I was reading Dorothy Sayers a few nights ago and found this interesting quote. The following is from a fictional biographical note on the person of Lord Peter Whimsey by his fictional uncle:
"His latest eccentricity has been to fall in love with that girl whom he cleared of the charge of poisoning her former lover. She refused to marry him, as any woman of character would. Gratitude and humiliating inferiority complexes are no foundation for matrimony; the position was false from the start. Peter had the sense this time to take my advice. 'My boy,' said I, 'what was wrong for you twenty years back is right now. It's not the innocent young things that need gentle handling--it's the ones that have been frightened and hurt. Begin again from the beginning--I warn you that you will need all the self-discipline you have ever learnt.'
"Well, he has tried. I don't think I have ever seen such patience. The girl has brains and character and honesty' but he has got to teach her how to take, which is far more difficult than learning to give. I think they will find one another, if they can keep their passions from running ahead of their wills. He does realize, I know, that in this case there can be no consent but free consent."
Jan 13, 2009
Prop 8 as the new Scopes trial
In the aftermath of the passage of proposition 8 I have been pondering the future significance of this legislation for religious conservatives and religious people more generally. I myself did not vote for proposition 8 for many reasons which I will not go into here, but one reason was the belief that a government/body politic that believes it can vote to define marriage and/or to withhold marriage from one group or another simply on the basis of public opinion has no moral grounding--the definition of marriage in this society would become a soupy, constantly changing mess, and a government that withholds recognition of marriage to one group today can just as easily withhold it from any other group tomorrow.
Observing the fall out from the votes cast last November I have begun to wonder whether proposition 8 might well turn out to be for religious conservatives of my generation what the Scopes trial became for religious conservatives of an earlier generation--an example of winning the battle but losing the war. I ask this as someone who identifies himself as a religious moderate who believes that the fate of religious conservatives is significant for all religious people in this country. And my concerns stem from the same conviction that initially lead me to vote no on 8--that if we grant the government the right to define marriage and to withhold its legal recognition of marriage to certain groups we grant the government (or the voting public) power it has no right to. This is a libertarian argument I suppose; though as my earlier post makes clear it is also based on a concern that we as a country retain some sense that what is right and just is something larger than the opinion of >50% of the population.
Religious conservatives (not only Christians) believed they could force their will and their view of marriage on the rest of the population, and they have succeeded by a bare majority. But just as fundamentalists won the Scopes trial but lost in terms of social clout, respect, and standing in the long run, it may well be the case that this proposition ultimately undermines the interests, power, and standing of religious conservatives in the long run. This concerns me not because I particularly care to see religious conservatives extend their streak of political influence, but because it has the potential to negatively impact the practice of religion in the United States for generations to come.
Religious people are now painted, with some justification, as believing that justice is merely the will of the majority, that might really does make right. Furthermore, we have set a precedent for one majority dictating the practices and restricting the legal protection of a minority. Whether you call it the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" or the Golden Rule, simply putting ourselves on the other side of such action should give us pause. I do not rule out taking such action a priori, but it should be something that we give substantial thought to. That is what I feel has been most lacking in the recent debates.
Observing the fall out from the votes cast last November I have begun to wonder whether proposition 8 might well turn out to be for religious conservatives of my generation what the Scopes trial became for religious conservatives of an earlier generation--an example of winning the battle but losing the war. I ask this as someone who identifies himself as a religious moderate who believes that the fate of religious conservatives is significant for all religious people in this country. And my concerns stem from the same conviction that initially lead me to vote no on 8--that if we grant the government the right to define marriage and to withhold its legal recognition of marriage to certain groups we grant the government (or the voting public) power it has no right to. This is a libertarian argument I suppose; though as my earlier post makes clear it is also based on a concern that we as a country retain some sense that what is right and just is something larger than the opinion of >50% of the population.
Religious conservatives (not only Christians) believed they could force their will and their view of marriage on the rest of the population, and they have succeeded by a bare majority. But just as fundamentalists won the Scopes trial but lost in terms of social clout, respect, and standing in the long run, it may well be the case that this proposition ultimately undermines the interests, power, and standing of religious conservatives in the long run. This concerns me not because I particularly care to see religious conservatives extend their streak of political influence, but because it has the potential to negatively impact the practice of religion in the United States for generations to come.
Religious people are now painted, with some justification, as believing that justice is merely the will of the majority, that might really does make right. Furthermore, we have set a precedent for one majority dictating the practices and restricting the legal protection of a minority. Whether you call it the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" or the Golden Rule, simply putting ourselves on the other side of such action should give us pause. I do not rule out taking such action a priori, but it should be something that we give substantial thought to. That is what I feel has been most lacking in the recent debates.
Jan 12, 2009
Some reading
two articles that I've read the last two days that I found thought provoking. First, a British atheist arguing that what Africa most needs is more Christian missionaries. He quibbles with the western academic dogma that "their" culture and "our" culture are two different things that cannot be quantified, compared, or be the basis for value judgments.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
the other is the Slate obituary for Richard John Neuhaus, catholic priest who converted from the ELCA several years ago and a well known conservative intellectual. The analysis on Neuhaus' attempts to bridge the evangelical-catholic divide is food for thought.
http://www.slate.com/id/2208326/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
the other is the Slate obituary for Richard John Neuhaus, catholic priest who converted from the ELCA several years ago and a well known conservative intellectual. The analysis on Neuhaus' attempts to bridge the evangelical-catholic divide is food for thought.
http://www.slate.com/id/2208326/
Prop 8 and natural law
the following is a reflection I typed up in an email to a few family members:
some thoughts sparked by a LA Times article on the attempts to overturn prop 8 and the counter arguments. My comments follow my excerpt from the Times coverage.
