Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Marriage 2.0
“YouTube and Google are proud to celebrate marriage equality” proclaimed the mighty Google search page yesterday. At the rate things are going, June 26 will wind up being a national holiday in the future.
Yesterday’s decision didn’t just extend the legal rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex partners; civil unions began that process a while ago. Yesterday redefined state-sanctioned marriage itself. It’s more than marriage “equality.” This is marriage expansion.
“Marriage equality” was an advertising slogan, a finesse to fit marriage within the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Marriage is a fundamental liberty. Everyone gets equal liberties. Just as Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriage legal in all states, Obergefell does it for same-sex couples.
In hindsight, state laws against interracial marriage are viewed as a clear form of barbarism from a bygone era. Richard Loving, a white gentleman, and Mildred Jeter, a black lady, were married in Virginia in 1958, and subsequently charged, found guilty, and sentenced to a year in jail. On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court decided 9-0 that the Loving marriage was no crime. “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State” wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Will the 5-4 Obergefell decision seem as sensible as the 9-0 decision in Loving when it has stood the same test of time – almost 50 years?
Obergefell is, of course, different from Loving. The 14th Amendment was about establishing equal rights and protections, especially between the races, in the context of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. Loving ended part of a pattern of racial discrimination dating back to the age of slavery. It’s precisely the sort of thing the Due Process Clause should prevent. Obergefell breaks a pattern of many more years: the definition of the institution of marriage itself. That’s some heavy legal lifting. I’ll leave it to Ricochet’s crack legal team to explain whether the Court just gave itself a hernia.
The pieces of marriage expansion that interest me most are (a) the broad enthusiasm for marriage among gays, a “conservative” lifestyle turn; (b) the unseemly hook-up between the SSM movement and the political Left; and (c) the ongoing decline of religious doctrine’s influence over secular law. These are in part media-created phenomena, and ongoing media narratives.
If there is opposition to SSM in the gay community, you don’t hear much about it in the media. Single partner domesticity wasn’t always the lifestyle of choice among openly gay men. AIDS changed that. Virtues like commitment, fidelity, and love became a way of life for millions of gay men over the last 35 years. Health, happiness, and monogamous (or “monogamish”) relationships are major upgrades over the earlier scene and its consequences. Conservatives should consider welcoming this change, or in the least standing aside rather than athwart.
Conservatives should also be celebrating the end of the same-sex marriage movement. They won, and now they no longer need the brutish tacticians of the political Left as allies. Republicans nationwide shouldn’t hesitate to do what the California GOP has already done: sanction and recognize Log Cabin Republicans as fully enfranchised members of our political coalition. We should do this quickly, publicly, and enthusiastically. Gays and lesbians are often adept capitalists and creative leaders. Welcome home to the political party that will protect your hard-earned dual incomes, and that desperately needs your creativity!
Note that Catholics on the Supreme Court voted 4-2 against the Court’s finding in Obergefell. The secular power of the Catholic Church has been in decline for centuries, and that continues. I respect Justices Alito, Thomas, Scalia and, okay, Roberts enough to presume that their call in this case was made strictly on the basis of law and not their religious beliefs. That is as it should be. It is even clearer that Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor, who voted the other way, did not have their interpretation of the Constitution determined by religious dictates.
As for Archbishop Kurtz, his opinion that “it is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage” is a bold graffiti on the “wall of separation” between Church and State, a wall that now stands taller and stronger. When the Pope arrives in a few months to address Congress, it will be interesting to hear whether he stirs this pot along with his focus on climate change and wealth redistribution.
My hope is that, however much hue and cry those on the losing side of yesterday’s ruling make, the victors will, in the words of radio host Doug McIntyre “be gracious in victory. Don’t sue churches who won’t perform marriages, don’t go after bakeries. Tolerance goes both ways.”
Published in General
This is interesting, Jim—thank you! And that last paragraph—yes. For heaven’s sake (and I mean that religiously) yes.
You may have hope Jim, but the events of the past several months indicate that you are pretty naïve in that hope.
Do you know if there are data to support this statement? I’m not asking you to provide the data, though any pointers would be nice. I’m mostly curious whether you have seen such data.
That is so cute.
Are you familiar with the phrase (in a political context) “Bayonet the wounded”?
Note that it’s a hope and not a requirement.
Well for one thing it’s not going to be over just because the Supreme Court made this decision, we have historical context with roe v wade, it didn’t end that debate either. Actually it exacerbated it. Also I can’t find the clip but on CNN George takai (mr sulu turned gay activist) said himself “it’s not over”. With the left it’s never over, all the activist aren’t now going to pack up their offices and get real jobs they will hunker down and protect this victory.
