Iowa’s top court legalized same-sex marriage Friday, giving advocates a victory beyond the liberal coastal states into the more conservative American interior.
The supreme court justices drew explicit parallels to civil rights struggles by blacks and women, holding that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was a violation of the equality promised in the Iowa constitution.
“If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious racial and gender classifications would have failed,” the court said in its ruling.
It’s interesting to look at the full court decision, which I got from Susan Russell’s blog. See
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_090403_iowacourt.html
From that decision, p. 19, the court (in part) bases the ruling on Article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution, which says:
All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
I might ask: what then, would be the basis for denying 10-year olds the right to marry, based on this article?
The court would probably answer with what it has on p. 20:
In deference to the
legislature, a statute will satisfy the requirements of the equal protection clause “so long as there is a plausible policy reason for the classification, the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based rationally may have been considered to be true by the governmental decisionmaker, and the relationship of the classification to its goal is not so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.â€
(Emphasis is mine.)
So the court, no doubt, would say there are ‘plausible’ policy reasons for denying 10 year olds the right to marry, but not same-sex couples.
It seems to me that when a court gets to decide what propositions in support of policy are plausible, that’s legislation.
Just what, exactly, can the legislature do that the court cannot do?
Hard to take in that Iowa is going to be a leader in the destruction of the universal human institution of marriage. And I agree with Sidney. This court is deciding based on its own definition of “plausible” in defiance of what legislators thought was reasonable and necessary.
Actually, when you look at the Iowa constitutional provision
traditional marriage was most certainly NOT in violation. Everyone – including homosexuals – had the same right to marriage, that is the same right to enter into a marital relationship with a member of the opposite sex.
What the Iowa court did was simply REDEFINE marriage. It would be akin to me, as a man, adopting a child and demanding “pregnancy leave”, then claiming discrimination because the government said I wasn’t pregnant. Then the courts saying that not granting me pregnancy leave was discriminatory and redefining what “pregnancy” meant to include the adoption process.
Under the Iowa precedent there is no rational reason why polygamous marriage should not be next. Why shouldn’t the Iowa court REDEFINE marriage once again so that it can apply to the next group of folks that want to redefine it?
We should be grateful to Sidney for this thread. But we should not only be highlighting the word “plausible†but also the words “rational/irrational†and “goalâ€. For at last in these words from the Iowa Constitution we have clearly teleological questions to the fore as these affect and indeed effect marriage between a man and a woman as a rational institution.
The old BCP presented also clearly the three ends of marriage. Sundry world-wide revisions have tried not only to update the language here and there, but also often to fudge what remain the three essential purposes of marriage. When we disengage from these three goals in their entirety, separating sex from marriage, marriage from children and children from sex – sociologically and technologically – then it is little wonder that we lose sight of any notion of natural law as this might pertain to human marriage. It is also little wonder that what eventuates is “the shattered human visage†(Zacharias), a counterfeit form of divine image which seeks its own means of fulfilment.
This is one reason why ‘the gay issue’ has sadly become the seismic fault line separating the wheat from the chaff in our day. At least, that is my own conclusion after 25 years of ‘conversation’ and wrestling …
And so we will hear the same absurd arguements (always prefaced with “i am not a lawyer, but..” that homosexual marriage is destroying the institution of marriage. The sad fact of the matter is that traditional marriage was destroyed by the traditionally married when they discarded the “until death do you part” section of their vows with “until i get bored.” The problem for the courts is that nobody can show them ANY basis on which the interest of the State is compromised by homosexual marriage. And the only shocking thing about Iowa is that it happened so fast. They younger generation simply is not buying into the bigotry. In less then ten years homosexual marriage will be legal in most countries and everywhere in the U.S. And a good many churches will be marrying them.
deaconmark: The problem is that the most critical arguments against homosexual “marriage” aren’t being listened to. Once you separate procreation from the core definition of marriage, then the core purpose of marriage CANNOT be procreation. Which means that procreation of children is separated from the concept of marriage. Which means that procreation will be controlled by either (1) the state; or (2) the market; rather than the difficult-to-define institution we have come to know as “marriage”. Children will become commodities, humanity will lose another part of its “humanity”, God will be grieved.
I agree that in the short term (next 5-10 years) homosexual “marriage” will become increasingly accepted. Then society will realize what a horrible mistake it made, and it will take a long time to undo the serious damage.
