Prof. Robert George On The Likely Consequences for Liberty of "Marriage Equality"
July 19, 2012 at 11:30 am
NOM's founding Chairman Prof. Robert George in the Public Discourse:
It was only yesterday, was it not, that we were being assured that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships would have no impact on persons and institutions that hold to the traditional view of marriage as a conjugal union? Such persons and institutions would simply be untouched by the change. It won’t affect your marriage or your life, we were told, if the law recognizes Henry and Herman or Sally and Sheila as “married.”
Those offering these assurances were also claiming that the redefinition of marriage would have no impact on the public understanding of marriage as a monogamous and sexually exclusive partnership. No one, they insisted, wanted to alter those traditional marital norms. On the contrary, the redefinition of marriage would promote and spread those norms more broadly.
31 Comments
Wish these abnormal people would have stayed in the closet where they belong & we wouldn't have to deal with this problem.
Free men & women must stand between our homes and the [social] war's desolation--to paraphrasecFrancis Scott Key
Yes Tom. Bashing wasn't enough to keep them there. Maybe a little more would have done the trick. But I think that ship has sailed . . .
Now you really just have to speak your mind to them whenever and wherever you see them, but not when they are in groups or bigger than you. For more information on that, check the bully handbook.
Thanks Tom...many would say the same about christians. Or muslims. Or jews. Or....well...you get the idea
Well, we see what Reformed and flanoggin want to have readers think that "stayed in the closet" would mean. They did not bother to ask Tom to explain his remark.
Tom, please state what you intended by your comment.
Also, for the record, please let us know if you have commented here under any other moniker; and please be clear (because this can be checked) that you are not someone who has previously commented in favor of SSM and is now playing bait for some of the gay SSMers who comment here. Thanks.
Right, Chairm, because the only way someone could write something like that would be if they were deliberately setting a trap...
Except not. Because these rhetorics (of abnormality, of displacement, of the closet) aren't thrown around with wild abandon on these comments all the time.
The fatal mistake was not "coming out of the closet" but seeking to redifne the insitution of marriage. Just imagine ten years out with the insitution of marriage redefined and gay activists holding the whip hand of the "rule of law".
Proffesor George is correct about the pull of logic that same-sex "marriage" requires. As we see in countries that have changed the definition of marriage, sometimes causes are victims of their success.
Every troupe about "it wont lead to this or that" has been succesfully refuted by the facts present in other countiries & even nStates with same-sex "marriage".
Garrett,
It is possible that Tom intended something quite different than Reformed and flanoggin imagined.
Given the frequent use of 'sock-puppets' by some of the more persistent SSMers who come here to comment, well, it is also possible that something else was intended on that score as well.
Let's invite Tom to clear things up for the readership.
By the by, what is the problem you'd attribute to the words you listed -- abnormality, displacement, closet?
Meanwhile the content of Robert P George's article is the over-riding topic here; perhaps we can consider the subtopic raised by Reformed and flanoggin and yourself to the content of the article?
I think Tom indicated that this problem has something to do with the promotion of gay identity -- but he can clarify if he comes here to comment again.
Do you agree that this problem identified by Robert P George has something to do with that? If not, why not? If yes, we can proceed from there if you wish.
@Charim...thank you for your comments. I just don't see SSM as a problem. Thank you for your civilized posts.
See http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_link_between_rented_wombs_and_gay_marriage for a consequence of SSM I hadn't previously given much though to.
Chairm,
I have a response for you, but it's held up in moderation right now.
Thanks for that, Publius:
The link between rented wombs and gay marriage:
"She's just like an easy-bake oven except with no legal rights to the cupcake," the surrogate-mother broker tells a gay couple.
and
"Supporters of same-sex marriage must recognize they face a serious moral dilemma. Cheap wombs might bring gay men the happiness of being the father of a child of their own. But the cost of that happiness is often borne by poor and uneducated women."
