« Sheri Few touts ability to raise funds as advantage in House 79 primary | Main | SCRG release about PACT »
Friday, 16 May 2008
Duck! The culture war just started back up
Just as it looks like maybe we can have a relatively high-minded campaign with two presidential nominees who both can appeal to us independents, the Kulturkampf flares back up.
This delighted The Wall Street Journal this morning, which as the official spokespaper of conservatism went out of its way to affirm Democratic fears of the "Republican attack machine" when it gleefully greeted the California Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex "marriage:"
Gay Marriage Returns
Just when the news was filling with stories about a Republican Party gasping for air, along comes the California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision yesterday legislating gay marriage. The GOP certainly hasn't done anything to deserve such luck.
Recall how in November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court, also by a 4-3 vote, issued a similar gay marriage pronouncement. It dogged Democrat John Kerry all the way to Election Day. The issue got so hot that the liberal fever swamps came to believe that Karl Rove had invented this greatest of all "wedge" issues.
Nope. Judges invent wedge issues. Always have. As with California's Supreme Court, many of the berobed judiciary take it as their solemn duty to do the people's thinking for them on the modern world's most difficult and divisive social issues. So it was with Roe v. Wade, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared 50 state legislatures irrelevant. The aftermath has been more than 30 years of the abortion wars....
Oh, and in case you think the WSJ's characterization of the left as wont to impose judicial fiat in spite of
what the people of our republic may want is a bit overboard, check out this quote from the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom (that's him at right):
"As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."
So there. Pow, zing. I just want to go on record right now as saying that in the culture wars, I'm a conscientious objector. I just don't want to have this fight.
I tell you how this always feels to me -- like the two sides in these culture battles are allied with each other against the rest of us. How else do you explain both sides -- from the voice of the political right to the gay rights folks -- being so happy about this development? When both the Karl Roves and the Gavin Newsoms are thrilled, it's time for the rest of us to duck, because here it all comes again.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 06:37 PM in 2008 Presidential, Elections, Kulturkampf, Parties, The Nation
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/337487/29164144
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Duck! The culture war just started back up:
Comments
Whoa! The Republicans have appeasement, surrender in Iraq, stooopid FISA restrictions to enrich trial lawyers, domestic petroleum prohibitions, gay marriage, and reparations to whack Obama: they might not lose so badly after all.
But I think that they, like my beloved Chicago Cubs, can find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by: Mike Cakora | May 16, 2008 7:52:20 PM
Gay marriage is a non-sequitur, a fruitless communion, an insult to nature itself.
Go green, America -- because male and female trees can get something done, but same-sex trees are just neighbors.
If the trees get wind of this gay-marriage ruling, the polar bears have a long swim ahead of them.
Apparently, the California Supreme Court can't see the trees for the forest.
Posted by: penultimo mcfarland | May 16, 2008 8:20:40 PM
Don't fret Cak, you still have the compulsive flip-flopper who supports 100 years in Iraq, and is best buddies with the most unpopular president, EVER.
Posted by: Randy E | May 16, 2008 8:23:45 PM
Cak, voters in Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi booted your boys even before Barr cranked up his rhetorical barrage on the "liberal" McCain and before Ron Paul's fanatics sabotage your little get together in Minnesota. This is snatching districts from the bowels of Red America - Mississippi, Louisiana, and the former SPEAKER of the House's turf.
Posted by: Randy E | May 16, 2008 8:27:14 PM
Mr. E, the Republicans will always have the Democrats going for them.
Furthermore, I think you mislocated the bowels of America, which serve states of all colors indiscriminately. They are located in California, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Posted by: penultimo mcfarland | May 16, 2008 9:11:00 PM
Please explain to me again how "homosexual marriage" hurts "real marriages"? Do you really think your beloves is going over to the 'dark side'? (and which side do you think is the 'dark side'?) Of course, these unions don't produce children; neither do plenty of others. But, until you can show me that your problems exist in the real world, and are not simply texts yanked out of context from the Bible, please excuse me from having a snit about it.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | May 16, 2008 9:25:06 PM
Karen -
I think the issue for conservatives is that in virtually every culture for the past several thousand years, marriage has been recognized as an institution and foundation for the maintenance of culture, of civilization, because it accommodates / controls what still appears to be the hardwired differences between the male and female of our species.
In other words, marriage is a communally recognized contract that enables the female to coerce a male to support her and the young that he sires over a lifetime, however short or long that may be. While this may seem silly to some, marriage has proved to be a successful institution in that our species has survived. How empirical this result is remains a matter of debate, but it does seem true because the male of any species is interested in passing on his genes to posterity and does not seem to mind an enlarged definition of posterity, preferring by nature a wide audience of receptive females to bear his offspring. How does any individual nurturing female reach a reasonable accommodation other than by means of a contract enforced by the other members of the society?
