Gay Marriage, "Ethical Non-Monogamy," and the Future of Marriage

Marriage purists are in a difficult position, it seems to me. In trying to defend the "one man/one woman" definition of marriage, they have little evidence on their side. Perhaps that's why Proposition 8 in California was overturned by the  San Francisco judge yesterday. Or perhaps that's one of the reasons. It has been argued that this judge, who happens to be gay, was going to rule against the constitutionality of Prop 8 regardless of the facts (see "Judge Walker's Phony Facts," link below). However, I remember reading excerpts of the trial when the case first went to this judge, and I was astonished by how seemingly ill-prepared the "Yes on 8" lawyers were. I read this morning in the LA Times that the lawyers for the plaintiffs (No on 8) presented 16 witnesses--some expert, some just regular people--gay couples and families--telling their stories. Contrast this with only two witnesses brought by the backers of Proposition 8--witnesses who apparently, when cross-examined,  made concessions that actually helped the other side.

Of course, a lot's not being said--why were there only two witnesses willing to publicly testify? Their lawyers claim that prospective witnesses for their side refused to testify out of fear for their safety. This would not surprise me. Who can forget what took place after the law was passed in 2008, when individuals and businesses who had supported passage of the law were targeted by opponents, boycotted and ridiculed publicly? No surprise that potential witnesses would be intimidated.

Is gay marriage inevitable? It would appear so. It's hard to argue anymore that the one man/one woman model even works. Divorce, remarriage, adultery, are rampant not only in society at large but in churches. I'd wager that evangelical churches are among the worst, statistically. The argument that having children and raising a family is the ultimate purpose for marriage is also difficult to sustain. What of the countless dysfunctional heterosexual families? What of childless couples who can't bear children? Ought they not be permitted to marry once it's proved they can't bear children? What of single parent families doing quite well, thank you very much? Where are the studies--longitudinal studies--that would be able to irrefutably document the superiority of the mother/father family model? It's too early in the game to document longitudinally whether the single-gender model works. So this road to gay marriage is premature. And yet onward, upward, forward we traipse into unfamiliar and possibly adverse terrain.

The best and only argument that works for me is biology, the propagation of our species. Yes, gay couples can and have figured out ways to have children, through adoption, artificial insemination, surrogates, and so on. But these approaches are inefficient. The male/female reproductive system was perfectly designed for procreation. Societal views about marriage may change, courts may make judgments, Congress may pass laws, but biology will never change. Letting gay men and lesbians marry is an idea that may work for a time, but I'd argue that it's a dead-end from the standpoint of evolution.

What is the future of marriage? Is marriage on the verge of extinction? We marriage purists talk a lot about the "slippery slope" and are mocked in doing so. But one can't help but look beyond the summer of 2010. Gay marriage advocates celebrate this victory, and it has, indeed, been a long hard climb. Perhaps they view this ruling as the pinnacle, or the precursor of the pinnacle as they wait for the case to reach the Supreme Court. But I look beyond this "victory" and ask, What next? Because there is and always will be a "next." I was listening, for example, to a discussion on These Days on NPR radio the other morning on my way to the post office. The topic was non-traditional relationships, polyamory, also referred to as "ethical non-monogamy." Maureen Cavanaugh was interviewing a woman named Dossie Easton, who has written a book called The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships, and Other Adventures. Here's a woman who has dedicated her professional life to exploring "new paradigms of gender, sexuality, and relationships." When questioned during the program about the traditional Christian view of the marriage relationship, here was her reply:

I think that the polyamorous perspective is largely that spiritual connection can exist beyond marriage and that the connections, that the love connections that we make are sacred, whatever rituals or whatever commitments involved in those relationships are. Certainly, marriage is a very special relationship, I’m not saying it isn’t, but the notion that love can only occur in marriage or that ... sexual love can only occur between two people in one particular kind of relationship, is, in my experience, really just plain not true.