If religious objectors are publicly perceived as being rude and obstructive, then then other side will have more media support for consolidating their victory in ways which impinge upon religious freedom.
If, on the other hand, the right does not make a lot of noise (fundraising letters, provocative public statements, sin talk) but instead stands aside rather than athwart, the winners will have reason to be more gracious.
Some political types on both sides want to prolong this conflict, but the mainstream wants reconciliation and understanding. Vindictive doesn’t play well in the media, except when it’s up against intolerant and judgmental.
So Jim, Anyone who objects to this Supreme Court decision should just sit down and shut up about it. Because the left is known to be gracious in victory ( that is sarcasm). And vindictive play does seem to play well in the media as long as you’re on the right side of the issue. Have you watched MSNBC or bill maher?
OK, I’ve drawn a dotted line on my belly and handed a knife to the bad guys. Does this mean they will cut straight and neatly?
To quote Jon Gabriel as close as memory allows — they won the war and are now roaming the battle field shooting the wounded. I don’t think we’ll see that stop.
The legal basis for the decision warrants thoughtful public examination. Loving v. Virginia is supported by the 14th Amendment, so exactly why wouldn’t Obergefell? What else will they try to squeeze out of the 14th Amendment? That sort of conversation is certainly warranted, if tempered by tolerance and the understanding that the Court’s decision is likely final, and permanent.
It’s when we get to the other “loving” in this case where I’d encourage either a nod of approval, or a respectful silence — the personal loving between individuals. Not that there’s anything wrong with that applies.
If the Pope wants to weigh in when the klieg lights flash on during his U.S. visit — and this one is quite the media hound and may well do so — there will be a discussion. All the Catholics in the Presidential race should be getting their responses ready now. I just wouldn’t advise anyone who wants to win an election in 2016 to jump into bed with His Holiness, as it were. The Church isn’t exactly in a good spot for stone casting on gay stuff, and this particular Pontiff is a hostile when it comes to capitalism, small government, secure borders, private property, etc.
My advice to Catholic candidates is to remember the last successful applicant, JFK, whose Houston speech on separation of Church and State would be worth referencing. Given what’s on the other side of the Wall of Separation, globally speaking, this might be a good time to emphasize the 1st Amendment’s establishment of religion prohibition. This is no time to tear down that wall.
The Obergefell decision should not be construed as a victory for the political left — that’s their construct. It’s a victory for gay and lesbian citizens. Justice Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan, a good and tolerant man. We shouldn’t let the political Left own items like tolerance and loving commitment, nor should they be thanked for the tax advantages and heath care privileges enjoyed by married couples. Gay parents who adopt unwanted children should also be welcomed under our big tent, enthusiastically and with gratitude.
You ask have I watched (a) MSNBC or (b) Bill Maher?
(a) Hardly ever, like most viewers. Neither should you. Like the Pacifica radio stations, MSNBC is not on my favorite channels list. I think the new management at NBC News may well phase out it’s infamous bias, which I hear about second hand from O’Reilly, Rush, Howie Kurtz, Bernie G., and Bozell’s internet minions.
(b) Billy Maher, sure, I even met him once in 1996 and offered him a joke which he liked. (Lamar Alexander: proof that dead men do wear plaid.) I enjoy his work when I accept his underlying premise. In past years wasn’t often enough to watch his show regularly, but that could be changing.
Jim, I understand what you mean that those in favor of traditional marriage shouldn’t be tossing out any ad homenm attacks or making stupid unkind comments, but really who has been the aggressor in this fight really? There will be push back. my objection and why I see that the obergfell case is only comparable to the loving case is if there is no distinction between the genders, and that the oblideration of the gender distinctive definition of marries will have an effect on marriage as a whole.
Look I have zero animus towards gay couples who want to marry and had this been voted on by the states I would have no objections but this implementing by the Supreme Court will have negative effects I just hope they aren’t violent. But your right that both sides shouldn’t be slinging mud at each other but the left do seem to keep tossing it the faces of their opponents and eventually they will get some tosses back
What if Justice Alito is right:
“Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
Should we just stand aside in order to be gracious? Should we shrug when our liberty is at stake? How should we respond? Do we have any reason at all to believe that the Court will protect our rights when push comes to shove between the sexual progressives and the faithful who believe things have gone terribly wrong? I suppose we could just accept the terribly wrong in the interest of getting along. What you seem to be suggesting is that we flee the battlespace. Fine. Who, then, will pick up the pieces if, as we suspect, things fall apart. We’re already hearing how homophobic the dissenters are. To believe that the decision has settled this is supremely naive.