You are surely right ## 5 & 6. It is also the fault of ‘mainline’ heterosexuals and thereafter also the churches’ too ready accommodation with the prevailing culture of sequential polygamy that has brought us to this present plight.
The ‘floating’ story in John’s Gospel has much to say to all of us: our own guilt, our own manipulation of morality, our own lack of forgiveness – and our own failure to “sin no moreâ€.
All of which said, makes the way forward on all fronts re marriage a humbling but necessary process, one which will need intellectual arguments, pastoral sensitivity, and political savvy and stamina. Oh, to be a contemporary western Christian …
#4, do you think that the U.S. Supreme Court started this problem by using the equal protection clause to (unanimously!) change marriage laws in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia]Loving vs. Virginia[/url]. Marriage as then defined was “available to everyone” in that case too, so if you believe the court ruled rightly in Loving vs. Virginia, perhaps you could tell me why you believe that equal protection applied there when the court overturned [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama]Pace vs. Alabama[/url], but equal protection *shouldn’t* apply here…
My mistake – #3…
Deaconmark, I do think that the approval of homosexual “marriages” is a symptom of the collapse of marriage rather than its cause. Because we have erred in allowing the basic societal unit to become optional is no good reason to further redefine it.
And while I’m not, in fact, a lawyer, I think at least one of the commenters above is.
On reflection, I think the Iowa decision gives the best summary of the argument being advanced by those of us who advocate against marriage discrimination — words my OWN Supreme Court would be well advised to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest:
“In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage.
Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.
The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.â€
No, the Iowa court has decided that, contrary to obvious facts of human existence and millennia of practice across all religions and cultures, men should be able to marry men and women to marry women, and then declares that this is a constitutional principle contrary to any commonsense understanding of the intentions of the constitution’s framers.
So a court decided that sexual preference is in the same category as race. There is no science to support that claim, only ideology.
And anyone who believes that Christians will continue to be free to speak the truth under Susan Russell’s new social order hasn’t been paying attention to Sweden, England, and Canada. Homosexualist ideology is a social cancer. In Iowa, the cancer has metastasized.
Thank you Susan Russell (#11) for your contribution here. Alas however, if one were to examine not merely the apparent “linguistic rules†of the “associations†mentioned, including the attempt at the constitution itself, but also how such rules interact with yet wider, more empirical realities (which is why I mentioned “natural lawâ€), the irrationality of the ruling in Iowa becomes apparent.
To be explicit, Lindbeck’s understanding of doctrine simply fails the adequacy test. More is implicated than he – or now seemingly yourself – allows. One could cite some relevant literature; but perhaps not on this thread … yet.
In my opinion, if marriage is a constitutional right than I have the right to marry anyone I see fit to marry. The right can not be limited by number of spouses,sex, blood ties, or age. In fact the only role the State can have in marriage is in the matter of divorce to protect the children and fairly divide assets. It can no longer issue a license to marry except in the case where a person’s rights may be restricted due to age, mental illness, criminal record or other cause. Indeed the right may not be infringed and the assumption is that the right may be exercised without government consent.
It would be completely up to the couple or group to decide if they want a contractual marriage, a secular marriage, a religious marriage or a combination of the same. But if it is a right the declaration by the couple or group that they are now indeed married should suffice to give them legal recognition.
#13, I’m not sure what you mean by “same category”. It’s clear that race and sexual orientation are not the same thing. The question, however, is ‘should we prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as we do on the basis of race?’. The fact that the decision was unanimous speaks pretty clearly that from a civil, judicial perspective, the answer is ‘yes’.
And I live in Canada, and I haven’t seen any degradation of the quality of life or marriage here. My 30 year old (straight) marriage is still strong, and conservative Christians are still free to speak their mind. On what basis do you say that gay marriage has been a ‘cancer’ in Canada?
Well, Denbeau, there was the teacher in Canada who’s license to teach was suspended because he sent a letter to the editor espousing Christian beliefs about same-sex acts. There was the Christian college whose certification was threatened because they expected all of their students to avoid fornication. There is the “Human Rights Commission” in one of the western provinces and it’s antics. You can verify all of these events by a simple google.
As to the category error in question, it goes something like this:
Race is a normal variant of our humanity, like hand-dominance or eye color.
Same-sex attraction is a disordered variant, like diabetes or alcoholism
The fact that a court in Iowa voted unanimously proves nothing about the objective truth of the nature of sexual orientation.
