Of course the first issue to be dealt with is my personal opinion on the issue, so people are not trying to winkle it out as they read. I guess it might be easy to misunderstand my stance, as Rep Kevin Murphy did the other night when we were talking at Regina's Fund Raiser. Incidentally, this is the position I took years ago, when I was running against Rep David Nangle for the 17th Middlesex seat. Do you think this is the reason I lost?
I believe marriage should be considered a religious issue. I believe that the state should be interested in legal contracts. If the Roman Catholic Church is against same-sex marriage, then the Roman Catholic Church ought not to perform same-sex ceremonies and should not be coerced into doing so.
On the other hand, if a same-sex couple wants to execute a contract that seals them together, the City Hall should be free to issue them a license. Now, here is where I am maybe ahead of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court—with its gutless Goodridge decision.♠ Why we think it is discrimination to say that homosexuals can't be joined together but it isn't discrimination when we say Muslims can't be in a relationship with two wives is beyond me. In both cases we are talking about actions that would have "violated the federal right to equal protection," in the words of Ms Goodman.
And, we need a new vocabulary. A vocabulary that separates marriage from civil unions. I suggest that everyone can have a civil union. Marriage is a more private matter.
OK. Having said that, what do I think about what is going on in Texas? I think it is just the normal working out of the differences we should be celebrating in our great and broad nation. Why should what the people in Massachusetts think about everything be what the people in Texas think?
You might object that this is about civil rights, but that is yet to be determined. That former Representative Bob Barr is not against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he wrote may just mean that he has become more libertarian in his views. He may still think that homosexual sex, like adultery, is wrong. That former President Bill Clinton changed his mind should not be a shock to anyone. I am surprised he hasn't worn off his fingerprint from licking his finger and holding it up to see which way the wind is blowing.
And what is with the use of the initials JB and HB to identify the same-sex couple seeking divorce in Texas? That seems a little strange. If my wife and I sue for divorce, will we get the same courtesy from the MSM?
As for Ms Goodman's comments on DADT, I think she read Mr James Carroll's Column the day before and got led down the primrose path.
What we’re seeing are all sorts of potholes on the uneven road to equality. Remember the so-called compromise on gays in the military: “Don’t ask, don’t tell’’? Now, military researchers call it a “costly failure.’’Is she referring to Colonel Om Prakash's article, "The Efficacy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" in the current issue of Joint Forces Quarterly?♥
This is the article that Mr James Carroll so badly mischaracterized in his column a week and a couple of days ago.
NOW THEY tell us. Sixteen years after institutionalizing a denigration of gay people, the Pentagon is discovering that its “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ policy has been a moral catastrophe. Undermining the morale it was supposed to protect, it has been “wholly inconsistent with a core military value - integrity.’’ That’s the conclusion of an upcoming article in the Joint Force Quarterly, from the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - reported on last week by the Globe’s Bryan Bender. The journal article, based on a study conducted at the National Defense University, issues a forthright call for a repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military.Mr Carroll takes the large paper of a student at the National War College and blows it up into a major study conducted by the National Defense University. This essay most likely happened like all of them. A student has an idea and proposes it and gets a yes or no. That is how my 110 page paper on the strategic significance of the Republic of the Philippines came to be written, along with my co-author, Navy Captain Rob Webb. I would provide a link except the faculty read it and then stamped it classified.♦
That the Pentagon itself is the source of compelling criticism of the military’s own policy, just at the time when the Obama administration is trying to find a politically savvy way of undoing it, brings this immorality tale full circle. The immorality, of course, belongs not to gays, but to the government. How was this absurd and cruel structure of deceit erected in the first place - and what hidden purpose did it actually serve?
That is how the National War College price winning "Coup of 2012" came to be written. The author, then Colonel Dunlap, came to me and said that this is what he wanted to write about and I said fine.♣ Sometimes the essay was hard work. I remember being in the basement of a War College student at nine o'clock at night, helping him write his paper. This was not one of my students, but he happened to be my younger brother's next door neighbor and I was enlisted to help out.