From LA Times article on prop 8 legal battles:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage6-2009jan06,0,695679.story
1/6/09
>in a move that outraged supporters of Proposition 8 and took even gay-rights activists by
>surprise, Brown's brief instead urged the court to toss the proposition, declaring that "the
>amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without
>compelling justification." Brown argued that the California Constitution protects the right
>to marry as inalienable.
...
>Santa Clara University Law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court, said
>it "hits the nail on the head."
>"If you think of the Constitution as a compact between the people and those who govern us,
>to say the people have no power to amend a court's ruling simply because the court . . .
>says this is an inalienable right -- I think that is pretty far out."
From my perspective this is a curious position for conservative Christians to be in--arguing that law is based on the will of the people in this one particular case, when for the most part we are the most outspoken believers in Natural Law. Conversely, it is an odd situation for the other side to be in, arguing that law is not socially constructed but is based on Natural Law. I'm not sure which party should be more uncomfortable.
Behind this, I believe, is the fact that civil rights are the last vestige of Natural Law, the one place in the contemporary social and legal conversation where most people agree that law is based on something higher than case law or some other socially constructed convention. It is ironic to me that many conservative Christians are now willing to embrace for political expedience an argument that basically holds law and the constitution to simply be a reflection of current social opinion. These are the same conservatives who only a few years ago were vociferously arguing that the job of the supreme court is to simply enforce the constitution and that the court errs when it treats the constitution as more malleable.
Do Christians, conservative or otherwise, really want to be making the argument that Ken Star is making in this case? Should we be the ones (I'm not saying Ken Star really is speaking for us, however a lot of Christians support his efforts on behalf of prop 8) making the argument that law is socially constructed? Do we, of all people, not have good reason (historical, doctrinal, philosophical) to continue to hold that the best human law seeks to conform as closely as possible to a higher law, a law which we do not construct at will? Are we justified in making this argument because it is politically expedient, and because we have not been able to win with the argument that homosexuality is against natural law?
This gets back to my earlier concerns that even if religious conservatives manage to pass prop 8 (technically, it has passed) it would come back to bite them in the rear-end in the long run by setting a president of forcing one slim majority opinion on a large minority. As soon as tables switch in this situation, religious conservatives (and even moderates like myself) would be on the receiving end of oppressive laws that enforce the legal opinion of a slim majority against vociferous opposition of a sizable minority.
some thoughts sparked by a LA Times article on the attempts to overturn prop 8 and the counter arguments. My comments follow my excerpt from the Times coverage.
From LA Times article on prop 8 legal battles:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage6-2009jan06,0,695679.story
1/6/09
>in a move that outraged supporters of Proposition 8 and took even gay-rights activists by
>surprise, Brown's brief instead urged the court to toss the proposition, declaring that "the
>amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without
>compelling justification." Brown argued that the California Constitution protects the right
>to marry as inalienable.
...
>Santa Clara University Law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court, said
>it "hits the nail on the head."
>"If you think of the Constitution as a compact between the people and those who govern us,
>to say the people have no power to amend a court's ruling simply because the court . . .
>says this is an inalienable right -- I think that is pretty far out."
From my perspective this is a curious position for conservative Christians to be in--arguing that law is based on the will of the people in this one particular case, when for the most part we are the most outspoken believers in Natural Law. Conversely, it is an odd situation for the other side to be in, arguing that law is not socially constructed but is based on Natural Law. I'm not sure which party should be more uncomfortable.
Behind this, I believe, is the fact that civil rights are the last vestige of Natural Law, the one place in the contemporary social and legal conversation where most people agree that law is based on something higher than case law or some other socially constructed convention. It is ironic to me that many conservative Christians are now willing to embrace for political expedience an argument that basically holds law and the constitution to simply be a reflection of current social opinion. These are the same conservatives who only a few years ago were vociferously arguing that the job of the supreme court is to simply enforce the constitution and that the court errs when it treats the constitution as more malleable.
Do Christians, conservative or otherwise, really want to be making the argument that Ken Star is making in this case? Should we be the ones (I'm not saying Ken Star really is speaking for us, however a lot of Christians support his efforts on behalf of prop 8) making the argument that law is socially constructed? Do we, of all people, not have good reason (historical, doctrinal, philosophical) to continue to hold that the best human law seeks to conform as closely as possible to a higher law, a law which we do not construct at will? Are we justified in making this argument because it is politically expedient, and because we have not been able to win with the argument that homosexuality is against natural law?
This gets back to my earlier concerns that even if religious conservatives manage to pass prop 8 (technically, it has passed) it would come back to bite them in the rear-end in the long run by setting a president of forcing one slim majority opinion on a large minority. As soon as tables switch in this situation, religious conservatives (and even moderates like myself) would be on the receiving end of oppressive laws that enforce the legal opinion of a slim majority against vociferous opposition of a sizable minority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)