Indeed, if gender is no longer a legitimate basis for discrimination, then to follow from 11 and 15, why have marriage at all? If, by definition marriage is between opposite genders, then rather than shoehorn persons of the same genders in, why not do away with the concept altogether?
If the state has no business in approving or disapproving the living arrangements that people come up with, then marriage and the resulting benefits it confers, is illegitimately discriminatory against all other persons who are not married. Why should “married†couples receive tax and other benefits that unmarried people do not get, particularly when marriage no longer serves any valid purpose?
17, I would also add that same sex attraction is also connected with sexual behavior and sexual acts. So far as I know skin and eye color are not connected with a behavior. But I suppose the concepts of gender and behaviour are unknown to the Iowa Supreme Court.
There is no such thing as ‘gender’ in respect to humans. That word pertains to nouns, words and grammar, not human beings. People are male and female, not LBGT. The PC idiom was invented to defend their agenda’s paradigm. Some of these pansexualist organizations promulgate the notion of sexual freedom for children (SEICUS, NAMBLA, etc.). The same year VGR was installed in NH, the state of Kansas legislature entertained lowering the age of consent to 12.
Sin is sickness of soul and always produces harm and misery.
Now we wait for the people of Iowa to mobilize and demand a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. May God empower the people to shut the court down and do what is right.
As it happens, I am a lawyer. I thought the Iowa court did a good job of explaining their thinking in understandable terms. [url=http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_090403_iowacourt.html Read especially]:
• the discussion of the separation of powers, starting at page 12, recapping the crucial role that courts play in protecting individual rights by moderating the raw power of majority rule;
• the summary of the standard way of analyzing constitutional equal-protection questions, starting at page 19. The opinion explains that normally the courts use a deferential ‘rational basis’ test to judge the constitutionally of legislative classifications, but that sometimes ‘strict scrutiny’ and ‘heightened’ or ‘intermediate’ scrutiny are applied in certain important cases to protect individual rights;
• the court’s application of those analytical principles to the Iowa ban on same-sex marriages, starting at page 31 and picking up steam at page 37;
• the court’s sober rejection, as insufficiently supported by evidence, of the usual proffered policy justifications for banning same-sex marriage, starting at page 51 — at pages 52-54, the court points out that the preservation of tradition for its own sake is not enough; “we must determine whether the reasons underlying that tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements.†(Emphasis by the court, citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
• Because the U.S. and Iowa constitutions guarantee freedom of religion for all and prohibit state endorsement or enforcement of any particular religious beliefs per se, “civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.” Page 66 (emphasis mine).
D.C. Toedt: Thank you for your very clear and concise summary of the Iowa decision. I want to comment on how people in this thread seem to think and write about the decision. As I read the comments in this thread it seems to me that the problem with many persons who disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Iowa (or any decision that runs contrary to their personal belief) is confusing understanding and acceptance with agreement. The belief seems to be that if one expresses understanding of an argument which one deeply opposes on some legal, moralistic or religious ground, then that necessarily means that one has accepted that argument and, having accepted it, one must then necessarily agree with it. The ruling on same-sex marriage in Iowa is not a substitute for, but is an addition to, a justice-based perception of a particular state’s right that should be available to all citizens. One can understand and accept this ruling without necessarily agreeing with it. That does not make the opposing view wrong or immoral–just different. The self-referencing criterion of [i]”I think it’s wrong, so the Iowa Supreme Court and everybody else who agrees with this ruling is also wrong”[/i] clouds one’s ability/willingness to critically,fairly, and charitably evaluate opposing points of view.
22, at one time the mere fact of gender would have been sufficient to support the state. The problem is, as lawyers know, that the court can use the above language to arrive at whatever decision they decide. The language sounds objective, but when you get into it is meaningless verbage.
Br. Michael [#24], your labeling the Iowa supreme court’s opinion as “meaningless verbage” is about as helpful as using that phrase to criticize the medical vocabulary used by surgeons. The Iowa judges had a job to do, and by the standards of the profession — which plays a large role in keeping all of us from being overrun by whoever happens to be the strongest — they did it quite competently.
If you feel the impulse to sneer at the Iowa judges’ efforts, you might want to hold off until you’ve successfully completed a first-year law school course in constitutional law. And keep in mind that Con Law is not like theology, an artificial subject having only coincidental real-world meaning. On the contrary, Con Law is in essence a history course, a summation of lessons learned — often at great human cost — from our ongoing efforts to reconcile the tensions between order, liberty, and peace in an ever-changing world.
