you're on to something... · Jan 14 at 4:57pm
By the way, what makes you think I'm heterosexual? I'm actually bisexual (the worst thing to be). After seeing what's happened in the black community--not to mention my inside vantage from within the gay community--I have no confidence in the civil rights model as it currently exists.
Society gave blacks rights then left them to rot. If we want to enjoy the benefits of capitalism, we have to accept that different social groups will need help maintaining a compatible set of social norms--like marriage--that bourgeois societies need to sustain themselves. Bourgeois values are not inbred into the human race
Is it really acceptable that society let the black family collapse? The working-class white family?
Oct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
But you know, social breakdown doesn't matter! So long as no one is hurt--but wait. Other people are hurt. The children born into social breakdown and poverty. Why, it doesn't matter if nihilists win the public debate, and gay marriage is used as a bludgeon by New York Time intellectuals to demolish traditional marriage!
Besides, who care about trashy people in poverty traps anyway. It's their own fault! We functional people never have to see them; we just move to the suburbs! We can tell pretty tales about human rights, and never face the consequences!
Edited on January 15, 2012 at 2:24amRe: We Hold These Truths
Joseph Eagar: Besides, who care about trashy people in poverty traps anyway. It's their own fault! We functional people never have to see them; we just move to the suburbs! We can tell pretty tales about human rights, and never face the consequences! · Jan 14 at 5:22pm
Edited on Jan 14 at 05:24 pm
What makes you think I'm suburban?
I'm bi-urban. I've lived in both the city and the suburbs.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
Matthew Gilley
If I were you, I'd be careful how much I leaned on Loving. There's a good bit in there to argue against your position. Also, the fundamental right discussion is cursory, almost an afterthought. Plus, the Court clearly took "marriage" as an institution between one man and one woman (it was 1967 after all). Finally, they recognized marriage as a fundamental right in conjunction with their holding that anti-miscegenation statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. I have serious doubts Loving offers much ammo to the cause of same sex marriage. · Jan 14 at 5:00pm
Wouldn't bother me either way - I want the whole statist system gone 1300+ rights confered with marriage (whatever they are) and all. · Jan 14 at 5:03pm
Very well, but I trust you agree you should achieve your goal by democratic processes rather than judicial fiat. If so, we would all have our say and hopefully accept the outcome. I will be voting "no."
Oct '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
Joseph Eagar: Besides, who care about trashy people in poverty traps anyway. It's their own fault! We functional people never have to see them; we just move to the suburbs! We can tell pretty tales about human rights, and never face the consequences! · Jan 14 at 5:22pm
Edited on Jan 14 at 05:24 pm
What makes you think I'm suburban?
I'm bi-urban. I've lived in both the city and the suburbs. · Jan 14 at 5:29pm
But that is the trend. Rather than fight social breakdown most people move away from it, where they can live their lives without encountering anything that might conflict with their "enlightened" worldview.
We are too eager in America to label all prejudice as irrational. Often it is not. Closing our eyes to rational reasons for prejudice only makes prejudice and social problems worse--remember the guy who tried to sound the alarm on the black family in the 60s, and was laughed out of high society?
It is better to fight prejudice by removing all rational basis for it, than to ignore serious social problems out of paranoia that acknowledging them will entrench prejudice.
Re: We Hold These Truths
Matthew Gilley
Tommy De Seno
Matthew Gilley
If I were you, I'd be careful how much I leaned on Loving. There's a good bit in there to argue against your position. Also, the fundamental right discussion is cursory, almost an afterthought. Plus, the Court clearly took "marriage" as an institution between one man and one woman (it was 1967 after all). Finally, they recognized marriage as a fundamental right in conjunction with their holding that anti-miscegenation statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. I have serious doubts Loving offers much ammo to the cause of same sex marriage. · Jan 14 at 5:00pm
Wouldn't bother me either way - I want the whole statist system gone 1300+ rights confered with marriage (whatever they are) and all. · Jan 14 at 5:03pm
Very well, but I trust you agree you should achieve your goal by democratic processes rather than judicial fiat. If so, we would all have our say and hopefully accept the outcome. I will be voting "no."
Neither. I was born free and don't need a law or judge to stay that way. My right in that regard in inalienable.
May '10
Re: We Hold These Truths
Tommy De Seno
Joseph Eagar: Besides, who care about trashy people in poverty traps anyway. It's their own fault! We functional people never have to see them; we just move to the suburbs! We can tell pretty tales about human rights, and never face the consequences!
What makes you think I'm suburban?
I'm bi-urban...
The worst thing to be.