In this vein, gay marriage sends the wrong message since it does not support the commitment to carrying on the culture. Any homosexual relationship is by definition barren and a prescription for the extinction of the species.
At that said, in these modern times when most folks believe that if it feels good, just do it, reasonable folks are willing to accommodate private contracts for mutual support over a lifetime as long as it's not called "marriage." They have a concern about cultural confusion, over what folks will end up considering essential for the continuation of the species, not just in a reproductive sense, but also in what it takes to raise offspring that can continue the species.
To further muddy the waters, sex is a behavioral phenomenon affected by culture and individual wiring and is not well understood by science. While there's certainly a universal taboo against incest, incest does occur. In this modern age should we allow it, or are there cultural concerns? Or polygamy, a practice found in a few cultures? Ditto for pederasty, bestiality, and Tupperware parties. Where do we draw the line?
Posted by: Mike Cakora | May 16, 2008 11:27:57 PM
The only line should be consenting adults. The culture can survive a few people who decide not to reproduce.
Posted by: Thanos6 | May 16, 2008 11:41:42 PM
Cak offers a high minded perspective on gay marriage many of his fellow supporters protest with signs reading "God hates fags".
Why is homosexuality ranked near the top of the republican family values totem pole but poverty is completely overlooked, save Huckabee's attention. It was not addressed in the debates. McCain ignores it on his campaign site. But, it is the most discussed topic in the Bible. Why is that family value, caring for others, not a hot button issue for Cak, McCain, W?
Posted by: randy e | May 17, 2008 7:44:37 AM
Cak offers a high minded perspective on gay marriage many of his fellow supporters protest with signs reading "God hates fags".
Why is homosexuality ranked near the top of the republican family values totem pole but poverty is completely overlooked, save Huckabee's attention. It was not addressed in the debates. McCain ignores it on his campaign site. But, it is the most discussed topic in the Bible. Why is that family value, caring for others, not a hot button issue for Cak, McCain, W?
Posted by: randy e | May 17, 2008 7:44:48 AM
This ought to stall the illegal immigration legislation politicians were using to pander to the right. Time to pick on a different bogeyman for a while.
Posted by: Susanna | May 17, 2008 7:58:21 AM
In a nation with the productivity and high wages of America, most poverty is due to choice:
* dropping out of school
* not learning a trade
* getting pregnant out of wedlock
* alcohol and drug abuse
* committing crime
Democrat policies encourage this sort of misbehavior.
Posted by: Lee Muller | May 17, 2008 9:56:42 AM
I can understand to some extent what you are saying, Mike. But to say that one group can have 'civil unions' which afford the same rights and require the same responsibilities as marriage, while only another group can have a 'real marriage' is pure duplicity. It's a social message of second class citizenship. And what about those homosexual couple who adopt? They take on the responsibility of children, and the ones I know personally seem to be raising their children well. Is this worse than those who have children, then renege on their contract via divorce? To me the answer is simple (albeit not popular) A social contract is a contract is a contract. Get the Church out of the state's business. Let people who are interested in "marriage" first sign a state contract, which obligates them to care for children and each other, but which allows escape for various reasons, with or without penalty (ie. alimony/child support). I'm sure that there are lawyers out there that can write a dilly. Then let those who ascribe to their Church's idea of marriage, and who think they can truly make a go of it, get married in the Church of their persuasion, when they are ready. This Church might or might not accept gay marriage, and might or might not demand "until death do us part." or other expectations of loyalty.
Everyone gets to recognize the civil union, and if another Church allows marriage that you don't believe in (gay couples, marriage of divorcees, etc.), well, they aren't your church, and no one can account for their tastes.
As for pederasty--its not among consenting adults. Usually, although not always, the same problem is true for incest, not to mention the negative results of inbreeding on one's children. Bestiality is just plain animal abuse. Even the state's civil union would require 2 consenting adults, who, without explicit or implicit coercion choose to live together.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | May 17, 2008 10:22:43 AM
Meanwhile, with our economy in the tank, our national debt completely out of control, the need to deal with the Iraq war and the middle East some way or another, an army that has been effectively maimed by the mismanagement of this war, and the need to develop an oil policy that doesn't leave us dependent on our enemies, and which doesn't worsen the environmental mess we're making, why are we worried about California's marriage laws? Why can't we let California worry about them? I don't think this debate needs to be a top item on anyone's agenda.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | May 17, 2008 11:17:02 AM
But, it is the most discussed topic in the Bible.
It is? I would suggest that a person's relationship with God, or perhaps the other way around, God's relationship with us, is the most discussed topic in the Bible. Granted, poverty is an important topic, but I see it as a symptom, not a root cause addressed. Ditto with homosexual behavior.