Perhaps the prospect of becoming minimally competent in Con Law seems not worth the trouble. If so, please keep in mind Santayana’s aphorism about what happens to people who don’t know history ….
wow!
#23 — i could hardly agree more. having a different opinion (even a different opinion than one that someone may hold based on a strongly held understanding of sexuality/scripture/law) does not necessarily make the opposing opinion automatically wrong! good work for posting this important reminder.
#22 and 25 — thank you for your insightful contributions. you give us a useful summary of the legal findings, but more importantly, thanks for being ready to remind us that legal issues are much more than “meaningless verbage;” they provide us with a summary of a court’s history. good job! i am excited to take constitutional law soon. : – )
The self-referencing criterion of “I think it’s wrong, so the Iowa Supreme Court and everybody else who agrees with this ruling is also wrong†clouds one’s ability/willingness to critically,fairly, and charitably evaluate opposing points of view.
That is simply bizarre. Of course, if I disagree with the ruling, and you agree with it, then I think you are wrong. Change the claim: You think the ruling is right, therefore you think I am wrong. Your judgement is therefore clouded and invalid. Oh, and “uncharitable”.
I stated my reason for disagreement with the Iowa court decision above. I will let it stand until rationally rebutted.
DC I am a lawyer, and I stand by what I said. I have read enough opinions to recognize a result oriented opinion and I know just how slippery legal language can be.
And I booked con law.
#27 — you misinterpret what was said: the claim was not “if i disagree with the ruling, and you agree with it, then i [i] think [/i] you are wrong,” as you assert. the problem that gosane+ adeptly pointed to is the phenomenon that if “i think it’s wrong” and you think it’s right, then you [i] are [/i] wrong or immoral. the problem has to do with the absolutist nature of asserting that ‘what i think is right, and that’s all there is.’ no disagreement or difference of opinion become possible, kind of like the idea of “my way or the highway.”
Words Matter [#27], if you’re looking for a rational rebuttal, try this on for size.
In your #17, you argue:
The Iowa supreme court squarely addressed the issue that you implicitly raise with your use of “normal” and “disordered.” There seems to be no dispute that traditionalists’ use of such terms is based largely on their particular set of religious views. I presume you accept that the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing any particular religious views as such. That being the case, please explain how a civil-marriage law can be grounded on the religious views of one particular group (even if that group happens to be in the majority) without running afoul of the First Amendment (which was also adopted by a majority, as was the equal-protection clause).
You also argue:
Please explain what you consider to be “the objective truth of the nature of sexual orientation,” and why you believe it to be objective truth. That is, please cite the evidence — as opposed to “because we say so” opinion — that you believe supports your contentions. The Iowa supreme court carefully examined the proffered evidence on that score. It concluded, quite plausibly, that such evidence as there was in support of banning same-sex marriages did not rise nearly to the level necessary to survive an equal-protection challenge.
In the first place, youngadult, “wrong”, when I say it means “incorrect”. I have neither knowledge of, nor the “morality” of anyone reading this thread.
But having watched the effort to normalize sodomy in American culture for 30 years now, I would say that for absolutist ideological method, I would point to those seeking to normalize same-sex relationships. And, as I noted above, look to the examples of cultures where same-sex relationships have become normalized for a “my way or the highway†attitude. Ask that woman in Ohio who disputed the comparison of race and sexual preference and lost her job.
Mr. Toedt,
There seems to be no dispute that traditionalists’ use of such terms is based largely on their particular set of religious views.
I dispute it. It’s always good to remember that until a propaganda campaign gained a bare majority of psychiatric opinion in the narcissistic 70s, homosexual preference was understood to be disordered. It’s also good to remember that the vote was based on ideology, not science. It’s also good to remember that an architect of that change has since repudiated his participation in it. There is no science (as though psychiatry involved must science, anyway) to support your point, and a good bit of evidence as to the toxic impact of same-sex acceptance on a culture.
In any case, since you and yours are seeking to change what has been the universal definition of marriage across time, cultures, and religions, it is incumbent upon you, not me, to prove that race and sexual preference are equivalent. Of course, you haven’t done that and can’t do it. You have an opinion, which is fine. Making your opinion into law is not so fine.
#17, I have to disagree most strenuously with your comment:
In fact, same-sex attraction is almost exactly like hand-dominance.