What chutzpah. The audacity.  To dismiss marriage out of hand, marriage, which was designed by her creator "in the beginning," for a purpose. Try looking at the Creator in the eye and saying that again, I wanted to say. This is the slippery slope we are about to tumble down. Because once gay marriage is not only socially acceptable but also legal, there will be another group of disenfranchised people who want social and legal sanction to marry. Does anyone really doubt this?

My hope and prayer is that one by one, as we begin to look objectively at this issue, we will begin to turn back to our creator, first in repentance, and then, maybe, hopefully, in worship.


"The Future of Marriage and Non-Traditional Relationships" (These Days, March 18, 2010)

"Judge Walker's Phony Facts" (The Editors, NRO, August 5, 2010)

"Indecent Proposal....Intentional Provocation"

Excellent editorial by NRO editors this morning, strongly condemning the proposed construction of a "community center" (mosque) in Manhattan, two blocks from Ground Zero. Those who support the project reject arguments against it, not surprisingly casting opponents as either intolerant or xenophobic. Perhaps this is true of some, or a few. But what I'm hearing from those who are sounding the alarm about this project, is that we have every reason to be quite concerned about a) who is funding this project, and b) the motives behind the project. By reminding readers that the Islamic cleric who is spearheading the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, wrote a book titled, A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post 9-11., and that the word "dawa" means Islamic proselytyzing, the editors make it clear this is not about "religious tolerance" but about something far more insidious.

Barack Obama has been strangely mum on the issue. His press secretary says Obama won't get involved in a "local issue." Since when did "local issue" stop B.O. from opining? There was that little local incident at Harvard, about which Obama had quite the say. And the other local issue in Arizona. Lawsuit, anyone? "Ground Zero," it seems to me, doesn't "belong" to New York. As the NRO editors rightly point out, it is "the gravesite of 3,000 Americans who died at the hands of Islamist radicals" in the single-worst attack on American soil in our history. That block belongs to Americans. I agree with the editors: for shame on those politicians and city planners and leaders for promoting this project.

Not at Ground Zero
(NRO editorial, August 4, 2010)

Wrong on So Many Levels

Just read that the "Cordoba House" project (mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero) has cleared its final hurdle with a vote approving the project by New York's Landmarks Preservation Commission. This is wrong on so many levels. I only hope that, regardless of this vote, there will be a groundswell of opposition at the grassroots level. Shouldn't everyone in the country have a say in this matter?

Cordoba House Clears Last Hurdle, Moves Forward

The Anti-Defamation League Does Not Support Cordoba House

The ADL announced its opposition to the $100,000 mosque project in New York City. See write up here.

This announcement had to take some courage on the part of the ADL since the liberal organization now seems to be on the same side of the issue as arch-conservatives Gingrich and Palin, among others. Yet another example of politics making strange bedfellows.

I hope the arguments against the project, now growing in intensity and prominence, prevail. Surely this decision belongs as much to the nation as it does to New York residents. Ground Zero is the sight of a devastating and unprecedented attack on American soil. The decision about how and what to build on this sight should be a national one. Barack Obama has yet to weigh in. Perhaps he's doing what he does best--waiting it out, sniffing the wind, watching the polls--before staking out a position. While it would be easy to guess where he stands on the issue, here is one non-Obama supporter who hopes he gets it right for once and speaks on behalf of the most Americans in decrying this not-so-subtle attempt by radical Islamist organizations to thumb their noses at the United States. Take a stand, Mr. President.

A Conversation About Libertarianism, Conservatism, and the Tea Party Movement

Fascinating discussion.

