I am pleasantly surprised by this statement from Cardinal Mahoney of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Cardinal Mahoney is not usually known for making strong statements on what are usually considered “social conservative” issues. “Social justice” issues, yes. But life and marriage– not as much. So listen to this:
Today it was announced that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker has ruled that Proposition 8 which was enacted by the People of California is unconstitutional. His decision fails to deal with the basic, underlying issue–rather he focused solely upon individual testimony on how Prop 8 affected them personally. Wrong focus. Read more…
Philosophy professor and prolific author Dr. Ed Feser has a lenghthy post on the Prop 8 overturn. I’m just picking out some highlights. I suggest you read the whole thing. The dialogue in the comments is worth looking at also.
1. Judge Walker’s decision, he tells us, is based on the principle that the state ought not to “enforce ‘profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles’” or to “mandate [its] own moral code.” But that is, of course, precisely what Walker himself has done. …What we’re seeing here is just one more application of the fraudulent principle of “liberal neutrality,” by which the conceit that liberal policy is neutral between the moral and metaphysical views competing within a pluralistic society provides a smokescreen for the imposition of a substantive liberal moral worldview, on all citizens, by force…. Read more…
No, I didn’t write it. Someone who calls herself Jane Galt wrote it. It is really, really good. I will just quote the beginning. You should really read the whole thing. Here goes:
A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the otherUnlike most libertarians, I don’t have an opinion on gay marriage, and I’m not going to have an opinion no matter how much you bait me. However, I had an interesting discussion last night with another libertarian about it, which devolved into an argument about a certain kind of liberal/libertarian argument about gay marriage that I find really unconvincing. Read more…
I want to thank Ari Mendelson for finding and posting this very important 22 minute video on the history of political correctness. And I want to thanks the Free Congress Foundation for making this.
This video is important to the Ruth Institute because it shows the connection between Marxism and the Sexual Revolution. Marxism has failed as an economic ideology, but it’s adherents have not given up. In fact, this video shows that some Marxists realized as early as the 1920’s that capitalism was a successful economic system. Therefore, the working class was not likely to rise up against the capitalist class. (Listen especially around the 6 minute mark.) These Marxist theorists began looking for another class to play the revolutionary role that traditional Marxism had assigned to the working class.
They found the answer to that dilemma in what we would now call the Sexual Revolution. Read more…
Ed Feser has a provocative article about scientism, which he defines this way: Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. His critique is that Despite its adherents’ pose of rationality, scientism has a serious problem: it is either self-refuting or trivial.
Take the first horn of this dilemma. The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim, Read more…
Social critic Lee Harris scores great points in his analysis of the Tea Party movement. Though his analysis is indirect: he is critiquing David Brooks’ analysis. But, Harris leaves no doubt where he stands.
Here we come to the most puzzling aspect of David Brooks’s column. Why did he feel the need to make his derisive and gratuitous reference to Wal-Mart shoppers? The answer appears to be that Brooks is engaged in a sly argumentum ad hominem. He is attacking the Tea Party movement by pointing out that those who sympathize with it are likely to shop at Wal-Mart. Now, as a sociological observation, there may be an element of truth in this contention. But it is also possible to take the remark as a not terribly subtle appeal to his reader’s latent (or not so latent) snobbery. After all, what could be more déclassé than shopping at Wal-Mart? It is a bit as if David Brooks had winked at his sophisticated Read more…
One of my facebook buddies (actually one of our Ruth Institute alumni) is going back and forth about my post on the Washington Archdiocese from a couple of days ago. I posted a reply to them, but thought regular ruth readers might be interested in this issue.
Here is the quote from my original post:
“According to the Washington Post, at the end of civil marriage ceremonies judges will say ‘I now pronounce you legally married,’ Read more…
The Prop 8 Trial and the New Theory of Politics
“They reject the political determination of will by the people… the idea that the act of voting is an act of national will is decisively rejected. The plebiscite is to express and enforce the concordance between the objective will of the people embodied in the (leader) and the subjective convictions of the people. The plebiscite is a declaration of loyalty…, not an announcement of an individual’s will.” From The New Science of Politics, by Eric Voegelin.
Since the beginning of my involvement in the same sex marriage debate, I have tried to explain the wider ramifications of removing gender from marriage. Ted Read more…
More from Douglas Farrow’s Touchstone article. BTW, the book he references, A Nation of Bastards is available from the Ruth Institute Reading List, along with a bunch of other good books. I have been making this point for some time: the immediate impact of same sex marriage is very far from its full long-run impact, very much as “reducing the cost of divorce for people in bad marriages,” was a long way from being the main impact or final impact of eliminating the fault basis for divorce. Read more…
Douglas Farrow makes the argument that far from having “separation of church and state,” the modern world has acheived precisely the opposite. By melding the functions of civil society into the state, the state has become de facto, the religion of the society, and one that brooks no opposition. The two major area where this has occurred are the natural family and the religious community.
The natural family unit confronts the state as an entity that claims rights not granted by the state but brought to it—rights the lawful state is obliged to recognize and respect. The religious community likewise claims rights and liberties that derive from a source other than the state, a source that transcends and relativizes the state…. Read more…
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Gene blogs about the New Mexico wedding photographer who refused to photograph a same sex commitment ceremony. She had argued that she has a First Amendment right to refuse to produce a creative work. Being compelled to film a ceremony that she disapproves of on moral grounds, she argued, amounted to a compulsion of speech. The Court ruled against her. Gene notes how broad this ruling really is:
note the breadth of the court’s reasoning: It applies not just to photographers, but also to the musicians, composers, graphic designers, film editors, and other creators that the court mentioned earlier in the opinion. It would also apply to freelancers who write press releases, advertising copy, and so on. And I take it that it would also apply to bookstores, movie theaters, and other such distributors of others’ works; the authors and filmmakers aren’t “clients” of such distributors, but still the distributors’ “final message is not [their] own,” and they are “really a conduit” for others’ work.
I have been saying for some time that the movement to legalize same sex marriage and to normalize same sex behavior carries in it wake a vast increase in the power of the state. Volokh generally supports gay rights, but is deeply troubled by this expansion of the state. I personally don’t think it is possible to have one without the other, except perhaps, on the chalkboard in a law school class. But enough about me. See his other posts, here, here and here.
A Japanese man married a video game character. Those of you who think marriage is whatever we say it is: is this man validly married to an imaginary animated character? He sounds for all the world like same sex marriage advocates when he looks forward wistfully to the day when anyone can marry anyone they love. So, what is wrong with this picture?
H/T Tony Listi, via Facebook
Loading ...
