That's how many posts I've had on this site. I'm sure there's some symbolism there -- in fact, in a way it has to do with the substance of this topic:
A couple of commentaries by Andrew Koppelman related to same-sex marriage.
The first is post at Balkinization on the state of same-sex marriage/domestic partnerships in California, in light of the Governator's second veto of a bill legalizing marriage for same-sex couples vis-a-vis the current suit pending before the California Supreme Court. Koppelman calls the court battle a "bad strategy" and predicts that it will energize the opposition. The comments are, as usual, mixed and intelligent on both sides of the issue (the issue in this case being whether the strategy is bad or only to be expected). My own reaction is pretty much the same as it was with ENDA: this is what we have. This is what we have to work with, so let's stop arguing about whether it's the best way to go about it and get to work. (I know -- it's such a pain when reality intrudes on principle, but that's life.)
(There are those who argue against incrementalism and bring up the racially-based civil rights laws of the sixties, but those aren't the best analogies -- once you determine that racial bias is not a positive social characteristic, people can make the jump from Black to Asian to American Native to whatever. That's pretty much a no-brainer. Making the jump from gay man to transsexual is not so easy, because most people (including many gays) don't see the congruence there.)
To pull back because movement relies on the courts is simply to buy into the specious mantras about "judicial activism," which is another one of those bald assertions that partake of Reaganspeak: If you say it often enough, it's true. It translates simply as "I don't like this decision."
As one or two of Koppelman's commenters point out, a favorable decision by the court will energize the right-wingers. An unfavorable decision will not stop them -- they will simply go after some other rights currently guaranteed in California. You have to remember that marriage is not the whole agenda: their goal is to delegitimize gay people and get them back in the closet, if not worse. Anything else is camouflage.
This article (pdf), which he cites in his blog post, begins with a scathing look at the contemporary Republican agenda. Of particular note is his summary of the "New Natural Law" argument against SSM on page 13 (which I am not able to copy and paste because the PDF is secured, apparently). There is a huge caveat in this argument that is thrown into sharp relief with his quote from John M. Finnis that begins "A proposed destroying, damaging, or blocking of some basic aspect of some person's reality. . ." and concludes "But . . . such a commensurating of goods is rationally impossible."
The flaw here is that the basis of the argument is revealed to be essentially arbitrary, predicated on the emotional and ideological preferences of Finnis (and others who have advanced this argument) and thus, suspect. The argument against homosexual relations, according to Koppelman's summary, is similar to the arguments for against contraception (note this argument borrows heavily from Roman Catholic dogma): life is an intrinsic good, and sex exists to create life, so any sexual activity that does not create life is bad. Pleasure for its own sake is not intrinsically good. Both of those basic criteria are certainly arguable, since neither has any rock-solid basis in fact.
There is also the fact that Finnis and his ilk deny the possibility in this argument that gay couples may enter into relationships for any other reason than bodily pleasure, which is utter poppycock.
As Koppelman goes on to describe the argument, the more ridiculous it becomes. Koppelman begins the destruction on page 17. As the demolition continues, it becomes evident that the argument against same-sex marriage (and homosexual activity in general) is completely circular, in a very strained and awkward way.
Koppelman does the same sort of deconstruction on the "Declining Family" argument as advanced by the likes of Maggie Gallagher (who from what I've seen isn't bothered much by reality) and Stanley Kurtz (whose arguments, which make use of misapplied and manipulated statistics have been so thoroughly debunked that I'm surprised anyone pays attention to him any more. Well, I'm not, but I am. If you know what I mean.). Again, an exercise in solipsism on the part of the anti-gay crowd. (Koppelman does say that the Kurtz-Gallagher argument is immune to empirical disproof, which in Kurtz' case, at least, is not true. His foundations can easily be refuted because they rely on specious conclusions from manipulated and in some cases untrue data.)
It's an extraordinarily thorough article that, I think, really gets to the heart of the intellectual and moral poverty of the anti-marriage arguments. I do recommend that you read it.
3 comments:
It fascinates me that the conservatives repeatedly decry "activist judges" while simultaneously campaigning on open and undisguised promises to appoint judges who will be (conservative) activists. This doesn't ever seem to be part of the liberal campaign language, however -- I wonder why?
I suspect that it's because Americans, in spite of all the hooting about their being fairly conservative, are still heavily in debt intellectually and socially to the Enlightenment. The conservative agenda, as it exists today, is ultimately morally repellent to most Americans and when it is openly used as a basis for programs, it loses at the polls.
By the way, I think you'll find that no one promises to appoint "conservative" judges, but rather judges who are "strict constructionists," the accepted code. Although lately, I guess the gloves are off -- not that it matters with Senators like Feinstein in office.
Liberals don't have to speak in code for the same reasons that they can run openly on their policies: most Americans are sympathetic to their aims, if not always their means.
I agree. Actually, I was not thinking of "conservative" judges but of so-called "strict constructionists", although my language was a bit fuzzy. As for Feinstein, who is one of my senators, I'm so angry with her that although I've written her several times already, I keep writing letters to her in my head. You may be interested to know that there is a growing movement to put a Feinstein recall on next June's ballot; the petition is gathering signatures at a solid rate.
I don't expect liberals to campaign on promises to appoint liberal judges. What I don't understand is why, in their campaign materials and speeches, they never point out the hypocrisy of the conservatives' stance. It's as though they expected the population to be as engaged and informed as they themselves are. Anyone who has day-to-day dealings with the general population knows that campaign language is important. I want to see the liberals campaigns to include loud and repeated references to the duplicity of the conservatives' campaigns, attacks on their record, pointed refutations of their deliberately dishonest claims, to the point where even my sister-in-law, who doesn't read a newspaper and gets her information from conservative talk-radio in darkest semi-rural Arizona, will understand that what she hears is not what she's going to get from the Right if they're elected.
Post a Comment