From the publication of his essay, “Here Comes the Groom: a Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” in August 1989 until February 24, 2004, Andrew Sullivan offered some of the most compelling arguments for gay marriage. One could almost say that for the better part of those nearly fifteen years, Andrew wrote or edited (in the New Republic or in his anthology, Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con), nearly every serious piece on how that ancient institution benefits gays published in the United States.
But, lately, his writings on marriage have become increasingly banal and self-absorbed. He barely writes any any more about how that institution benefits society, but instead focuses on how it benefits himself. He barely mentions the social purposes of marriage and instead repeats the same slogans gay rights’ activists use to defend a institution few of them seem to understand.
This change has become most clear in Andrew’s recent essay on his “Big Fat Straight (sic) Wedding” for the Atlantic. While he does make a good point about the importance of having a ceremony celebrating his nuptials in front of family and close friends, he never establishes why he couldn’t have done this before Massachusetts recognized same-sex marriages.
It’s almost as if Andrew “needed” the state’s validation so that he could publicly acknowledge his commitment to his partner. Even before Goodridge (the Massachusetts court decision mandating the state recognize gay marriages), there was no law preventing gay people from holding such ceremonies and calling their unions “marriages.”
I can hardly count the number of couples who, before November 2003 (when Goodridge was handed down), told me about their weddings or referred to their same-sex spouse, as “wife” or “husband.” Yet, for Andrew, without the State’s approval, their ceremonies would have been meaningless.
To be sure, this essay may be just a sweet piece on the meaning of his own wedding. It well-written and gets at one of the social purposes of such ceremonies. But, it is of a piece with Andrew’s 2004 Time essay, “Why The M Word Matters To Me,” where he wrote that only marriage would let young gay kids “know that he doesn’t have to choose between himself and his family anymore [and] . . . know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. ”
Oh really? Â They need state recognition to do that? Â
In The New American Revolution, Tammy Bruce found that Sullivan, in his essay, “actually equated government recognition of gay marriage as a necessary element to all gay people feeling wanted and accepted.”
Granted, Andrew has considered social approval an important aspect of state-sanctioned gay marriage since his seminal essay in 1989:
Legalizing gay marriage would offer homosexuals the same deal society now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal advantages in exchange for a deeper and harder-to-extract- yourself-from commitment to another human being. Like straight marriage, it would foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence.
But, Andrew didn’t limit himself to discussing these values when promoting marriage. In 1996, he contended that in his “book and several articles,” he had “unequivocally” argued “for monogamy as central to all marriage, same-sex or opposite-sex.”
Lately, however, he has sidestepped the issue, calling monogamy “very hard for men,” yet not stressing that while difficult, marriage seeks, as he wrote twelve years ago “to promote monogamy, fidelity and the disciplines of family life among people who have long been cast to the margins of society.”
Today, when I searched Andrew’s recent writings, I could not find any unequivocal statement on monogamy. Indeed, he barely seemed to acknowledge that it was essential to marriage.
From making a compelling argument for gay marriage, indeed, in many ways helping set the terms of the current debate, Andrew had settled on a new fundamental aspect of marriage. It’s no longer about extending the values which have long defined traditional marriage to same-sex unions, but about the state validating gay people.
A true conservative would not turn to the state for validation, but instead recognize the importance of finding that acceptance within our family, our own community, the various institutions to which we belong and our circle of friends. We don’t need the state to sanction an institution before we can find such acceptance for it.
There are many good things which marriage does, many reasons why we should favor extending the benefits of this ancient institution to same-sex couples. It makes us less self-centered, promotes responsible sexual behavior, makes it easier for each spouse to look after the other in our complicated society, publicly honors the commitment each partner has made to the other. These are some of the aspects of this ancient and honorable institution which conservative advocates of gay marriage should highlight.
But, it’s liberals who look to the state for validation. We conservatives find that in churches, synagogues, other religious and social organizations, within our circle of friends and above all with our families. The state should merely grant certain benefits to couples who honor the values of the institution.
We’ll look elsewhere for social approval.
—–
I wish to acknowledge the assistance of blogger Dan Riehl in researching this blog.
