Added: Jacquelynne Alanis - Date: 01.08.2021 00:49 - Views: 25422 - Clicks: 4522
Jump to content. The huge uptick of support for same-sex marriage has been described as swift and broad, to which we can add, in all likelihood, lasting. In my view, every time the defenders of the traditional view of marriage speak in public on behalf of a ban, they lose the support of neutral third parties. The problem is that they are trying to tell other people how they should lead their own lives, and are using the power of the state to do it. Their justifications are far from compelling. They talk about the need for procreation in marriage, though many straight married couples use contraceptives.
They talk about the risks to parenting, when there is no evidence that suggests that gay and lesbian couples are worse parents, especially when compared to dysfunctional couples in traditional marriages or single parents of limited financial means.
Their arguments against same-sex marriage thus fall flat to modern ears, so that the basic support for same-sex marriage only grows. The transformation of public opinion dovetails nicely with the recent Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v.
Kennedy did not bother to articulate what standard of scrutiny, high or low, controls the case. In his mind, the case for an inclusive definition of marriage is so strong that the ban on same-sex marriage cannot survive under any standard of review. Analytically, however, he provided only weak answers to an even more fundamental question: What judgments should be left to democratic processes and what judgments should be insulated against majoritarian politics?
This problem has special urgency here because of the unbroken historical record that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The defense of the traditional understanding of marriage that was raised forcefully by Judge Jeffrey Sutton in the Sixth Circuit and picked up by Chief Justice John Roberts in his pointed dissent in Obergefell raises the question of how can the Court read the Constitution to invalidate the universal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman?
Tradition is a legitimate ground on which to defend social legislation elsewhere, so why not here? The best way to go is to try to understand why the traditional definition of marriage was universal.
The defenders of traditional marriage claim that the purpose of marriage is procreation, which is impossible with same-sex couples. Nonetheless, this response underestimates the role of procreation in defining marriage. Historically, procreation was widely regarded as the essential purpose of marriage. Within this framework, same-sex relationships are different: They can never add offspring to society, but they can reduce them by taking both men and women out of the reproductive market, and thus undercut that social imperative.
The preservation of society through reproduction is strongly tied to traditional marriage, but not to same-sex marriage. So why condemn the traditional view as arbitrary when it tends to advance a desirable societal end? Historically, this point found a constitutional home. Hardwickwhose historical accuracy remains unquestioned. As late asall 50 states outlawed all forms of sodomy, even though many bans fell into desuetude. But throughout it all, no one, anywhere, has suggested that it would fall in the power of the state to abolish the traditional institution of marriage altogether.
The overall consequences for child rearing would be disastrous. It is fair to respond, as Kennedy does, that the advocates of same-sex marriage do not wish to ban marriage but to partake in it, so that there is nothing to fear from the decision except the fuzzy sentiments of individuals opposed to the practice. That is a good reason to ask the legislature to change the definition. But it is less clear that it is a good reason to allow courts to preempt the democratic process. United States— an uncommonly ugly invocation of the morals head of the police power—should be overturned given how it demeans and punishes polygamous families.
His blinkered view of autonomy lets him attack the restriction of marriage to persons of opposite sexes, but not its limitation to two people. The Scalia dissent scores big points in attacking Kennedy for judicial hubris, by insisting that the whole point of democracy is not just to inform the justices but to let the people decide on the issue.
So Kennedy, like everyone else, must explain why a nationally consequential decision on same-sex marriage should be taken out of the democratic process. At this point, his analysis turns wobbly. Virginia for striking down the ban of interracial marriage between a man and a woman, on the combined strength of the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The libertarian foundations of Loving are also evident. But why stop there when the concept of liberty goes a lot further? In particular, Kennedy never explains why his notions of dignity and autonomy do not require the Supreme Court to revisit its decision in Reynolds upholding criminal punishment for polygamy, which is still on the books.
Nor does he ask whether the dignity of workers could, and should, be used as a reason to strike down the full range of labor regulations on both wages and hours that make it flatly illegal for two individuals to enter into a simple employment contract on mutually agreeable terms. To his credit, Chief Justice Roberts—no libertarian—sees the connection, and thus uses his condemnation of the Supreme Court decision, Lochner v.
New Yorkfor striking down a maximum hours law, as a cudgel to explain why the Constitution has nothing to say about same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, Roberts lurches too far in the opposite direction. Single want real sex Hoover, the case for economic liberties is far stronger than that for same-sex marriage because labor never got entangled with the morals head of the police power.
Indeed, much recent scholarship, especially by David Bernsteinshows the dubious special interest, anticompetitive politics that Lochner helped thwart. It would be a lot easier to accept the Kennedy position if he were prepared to embrace a concept of liberty for all by overturning Reynolds and restoring Lochner. But on those areas, inexplicably he flips back to the democratic side, without ever defining the state interest in squashing the operation of competitive labor markets. It gets worse because in the wake of Obergefellwe have to ask what the next step in the struggle over same-sex marriage will be.
By insisting that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, Kennedy has consciously introduced an equivalence between race and sexual orientation. How far is he prepared to go? In the case of Bob Jones University v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld an IRS decision to deny tax-exempt status to schools engaging in racial discrimination. Can the IRS now deny tax exemption to the Roman Catholic Church on the ground that it rejects, on religious grounds, same-sex marriage?
It can insulate the exercise of some liberties from state control, but allow other liberties to be burdened by differential treatment of other liberties, including those expressly embedded in the Constitution. The point here is not idle speculation. Here are three data points. In Martinez v. Christian Legal Foundationa five-to-four majority with Justice Kennedy concurring, held that it was perfectly proper for Hastings Law School, a public institution, to deny the tiny Christian Legal Foundation the full benefit of school facilities largely because of its opposition to same-sex marriage.
The government can offer its subsidies to some groups but not to others, and in so doing, force small isolated groups to subsidize powerful gay rights organizations. Religious intolerance best describes that outcome.
Since then, the situation has only gotten worse. And more recently, claims for religious autonomy have been crushed in state court decisions that have fined individuals who have refused on religious grounds to make wedding cakes for same sex couples. They will have to abandon their chosen profession to honor their religious beliefs. I see no evidence that gay and lesbian rights advocates are prepared to back off of these statist claims.
Here the evidence is decidedly mixed. We thus face a serious risk in the aftermath of Obergefell : liberty in gay rights will turn out to be a one-way street.
Some liberties will be guaranteed for some people while other liberties will be squashed for others. As I write, the gay rights movement is gearing up to expand the scope of the antidiscrimination laws in housing and labor markets. No one says that democratic theory is easy to understand. But there is nothing in the Kennedy opinion that offers any assurance that the religious beliefs and practices of the shrinking religious minority who are opposed to same-sex marriage will be respected by the Supreme Court.
As a libertarian, I support same-sex marriage. As a libertarian, I fear the totalitarian overtones sounding from the next round of gay rights initiatives. View the discussion thread. Image credit:. About the Author. Communication Law. More from Defining Ideas More.Single want real sex Hoover
email: [email protected] - phone:(778) 681-7486 x 4796
What Really Happened Between J. Edgar Hoover and MLK Jr.