The current understandings of the etiology of same-sex attraction and handedness are virtually identical. Both handedness and sexual orientation exist on a spectrum, with the larger populations on the boundaries (and with one boundary dominant). Both are considered to have some minor genetic component. But fetal stress appears to be the major contributing factor. If the etiology of handedness and sexual attraction are, in fact, the same, is there any basis in civil law for discriminating on the basis of either handedness or sexual orientation (not taking any particular religious teaching into account). If the etiologies are the same, then it makes no more sense to say that “Handedness is normal, and same-sex attraction is deviant” than it does to say the opposite, “Same-sex attraction is normal, and handedness is deviant”. In fact, both are normal. And when you do take religious teaching into account, let’s not forget that most religious traditions discriminated against the left-handed at one point, but now recognize that there is no basis for such discrimination.
Denbeau –
No, etiology of same-sex attractions are most certainly not a settled fact, and is irrelevant in any case. Down Syndrome, diabetes, alcoholism, anencephaly, and all sorts of birth defects have a better claim to an etiology similar to hand dominance, and I don’t think we want to consider any of them “normal”. There is no science that supports your claims: as with Toedt, it’s just your opinion.
Being left handed, I was “discriminated against” as a child, but never by religious people. I was told that prejudice against lefties derived from hygiene practices in some cultures. Whatever. In any case, your argument is ad hominen, although I did a quick google search on the subject for grins and didn’t find any religious connections.
Words Matter, I didn’t say that the etiology was ‘settled’; I said the ‘current understanding’ was that the etiology of same-sex attraction and handedness was virtually the same. There is plenty of science to support this, and I stand by those remarks. And Down Syndrome, Anencephaly (and all sorts of birth defects) are my field, and trust me, the causes of these conditions are in no way similar to handedness or sexual orientation.
As for religion, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia entry on ‘Hand’ ends with:
Denbeau –
After 30 years of having this discussion, I have heard a new claim: sexual orientation is inborn, but not like other inborn conditions. I will admit that your explanation makes more sense than the more simplistic “I was born this way”. None of which demonstrates that same-sex attraction is “normal”. I wonder what other human conditions are attributable to the sort of process you describe.
And sorry, but I quit trusting internet claims years ago. Nor does “current thinking” carry much weight. I really want data. That’s not personal, just a matter of sad experience. Perhaps you can point to some scientific studies.
Interesting quote from the bible dictionary, though it doesn’t translate into most religious traditions discriminated against the left-handed at one point. As with the etiology issue, you have made a leap from one fact to a generalization that doesn’t logically follow. And it remains an ad hominem argument anyway.
Words Matter,
I don’t understand why you are claiming that my positions constitute an ad hominem argument. I haven’t intended in any way to attack you or your characteristics. What have I said that constitutes an ad hominem argument?
My argument is that if two anomalies have the same etiology, either both conditions are normal, or both conditions are abnormal. With a common origin, it is not possible that one can be described normal, and the other abnormal. (I’m using ‘normal’ in its everyday sense; clearly left-handedness is not normal in a Gaussian sense). If I demonstrate to your satisfaction that the etiologies are the same, would you agree with this thesis?
At the moment, I’m travelling (I’m at a conference on fetal anomalies), but later this week I will respond with a list of references.
Den,
what you are setting up is a false dichotomy: “Either both are or both are not”.
Blue-eyes and alcoholism may both be determined by genetics, but that does not follow that therefore alcoholism is good or that blue eyes are bad.
Some genetic dispositions are good. Some are detrimental. There is really no basis for stating that because one trait is genetic and beneficial, then therefore all genetic traits are beneficial (both to the individual and to society).
If that were true, then cancers, heart disease, near-sightedness, alcoholism (or addictiveness), etc. were to be celebrated not corrected. Same Sex Attraction may be a trait for some people (there is no solid scientific evidence for this, however) but that does not mean it is beneficial or normal. There are many more who believe that it is NOT beneficial, and is in fact a Disorder.
Jim Elliott <><
Jim, I did not introduce any concept of value. I never said ‘good’ or ‘bad’; I said ‘normal’. The question is not whether you celebrate these instances. The presenting issue was the decision of the Iowa supreme court. The question then is do you discriminate, or more specifically, do you allow the state to discriminate, against these various sub-populations. If not, why not? We allow those with cancer to marry, we allow the near-sighted to marry, we even allow the left-handed to marry. On what basis, using the constitution as our guideline, and not using the teaching of any specific religious tradition, do we allow discrimination against gays and lesbians? I agree with many who think that it is unfortunate that we use the same term (marriage) for both the civil and religious procedure. Perhaps if the state only offered civil unions, we might be closer to agreement.