The Question: "Where Do Libertarians Belong?
The Guests: Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute, representing the Libertarian Party; Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online and American Enterprise Institute, representing the Conservative and/or Republican Party; and Matt Kibbe, Freedom Works President, representing the Tea Party movement.
The Topics: "In which Lindsey argued for the abolition of the historical right-libertarian alliance in "Right is Wrong," Goldberg warned against the lure of "The Non-Existent Center," and Kibbe defended the Tea Parties in "Drink Your Tea."
Source: Reason.TV.com (Reason Magazine)

The Los Angeles Times Supports Cordoba House

I sent in a Letter to the Editor this morning to the Los Angeles Times, in response to their editorial in today's paper called "Ground Zero for Tolerance." They argue in favor of the construction in New York City of an "Islamic Community Center" (aka mosque) 2 blocks from Ground Zero. They cite Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, who have been vocal opponents of the project, before making their case that the center will be a place for the promotion of religious tolerance. Their source for such a claim is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is spearheading the project. They take his words at face-value with little or no apparent scrutiny. I took offense at the editorial on several levels, which is why my letter won't be published (too long, for one, and also, making two points, a no-no if ever there were one). Since it won't be published, I'll copy it here. I'm linking to the original editorial below. Here's my too-long/bifurcated Letter to the Editor:

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the Los Angeles Times simply can't be trusted for intelligent and informative commentary. In your editorial, "Ground Zero for Tolerance," you gleefully bat down two "straw men" (Palin and Gingrich) as representative voices against the construction of the Cordoba House two blocks from Ground Zero, even managing to slip in a dig over Palin's misuse of the word "repudiate" in her Twitter post. I teach English at a community college, and one of the things I teach my students is to "argue against the best representation of your opposition," as Sydney Callahan put it. "If you can't state the opposing side's argument better than they can, and then show why the position is unsatisfactory," she wrote, "you haven't done your homework." Trying to score points with your readers by mocking Sarah Palin and distorting Newt Gingrich's words is not doing your homework. How about addressing some real concerns about the project, such as the following (to name a few):

• Contrary to your editorial, the construction of this building is not about religious tolerance. America is plenty tolerant of Muslims. According to the website American Muslim Perspective, there is a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America, two million of which are associated with mosques. A 2007 survey by the Muslim Group of America listed 1,462 mosques in America. 

• Your  editorial quotes Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as saying that the purpose of this center is to "push back against [Islamic] extremists." In reality, according to Andrew G. Bostom, Rauf is a "full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism."

• You say nothing about the significance of the naming of this so-called "Islamic Community Center." The "Great Mosque of Cordoba" built in the capital of Southern Spain, was built in the 8th century after the Islamic conquest. Symbolically, Cordoba implies Islamic rule and conquest. Nothing peaceful or tolerant about that.

It may surprise you to discover that your readers are smarter than you think. If we can't get reliable commentary from the Los Angeles Times, we'll find it elsewhere. Meanwhile, even if you don't publish this letter in your paper, I suggest your editorial board start doing their homework. 

 Sincerely, etcetera. I provided links to some good articles and blogs I've read recently. I'll link them below for the interested reader who is not easily dismissed by condescending editors.

"Let Religious Freedom Ring," Editorial, Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2010

"Behind the Mosque: Extremism at Ground Zero?" by Andrew G. Bostom, New York Post,  July 23, 2010

"Rauf's Dawa from the New York Trade Center's Rubble," by Andrew C. McCarthy, NRO, July 24, 2010

"Iraqi Columnist in Arab Media Warns of Cordoba Initiative," at Atlas Shrugs, by Pamela Gellar, posted May 28, 2010.

And so on.

Why is Britian Considering Scrapping Centralized Healthcare System?

Interesting excerpt from today's End of Day report from Gary Bauer: 

The New York Times reported last weekend that the new British coalition government, facing a crippling national debt, has proposed “the most radical reorganization” ever of the nation’s socialized healthcare system. What is so “radical” about the plan?

According to the Times, it seeks to “decentralize” British healthcare, giving more power to local doctors and patients, as well as “shrink the bureaucratic apparatus.” The report adds, “Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.” After decades of experimenting with socialized medicine, the British are taking steps toward a more market-oriented approach and shedding “layers of bureaucracy” in the process.