But Barb, surrogate moms exist now are also used by heterosexuals....not defending the practice, but aren't the vast majority of rent-a-wombs used by straight infertile couples???
Surrogacy is already fraught with questionable ethics, and SSM will likely increase the incidence of rent-a-womb scenarios, not decrease them. All the more reason to shore up marriage as being exclusive to opposite sex couples, whether "gay" or "straight," or a combo of both.
It is immoral to plan to bring a child into the world with the intention of abandonment by the mother or father, in order to furnish another couple (or group) with a child. That puts the child on unequal status with their peers who are parented by their own married mother and father.
Chairm,
Tom's comments a very mild by comparison to some of the derogatory comments posted by regulars on this site. I wasn't trying to interpret "stay in the closet" for anyone.
What you say paints a picture of how you are. When I hear "stayed in the closet" (I wish they had) "where they belong" and "abnormal", i get a picture of who this person is, it wasn't a basher in this case, just someone who needed to connect up a few dots. I thought giving him the opportunity to respond to that comment, or not, would provoke a moments contemplation on why some people feel that it is safer to live their lives "in the closet".
Indeed, the infertile couple should not have defied the natural laws and sought surrogacy. Their fate is sealed. No! Is that what humanity is about? Don't we seek the fulfillment of life? Aren't we drawn to life?
Norms. Is it necessary that we travel to our destination on a well-defined train track? That if we pay for our tickets, follow the signs and board the train, and we're well on our way to our destination?
I find it more fulfilling and fascinating to sail to my destination instead. There is of course a direction to my destination, but the routes are never the same. I get to see a different view of my landmark each time I sail there, wherever the wind blows. Sometimes it's a calm smooth ride, sometimes I get to weather the storm. If my boat gets into trouble and I have to wade in the water for a while, I know my neighbor will pick me up because it's a popular destination. But never the same exact route in every travel.
Let all those who have ears hear. Whatever works for us, of course.
Chairm,
I can't imagine any different interpretation of "stayed in the closet where they belong" other than what's been inferred by Reformed, flanoggin, and myself. The closet is a place of hiding and refusing to reveal yourself (your real self) to someone. One never finishes coming out of the closet because contemporary society assumes that one is straight until proven otherwise. To say that we "belong" in the closet is to say (to my ears) that my being gay is something that offends others and that I should be ashamed of.
But more than that, it also implies a subtle threat. Perhaps you have to have lived through the queer experience to fully understand this, but one does not stay in the closet because they think the outside world is friendly and welcoming. No, we reside in (or sometimes go back inside of) closets because we believe there will be negative consequences for others knowing about who we are. Note: I am not necessarily saying we stay in closets because we are ashamed of who we are. That can be an overwhelming factor in some cases -- especially before the first "coming out" moment -- but often I'm forced to make the decision whether the benefits of revealing my sexual orientation (even casually) to someone outweigh the possible consequences. (Queer people are often very adept at navigating this -- we do it every day. Job interviews. Meeting strangers. Telemarketers calling for "Mr. or Mrs. Jones.") But every single time, it's the negative consequences we're considering. So, to tell an LGBT person that they "belong" in the closet is to reinforce (even unknowingly) the reality that living outside the closet can be dangerous.
Think of it this way: people don't get beat up because they are gay, or lesbian, or bisexual, or transgender. They get beat up because other people find out that they are gay, or lesbian, or bisexual, or transgender.
When Tom combines this directive (to "[stay] in the closet where they belong") with his characterization of LGBT people as "abnormal," that taps into a queer community's knowledge of a long history of the medicalization and psychologization of homosexuality, a history that has at times involved forced hospitalization, burning at the stake, internment in concentration camps, homelessness, and suicide. Perhaps Tom didn't realize that when he wrote it. I hope that he realizes it now. Words and phrases like "abnormal," "in the closet where they belong," etc. are trigger words for many of us who have had to deal with these rhetorics in person (not behind a computer screen) and for whom these rhetorics are often accompanied by threats of violence and reprisal.