GPW, great points. Note that when you quoted the Sullivan of 1989:
you perhaps thought he was emphasizing social approval of gays there, but really he was still explaining why gay marriage licensing *benefits society*. And yes, that is the only morally important or persuasive case to be made for gay marriage licenses. (Since a State license for anything is always a privilege, not a right.)
Meanwhile, Sullivan’s latter-day arguments for gay marriage licensing – e.g., that he needs one to feel adequately ‘recognized’ – are indeed leftist at heart, or so *not* conservative.
As for the “monogamy is hard for men” line of thought, I’ve said it before and will again: It is at whining at best… and more likely, it is a form of covert sexism and misogyny. It implicitly denigrates the power of female sexuality, the equality of a woman’s right to pleasure, and the difficulty of women’s choices to be faithful. Only male chauvinist pigs go around trying to argue that there is a special male dispensation for them to be piggish.
The following is more off-topic, but I have to say it anyway. The conservative case for gay marriage isn’t the only thing Sullivan has lost sight of. Case in point: his recent pathetic attempts to smear McCain.
When MoveOn.org ran their disgraceful “General Betray-us” ad, I did a guest post on GP looking at whether / how their efforts were different from the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry. They were very different indeed. Perhaps I should do the same with Sullivan’s smear efforts.
A few starting thoughts. The Swift Boat Vets were 250 honorable veterans who had been with Kerry in Vietnam and personally knew him to be a bad guy. Sullivan is no veteran. He wasn’t at the Hanoi Hilton with McCain. Yet here he is, trying to impugn one of McCain’s recollections from those days, a recollection McCain has been telling consistently since his release in 1973 – another difference from Kerry, whose tall-tales were often vague, shifting, and physically or chronologically impossible.
So, the conservative case for gay marriage isn’t all Sully has lost sight of. Basic rationality, humanity and decency might be a couple more things to add to the list.
In conclusion: Sullivan has devolved into a leftist whiner who stoops to sexist excuses for gay men’s (or his own?) piggishness and to truly pathetic efforts at smearing the opposing candidate’s legitimate remembrances of his time of trial. Can Sully go any lower? Yes, that’s what I think.
Worse, the same-sex union advocates argue that those values — monogamy, commitment — don’t even matter. We hear it over and over again from the advocates, “heterosexuals don’t value those things, why should we?” Instead of raising up the level of same-sex commitment, they want to tear down heterosexual commitment.
But commitment and monogamy are the very ideals that make marriage valuable to society in the first place. Without them, you are absolutely right, it’s no longer about promoting stability and values. Instead, it becomes about the state validating not just someone’s relationship, but the entire values of a class of people.
I would extend this further. We can expect soon to see lawsuits, and government coercion used against churches that won’t perform same-sex marriages. Just as lesbians sue over the right to force a particular doctor to inseminate them, or someone sues to force druggists to dispense abortion pills, it isn’t really about access to services. You can always go to a different doctor, a different pharmacist, a different church. It’s about radical-secularist triumphalism; the use of state power to force another person to violate his moral values. And that is an offense to human dignity at its most basic level. The state forcing a person to violate his moral code.
That should really bother people, but too many people have no moral code, and fail to see what the big deal is.
I would extend this further. We can expect soon to see lawsuits, and government coercion used against churches that won’t perform same-sex marriages. Just as lesbians sue over the right to force a particular doctor to inseminate them, or someone sues to force druggists to dispense abortion pills, it isn’t really about access to services. You can always go to a different doctor, a different pharmacist, a different church. It’s about radical-secularist triumphalism; the use of state power to force another person to violate his moral values. And that is an offense to human dignity at its most basic level. The state forcing a person to violate his moral code.
V, I have a bit of a problem with this argument. In the insemination lawsuit, was the doctor in question providing that service to others? If so, then he has no professional right to pick and choose who he provides the service for, with exceptions of health, payment issues, and maybe rudeness (one must always reserve the right to deny service to assholes). What if we substituted sexual orientation with race? Lets say the couple in question was straight and black, and the doctor decided he won’t perform the procedure because of their race. I would think the denial of service in this case would be less acceptable to you. What if some social worker decided, based on her personal moral code, which is firmly against homosexuals raising kids, to take your kids away based solely on the fact that you’re gay? I assume that would not be acceptable.
