Osler's Razor

No, Prop 8 advocacy seemed more akin to the McCarthyism of the 1950's, IMHO.

The Civil Rights Movement is an excellent example of winning hearts while playing to a political and often hate-filled or apathetic arena. It may feel slow as molasses, but when change comes it feels like rain on parched earth.

I suspect early Christians felt this way too, the most dramatic change that Jesus worked was on hearts. Everything else flows from there.
 

Prop. 8 actually did win over some hearts. It must have in order to pass. The strongest sentiment for traditional marriage was within minority groups.
 

Prop 8 was largely a result of the efforts of the Mormons, who spent millions to prevent non-Mormons from getting married.
 

I would agree that the morality of same-sex marriage is very much up for grabs. May the most moral side win. In my view, the gay marriage side has the momentum.

Why do I say this? If you look at the Prop 8 saga from the long view, I think you see a changing popular perception toward same-sex unions.

Here is my understanding of what happened (correct me where I go wrong).

The California Supreme Court (in a 4–3 decision) read the California Constitution in such a way that over-ruled two separate statutory restrictions on gay marriage (one passed by the leg and one reaffirmed through the initiative process).

Then the good folks of the Golden State, in a fairly narrow decision, reaffirmed their previous position sanctioning only "traditional marriage" through the completely legitimate remedy of amending the state constitution through the democratic process.

The narrow margin of victory for the traditionalists is meaningful,especially when one considers the role of the court in usurping the previously articulated will of the people. You might think the backlash against an "activist" court might have generated a few hundred thousand votes on principle alone.

Therefore, I would say that the process of governing through this particular device had a big impact on the conversation between hearts.
 

Anon:

Mormons have nothing against having non-Mormons getting married. In fact, we support traditional marriage among all people regardless of sect or belief, if any, of individuals.

We are pro-traditional-family. If you would like to know why, here is a link to several articles that outline our position:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8
 

Have they really failed? I mean, both presidential candidates said they were against gay marriage, or at least against federal laws/constitutional amendments legalizing those marriages. Both presidential candidates had to take positions on abortion, and Obama's position is arguably less radical than the same position offered by his party 30 years ago. In fact, the democratic platform was altered for the first time this year in such a way that it would seem to be more conservative-christian friendly. Laws in many states have been passed over the last 30 years that are based on the evangelical moral view. Both presidential candidates had to show up for a Q&A session at one of the mega churches this year. Seems like they are winning hearts and changing minds in a lot of areas.

Obama's election is no more of a setback than Clinton's, and arguably the evangelical movement gained momentum in the 90s when it had a national figure to focus its protests against such as Clinton.

Look, I wouldn't identify myself as an evangelical or a member of the religious right. I really don't care if gay people get married, and I would probably vote in favor of legalizing abortion in Texas if I had the chance. But, I'm afraid all of the cheering over the death of the religious right may be a bit premature.

By the way, yes people should still care about the bailout, and yes bailing out GM and/or Ford is a terrible idea. Bankruptcy would allow these companies to restructure their business models, get out of bad union agreements, and potentially move forward in a positive direction. I'm particularly worried about Democrat's proposals to take an ownership stake in the auto industry, which is only a stones throw away from nationalization, and someone should call up the UK auto industry if they want to know of nationalization worked out in the 50s and 60s.
 

a waco farmer-
"May the most moral side win,", I think, is a little bit of a strange attitude. Our nation was created to ensure that the popular morality of the day did not subsume the fundamental underlying rights inherent in the people. To imply that whatever side ultimately prevails is the most moral implies that the fundamental Constitutional rights given to the people are subject to the moral whims of a majority, rather than a set of rights that values equality and resides outside of the confines of a particular set of moral values. While I realize that it's absurd to say that the moral majority of the people and our government can ever be truly severed (indeed, much of what we tolerate or don't tolerate is derived from the moral majority), I'd like to think that from a governmental interference in personal beliefs perspective (which in my mind is what the gay marriage debate is), we can err on the side of logic and not end up denying rights to people simply because we think what they're doing is "immoral." This is how we rationalized things like slavery, bans on interracial marriage, and Prohibition, and I hope that logic will prevail and we can move past that era.

In truth, I'm not optimistic that, no matter how flawless a logical argument one can craft for allowing same-sex marriage, same-sex couples will experience anything even resembling what heterosexual couples experience in terms of legal rights and recognition. But I hope for it sooner rather than later.