Meanwhile, America is going in the opposite direction with ObamaCare’s trillion-dollar price tag, higher taxes, new commissions, czars and regulations. Worse, President Obama has appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to make it all “work.” A New York Times article yesterday quoted Berwick in 2008 as saying, “I am romantic about the [British] National Health Service; I love it.”

Evidently, many of the Brits who have to live with it aren’t quite so fond of it. A new Rasmussen poll finds that likely voters in America aren’t too keen on the idea either – 58% favor repealing ObamaCare before it goes into full effect. 

 My thoughts: Is it too much to hope that we Americans (and hopefully a renovated Congress in November) can revisit this entire debate before our newly-enacted health-care reform kicks in?

Concern about Obama's Pick to Head Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is Valid

Here's a write-up about that guy Obama chose to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, including a short video clip excerpt of a speech he gave in 2008, revealing his pro-socialistic ideals about redistribution of wealth. Are the Republicans wrong to be concerned about this pick, as the LA Times says?

 Obama Nominee Donald Berwick's Radical Agenda

Here's the L.A. Times editorial

More Disturbing Insights About Health Care Reform from a Liberal Economist

Way back in November 2009 I posted an item on this blog about John Cassidy of The New Yorker who, though he was (is) a supporter of health care reform, as an economist, still felt obligated to discuss the bill in terms of dollars and sense...I mean, cents. I re-read his original posting today and was astounded at his prescience. Two of his more startling comments then were:

• Some "subterfuge may be necessary" to enact "great reform."
• The Obama Administration is creating a new entitlement program which, if enacted, "will be virtually impossible to rescind."

OK, so here it is April 2010, "ObamaCare" passed, it's been signed, it's law, it's done, fait accompli...and I'm curious. What's John Cassidy saying five months later? Is he still examining the issue from the standpoint of an economist?

Indeed he is. Below are links to his blog, "Rational Irrationality," where he crunches the numbers again, and his conclusions are much the same.

What's interesting to me is that, in spite of analysis by experts like Cassidy and Capretta,  Democrats continue to spout the now-debunked spin that "these pieces of legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years and by as much as $1.3 trillion over the second 10 years." By the way, this is an exact quote from Senator Dianne Feinstein, who parroted it in a reply to an email I sent to her (just doing my civic duty, writing my elected officials).

Interesting reading.

ObamaCare by the Numbers, Part I

ObamaCare by the Numbers, Part II

How to Finance Barack Obama's New Entitlement Program

Why are voices like these ignored when it comes to policy decision-making?

"Tax Collecting for Obama's Welfare State," by James C. Capretta (see bio below).

Here's a key quote: "The chutzpah here is something to behold. Having passed the largest entitlement expansion in half a century, in the most partisan manner imaginable, the president now wants Republicans to provide political cover to Democrats as they search for ways to finance the welfare state of their dreams."

Capretta bio:

James C. Capretta, a Fellow in the Economics and Ethics Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), was an Associate Director at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 2001 to 2004, where he was the top budget official for health-care, Social Security, education, and welfare programs.

At EPPC, Mr. Capretta studies and provides commentary on a wide range of public policy and economic issues, with a focus on health-care and entitlement reform, U.S. fiscal policy, and global population aging. 

In addition to his work as a researcher and commentator on public policy issues, Mr. Capretta is also a health policy and research consultant with Civic Enterprises, LLC and an Adjunct Fellow with the Global Aging Initiative of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and with Hudson Institute.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Capretta served for a decade in Congress as a senior analyst for health-care issues and for three years as a budget examiner at OMB. He has an MA in Public Policy Studies from Duke University, and he graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1985 with a BA in Government.

Frog in my Throat?