OK, how about then we substitute ‘abnormal’ for ‘detrimental’ and ‘normal’ for ‘beneficial’ in my above statement? “If Same Sex attraction is genetic, then it is abnormal, as is alcoholism, cancer and other genetic anomalies.” Is that clearer?
Should we allow those with this disorder to marry? Why? Do we allow those with attractions to multiple partners to marry each while in a marital relationship with another (polygamy)? Do we allow those with attractions to siblings or parents to marry? Why exclude these, if we are going to change the age old definition of marriage to allow one disordered subset of the population?
Slightly off topic, several years ago I read that one of the artists on the X-Men comics resigned from working on that comic. His reason was that the comic treated genetic mutations as ‘normal’ (to use your word), and the next stage in human evolution. But when he would visit hospitals to speak to parents of children born with genetic abnormalities, he found that in almost every case, a genetic mutation was ‘abnormal’ and caused great suffering and pain and even death, not advances!
The Iowa decision was an instance of the court legislating from the Bench, which is not the purpose of the court. This decision should be the decision of the legislature and the people of the state. Likewise, California’s Supreme Court should allow the popular vote on their constitutional amendment to stand.
Peace
Jim Elliott
DC Toedt writes (#25):
[blockquote] …keep in mind that Con Law is not like theology, an artificial subject having only coincidental real-world meaning. On the contrary, Con Law is in essence a history course, a summation of lessons learned — often at great human cost — from our ongoing efforts to reconcile the tensions between order, liberty, and peace in an ever-changing world.[/blockquote]
Wow! Do we have a clash of discourses or what?! It is time (ref my #14) to cite some of the literature. It is precisely due to people’s differing views of what actually constitutes theology and religious discourse – and by implication legal discourse and judgment – that we have many of our culture wars today. And while Lindbeck’s [i]Nature of Doctrine[/i] (1984) was a brave attempt to establish a way through the mine-field, as Alister McGrath painstakingly pointed out in his Bampton Lectures of 1990, [i]The Genesis of Doctrine[/i], it is simply inadequate to view both primary religious language as well as second order theology to be just “rule governed†via a “cultural-linguistic†view of things – even if it does seem that this approach largely permits the justices now to say incompatible things regarding parallel “associationsâ€. As McGrath continues to explore via his [i]Scientific Theology[/i] “project†([i]vol. 1 nature, vol. 2 reality, vol. 3 theory, 2001/2/3[/i]), reality (sic.) is a “stratified phenomenon†(so Bhaskar) and theology a legitimate scientific discipline that addresses deliberately certain levels of human reality alongside the divine, leading to distinctive metaphysical consequences. And because it too is basically [i]a posteriori[/i], Christian theology, as responsible human speech to the divine historical revelation in Jesus Christ, is also a profound “history courseâ€, like Con Law à la Toedt. One implication of this among many is that the onus is surely upon today’s innovators who wish to ‘normalize’ same-sex ‘marriage’, thus undoing a vast history.
Yet history is not done; it is “an ever-changing worldâ€. New phenomena arise – or do they?! For while the multi-factorial aetiology of same-sex attraction suggests Denbeau (#33) is being rather simplistic even reductionist with his version of “the current understandings†(which embrace at least genes, hormones [i]in utero[/i], relative brain sizes, affective connectedness with the parent of one’s own gender, adolescent peer group, society’s plausibility structures), despite his subsequent rejoinders, whatever might eventuate, aetiology is one thing and actual behaviour and actions quite another. It is simply an irrational misstep to move from such views of causation directly to certain human actions. Whatever happened to moral agency?!