As far as people suing the Church over gay marriage, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet. AFAIK, there has not been a case brought against any Church in Mass. in the last four years. Maybe decency can survive in the modern world… fingers crossed. Then again California is a bizarre state, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens here.
testing
OK. I typed this once, but it didn’t post, so here is the second attempt.
We can expect soon to see lawsuits, and government coercion used against churches that won’t perform same-sex marriages. Just as lesbians sue over the right to force a particular doctor to inseminate them, or someone sues to force druggists to dispense abortion pills, it isn’t really about access to services. You can always go to a different doctor, a different pharmacist, a different church. It’s about radical-secularist triumphalism; the use of state power to force another person to violate his moral values. And that is an offense to human dignity at its most basic level. The state forcing a person to violate his moral code.
V, I am critical of this argument. If the doctor provided the insemination procedure to some patients, he is required to provide the procedure to all, with exception of health and rudeness (all businesses should have the right to deny services to assholes). Lets change the circumstances of the case. What if the couple in question were, instead of a lesbian couple, they were a straight black couple, and the doctor decided he didn’t want to provide the insemination service to them because of their race. Personal moral code does not trump the publics basic rights under constitutional law to the reasonable expectation of equality of service. If some social worker came to your house and decided, based on her personal moral code, to take your kids away because she believes that kids should not be raised by homosexual parents. I doubt you would be arguing that she is right because she is following her moral beliefs. If I am hired as an IT manager, and I refuse to install Microsoft Vista on a company computer because I am an open source free software advocate and am against proprietary software, I would get fired on the spot. Personal morals are just that, personal. If they interfere with the job you are hired to do, then you should probably find another line of work.
As far as the church getting sued over same sex marriage; I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet. It’s been four years since gay marriage became legal in Mass., and I haven’t hear of a case yet. Maybe in the modern world, decency still survives. But with California no in the mix, all bets are off. This state is filled with screwballs, may of which are running the government.
I am hearing from liberals that by accepting gay marriage society will now accept gays. It seems to me that Andrew’s inlaws and friends accepted him long before the State ‘allowed’ him to get married.
Guess what, all the people who are against gay marriage won’t change their minds because the State told them to.
It is a long hard road changing minds. Laws, especially those brought about by 3 or 4 judges often have the opposite effect.
I know our society wants what it wants NOW. It will be the actions of more gay couples who with or without the State’s piece of paper, live together as spouses – in the manner that society at large recognizes. Monogamous, caring for one another and their children. Making an effort to become part of the community – not as in your face gay activists – but simply as honorable members of society.
Sonic, my position is that the possibility that an individual may practice discrimination is the lesser of two evils (by far) than the government coercing people to act against their conscience.
my position is that the possibility that an individual may practice discrimination is the lesser of two evils (by far) than the government coercing people to act against their conscience.
But we bend to the government all the time. Most of us on this blog, including myself, would be (are) appalled at some of the things our tax dollars pay for. Yet, we pay. We bitch and complain, we don’t like it – it goes against many of our principles – but we pay.
I don’t buy that the one “evil” is the lesser than the two. They are both equally bad. As a teacher, my conscience tells me that I should be able to discipline my students using methods including corporal punishment. I believe that this is one of the reasons the school system is in such a state of decline. That said, just because that is my belief does not give me the leeway to pursue that policy unilaterally. That might be why I’m not teaching at the moment. And if you believe that the government coercing people to act against their conscience is the wort of the two evils, then I guess you would have to side with those soldiers who run off to Canada to avoid going to war – the conscientious objector, and you would have to come to the conclusion that John (I was in Vietnam) Kerry was correct in holding secret meetings with the North Vietnam in order to end the war, a war that went against his conscience. Like I say, if your conscience interferes with your ability to do your job in an equitable and lawful fashion, you, as a free individual, need to find a different line of work where this conflict does not exists.
“… the wort of two evils…”????
I really need to proof read more.
I guess you would have to side with those soldiers who run off to Canada to avoid going to war – the conscientious objector,
Whoa, big fella, there’s a big difference between a draft-dodger and a conscientious objector. That aside, I’m not arguing for an absolute standard where the government can never be used to enforce its will, that would be ridiculous. But the circumstances under which that should be permitted should be extreme. War is definitely one of those extreme circumstances.