I very much doubt that this was an NDU study. When NDU does the research it comes out under the logo of one of the NDU research agencies. This was the research work of one of the students at National War College. And, the fact that it was published doesn't mean that it was endorsed by the Pentagon, by the Secretary of Defense or by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
There must be a strong conspiratorial streak in the media. The Joint Forces Quarterly editor confided to me that he had one reporter that just wouldn't accept "student essay" for an answer.
So, in summary, Ms Goodman should be into celebrating the diversity that is this nation, the legislators across the fruited plain should separate marriage from the legal obligations individuals should be able to sign up for based upon close intimate relations as adults (civil unions) and Mr Carroll needs to throttle back his belief in the evil of the US military.
Regards — Cliff
♠ Did I mention that it was gutless?
♥ While you are there, check out my article, co-authored with Dr Janet Breslin-Smith, "Strategic Drift: The Future of the National War College."
♦ When I was a student at Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.
♣ When I was on the faculty at National War College.
6 comments:
I agree--vacate all state-sanctioned "marriages" (equally for EVERYBODY), immediately classify them as "civil unions", and then let all the various religions name whatever unions by whatever name they see fit. A big plus would be the entertainment value of watching folks petitioning the Pope for their "equality" instead.
As for DADT, the constitution could/should be amended to guarantee equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, and then the military directed to respect that.
Actually, it's abhorrent to me that equality of rights needs to be specified to each category of people who have been categorically denied their equality, but we have to do whatever it takes to guarantee EVERYONE has equal protection under the law, no matter how much they may be hated for it.
It is not clear why the Church is in the marriage arrangement except for the public responsibility to tribal Jews in the past that enabled the passage of wealth and sustained the tribe. Does the modern civilized state have that to worry about? Doesn't morality follow the needs of the civilization in this case and isn't that why it is so problematic? There really is no universal truth on this matter.
Dear Anon
To me it is not clear why the Government is in the Marriage business, except for enforcing inheritance rights and keeping down fights amongst relatives and providing people with the legal right to pull the plug on you at some point.
I always thought the line "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9♠) put it squarely in the realm of religion.
However, I wonder about this view: "Doesn't morality follow the needs of the civilization in this case and isn't that why it is so problematic? There really is no universal truth on this matter."
That is a neo-Social Darwinist point of view, IMHO; something we might find being argued in Germany in the first half of the last century. Morality doesn't follow the "needs of civilization." Rather, morality follows natural law, doesn't it? As for no universal truth, I am going with Jesus on this one. It cost me 250 Hail Marys to get married in Las Vegas. I am not messing around with that again.
As for Kad's comments, thinking about it, one wonders if Congress is "granting" rights by law, can't Congress just as easily take them away by a different law. Not everything we think of as a universal right is viewed that way everywhere else. Think what will happen to women in Afghanistan if we pull out early.
Regards — Cliff
♠ Douay-Rheims
PS: For all, to get a second space between sentences in this hypertext environment one needs to put down, immediately following the period, an ampersand and then the letters nbsp and then a semicolon, so it looks like & nbsp ; (without the spaces).
The Constitution and Bill of Rights does it's job as it is written. There IS a guarantee of equal protection under the law. The problem is for one special interest group to avail themselves of ACTUAL protection under the law and that may well be opposed by other special interest groups. THAT is not LAW. That is social interaction and political process. On one level, that is worlds apart from THE LAW.
If we begin to ammend laws to specify this group or that, over time the law will become almost indecipherable, let alone enforceable. EVERYONE wants their particular special interests identified and protected....often at the expense of others' special interests...but that is where some are just more equal than others...a phenomenon that transcends the history of humanity on this mudball.
I am not completely convinced that the "plight" of gays and lesbians with regard to "marriage" is one of recognized union by the state, as much as it is to demand legitimacy from the state, ergo, being gay or lesbian is at normal and okay as heterosexuality. It's a strong move to be "in your face."
Love doesn't reguire state approval or for that matter supervision. The sharing of worldly goods is easily effected via contract (which in most respects is what the marital union is), so if it's a matter of "legitimzing" gay or lesbian unions, I am baffled about what all the hooha is about. If you want to be "married" then do so. Oh sure, there will be those who will stridently object, but hey, I know a bunch of righties who perhaps even more stridently object to Obama and his band. So......deal with it. Life is hard, and then you die.