Lastly, as a non American who knows something of your country and its history and as one who can only admire your particular experiment with democracy, it does appear that despite the clear historical reasons for separating religion and politics (starting with Marsilius of Padua!) the First Amendment has put the US in an impossible bind long term – even as it has sought to deliver you from other things! For the history of the last 200+ years has begun to show the truth of one of Richard John Neuhaus’s maxims, I suggest: “culture is the root of politics, and religion the root of culture†([i]The Naked Public Square[/i]). Nor is he alone with such a view: John Milbank’s thesis in [i]Theology and Social Theory[/i] shows very clearly the love-hate relationship our western culture has had with explicit Christian theology. That is, if we banish religion from direct legitimation of human laws and law making, denying any Law above the law, then eventually an irrational ribald pluralism will reign, a never ending number of incompatible “associations†will float uneasily alongside each other. This no community may tolerate for long, since it too slides inexorably into nihilism, eventually. [i]The[/i] question then becomes: what form of religion may best legitimate civil society? While Milbank would offer a revisited and revised Augustinianism, Phil 2:1-13 is not a bad place to start.
Jim, I would agree, provided that you agree that left-handedness is also abnormal (which is where we started), since handedness and same-sex attraction appear to share the same etiology. If so, then I can’t see that we have any right in civil law to discriminate against either subpopulation. Just as we don’t discriminate against those with cancer, genetic anomalies, or alcoholism. I think you have actually moved us closer to our true area of disagreement by raising the issue of polygamy and incest. These are not innate conditions, but preferences. There is not – so far as I know – any literature that supports any genetic or otherwise antenatal causality to a preference for polygamy or incest. We (in the western world) are changing ‘the age old definition of marriage’ as it was changed in the Loving case, as it was changed when property rights were central, because we no longer believe that we should discriminate against the gay and lesbian subpopulation (or the left-handed, or those who would marry people of a different color, etc.).
Your point from the Xmen comic is irrelevant. I never suggested that life with a genetic anomaly was pleasant (although I don’t see same-sex attraction in the same category as, for example, Down Syndrome). My point, which I’m trying very hard to make clear, is that we shouldn’t discriminate against these people. And again, I stand behind my analogy of the left-handed; same (or similar causality), challenges in life, but there are no grounds for discrimination.
Why was the Iowa decision unanimous? Even the most conservative judges signed on. If this issue was legislating from the bench, then every decision is legislating from the bench. That’s what they get paid to do; consider the issues, and make the call.
Den,
I don’t agree with your argument being valid. Sorry, you are not making any headway there. Handedness, eye/hair color, etc. is NOT of the same etiology, but normal to the human physiology.
And why, in your opinion, is same sex attraction an innate condition, but the other attractions merely preferences? Why are not both preferences? Heterosexual attraction is the standard, that which was designed into humanity. That is the only innate condition, all others are aberrations from the norm, and are, if not genetic abnormalities, then are preferences. Using your basis for argument, if same-sex attraction is genetic, then the others must be as well, and must be just as normal as ‘handedness’.
Peace
Jim E. <><
Jim, It is ‘my opinion’ that the etiology is the same and that same sex attraction is innate because that is what the current science tells us; and as I told Words Matter, I will post the references as soon as I get home. If you have newer science that informs you that this is not the case, please tell me, and give me the references, because as a scientist, I want to know. I will agree with you that heterosexual attraction is the standard. But until I see newer references, my understanding is that is right-handedness is the same kind of ‘standard’. Left handedness and same-sex attraction are aberrations from the norm. But they are the same kind of aberration, and there is no basis for treating them differently. Perhaps we should put this discussion on hold until I can post the references. If you agree with the scientific case, I will ask you what is the civil case for discrimination? If you don’t, I will ask you what are your references that challenge my current understanding of the science?
Dear Denbeau, It is a wise thing to seek the data and its best interpretation. And so, while it is not especially my own field you might like to pursue http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=199
and thereafter Dr Jackie Keenan’s own compilation of research. Also, the General Synod debates of the CoE a couple of years back kicked up a storm re “the evidence”, resulting in a helpful compilation also from Latimer Trust UK entitled, [i] God, Gays and the Church[/i]. Yes; its conclusions are ‘conservative’; but there lies the rub …
Jim, Art, and others. I’m back at home, and in celebration of the state of Vermont now being the fourth to allow gay marriage, I will supply some references as previously promised (sorry, but I couldn’t resist :-). I haven’t had a chance to check out the references that you provided, but I will do so as soon as possible.