But when you get down to circumstances where you’re dealing with private entities providing non-vital services for which an abundance of alternatives exist, then I don’t believe one can in any way justify the government using force to coerce someone into violating their moral standards. The only purpose such an imposition serves is to validate the ability of those in power to subjugate those under their rule. Frankly, that’s offensive to me. And, ironically, the impetus for doing so comes from those who insist that morality can not be legislated.
The essence of the dispute is whether one believes there are few circumstances in which government coercion should be permitted, or few circumstances in which it should not be permitted.
I don’t disagree with your last statement, just with the example used in the previous post. Why is it OK for the doctor in question to deny, based on moral convictions, his services to lesbians and yet it’s not OK to deny those services to blacks (racism, though repugnant, is a set of moral beliefs, is it not)? If he doesn’t proved the service to anyone, and the the couple still won the lawsuit, I think that would be a better example….
Why am I sparring with you today???? It must be the stress of being only semi-employed.
Wickedly good!
Leah, great minds think alike. I had considered adding a paragraph suggesting that state approval of gay marriage won’t make certain communities accept the new definition of this ancient institution, but thought the post was long enough as it is!
Thanks for weighing in.
Not to defend Sullivan, but I guess you can consider me a male chauvinist pig then. Women have always been the civilizing force in society. Women are far more inclined to monogamy. My understanding is that the science overwhelmingly agrees on this. Indeed, I was unaware that anyone disputed it.
As to his psychotic tirade against McCain, Byron York has published testimony on The Corner from one of McCains fellow detainees stating that McCain first told him this story in 1971. Sullivan (I only visited his site because of Bruce’s posts btw) claims if anyone could show evidence that McCain was telling the truth he would air it — as if he dosnt read the Corner every day. So, I emailed it to him. Lets see if he has the integrity to correct himself.
Anyone want to put down odds?
Sully correct himself? Surely you jest.
I’m one of those who keeps forgetting that the old Andrew is long gone. Not only did he become a lefty, he left his brain back in the conservative world.
How about a simple paragraph that beyond his personal joy he has seen real progress in in Massachusetts. That there has been a steady stream of gays and lesbians getting married and living productive lives among their neighbors. Oh yeah, he can’t because the rate of gay marriage has dropped to half of what it was that first year – and now it is mostly middle aged Lesbians. There isn’t much of a rush among these newly liberated and guilt free gay men to run to the alter.
Who knows maybe that is a good thing, maybe they take marriage more seriously than ‘no monogamy’ Sully, and won’t enter an institution they don’t feel ready for.
Personally, I have no problem saying “yes” to that. Conscription equals slavery equals national immorality. Just because it was done in past “good” wars, doesn’t make it right. I believe it wasn’t done, in the American Revolution. If the government can’t get people to volunteer for military service, it shouldn’t fight the war.
That all depends, AE. The key question: Do you, or do you not, argue that men have a special dispensation (whether from God or “biology” or whatever) to act like pigs?
I can’t tell from your comment exactly, as you seem to be addressing different matters (women as civilizing force, etc.). But you would seem to want to *place yourself* in the MCP category. I haven’t placed you there; but so be it. As our good Peter likes to say, “I just create a shoe… if you announce it fits, that’s not my problem”. 😉
Why those exceptions? On what basis can you argue for them or any exceptions, *IF*, as you say, the doctor “has no right”? No consistency of principle there.
In a truly free country, that would be within the doctor’s rights, and the couple should find a doctor who is less of an A-hole.
Totally different question. Now you’re talking about the State taking something that an otherwise law-abiding citizen has been entitled to. That is called “tyranny”. Equally, the State forcing people to work – forcing people to perform tasks against their conscience – is tyranny. The common bad guy in both cases is the State forcing people to do something.
So a consistent, principled stand against tyranny requires that we:
– stand up for the doctor’s right to decide what services she is going to provide, and to whom
– stand up for the draftee’s moral right to resist conscription
– stand up for the non-criminal private citizen’s right to raise their kids free from the busybodies and tyrants of the State.
#18 – ILC, check out TownHall.com’s Mike Adams’ column about how academia tries to impose its values on its own employees, to the detriment of their own values.