Maybe it seemed like a fight with aggressors because of some of the excesses on both sides? Going after Prop. 8 contributors was way over the top, typical left wing abuse of electoral civility. I find describing gays and lesbians as sinners etc. even more repugnant.
But the right really did pull its punches en route to losing. Those who wanted a nationally mandated traditional marriage definition could have skipped DOMA and put up a constitutional amendment. I don’t know if they didn’t do so out of tolerance, shortsightedness, or an intolerant refusal to include full rights for civil unions. But there was a time when an amendment could have passed, and that time is no longer.
Anyone who thinks this is the end of the campaign for gay rights is kidding himself. The Left is by nature totalitarian, and can brook no dissent wherever it might be found. They will not stop until everyone in the nation – Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Catholic bishops – positively celebrates homosexuality. Anything less is not just an insult, but outright bigotry and a trampling of rights and will need to be crushed. When has the left ever packed up and gone home after a victory? You better start celebrating gay marriage or else.
Was in CA in 2008. Religious people were polite. This did not help in the least. Sorry, Jim, but there is just not a lot of evidence for what you say, during that debate or in what has followed. Sure, there are some nice people on that side, but there are some very, very nasty ones who care not the least about religious freedom, and they are in charge.
What I hope for is something like what has happened in the abortion debate. That too was a terribly reasoned legal opinion that created a “right” out of whole cloth. It took a bit of time for those who oppose abortion to get organized and going, but it has been a powerful movement and, though divisive, not all that bloody, well, except for the many, many babies tragically killed. That’s been pretty bloody.
In this instance, we have a badly reasoned case where a few justices impose their will on the country, just as in Roe, and where it is very doubtful that a majority of the country supports it (don’t trust those polls run by biased organizations) and there are still a heck of a lot of religious people in the country who will live and let live if allowed to do so.
I don’t know about other people, but I’ve always been happy to welcome people into the party who don’t agree with me on this. Maybe you should be willing to welcome us.
An excellent book on this subject is David Blankenhorn’s The Future of Marriage. Among other things, he documents the origin and leaders of the gay marriage movement, and how they forthrightly admitted that their goal wasn’t really the extension of marriage rights, but the destruction of marriage itself, which they take to be oppressive by nature.
The other thing to notice – and Blankenhorn zeroes in on this – is the absence of any mention of children in the gay marriage movement. You’d think the effect on children would at least be a factor in the discussion; after all, in the 1990’s one of the seeming conclusions that both Right and Left came to agree on was that the absence of fathers was having dramatic social consequences. You don’t hear that much anymore, since it cuts against one of the dogmas of the gay marriage movement – which is that fathers aren’t really necessary, since two mommies are as good as a mommy and a daddy unless you are homophobic. The gay marriage movement is really about severing any essential connection between marriage and children; and that’s why it ultimately results in marriage’s destruction, since once that bond is severed, any limits on marriages forms are arbitrary.
The words in bold could be “rights of conscience protected.” Since Alito is quoting the majority opinion, I’m hoping the courts will decide in favor of Churches consecrating marriages they wish to recognize, in accordance with the First Amendment.
Let’s keep an eye on cases involving “hate speech” too, which can be used to short circuit freedom of expression. The other side of that coin is how individuals choose to speak publicly about sex, sin, orientation, and lifestyles. It can be impolite to barge forth assuming that one’s convictions are shared by others. Good manners do not exempt left wing college professors or religious zealots.
Yes, it is time to clear the “battlespace” because in legal terms, the battle over same sex marriage is over. Some same sex marriages will flourish, others, like many straight marriages, will not. This is an enormous change in an important institution, but it’s in the personal sphere now, and no longer a public policy war.
The good news is you can always RSVP in the negative to a wedding invitation, should you receive one.
It might, because by then no one will remember what marriage was for. Apparently you don’t know now, or you would not compare the two court decisions.
Leaders of political movement often have subversive goals beyond the stated agenda. David Horowtiz has documented the Communists involved in anti-war demonstrations, etc. etc. Those who wish to destroy marriage would now encounter opposition from their former troops, who will now enjoy the hard won benefits of the institution. (And the other parts, too, the comics remind us.)