This is why I called out Tom for using the phrases he did, and why I called on you to recognize them for what they are.
Much has been said by NOM and its supporters about the allegations of "bigotry" lodged against opponents of same-sex marriage. More often than not, I would agree that it's not within my scope of expertise to determine whether or not someone is "a bigot" and that resorting to that really doesn't offer to advance the conversation. But I want to offer a reason for why it gets used as much as it does: because of rhetoric like the kinds used by Tom and other commenters on this site. Y'all see yourselves as "merely disagreeing" with one side, but you should understand that when you resort to calling us abnormal, unwanted, and offensive you evoke all of the pain and displacement (there it is again) that we've experienced at the hands of people who have used the exact same words to our faces. (It's something that I will admit to have done at times -- sometimes it's hard to see through the rage screen.)
I think that charges of bigotry need to be much fewer and farther between (on both "sides" of this discussion), but I'd also say that those bigotry charges come not from the "mere" disagreement with our position, but from the specific phrasing and construction of that disagreement.
I hope that this post, which is probably too long, makes it through the moderation. If not, I'll try to post it in shorter chunks. I do hope that this reaches at least a couple of people (from both sides) who might be willing to help elevate the discourse on this here blog.
A highly sensitive impact of same-sex civil marriage laws has been in the military, where it has been forced upon the Generals. The US House of Representatives is taking DOMA seriously with a recent vote per the Defense bill:
'In other votes, the House approved an amendment that would bar the Pentagon from using any money in the bill in violation of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and affirms the right of states to refuse to recognize such marriages
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, the bill's sponsor, said that same-sex marriages that might take place on military bases would violate the law. The vote was 247-166.'
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/19/house-votes-to-bar-pentagon-from-doing-business-with-russian-arms-firm-tied-to/#ixzz218ZoHvBt
"She's just like an easy-bake oven except with no legal rights to the cupcake," the surrogate-mother broker tells a gay couple.........
Well, if we lose marriage, we will be hearing a lot more of that.
I shudder to think what is coming once procreation is legally cut off from marriage, and then scientifically detached from it permanently.
Think of all the wonderful babies the corporations will soon be able to design- why, the adorable little things won;t even *have* a Mom or a Dad, won;t that be nice for them?
Funny, this guy going by the user name 'Tom', just left his complaint and vanished (so far). What could a complainer have to offer, next? But his complaint/comment actually coincides with the topic of the post - the predicted (yet denied) aftereffects of same-sex civil marriage. Yes, there have been serious effects, not to mention the polarity of our society. When the USA is polarized, our national enemies encroach closer. Russia continues its goal of gaining access to the Mediterranean, or any Southern sea. In the meantime, we are discussing who is 'in the closet'. Petty.
Excellent article by Professor George. All marriage supporters should read it.
A few comments on the Mercator article…
SSMers usually dismiss all concerns as fear-mongering. I remember that one sneered on this blog how there are no farms/facilities where women are kept to carry babies for same-sex couples. He was being sarcastic, of course, exposing what he felt to be the ridiculous concerns of those wary of artificial reproduction, ssm, etc.
Well, the Mercator article describes something eerily similar to what that commenter dismissed. In India, there are hospitals where women spend nine months of their lives carrying babies as surrogates, and some are forced to have caesarian sections.
SSMers always like to say that no same-sex marriage results in children being ripped from their mother and father—they say this in response to marriage supporters who argue that: 1) marriage is about uniting moms and dads to kids; and 2) ssm becomes the vehicle to separate a child from their mother or father. SSMers go on to say that same-sex couples are raising children regardless of ssm, and that preventing ssm will not stop this.
But the Mercator article, by exploring this area, is building a case to show that perhaps ssm does *encourage* people to separate children from their biological parents and raise them in a same-sex household. In jurisdictions with ssm, the demand for surrogacy increases.