Say for instance that your employer said that because you were gay, you cannot impose your views on another co-worker because it infringed on their rights.
That would set the lower-casers here howling, no?
Well, as Mike points out here, the opposite is happening at one university and the ACLU is nowhere to be found.
Bias? What liberal bias?
Regards,
Peter H.
PS – Thanks for the hat tip in #17! 😉
Sigh…another one caught in the spam filter! Girls, this is getting tedious.
Regards,
Peter H.
I wrote:
What if some social worker decided, based on her personal moral code, which is firmly against homosexuals raising kids, to take your kids away based solely on the fact that you’re gay?
ILC responded:
Totally different question. Now you’re talking about the State taking something that an otherwise law-abiding citizen has been entitled to.
Notice I include the phrase “based on her personal moral code”. This implies that it is the social worker who is taking an action based on her own prerogative, and not on State mandate.
We don’t live in the mythical “truly free” country. The closest historical experiment to that may be during the French revolution. A Truly Free Country = anarchy.
So a consistent, principled stand against tyranny requires that we:
– stand up for the doctor’s right to decide what services she is going to provide, and to whom
Works out great until it affects you or your family.
I agree with points 2 and 3.
I’m going to go all liberal for just a moment ( I feel nauseous already) if only to get it out of the way before one of the trolls comes by and highjacks the thread.
So a consistent, principled stand against tyranny requires that we:
– stop our government from illegally spying and gathering info on it’s citizens
– stops our president from entering into undeclared wars
– stops our government from holding people, without due process, without habeas corpus, for an indefinite period of time
– prevents our government from using torture techniques on captives
etc. etc. etc.
Sorry about that, I was possessed by Kevin for just a moment. But you can see how this train of thought can be turned to serve anyones purpose.
Hey, what ever happened to Raj???
Here is a better example of someone action within the dictates of his moral beliefs.
Do you agree or disagree with the actions taken by the teacher? He was, after all, acting on his moral compass.
And that makes it less an act of State tyranny…. how? As she is still using her State position, you’ve stipulated a difference that makes no difference. Unless, of course, you mean she is doing something illegal / criminal. Which is tyranny in a different form: hers, rather than the State’s per se.
Way off, sorry. Anarchy is hardly freedom; it is rule by unchecked, subjective and competing criminal gangs.
Are you saying that doctors are slaves, sonicfrog? Are you saying that, by virtue of having a medical degree or possessing medical knowledge, a person is obligated to do work when you (or society) demand it? This could be a point where you and I, um, agree to disagree, LOL.
Anyway, you still haven’t answered my question:
As for this:
Not a problem.
– *IF* our government is illegally spying on its citizens, it should be stopped. Unfortunately for the lefties, in point of fact, it simply hasn’t been. Examination of the facts, legal and otherwise, consistently does not support their fevered charges.
– *IF* our government is fighting wars not authorized by Congress, it should be stopped. Again: it hasn’t been. Quite the opposite.
– *IF* our government has been holding U.S citizens, or others who merit habeas corpus, without same indefinitely, it should be stopped. Again, it hasn’t been. (Gitmo detainees are terrorists captured on the battlefield, not deserving h.c. but, oddly enough, being given it anyway, along with excellent care.)
– *IF* our government has been torturing captives, it should certainly be stopped. But, again, it hasn’t been. (We must never torture. And, fortunately for thousands of American lives, waterboarding a grand total of 3 terrorists under medically safe conditions is not torture.)
You see, sonicfrog, how arguments can’t be turned to anyone’s purpose; they function only when they pertain to reality. Solipsism and imagination (i.e., Kevin) mean nothing.
ILC, I’m not avoiding the question. I got really busy with paperwork and now I’m cooking dinner. Will respond tonight… unless I get too drunk or something.
Sullivan’s argument seems to have devolved into a slightly more verbose version of the one I heard from a guy in a bar one night. He rationalized his promiscuity by saying that until society recognized gay relationships as being worthy of marriage, gay men were bound just to hook up. It was one of the most ridiculous excuses I had ever heard in my life.
I confess some ignorance on the lawsuit against the doctor who wouldn’t perform an AI procedure for the lesbian couple.
