Undermining Marriage

Big story.  Bad news.  Really bad news.

Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Several observations:

  1. This is a directive from President Obama himself.
  2. This is an implicit affirmation of homosexual marriage (moral openness to/approval of gay marriage).
  3. This is an implicit warning to those who uphold traditional marriage as between one man and one woman (a moral judgment of bigotry against those who oppose gay marriage). 

The message is clear.  President Obama and his administration are undermining traditional marriage.  Brace yourself.  You can be sure there is more to come along the same line.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Undermining Marriage

  1. I’ve been happily married for some decades now. How could federal recognition of other lawful marriages affect marriages such as mine? Nobody ever seems willing to join the dots here to make a substantive argument, so I’m left to guess what conceivable threat is implied.

  2. Hi Tony,

    First of all, it’s wonderful to hear you’ve been happily married for decades.

    Second, the impact of of homosexual unions on heterosexual marriages at a very basic level distorts the definition of marriage. I don’t know that it affects a marriage relationship per se (i.e., the love and happiness you and your wife share, for instance), but that’s not my contention and it isn’t at the heart of the debate. It would be a red herring, at best.

    The issue is first and foremost about definition, i.e., what is marriage? This particular post is about the unthinkable directive from the President and the statement from the nation’s top attorney simply state they will not uphold the law of the land.

  3. Okay, to rephrase: if the definition of marriage is changed to include others in loving relationships, how does that impact negatively on me?

    On the question of upholding the law of the land, I believe the contrast between doing that and upholding the constitution (also a duty of the executive branch) is illustrated by Solicitor General Robert Bork’s brief in Buckley v. Valeo and Deputy Solicitor General John Roberts’ brief in Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission.

    In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) Bork submitted a general brief arguing for the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act and a second brief challenging a clause that permitted Congress to appoint members to the Federal Election Commission. The Supreme Court largely sided with Bork and let most of the Act stand without that clause.

    In Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (1990), Roberts submitted a legal brief challenging the government policy of giving preferential treatment to minorities in granting a broadcasting licence. The Supreme Court sided with the FCC, which submitted its own brief defending the policy.

    In this case the President has determined on legal advice that the DOMA forbidding the federal government to recognise lawful same-sex marriages violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution.

    Also notice here that it is the states in question that have made the decision to redefine the meaning of marriage. Some, such as Iowa, did so on a legal determination in state courts that limiting marriage to one man and one woman was not compatible with their respective state constitution.

  4. It is evident you’re conversant with the legal precedent in some cases, which of course is extremely important in litigation. However, aside from the specific examples you cited there are some presuppositions that need to be challenged in this whoel debate. First, is the issue of minority. To place sexual preference under the rubric of “minority” places a weight on the meaning of the word it was never intended to bear. Second, these verdicts are being handed down by judges which are moving from upholding to legislating. It gets to be cyclical because so much is contingent on precendent in legal proceedings.

    So to get to the bottom line on your question, how does it impact you and other individuals? A deviant view of marriage and family erodes the foundation and order of a society until eventually it crumbles. It won’t change the car you drive, your relationship with your wife; it won’t change the layout at Wal-mart or revolutionize the drive-thru at McDonalds. It will slowly change the morals of our society. I’m hestitant to invoke the slippery slope argument very often but it seems appropriate here.

    Tony, NAMBLA is repulsive and I’m sickened by it but you tell me why this does not reasonably follow gay marriage–if all we mean by marriage is two people in a loving relationship? Age is an obstacle, yes, but even that can change over the course of years or decades–as we’re seeing with gay marriage. Just give any law a few minutes in the Ninth Circuit.

  5. I think we’re just going around in circles. “Why does it affect marriages?”, “Because it does.”

    I don’t happen to share your belief that homosexual relationships are “deviant” in the sense of being undesirable. I think this may be the root cause of our disagreement.

    I’m also particularly skeptical of the notion that judges are legislating when they interpret the law. They are, it seems to me, doing exactly what they are paid to do. I may often disagree with their conclusions but I do not think this means they’re doing something they shouldn’t.

  6. I did offer an effect: “A deviant view of marriage and family erodes the foundation and order of a society until eventually it crumbles.” You may not like it or you may disagree with it, but it is an effect that I’m suggesting and I’m not alone in expressing it.

    As you are undoubtedly aware, ideas have consequences (whether good or bad); and the idea that marriage can be defined as two people in a loving relationship really open the doors to an unraveling of a stabilizing morality, it frays the cord that tethers a society to an orderly, stabalizing moral standard of marriage as between one man and one woman.

  7. I agree and recognise that you and many people perceive an effect.

    I recognise the pain and concern in your statement: “it frays the cord that tethers a society to an orderly, stabalizing moral standard of marriage as between one man and one woman.”

    I empathize with the pain you feel, I do not deny it.

    But I do not put it before the right of people in loving relationships who have married lawfully in their own states to have those marriages recognised by the federal government.

  8. I don’t think we should simply concede the currrent trend. Our vote certainly is one way we can curtail it. While it’s another discussion, to call marriage a right is also another consideration in this whole discussion. I appreciate you stopping by Tony.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s