The current consensus appears to be that there is no significant genetic causal factor to homosexuality; i.e. there’s no DNA, no specific chromosome, etc. that is a specific marker for homosexuality. In fact, the literature now seems to be suggesting that the etiology is more complex. There appear to be two somewhat independent factors that are linked to homosexuality; neonatal brain trauma (which can occur as late as delivery), and hormonal imbalances during pregnancy. Interestingly, both of these are also causative factors for left-handedness. If these are determined to be the primary causes of homosexuality, we can then say that heterosexuality is, in fact, “hard-wired”, but that there are occasions when that wiring is tampered with prenatally; in effect, “re-wired” before birth. In twin pregnancies, both fetuses are at greater risk (due to crowding); this would explain the observation that there is a 20% chance of homosexuality in the twin of a homosexual without involving genetics. Again, left-handedness is more common in twins for the same reason; it’s not genetics – it’s the fact that two fetuses are struggling in a constrained environment.
The following is by no means a complete list of the literature, but should give a sense of the direction of current thinking. Some of the papers referenced are in fact somewhat neutral themselves (in the context of a nature vs. nuture debate), but offer insights into some of the other developments.
Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology
Archives of Neurology; 1985 Jun;42(6):521-52. Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A.M.
This article explains that differences in maturation rates between the cerebral hemishpheres is mediated by circulating testosterone levels, and that sexual maturation acts to hold the hemispheres at different stages in development.
A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men
Science, 30 August 1991: Vol. 253. no. 5023, pp. 1034 – 1037; S. LeVay
“This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.”
Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1992, Vol 89, 7199-7202; Allen, LS and Gorski, RA
“The anterior commissure, a fiber tract that is larger in its midsagittal area in women than in men, was examined in 90 postmortem brains from homosexual men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. The midsagittal plane of the anterior commissure in homosexual men was 18% larger than in heterosexual women and 34% larger than in heterosexual men. This anatomical difference, which correlates with gender and sexual orientation, may, in part, underlie differences in cognitive function and cerebral lateralization among homosexual men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Moreover, this finding of a difference in a structure not known to be related to reproductive functions supports the hypothesis that factors operating early in development differentiate sexually dimorphic structures and functions of the brain, including the anterior commissure and sexual orientation, in a global fashion.”
This paper is interesting in that it appears to support the Geschwind-Galaburda hypothesis, an important paper that explains sex differences in cognitive abilities by relating them to lateralization of cerebral functions. The basic idea is that differences in maturation rates between the cerebral hemishpheres is mediated by circulating testosterone levels, and that sexual maturation acts to hold the hemispheres at different stages in development.
Biological and psychosocial determinants of male and female human sexual orientation.
J Biosoc Sci. 2005 Sep;37(5):555-67; William James
“Male bisexuals also are interpreted to have been exposed to high prenatal testosterone levels.”
Brain research, gender and sexual orientation
Journal of Homosexuality 1995; 28(3-4):283-301. Swaab DF, Gooren LJ, Hofman MA.
“However, in a sample of brains of homosexual men we did find that an area of the hypothalamus called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) contains twice as many cells as the SCN of a heterosexual group.”
Comparison of the auditory systems of heterosexuals and homosexuals: Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; 1998 March, Vol. 95, No. 5, pp. 2709-2713; Dennis McFadden, Ph.D. et al
“A parsimonious explanation is that the auditory systems of homosexual and bisexual females, and the brain structures responsible for their sexual orientation, have been partially masculinized by exposure to high levels of androgens prenatally.”
Relationships Among Childhood Sex-Atypical Behavior, Spatial Ability, Handedness, and Sexual Orientation in Men
Archives of Sexual Behavior 2002; Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 129143, Kenneth M. Cohen, Ph.D.
Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; July 11, 2006, vol. 103, no. 28; Anthony F. Bogaert
“The most consistent biodemographic correlate of sexual orientation in men is the number of older brothers (fraternal birth order). The mechanism underlying this effect remains unknown. In this article, I provide a direct test pitting prenatal against postnatal (e.g., social/rearing) mechanisms. Four samples of homosexual and heterosexual men (total n = 944), including one sample of men raised in nonbiological and blended families (e.g., raised with half- or step-siblings or as adoptees) were studied. Only biological older brothers, and not any other sibling characteristic, including nonbiological older brothers, predicted men’s sexual orientation, regardless of the amount of time reared with these siblings. These results strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect.”
Denbeau –
Thank you for these references. At this holy time, I’m not going to engage in controversy, but will be studying and considering. A most blessed Triduum to all who read this.
Words Matter, I thank you for your reflection. Even though we may differ on some substantial issues, we must never forget that it is the love shown by God through Jesus, and the sacrifice made – which we remember at this time – that draws us all together, now and through all time.