AI is an elective procedure and I think we should allow that doctors who provide fertility treatments may make judgements on who they treat for the benefit of the child-to-be. There are plastic surgeons who will not perform breast augmentation on a teenage girl regardless of parental wishes. There are doctors who will not perform abortions. And in states with “assisted suicide” laws, there are doctors who will not assist a suicide.
I don’t see how it’s moral to compel a physician perform a procedure that he/she considers unethical or harmful. Most people can think of things they would refuse to do in their jobs for ethical reasons (e.g. a bus driver may refuse to drive a bus with dangerous passenger on board).
Declining to provide AI to a lesbian (or single woman or a woman living with a dangerous man) is NOT the same as denying treatment to, say, a black person who’s suffered a stroke.
I don’t know the couple involved so I can’t begin to hazard a guess as to whether or not they would make adequate parents.
As far as the “monogamy is hard for men” argument ridiculed by ILC. I, too, believe that’s a cop-out for piggish behavior (at least for couples). I simply cannot imagine cheating on my hubby – I love him too much and value our relationship too much to take a chance on poisoning it. We plan on seeing old age together and that’s worth far more than a a cheap thrill here and there.
Argh! I’m with Peter… the spam filter has caught yet another of my eloquent, prize-winning witticisms.
Sorry, guys/girls.
[Rescued –Dan]
Filter eats mine frequently. 🙁
Anyway, the difference is even if we’re hard wired to stray, humans are more than a conglomeration of chemical impulses. We can say no.
To say “Men are built to stray, so we must” is to deny we’re different than a simple animal.
The “if something is too hard, then you shouldn’t even try” mentality has unfortunately become the default position for many in our society.
But typical. Liberalism is not about reaching for greatness; it’s about pulling greatness down and stamping it into the dirt until it’s indistinguishable from mediocrity.
Re-visiting Sullivan’s smear campaign against McCain… What makes it worse is that there was a time when Sullivan claimed to be a Christian. Maybe he still claims it, I don’t know. But in the 1990s, he wore his Catholic faith on his sleeve. Now, in 2008, he finds it inconceivable that there could be more than one secretly-Christian prison guard in the world who might etch a cross in the dirt to secretly comfort a prisoner. So inconceivable that, if more than one ex-prisoner in the world has such a tale, that ex-prisoner must be a liar and a fraud.
Pathetic.
OK. I’m back.
ILC, you demanded a response:
Anyway, you still haven’t answered my question:
[SF] [a doctor] has no professional right to pick and choose who he provides the service for, with exceptions of …
[ILC] Why those exceptions? On what basis can you argue for them or any exceptions, *IF*, as you say, the doctor “has no right�
It’s a superb question, and in retrospect, I would not have used toe term “right” in this fashion. Never the less. I will address this on two levels.
When I was student teaching at a predominately minority high school last spring, I was amazed at how little the students knew about discrimination experienced by their forefathers. Oh, sure, the kids all felt they had been discriminated against at one time or another in their lives, and some felt they were being discriminated against today. I cannot judge that either way. But then I showed them some video of the treatment of blacks in the fifties and sixties, and they had no idea it was like that. They had no concept of having to ride on the back of a bus. They had no concept of what it was like to not be able to use the same restrooms as whites. They had no concept of not being able to go to the school around the corner because it is a whites only school. That made me very happy. But I also took pause, because I recognize that these positive changes occurred in large part because of our governments interference in the status quo of the time. Like it or not, the government does sometimes make the right choice, even if if goes against the will of the majority at times.
I own my own business “Frog’s Pool Service and Spa Repair”. As a business owner I do have the right to refuse service to anyone, but I’d better be sure the reason is just. For instance, a number if years ago, a customer called me to fix their spa. I go to the house, check the spa equipment, and find that the electric heater has burned out. But I also find that the spa is connected to the house electrical in an unsafe manner. The customer wanted the heater fixed, but would not (for what ever reason) also fix the unsafe electric connection, I did not take the job because (A) the customer could shock themselves if they used the spa, which they would have happened if I’d have fixed only the heater, and (B) I will not put myself in a position to be liable if they later shock themselves and claim that I was responsible because I did not fix the electrical problem. This is a very good reason to refuse service.
I Hate Slobs.
