Iowa Supreme Court and Gay "Marriage"

Yeah, I'm going there.

Proponents of so-called "gay marriage" often ask how someone else's family would be affected by the recognition of same-sex marriage. Can't heterosexual couples and their children continue to live their lives as they wish, unaffected by what others may be doing?

I want to answer this question.

It seems helpful to invoke John Donne at this juncture, who understood that "No man is an island" and that "Every man's death diminishes me," reminding me of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s statement that "What influences one directly influences all indirectly." Donne and Martin Luther King, Jr. understood something that in our highly individualistic society (now thirty years past the "Me Decade") seems to be becoming increasingly incomprehensible, namely, the idea that we all form part of a community and that we are linked to one another as human beings. The rugged individualism on which Americans have long prided themselves (and which has, for the record, helped to accomplish great things and to instill an admirable sense of self-reliance in our culture at various times in our history) has now all but turned into an egocentric me-ism, a worship of self, a creating of God in our own image.

Witness the ubiquitous i-pod, helping to cut off nearly a whole generation from meaningful interaction with their peers (and especially with their non-peers), the cell phones and texting devices that promise increased human interaction but provide only counterfeit communication in its place. Witness the homes in which individuals (the word "individuum" didn't even pop up in Latin until ca. 11th century A.D.), all attached to their private screens, sequester themselves in their own separate spheres, a phenomenon not only criticized in Pixar's recent "Wall-E" (I love Pixar: "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille" have restored my faith in modern animation- and Ed Catmull, one of Pixar's founders, is an LDS returned missionary) but also in a great conversation between Dana Gioia, former Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts and a personal hero (see, for example, his excellent Stanford speech here: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/june20/gradtrans-062007.html), and Jonathan Katz, CEO of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (see http://www.nea.gov/av/index_v.html).

So I think we have become, or are gradually becoming, in Walter Scott's words, wretches "concentred all in self," bowling alone, as it were, ordering tickets and dinner for one, strolling down lover's lane holding our own hand.

There is a sense of community that we have lost in all of this disconnected individualism, and it is precisely this lost sense of community that causes some to stand mystified at the suggestion that the actions of a few could, in fact, have a significant impact on others, even on those never met personally. Small wonder, then, that it is precisely the under-30 demographic-- the i-pod consumed, constantly texting, rarely voting, and often single folks who express their bafflement at the idea that one's actions may have an impact beyond one's own limited, personal spheres.

If this is all a bit abstract, let me provide some specific examples how gay "marriage" is already affecting heterosexual families:

(Now mind you, the following information is not coming from some crazy right-wing website- this is all from National Public Radio- see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340)





"When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

NPR.org, June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building."



Now, who goes after Boy Scouts?

When you throw a stone into the water, there is a ripple effect. Changing the definition of marriage will also have a ripple effect, as it is already beginning to have. And we're only a few years into same-sex unions- I wonder what the effects might be ten or twenty years from now.

Iowa, and every other state that hasn't already done so, needs to pass a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The United States likewise needs to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment doing the same. There are fundamental, First-Amendment freedoms at stake.

Selfishness

I hate the letter "I," that lonely, spear-like pronoun.


I love these lines from Walter Scott:

High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonor'd, and unsung.


Elder Neal A. Maxwell said, "Selfishness is really self-destruction in slow motion," and President Hinckely said that "He who lives only unto himself withers and dies, while he who forgets himself in the service of others grows and blossoms in this life and in eternity."

A Kierkegaardian Reading of March Madness

Between my junior and senior years of high school, I took an introductory philosophy course at Georgetown. The course description stated that we would read a certain book by Soren Kierkegaard, and for the life of me I can't remember the title of it. So I read the book early that summer, to get a "headstart" on the course. (Turned out that we didn't end up reading it at all- a classic case of the all-too-frequent divorce between course description promises and the harsh reality of actual classroom experience).

I wish now that I could recall the name of the book, so that I could quote from it directly, but I will have to rely on my fallible memory instead. I remember that the writer of the preface said that no one would object more to having a preface to his works than Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard believed that people should define their own experiences, come up with their own interpretations of what they read, and not have someone else impose their preface, their interpretation, on anyone else.

All this has made me think of March Madness, and how the commentaries made by the sportscasters seem like an important part of each game. What would the Carolina-Duke rivalry be without the wisdom and enthusiasm of Dick Vitale? And yet, is my interpretation of the game being imposed on me by someone else? By listening to the analysis and commentaries of sportscasters, am I letting go, in some small way, of my liberty to interpret my own experience and to frame my own basketball narrative?

Would Kierkegaard tell me to turn the sound off, watch the game, and form my own analysis of the events before me?

Sometimes I wonder.