Anyone paying attention to this blog might notice that I haven't bothered to post anything for a few months. I regret this. Perhaps I'm not "all that into" this whole blogging thing. Perhaps I'm aware of the futility of trying to make a difference. There was a time I cared enough to craft essays, search for a place to publish, wait in anxiety to hear if my work had been "accepted," then wait some more to see it appear in print, then wait (often in vain) for comment or feedback. Those were the days before blogging, or at least, the days before the ubiquity of blogging. Eventually I stopped sending out articles, especially articles that attempted to comment on social or political issues, focusing instead on matters pertaining to family, children, and faith. Eventually these, too, fizzled out as I began teaching, and as my kids got older and life got busier. I see this diminishing of my writing efforts as losing my voice, getting hoarse...

Originally, this blog was my attempt to "clear my throat," so to speak. It evolved during the lead-up to the 2008 election. I found myself daily pestering people on my email mailing list, sending articles, ranting, raving. I guess I thought my little rants would make a difference.

I'm not sure anything makes a difference. Even if I believe the things I do, and even if I try to articulate them, what difference does it make? 

I think I'm depressed and discouraged.There's no scandal too big, no setback too daunting, that Barack Obama somehow can't manage to turn into an asset. The guy's a magician. I don't mean this as a compliment. I don't trust him. He's dishonest, disingenuous, duplicitous. He doesn't play by the rules, at least, not by the rules I respect. I guess he has his own set of rules, ends-justifying-the-means type of rules.

No doubt "the other side" says the same about Republicans. Oh well. Politics is a game where people make up the rules as they go along and in the end everyone loses.

Anyway, today's the day I'm starting up again after three months of silence. Clearing the old froggy throat.

Ahem!

My Thoughts One Year Later

Someone sent me an article evaluating Barack Obama's first year in office called "A Failed Presidency" and asked me my thoughts.

I think Barack Obama is in over his head. I think in some ways it was inevitable that he's become president--the "stars were all aligned," it was "the perfect storm," that sort of thing. But the truth is, he is ill-equipped for the job. His senate voting record is abysmal, he has no experience legislating, he is beholden to too many special interests, he is not by any stretch of the imagination a "leader" (George W. Bush, love him or hate him, was a leader in the sense that he knew what he had to do and he did it, negative polls notwithstanding). 

I was thinking about Bush this morning and comparing him to Obama. What I dislike most about Barack Obama is he's a whiner. His favorite refrain is what he "inherited." George W. Bush also inherited 9/11 from the incompetence and weak foreign policy of his predecessor. But never once did I ever hear him or his supporters blame Clinton. 9/11 happened and the Bush administration went into action, he became a "wartime" president. He made mistakes but he also got things right. Personally I think history will be kinder to Bush than his contemporaries have been. 

What I also dislike about Barack Obama is how he always thinks he can "talk" his way out of any problem. It's insulting on so many levels that he thinks the "mistakes" of his first year can be attributed to not doing a better job "explaining to the American people." Like we're little children and we need to be sat down and talked to so we can go along with him. If his past supporters are duped yet again then it's as the old adage says: Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me. Those who voted for Obama in 2008 and who are "proud of their vote...," shame on them if they fall for his distortions, whines, blame-game, promises, lies the second time around.
 
I think it was shameful the way Obama humiliated the Supreme Court justices at his first State of the Union address. The justices don't have to come to this session but apparently do so as a courtesy to the occasion. They are not permitted to applaud, stand, sit on their hands, etc. Their presence is symbolic as they represent the third branch of our government. So there they sat, like ducks in a pond, surrounded by (democrats) cheering and whooping while the president scolded them for the recent controversial decision to allow corporations to buy political ads in national campaigns. As it turns out, our Harvard Law School grad president distorted the facts. But that's Barack Obama. Cheap shots, low blows, just to score points, knowing he can "talk" or explain things away later and that his distortion will get barely a mention in the mainstream media.

Yes, a failed presidency, I agree. I can only hope and pray that the midterm elections in 2010 balance things out so he can be held accountable.