To his credit, even Professor John Corvino took note of this. When David Blankenhorn asked John and Maggie what the weakest parts of their arguments were, or something to that effect, both of them were honest. John explained that people often ask him and his partner if they will have kids. Responding with “no,” John is always puzzled as to why people ask him this. He thought that being gay means that a person doesn’t have kids by default. So, he admitted that maybe there is something to this “ripping children away from their mom and dad” thing and he is not giving it due thought. It appears that as people accept—or in the case of ssm, promote—homosexual relationships there is an increase in the idea that the same-sex couple should have kids. Despite all of the talk about marriage having nothing to do with children, the two are related for SSMers subconsciously.
I expect feminists to get involved in this issue. Women living in abject poverty have money waved in their faces to carry children for someone else? Being forced to have caesarian sections? Dying during pregnancy and their families only receiving $18,000 in compensation? Being coerced into abortion by a gay couple because the baby she conceived as a surrogate had Down Syndrome (I read this in another Mercator article)?
This issue is ripe for feminist intervention! It’s also something the “helping professions” will have to take in mind in their ethics education and codes. In research, pregnant women, along with children and inmates, are a protected class because they are especially vulnerable. So, I expect to hear something from these professions on the reproductive exploitation of poor women in other countries.
@Ash
Feminist and others on the left have already been exposing and fighting the reproductive prostitution of women for quite a while. This is not a new issue for the left, by any means.
That's good to hear, Lefty.
I wonder if any conflicts will arise from liberals trying to balance their fight for women with their affinity for gay couples.
Given what happened today in Colorad, and what my family is dealing with in its aftermath, I'm leaving off for a few days.
Peace.
Gay couples and women aren't mutually exclusive categories, Ash.
Peace be with you, too, Chairm.
Garrett, I always thought "gay" is typically the name associated with male couples (the ones in need of surrogacy services), while "lesbian" denotes female couples.
@Chairm, best wishes.
My response should be posted at some point, Garrett.
Amazing how a whole page of a comment can go through immediately, while one with a few sentences gets caught in the filter.
Ash
Here is one example of a NOW rep consulting for the Center For Bioethics and Culture ( which is the organization that produced the film Eggsploitation):
http://www.cbc-network.org/2012/05/statement-on-nj-gestational-carrier-agreement-act/
Hey Ash,
Yes and no. It used to be a bit more of a hard lexical distinction, and it still can be used when differentiating between the two. But "gay" can also be used to include the broader bi/homosexual culture, too. (Much like "mankind" doesn't actually refer only to men.)
We're you specifically talking only about gay men?
Concerning surrogacy, I don't have issues with the process per se, but I do have large concerns about the exploitation of women, particularly women of color, that can accompany that process, and I usually find that that happens when financial compensation is involved, especially through a third party or broker (which is just an awfully crass term, don't you think?). Many couples (straight and gay) use as a surrogate a friend who selflessly offered to carry their baby when the couple couldn't have one. But too often, it's become farmed out to third world women and poor women who get unfairly used and treated.
I don't see it as a straight or gay issue because both types of couples participate. I see it as a class and race issue. There's a really good book on the subject: "The Racialization of Intimacy" by David Eng.
@AM, thanks for the very informative link. I learned a lot from that short piece, and now my interest is peaked. I’ve seen the Ruth Blog discuss these matters, but it hasn’t been my focus.
@Garrett, yes, I was referring to same-sex male couples.
I’m glad the protection of women in surrogacy seems to have broad support.
I know of a woman who offered to be a surrogate for her sister, who had trouble carrying pregnancy to term. I see those types of arrangements—one of free will, and, like you say, with no money involved—as benign. Though, according to AM’s link, surrogacy is still a risky thing and requires hormone treatment. Perhaps that’s why the international market is so attractive: it’s hard to find a woman who would become a surrogate without handsome payment.