They were severe fat slobs, and had twenty or so cats; I almost gagged as I walked through their house. It smelled in the backyard too – cat poo. But I would not refuse the job because they were fat and smelled. There would be no real justification for it. Now I could say that, in my experience, more often than not, customers who are fat slobs tend not to take proper care of their spa water, which, if left untreated, can lead to some nasty bacteria growing in the spa, which, in turn, can result in a trip to the emergency room. I’ve had a couple of friends experience it. Not fun. Given this, I still couldn’t refuse the job because I have no way of knowing if these people are going to take care of their water. But I DO know that the likelihood of the customer getting shocked from the improper connection is high.
Are you saying that, by virtue of having a medical degree or possessing medical knowledge, a person is obligated to do work when you (or society) demand it?
No, but if he or she is offering the service to one group of people, and denying it from another, that doctor should have a reasonable basis for doing so. And I guess this is the elephant in the room, and ultimately where we differ – I don’t consider religious beliefs to be proper justification for denying the service to lesbians. I side with the court on this one.
HERE is more info on the case. Interesting. And libertarian leaning law prof. Eugene Volokh seems to side with the courts too, though his comments are more procedural.
After reading the case, I do have more empathy for the Doctors in the case. On a side note, I wonder. Did the plaintiff in the case chose this clinic knowing full well that they would not get that specific treatment, thus opening the door for the lawsuit? It’s been done before!
“It’s almost as if Andrew “needed†the state’s validation so that he could publicly acknowledge his commitment to his partner. Even before Goodridge (the Massachusetts court decision mandating the state recognize gay marriages), there was no law preventing gay people from holding such ceremonies and calling their unions “marriages.—
Oh, this blog now advocates playing make-believe? Seriously, this blog is nothing but complaints about LCR, Andrew Sullivan, and airlines. It is derivative and whiny.
Instead of writing about what you want other people to write about, why don’t you just write it yourself?
Instead of writing about what you want other people to write about, why don’t you just write it yourself?
??????????????
#32 – Boy, someone is off their meds again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Not quite. I only pointed out that you hadn’t yet given one.
Thank you 🙂
Yes… and what is the relevance? (to what I said, or to whether a doctor has the right to refuse to perform acts that would go against her conscience?)
Note that buses and restrooms subsidized by public funds necessarily belong to all the public, and all should have the same general type of access.
And note that government has legitimate functions such as police, courts and military – all of which necessarily “interfere” with the actions of wrongdoers and which I am most heartily in favor of. Enslaving the populace – i.e., compelling private citizens to do work against their conscience – simply isn’t among government’s legitimate functions.
Exactly.
Practically, yes. And morally, yes. But legally, no, you shouldn’t have to worry. If there is some arm of government second-guessing your choices, well, there shouldn’t be. Freedom, of necessity, must include the freedom to make mistakes and/or to be a dick. Otherwise, it isn’t freedom. Note that others (should) have the freedom to boycott you, spread the word about you, etc., if you are a dick.
In other words: Performing the work would have gone against your personal conscience. So, you refused. Excellent. Now, please grant others the same right to refuse their own, personal service efforts on the basis of their own conscience.
That’s all very interesting, but I am afraid you still haven’t addressed my earlier question: How do you justify granting some reasons for refusing to provide service and not other reasons? How do you justify picking and choosing among the reasons? You did say:
OK… “Reasonable”, according to whom? “Reasonable”, by what standard?
My position is simpler and more consistent: No private actor should be compelled to do positive work against their own conscience or desire. Compulsion of private actors is slavery.
There it is. Thank you for your honesty. You believe that you and the State have the right to compel private actors to work against their own religious conscience. Again, I’m not sure what your justification is, other than whim. And I don’t agree.
Performing the work would have gone against your personal conscience. So, you refused.
No, it wasn’t just against my personal conscience, it was a matter of the safety of the customer. So strike one.
Uh Oh, the Sonic-Mate is demanding I stop. I have a moral obligation to do so… or get my ars kicked!!!
Ooops! Link fixed.
HERE is more info on the case. Interesting. And libertarian leaning law prof. Eugene Volokh seems to side with the courts too, though his comments are more procedural:
“Up until the 1960’s, the court’s general view was that the Free Exercise (of religion) clause (in the U.Sf. Constitution) does not give anybody the right to exemption,†Volokh told CNSNews.com.