As for the bailout, I don't think it's ultimately going to help much. GM and the major automakers of the US have predicated their success on an outdated business model, which is to offer the biggest, baddest, ballsiest car on the market. While I may disagree with RRL's assertion that bad union agreements are a part of the problem (depending on what he means by "bad" agreements), I will say that I think that the auto unions as a whole are largely responsible for the industry's failure to move in a different direction, namely because it would put a lot of people out of jobs if low-level union jobs are replaced with technological advances that make human capital unnecessary for those positions. The problem is that the auto industry is advancing in that direction anyway, and instead of restructuring to keep up, the big US automakers seem to be fervently clinging to their old model, which may end up hurting many more people in the long run.
 

Craig -- don't you think it's funny that Mormons are defending the one-man/one-woman concept of marriage? Seems to me like 100 years ago you guys were on the receiving end of this stick (and I think the result came out as unfairly then as now).

Of course, I think the same solution still applies -- separate the religious concept of marriage from the political concept of a union. Legally, let's say that a person and his or her domestic partner (of either gender) should be entitled to a minimum set of rights and privileges associated with making a legal declaration of intent to live together, e.g., hospital visits, insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc. This has the benefit of encouraging people to make long-term commitments to each other, something beneficial to society.

And then let's leave this business of saying who is spiritually bound to whom under the laws of divinity to churches. Thus, I won't say that the government has any business telling you or your faith their business when it comes to spiritual matters, and various spiritual groups don't get to dictate national policy to people that might not share those beliefs.

In other words, civil unions for everyone, recognized by the state, and marriages (recognized by churches) for the faithful.

There has to be a balance struck between morality, which ought to be a transparent concept across religious and secular beliefs, and mores, or customs/traditions with a basis in morality, that get legislated. By all means, legislation should have a minimum moral content (showing my positivist roots here), but should we allow the state to sanction the particular cultural practices of a group just because it's in the majority? That's the kind of thing that makes lots of Westerners iffy about concepts like Sharia law in Islam, or other "religious" practices like FGM in Africa.
 

Justin T.

In re morality, all politics is moral.

We are constantly hammering out a moral consensus.

As noted in the Original Post, read Prof. Osler in re the death penalty and the moral argument versus the practical value of killing criminals.

I am not confident in my ability to separate my logic from my morality; therefore, I submit my morality to the public square.

May the most moral side prevail.
 

The Moral Majority was flawed from the beginning because it proposed to impose its version of morality on everyone else. In the hands of Falwell, Newt, Rush and the gang it certainly buffaloed a lot of people. Don't R.I.P.
Mike
 

Some imposter is writing under RRL's by-line! Osler, you REALLY need to be vetting the comments closer. The RRL we all know and tolerate ... err ... love would have NEVER said:

"Look, I wouldn't identify myself as an evangelical or a member of the religious right. I really don't care if gay people get married, and I would probably vote in favor of legalizing abortion in Texas if I had the chance."

The REAL RRL is just slightly to the right of John Birch!

Ken Again
 

Ken-- Oh, no, that's the real RRL. He's more complex than people may think, and definitely not a follower.
 

Lane,

Not funny at all. Did you read the articles I linked to? If same-sex marriage becomes the norm, we are in danger of losing even more religious liberties than we lost one-hundred years ago. For example, Catholic services can't perform adoptions any more in nations and states that have legalized same-sex marriage because they will not place children with same-sex couples.

The next step is for the state to un-incorporate us and seize our temples if we don't start performing same-sex marriages in them. Then it's one-hundred years ago, all over again.

I'd elaborate, but those articles do it so much better than I.
 

Craig-

I am curious as to how, in the situation you described, Catholics would be losing any religious liberties. They do not currently place children with same-sex couples, so that wouldn't change. Why would they no longer be able to place children with heterosexual couples in states that allow gay marriage? Do they currently not perform adoptions in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Vermont? You might even argue that they are gaining the religious liberty to deny adoption to a new subset of legal couples, or that other religions that do not condemn same-sex marriage are gaining the ability to include those couples in their adoption policies. Allowing same-sex marriage does not infringe on religious liberties, because the legal recognition of a same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the church, but rather with the establishment of the couple as a legal entity with all the rights and responsibilities therein. The church has nothing to do with tax liability, property rights, hospital visitation, or any of the other legal benefits associated with marriage. Your argument that same-sex marriage will erode religious liberties simply doesn't fly.
 

