The Roe of Marriage

Maggie on the meaning of the Supreme Court’s decision:

I don’t believe in inevitability, I believe in human freedom and our power to shape the future. So it depends on us. But certainly I believe, as I wrote in the Los Angeles Times, that the questions raised by marriage — deeply rooted in our conception of who we are as men and women, the meaning of sexuality and gender — cannot be put to rest by the power of five lawyers on however high a court.

The cultural struggle I predicted in “Banned in Boston” is clearly playing out. Will they succeed in persuading us to accept the second-class status Kennedy lays out for us?

Not me, what about you?

http://nationalreview.com/article/352629/roe-marriage-interview

4 comments
Lynn Wardle
Lynn Wardle

Maggie, I believe that your insightful writing and speaking about marriage have indirectly (through others) influenced some members of the Court for years. It is about time you were directly cited! Congratulations and please keep up your indispensable, good work in explaining and persuading. Lynn Wardle

John
John

Note that there are three common myths related to same-sex marriage: (1) That some non-human animals are homosexual: There is little, if any, evidence that any non-human animals have preferred to have sex exclusively with members of their own gender. Non-human animals may sometimes have sex with the same gender, but not at the exclusion of the other gender, which means it generally just comes from a lack of discrimination that often is simply a result of limited intellectual capacity. In the rare cases in which a lack of discrimination does not explain the behavior, it is usually a show of dominance, that is primarily for the purpose of preventing the dominated animal from engaging in reproductive behavior with the opposite sex, so that the dominating animal is in a more advantageous position to reproduce. (2) That homosexuality is either a simple choice or is innate in humans: What is lost in this is that individual behavior evolves over time. Humans are adaptable animals that often experiment with their behavior and their environments, and when the experiment leads to positive feedback they become more inclined to try the behavior again. Now, an individual may have more potential to receive more positive feedback from behavior B than behavior A, but if the individual tries behavior A first and receives positive feedback, the individual might never try B or might try B with a negative attitude ensuring negative feedback, maybe even on the basis of a conclusion that the individual is of a type that only enjoys A. (3) That once same-sex marriage is accepted, we will have a stable and harmonious society: This is blatantly false. The radical feminists who have been pushing for same-sex marriage have been doing so with the aim of creating an all-lesbian, all-female society to follow the eradication of men. The acceptance of lesbian marriage rewards them for their efforts, encourages them to make further steps towards their goals, and helps establish enduring interest groups that will promote policies and attitudes to make heterosexual relationships more difficult to achieve and to be sustained. They will set up more girls camps and schools where they will indoctrinate girls with a belief system suggesting that only girls and women are to be valued and trusted and men and boys are to be distrusted and avoided. They hope to create further division leading to even more mistrust and even more division in a positive feedback loop. This will obviously create social instability and greatly increase the probability of catastrophic outcomes leading to human extinction, but they appear to prefer a high risk of extinction to the continuation of men and heterosexuality.

Jeffrey Roy
Jeffrey Roy

Maggie Gallagher both opened and closed her Viewpoints commentary, "DOMA ruling has echoes of Roe v. Wade" with fundamentally flawed critical thinking. She opened by stating the Supreme Court was "deaf to the will of the people." Our founding fathers intended we protect the rights of the minority. James Madison has apparently not been quoted enough from Federalist No. 10, "the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority." Why is Gallagher so completely blind to this concept right out of the gate? Gallagher closes her piece with "every baby is equally entitled to the love and care of the man and woman who made him or her. Government cannot always guarantee these rights. But the least it can do is not attempt to negate them with court rulings." There is not a child in the country, let alone California, that would have standing before any court. How could they possibly argue their rights have been negated? Does the absence of Proposition 8 mean gay couples may now kidnap children? My mother and father have been married nearly 60 years. How would gay marriage have threatened my right to be raised by my biological parents had it been legal in 1961? Gallagher's opening and closing "arguments" lay before us all. Religious institutions may be galvanized by these rulings, but these arguments are rusty and flawed. No amount of galvanization can prevent them from crumbling away.

maggie gallagher
maggie gallagher

Lynn, thanks! And BTW I was pleased we were cited in the same footnote! Thanks for your work on this.