Re children, Justice Kennedy’s opinion mentions them prominently in his opinion. I don’t know how many got lugged off to demonstrations — that could be considered a little exploitative — but gay and lesbian parenting has become a growing and significant part of public consciousness since Heather Has Two Mommies, through various celebrity adoptions, through the artistically brilliant early years of the comedy series Modern Family, which, some claim was a major mover of public opinion.
Yes, marriages without children will also increase in number, and I’m here to tell you that one of those is the best thing that ever happened in my life.
Why is it so repugnant to call people sinners? I’ve been called that and worse all my life, and still get along with the people who say it. It’s not that hard.
What welcome, Merina?
Maybe in some precincts of the California GOP you could feel like a guest, but let me assure you that via everything from party platforms to conventions of conservative leadership groups, to the people we meet on some conservative cruises, it is those of us who are liberal on social issues who feel like outsiders.
Working in academia and entertainment, it’s no big deal for me to feel like an outsider. It would be good, if with this issue now off the table, the party did make gays, lesbians, and other single issue outsiders feel more like insiders, because they’ll be more likely to vote and give generously to their political “family.”
Well, Sunny Jim, how do you feel about third party reproduction? All hunky dory with that are you? Because get ready for it to explode. Thing is–the kids who are produced in order to be deliberately removed from their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins don’t have any say in the matter whatsoever. Turns out, marriage was always the institution that kept intact the understanding that it is best for kids to have the mother and father who made them whenever possible. Turns out, marriage isn’t just about the wants of adults.
For this reason, the debate is not over. It hasn’t really started. Just like with Roe. When a feckless court made their feckless ruling, that’s when the real campaign against abortion started. Turns out, there are people in this world who care more than anything about the well-being of kids.
Thing is–the kids who are produced in order to be deliberately removed from their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins don’t have any say in the matter whatsoever. Turns out, marriage was always the institution that kept intact the understanding that it is best for kids to have the mother and father who made them whenever possible. Turns out, marriage isn’t just about the wants of adults.
Merina—I still want to discuss this as a separate issue; lets! (Oddly enough, it is a subject that arises in my new book, so I’ll be primed!) Is Third Party Reproduction the best term for the production of sperm, egg, or sperm-and-egg donor babies?
We had a very long thread about this before you came, Kate. It’s on my page. You might be interested in looking at it. I don’t know what the best term is. What do you favor? But yes, another thread is a good idea. Since you talk about it in your book, why don’t you write a post on it?
RSVP in the negative seems to have its own implications. Why ask Marco Rubio whether he would attend a gay marriage if not to trip him up as a homophobe? I’ll bet the farm that by the time the 2016 election comes around candidates will, at the risk of bringing fire down on their heads. be forced to bow down to the gay lobby. Republicans will abandon them.
Rod Dreher: “this is only the beginning of some very dark and difficult days. It is time to confront this soberly but realistically, and prepare for the resistance.”
My response to this final paragraph by Mr. Kearney is best expressed by J. Jonah Jameson:
That citation of Loving comes from the majority opinion. Marriage 2.0 is backwardly compatible with the original version. Heterosexual couples and other M/F combinations are still free to utilize it for all the reasons they’ve chosen v. 1.0 in the past.
Marriage as expanded yesterday simply extends those privileges, joys, and dignities to additional pairings. It will take some time for all of us to get used to the notion, but let’s give it time.
“Single partner domesticity wasn’t always the lifestyle of choice among openly gay men. AIDS changed that.”
These are perhaps the two silliest sentences ever posted on Ricochet.
The SCOTUS decision was no surprise to me. I knew nationwide re-defining of marriage was coming. But what made me sad about the decision is that I knew I couldn’t feel any relief that “Well, at least the battle’s over now.” The battle’s not done. The movers and shakers of the same-sex marriage movement and their allies in the media are not “live and let live” kind of people. I suspect that while they celebrate this SCOTUS decision they see it as simply “the end of the beginning” in their culture war. The same-sex marriage movement’s ultimate goal, I believe, is to destroy any sexual norms in society other than consent. If there is any substantial percentage of Americans that still believe that homosexual acts are sin (Mr. Kearney, the only way for me to give up that belief is to take scissors to my copy of the Bible), or less than ideal, or even not normal, the leaders of the SSM movement will not be satisfied. To feel anything less than joy at same-sex relations and marriage is to be (in their eyes) the moral equivalent of the KKK. SoCons will have to be ostracized or intimidated into complete silence. Anyone who dares express disagreement with the SSM movement in the public square will be punished and have their livelihood targeted. We’ve seen numerous examples of the SSM movement doing this years before Obergefell. Why would they stop now?