I read them, Craig, but I still think you're worried about nothing.

Adoption isn't a religious matter, so it's a disanalogous comparison. If a religious institution undertakes to perform a state or goverment matter, then they can't thereby circumvent the Constitution by claiming free exercise. That's never been a part of Constitutional jurisprudence.

So I have little pity for Catholic adoption agencies that refuse to place kids in perfectly good homes because it offends their beliefs to do so. Being an adoption agency is a privilege, and not a right.

However, no one is going to unincorporate any church, deny tax-exempt status to any church, or in any way compel a church to recognize, ecclesiastically, something that the church doesn't want to. As I said, the solution ought to be to have a church decide whether it will perform a marriage (say, a UU church versus an LDS church) and have the State stay out of that. The State should have one point of contact with such a union, and that is the granting of a marriage license.

Why should that extend to same-sex couples? Because of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. There is no government interest that is served by continuing to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the handwaving, frantic moralism of conservative judges aside. Consequently, it will pass no level of Constitutional review.

Does that mean you have to approve of them? No. I don't approve of lots of things the government does, but as long as it is proper for the government to act within that sphere, I have to live with it. That's ultimately why a right-thinking Supreme Court will one day extend equal protection under the laws to my LGBT friends. I just hope it's within my lifetime.
 

Religious freedoms extend beyond believing. They also include practicing according to those beliefs, like placing children in homes according to the wishes of birth parents (e.g. teenage mother who wants her baby to grow up Catholic).

And the State has a compelling interest in preserving the traditional family. Scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in traditional families are less likely to commit crime or engage in risky behavior such as drug use or promiscuity. Further, as divorce rates have skyrocketed in the last forty years, so have crime rates and other societal ills.

And as the traditional family continues to disintigrate things won't get any better.

So strengthening traditional families will decrease social ills.

If that's not compelling, I don't know what is.
 

Craig-

You contrast divorced parents and single-family homes with "traditional" two-parent families, and you are right about what those studies say. But, isn't than an argument to let gays and lesbians form two-parent families? You can't stop them from having children, after all (even if you can stop adoption).
 

Craig-

It's not compelling because in this case, correlation does not equal causation. You assert that the lack of a traditional family marriage structure is the cause for increased crime, risky behavior, promiscuity, etc. However, I assert that those problems are not caused by the lack of a two-heterosexual-parent lifestyle, but by the lack of a two-parent lifestyle, and the problems that tend to be endemic with children raised by single parents (namely, poverty and lack of familial stability). I don't understand how you can argue that banning two loving people from making a lifetime commitment to one another will somehow make things worse than allowing more children to be raised by single parents, most of whom happen to be straight. It doesn't add up.
 

To be fair, those studies showed a correlation between growing up in a two-parent home and not engaging in those types of self-destructive behavior. This article explains the phenomenon quite well: the problem is in the economic realities of single parenting, not necessarily that a "traditional" family structure of male-female is best.

Still, private adoption remains unchanged. If a mother wants her child to be raised Catholic, then that's her prerogative and not the State's. But if she gives up her child to the State for adoption, she sunders any legal right to direct the upbringing of that child. Although perhaps we could craft a value-neutral exception that even in cases of public adoption, if the State is acting on the birth parents' behest, then there is no equal protection violation, as long as there is no across-the-board discrimination by the State adoption agency against a suspect class.

In other words, free exercise and free belief are unimpacted by what the State allows other people to do. Consider this analogy: as a member of the LDS church, you likely abstain from consumption of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. That is your right, you may freely believe and exercise as you do. I can't make you or your kids drink a caffeinated soda.

But by the same token, if I want to drink alcohol, you cannot, on religious reasons, ask the Texas Legislature to forbid me doing so, because my consumption of beer in no way infringes on your sphere of free exercise rights. You're free to even come up to me and tell me how bad for my liver that beer is, and how doing so is a rebellion against my Creator and so sinful, but you can't actually, legally, request that I stop.

Same for same-sex unions. The LDS church is free to refuse to perform them, free to refuse people in such unions induction in to the church, etc. And the government can't (and shouldn't!) do anything about it, because you're entitled to your beliefs and to act on them.

But it's fundamentally unfair to attempt to legislate those beliefs onto others. Even the secular justification of, "it's better for the children" is insufficient in this case because no study has been done that shows even a correlation between children from same-sex couples and any of the societal ills you listed.