“From 1963 to 1990, they took the view that, at least in theory, it does give somebody the right to exemption,†he said. “And in 1990, in the Employment Division vs. Smith decision, the court returned to its earlier model and said, ‘No, the Free Exercise Clause only involves law that singles out religion for special burdens.’â€
Once again, if you’re going to offer a service to the public, you offer a service to all the public, or don’t offer the service at all. Yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
PS. After reading the case, I do have more empathy for the Doctors in the case. And I wonder. Did the plaintiff in the case chose this clinic knowing full well that they would not get that specific treatment, thus opening the door for the lawsuit? It’s been done before!
…violating which would go against your personal conscience. Strike zero.
…violating which would go against your personal conscience. Strike zero.
Once again, it’s not just my personal conscience, we’re talking about, it’s the probability of physical injury to the consumer, and the fact that I could be held liable for that injury. So again. Strike One.
Are you saying, sonicfrog, that if it weren’t for your fears of legal liability, you may well go ahead with the work?
I hope not, and (as a compliment to you) I expect not. Because it would mean you aren’t exercising your personal conscience. So, yes it’s your personal conscience entering into it (I hope) and playing a decisive role. “I won’t do work with a probability of physical injury” is a stand of personal conscience. Strike zero.
(injury to the consumer)
Nope.
Example one – A matchmaker who restricts her practice to a certain type of client (say, wealthy executives), despite others also being able to pay. A Beverly Hills beautician who only serves, say, famous actors. A psychic astrologer who only serves, say, people who believe in psychics and astrology.
Example two – If you, sonicfrog, knew that a certain consumer was an unreformed pedophile and that your work would have the effect of making their lives easier – ultimately making it easier for him to prey on kids – would you still work for him? I hope not.
So conscience can, should and does play an important limiting role on whom you serve. I am not saying the AI lesbian is like the pedophile. No, no, no. I am saying that *the doctor in question* apparently understands it that way… and since *she* is providing the work, not you or me, it is *her* decision (not yours or mine). Her decision about her work. Yes, she’s wrong, in my view. And she has every right to be wrong. I call it, individual freedom.
When I think of the term “personal conscience” in this instance, I define it as something where the action in question does no harm to anyone else; the negative effects or repercussion of the decision in question affects me and me alone. I think this is where we’re getting our signals crossed. My example goes beyond personal conscience (which is included) and strays into the realm of professional ethics. Again, I think we’re just going to have to disagree on this….. Strike 1/2
Hi there, just stumbled upon your site.. I applaud those in the gay community who can step back from a very difficult situation regarding gay marriage rights and look at the big picture. You don’t hear from Conservative gays very often, but I know a few and read websites like yours. There are many in the gay/lesbian community who recognize that other people have different opinions on what the word “marriage” means to them. I am not a very religious person, but I do feel that those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman do so because for thousands of years that is what it meant. Those who are religious resent the fact that people would like to change the meaning.
I am from the chain of thought that the word shouldn’t be the focus, equality under the law should. If a religion doesn’t recognize the union between two people of the same sex, why in the world would anyone want to be “married” which denotes a religious union?
I feel that whether you gay or straight- being “married” outside of a church setting or having a non-clergy member presiding such as a city official that has the authority, shouldn’t call it a marriage. It is a Union between two people who love each other. Isn’t is better to fight for the rights of a union, which isn’t a dirty word, than to try to beat down those who hold the concept of “marriage” dear and try to change the meaning?
Maybe sometime in the future the religious community will consider changing the meaning, but I highly doubt it. Everybody would get along much better if tolerance was shown on both sides and I love the way you explain all the issues that the gay/lesbian community care about here on your website.
There are issues that we all can agree on and I thank you for the stand you take. I believe the left, the liberals use all kinds of people, gay, poor, black, young against the straight, rich, white and the old for political gain and appreciate it that you recognize that also.
Thank you, I really enjoy reading the posts and the articles you provide. I have very close friends who are gay (yeah, sounds like a cliché, “some of my best friends are.. I know..) who believe in a strong defense, a free market and shake their heads at the direction the leftists want to take this country, their Socialist agenda..