But I primarily have just a few questions for Karen and others:
1) Why are statements in the Bible prohibiiting homosexual behavior with regard to the people of God considered to be "out of context," though they seem to be very much in context. Do they not mean what they say, OT and NT?
2) Agreed that their are a multitude of sins that are discussed in the Bible, and we tend to single out what we want to address--why minimize any of them at the expense of others?
3) Have we thought through the long-term implications of gay "families"? What about children who grow up, 20, 30 years from now, and know nothing else? It is, of course the gay agenda that this be a perfectly acceptable lifestyle along with heterosexual behavior, but my little experience is that their intention is to push their agenda vigorously, and militantly, if need be. Of course, it does not help when the other side responds militantly, either. But have we really studied where this is leading us? Are we really going to be better off as we increasingly abandon the traditional family? Did dear old Mrs. Doubtfire get it right? And are these really, as you seem to suggest, trivial issues?
4) Why is bestiality considered to be "animal abuse.? What about "consenting" pets? I would wager that, once the above "war" is conceded, this could very well be the next one, for what is the difference, ultimately, between humans and animals apart from the traditional Christian world view?
I can appreciate your desire to keep church and state separate, Karen, but I'm afraid it is not quite that simple. Luther's "Two-Kingdom" principle can be more easily pushed that way, but Reformed tradition, which I am now a part of, acknowledges more the fact that the two cannot be completely disentangled.
At what point are Christians allowed to address the culture, in your view?
Posted by: Herb Brasher | May 17, 2008 1:24:52 PM
Mike's view of marriage evidently means that two adults of the opposite sex who choose not to procreate should not be able to define their relationship as a "marriage," nor should a couple where the female is the primary breadwinner, since she has clearly not "coerced a male to support her."
And Brad, you may think you are claiming CO status in these culture wars, but by equating Karl Rove with Gavin Newsom you pretty much are coming down on one side. I understand you would have religious issues with this; to come to terms on that front, I recommend a healthy dose of reading Andrew Sullivan.
Could you consider, Brad, that gay rights folks are happy about this because it means that a lot of people's lives will be made happier and more fulfilled? Does it have to be a political motivation?
Remember, Brad, there was a time when marriage or relationships between a black and white person of opposite sex was opposed with the same kind of arguments made by Mike and others above.
What Newsom is saying is that, this too shall come to pass.
I don't understand why the happiness and love between two people should be so upsetting to others. What is it about a loving, long-term, permanent relationship between two adults that is so troubling?
I've said it before and I'll say it again...I can think off the top of my head of five or six same-sex couples who have been together (some in formal marriages, some not) for years and years, some of the most loving and rock-solid relationships I know. Why they shouldn't have the legal status of marriage is completely incomprehensible to me.
It doesn't seem that complicated to me. Brad, you may want to stay on the sidelines on this one, but I'll choose to be on the side of love, stability, the wish for people to find a loving lifelong partner throughout their lives. I wish the same for my little 11-month-old son. Whatever gender that partner turns out to be would not matter to me...I would only want him to find the same kind of love I've been lucky enough to finally stumble into in my life.
Posted by: Phillip | May 17, 2008 1:25:22 PM
What agenda do you think gays are pushing. They cannot make anyone homosexual, anymore than we can force anyone to be heterosexual, although we've tried for many generations now, resulting in miserable marriages, and even more miserable lives spent in closets, not to mention lynchings along the way. The Church has plenty to say about this; that's why I advocate giving Marriage back to them. In this society, the traditional concept of marriage has long been destroyed be serial marriage, and those so disgusted with fake trappings that they now just shack up, and thumb their collective noses at society. Let a contract be a contract, and marriage return to what it should be: a sacred vow and a channel of God's Grace. If a denomination accepts gay marriage, let them; it's God's Grace and his job to sort it out, not ours.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | May 17, 2008 2:09:24 PM
Oh, yes. By "taken out of context" I mean its either lifted from the cultic lists of Leviticus that would equally forbid you to wear blended fabrics, or, more usually, lifted out of cultural context. To a person of the times, the real sin of Sodom is a hospitality sin. If you fail to recognize that, you can make almost no moral sense of Lot's offer of his daughter.
In Paul's letters we continually forget the pederastic bent of Greek culture, and the brothels of the times.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | May 17, 2008 2:18:29 PM
Marriage is a status conferred upon couples by the several states. Therefore, it is subject to the 14th Amendment requirement of equal protection. It seems to me that based strictly unpon law without considerations of tradition mucking up the waters that eventually same-sex marriages will be universial.
Religious institutions and individuals may not have to recognize them as marriages except in matters already addressed by statute.
Roe v Wade was definitely a results-oriented decision validated by weak legal reasoning. There is no need of such trickery here. Same-sex marriage can stand on its own.