Regards,
Neal
BTW, one of my brothers is gay, so I speak from first hand dialogue. He is like a raw nerve, snapping before a stimulus is even formed, let alone imposed. When I grew up in the 50's, I lived in a very small, VERY conservative town. The HS principal and the biology teacher were openly gay....and were highly respected and accepted in the community. They lived their lives without fanfare.
Don't you think though the state is interested in who's the baby's daddy?
I don't know if you remember filling out the birth certificate registration when you had children. The last time I did it was back in 2008. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts wanted to know if I was married and for long, particularly 280 days, about the length of a pregnancy. The Commonwealth assumes because I'm married at such of a time that I was monogamous and with my husband. If I was not married at the probably time of conception, my father is encouraged to sign 'an affidavit of paternity'.
Marriage is a very non-religious issue, the state wants to know who the dad is preferably in a healthy relationship with the mother. The state presumes that myself and my husband are monogamous and having children that are our own.
It's not about orientation, it's about activity. Heterosexual activity can get your pregnant, homosexual activity can not. That is not unjust to acknowledge or the slightest bit homophobic. In fact I agree with many of the gay marriage arguments, but it's not the same to what was marriage. I believe that adults, otherwise known as non-married relationships, should have rights and obligations acknowledge by law and the rest of society. Heterosexual relationships differ from any other relationship, because a child may be created from heterosexual activity. Even if no children do come from the relationship, society should promote such a status.
A child, as the individual has rights.
I have an uphill battle against this, no-fault divorce and sperm/egg donation.
In no-fault divorce, a spouse could be physically,emotionally, and fiscally abusive/negligent and come out smelling like roses. I could totally treat my husband like crap, cheat on him, ruin our credit, and 'for the sake of the children' he can't say anything about it. Even if divorce is the option that must be taken, children 'as adults' need to know what happen. I have to refind it, but children go off to have better adult relationships in fault divorces, because there was a clear reason what happened, not just an ambivalent 'we don't love each other anymore'.
Fragile families, basically unmarried living with children have lower stability rates again affecting children and children with worse off outcomes. Any lower-income urban community with higher out-of-wedlock rates compared to the high social/fiscal costs. Sadly many minority communities, Hispanic/African American know too well about the breakdown of marriage.
Now we also have the lucrative reproductive industry, that throws a wrench into things. Children are created by design. Sperm/egg donation and surrogacy. Just hire them out, and basically you're purchasing a human being. Babies are wants, not inherently seen as individuals with a right to know who they are and who they are related too.
Sperm/egg donors sell their reproductive gametes, women do it at a higher price, essentially they are selling their children and their value is based on their eugenics.
Birth certificates in Massachusetts are permanently seal for the adopted.Birth certificates show no true meaning of identity, but rather ownership that can be amended and contracted out.
Individuals having mothers and fathers is rather objective, and not subjective. Every individual should be loved, nurtured, and accepted by their mother and father (even children who happen to be homosexuals as adults), that is something religious or not society should promote.
Bill Duncan in a Howard Law publication has in Portrait of a Marriage (2007)
"For instance, mar-riage between a man and a woman has been understood to create obligations to children, because children may result from the marriage, whether as a result of choice or not. The decision to marry creates an obligation to support the children of the marriage, an obligation not contingent on desire. A same-sex partnership cannot create the same
obligation because there is no potential for unintentional procreation in that context.
Some of the courts try to compensate for the absence of obligation by invoking concepts like “commitment,”48 but commitment is an awfully diluted substitute for obligation. Commitment and even love are terminable in a way that obligation is not because both are subjective and can, to some degree, be chosen or unchosen. On the other hand, one may ignore an obligation, but cannot will it out of existence. An obligation is objective.""
To make things equally, I have to deny that I can get pregnant when I have sex with someone of the opposite sex. To make things equally I have to say children, as individuals have no interest in the rights of two adults notably their own mother and father. If I dare say a peep and acknowledge biologically sex, by means of any theory, is all about reproduction I'm unjustly labeled as being hateful, because I acknowledge what sex really is.
I don't want to live in that world, but that's the world I live in. Yes, I happen to be Catholic, but I won't let people use that against me for speaking about the clear differences between homosexual and heterosexual activity.
One can get you pregnant.
Post a Comment