Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Another Catholic "intellectual" sees marriage as a zero-sum proposition

Kenneth D. Whitehead
Kenneth D. Whitehead
Kenneth D. Whitehead, writing in Crisis Magazine, begins a piece with “Traditional marriage has been taking quite a beating ever since the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Windsor case handed down in June 2013, ruled that same-sex unions must be considered true marriages …”

Now Whitehead is a bright guy. He was a career diplomat who also did a stint as a United States Assistant Secretary of Education during the Reagan Administration. Yet, he is thoroughly wed to the idea that if gay people can legally marry that has some adverse effect on so-called traditional marriage.

I spent much of the morning reading Judge Crabb's 88 page decision in Wisconsin. She faced the same issue:

Defendants attempt to do this by arguing that allowing same-sex couples to marry may harm children or the institution of marriage itself. Those concerns may be genuine, but they are not substantiated by defendants or by amici. 
These arguments have never been substantiated. All we get are theories, abstractions and double-talk. Nobody has pointed to Massachusetts and asserted that some undesirable consequence of same-sex marriage is taking place. Whitehead continues:
Quite suddenly, then, the demise of traditional marriage as the only legally sanctioned form of the institution now seems to have become virtually a foregone conclusion. …

To characterize this turn as disconcerting for upholders of traditional marriage would be a considerable understatement.
If Whitehead wrote something to the effect that this was disconcerting to those who strictly follow the teachings of the Catholic Church I would have no problem. It is the effort to dishonestly secularize a religious objection that produces gibberish. The rant eventually ends up as the inevitable attack on Justice Kennedy:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, did not deign even to consider the persuasive and indeed compelling arguments developed and expounded by defenders of traditional marriage to the effect that marriage is necessarily a complementary union of a male and a female ordered to the possible procreation of children and the formation of a natural human family.
Obviously the argument is neither persuasive nor compelling (given how many times is has been dismissed by judges). While procreation might be one of the reasons for marriage, it has never been a requirement. It is a religious argument that stems from the teachings of the Catholic Church that intercourse can only be used for the purpose of procreation and is impermissible unless it is engaged in by a married couple.

In spite of considerable effort, wear and tear on keyboards and hard drives sent into spin-out, nobody has ever demonstrated even the remotest connection between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage. The same traditional marriages are going to exist and pop out the same kids regardless of the status of same-sex marriage. Again, this is all gibberish. It has become rhetorical gibberish that keeps getting repeated regardless of how unconvincing it is.

It's the usual villains. Where I grew up, references to “Hollywood” meant “evil Jews.” Nevertheless, there is some truth to the following statement:
All this was brought about in significant part because the organized homosexual rights movement proved able to enlist successfully in its cause the media, Hollywood, many courts, many legislatures, the universities, the professions, big business, and even some of the churches.
[Yawn] and of course we hijacked the civil rights movement:
The principal way in which the proponents of marriage redefinition succeeded in getting their cause accepted—and championed—by so many of society’s principal elements was by getting this cause of theirs identified with the civil rights revolution in American life. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed any discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. Later enactments added age and disability. The basic idea was that there was henceforth no longer to be any sort of discrimination. It was more than an idea; it quickly became a moral imperative.
Yet we can be fired, denied promotion and even denied housing simply because we are gay. Then it's on to the victims:
Legalizing gay marriage, in fact, may have an even greater potential for producing social conflict, since, as we are already seeing, treating gay unions as legitimate marriages requires that wedding planners, florists, photographers, bakers, and others who happen to oppose these ersatz relationships must now be legally coerced into supporting them. These incidents will only be increased and multiplied if and when gay marriage is legalized nationwide.
[Yawn - sorry] Correct. Your business license does not permit choosing which anti-discrimination laws you will abide by. If some nitwit thinks that selling some flowers to a gay couple is supporting their legal right to marry then, perhaps, she should not run a public accommodation.

But, again, there is a very simple solution and it is perfectly legal:

Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.