Posted by: Vincent Savage | May 17, 2008 3:52:42 PM
Herb, even a cursory look will reveal that the topic of the poor is most often addressed. The priest at Brad's and my church pointed this out. He knows a little something about this topic.
The underlying theme is our relationship with God, but I am speaking of explicit topics. Topics that result in some Christians carrying signs with "God Hates Fags" and in the GOP to take such a strong and activist interest.
Given that and the fact that homosexuality is barely addressed, I raise the question of why Cakora and the GOP in general get so worked up over homosexuality but turn a blind eye to poverty if both are addressed in the Bible and Jesus certainly paid a great deal more attention to the latter.
Posted by: Randy E | May 17, 2008 5:04:25 PM
Herb, you're often a thoughtful commenter here so I was doubly disappointed to see you parrot the Rovian locution "gay agenda" in your comment above.
Has anyone else noticed that the word "agenda" is more often linked to the word "gay" than to any other term in political discourse? You rarely hear about the "African-American agenda", the "environmentalist agenda," or even a "neocon agenda." Somehow gay men and women, to an extent beyond any other group of people, have an "agenda." Of course "agenda" implies something secret or sinister, and the loonier of our bigoted friends out there indeed have it in their tiny little hate-infested minds that the goal is to "convert" straights, preferably extra young ones.
Karen's point about the civil aspects of marriage vs. religious answers Mike's objections perfectly. along the same lines, tinged here with the personal.
Herb, there is no gay agenda. There is only the human agenda.
Posted by: Phillip | May 17, 2008 6:53:16 PM
Herb, re-reading my last comment I realize that I must hasten to add that I do not consider you to be among the "bigoted" etc group I referenced above. The point was that those are people who I expect to use the term "gay agenda," but that I think you are above that.
Posted by: Phillip | May 17, 2008 6:58:12 PM
Phillip,
Perhaps my use of "agenda' was unwise, and if so, I apologize for that. I was not trying to say that other groups do not equally have "an agenda." And I did not mean that I have not known gays that are amiable people. But I have also known many who have endured a great deal of harassment for their conviction that homosexual practices are wrong. Of course if one causes such a reaction by being unkind to begin with, or deliberately provokes it, such harassment may be deserved. And God hates no one, and I didn't say he does.
But there is a very definite push against those of us who do not accept gay practices (I do not speak of gay orientation) that we will accept it, or else. All is not as neutral as you seem to think it is.
Karen, I think you are muddying the waters unnecessarily. Levitical (OT) law is, at times, primarily illustrative, but some prohibitions carry over, and are universal. We know these, because they are repeated by Jesus, and/or his chosen apostles in the New Testament, and therefore have authority for His church. The early church had to wrestle through the whole issue of relationship to the OT Law, and they came to some basic conclusions in Acts 15, among them that Gentile believers should not engage in "fornication" as the Jews would understand it. And how the Jews understood it is defined in Leviticus 18, which prohibits all kinds of incest (which Roman law did not in all cases), and homosexual practice. Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 extend this prohibition on the basis that it is unnatural. The priestesses and culture of prostitution at Corinth were well known to Paul--but the will of God was still the same. Culture does not change that. The Biblical testimony is unequivocal.
Randy, it would be interesting to list the number of topics that the Bible actually does take up, and how often. I am not sure that the importance of a topic is to be measured by how many verses pertain to it, but I'll let that one go.
Posted by: Herb Brasher | May 17, 2008 8:06:46 PM
And for those who think the topic is important, but want to avoid the extremes on both sides, I would suggest this discussion at getreligion.org. It is going to be interesting to see how these legal decisions are going to be applied to those of us who lead evangelical churches and organizations in the coming years. Stay tuned; it could get interesting.
Posted by: Herb Brasher | May 17, 2008 8:29:55 PM
Interesting commentary, but most seems to be of the latte cafe crowd, quoting this or that and proving conclusively that the what they know
of what you think is always wrong and they who always know best for everyone will settle this social value issue once and for all.
News flash: The fundamental social unit of society is the male-female reproducing family. It is embedded in law, although in custom many forms of family actually function as social units.
Once this basic sexual distinction is redefined as malemale or femalefemale as the social unit, it is nanoseconds until the age of marriage vanishes and identifies with puberty, 12 year olds menstruating now are marriageable.
Next, the number of marriageable partners will be assailed, so numerous individuals can have multiple partners of any sex at the same time, so long as they officially contract by law for their partner group.
Just as interbreeding the human races was once banned, but breeds were freed to breed with whomever, Then the species of the marriage choice will eroded,
and dogs and cats, favorite dedicated companions of human love, will be marriageable partners.
We are entering an era when good ideas supercede good sense, and
when major influential social movers and shakers are educated beyond their intelligence.
Woe unto the public; beware of the adolescent plutocrats.
Posted by: Citizen | May 17, 2008 9:22:03 PM
