From the (Greensboro, NC) News & Record of Sunday, October 16, 2011
For the record, it should be noted that a majority of the Republican-controlled legislature did not vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; rather, the majority voted to allow us—the voters—to decide the question. Yet, since mid-September, the assembly’s action has been denounced in the media as mean-spirited, stupid, bigoted, un-American, benighted, ugly, discriminatory, reprehensible, extreme, and of course, homophobic.
Rhetorical questions arise: Why has there been no outcry from those among us who blather on and on about diplomacy, coalition-building, unity, and consensus? Why have there been so few, if any, condemnations of such “harsh” and “divisive” language? Where are the self-proclaimed champions of “democracy” who, in other contexts, insist on a vote of the people? Alas, the questions are rhetorical because the answers are obvious.
Incidentally, gay marriage is constitutionally banned in thirty states. Are we to believe, as the writers above suggest, that the majority of citizens in the majority of states are stupid, bigoted homophobes?
At least we can rest assured that objective journalists will report the story fairly. On September 15, for example, the headline of an Associated Press article screamed, “GOP gets slammed for the 3-day session.” The first sentence of the article delivered the straight-down-the-middle, objective fact that “the Republican majority took criticism from all fronts for getting a constitutional question on gay marriage on the ballot next spring,” among other things. This is, of course, factually incorrect. Among social conservatives—which are, as far as AP writers are concerned, as alien as extraterrestrial beings–the assembly’s move drew robust applause.
The AP delivered another straight-down-the-middle, objective piece of journalism on Oct. 1. The headline reads, “NC poll: Majority oppose ban on same-sex marriage.” Not until the third paragraph does the AP grudgingly concede that the Elon University poll in question “doesn’t suggest whether the constitutional amendment will pass or fail when voters decide in May because [the poll] doesn’t survey eligible or likely voters.” The headline, then, is misleading, at best.
Equally misleading, and often downright flimsy, have been the arguments of those who oppose the amendment. In a September op-ed, Bob Page of Replacements Ltd. wrote about the amendment, “I do not know what the outcome of a vote might be, but I am sure that the lead-up will be ugly and divisive, a black eye on our state.”
By the same logic, we never should have engaged, a half-century ago, in the debate over civil rights, which was indeed “ugly and divisive, a black eye on our state.” Must we avoid working toward a resolution of all potentially inflammatory issues? If so, we will resolve virtually nothing.
Many writers have pointed out, correctly, that gay marriage is already prohibited in North Carolina. Consequently, they argue, an amendment is unnecessary, and the general assembly is simply being mean-spirited and bigoted, lashing out at the gay and lesbian community. But this argument won’t work, either: A few years ago, gay marriage was prohibited in Iowa, until state judges overturned the law and imposed same-sex marriage on unsuspecting Iowans.
Governor Perdue says she opposes the amendment because it will cause North Carolina to lose jobs, but there is no evidence to support her claim. Quite the contrary: Washington, D.C. allows same-sex marriage, but its unemployment rate is 11.1 percent; North Dakota does not allow gay marriage, but its unemployment rate is only 3.5 percent. Rhode Island allows same sex marriage, and its unemployment rate is 10.6 percent; Louisiana prohibits same-sex marriage, and its unemployment rate is 7.2 percent.
Opponents of gay marriage often buttress their arguments with Biblical passages, which are not only unlikely to persuade gay rights activists, but also certain to draw spittle-sprayed rebuttals from enraged moral anarchists. Equally persuasive, yet less alienating is the concept of natural law, which forbids homosexual acts.
Natural law is the accumulated wisdom of centuries of human experience. It has been defended and championed by the likes of Plato, Cicero, Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke, and Russell Kirk. Natural law, Blackstone wrote, “is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, and all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”
It may be perceived in some quarters as mean-spirited and extreme to say so, but attempting to overthrow centuries of accumulated wisdom in order to implement a sudden, radical change in society—such as gay marriage—is a breathtaking act of arrogance.
Charles Davenport Jr. (cdavenportjr@hotmail.com) appears in the News & Record the first and third Sundays of every month.
Charles is dead right. The social leftist spin masters are pathetically defining the debate with all their deceptive noise. This effort to define marriage in NC WILL be approved by the voters, and it will NOT harm a single homosexual or cut one job.
If anything, making our state safer from the activists that are attempting to take away our freedoms of religion and free speech, will HELP our economic and social climate.
A few thoughts:
1) “Governor Perdue says she opposes the amendment because it will cause North Carolina to lose jobs”
-No, she said she opposes the amendment because it’s a distraction from the issue of jobs. Your following paragraph has nothing to do with her reasons.
2) “the concept of natural law, which forbids homosexual acts.”
-More arrogant than implementing a sudden, radical change is the claim that you know the specific content of the natural law. Show me a passage from any of the authors you cited that talks about homosexuality in terms of natural law. That’s not what the term is about.
And anyway, you’re confusing several different conceptions of natural law. The natural law that is “superior in obligation to any other” and “binding over all the globe” is unknowable in its entirety, but is revealed piece by piece as centuries of wisdom accumulate. The accumulated wisdom itself is an approximation, hopefully, of this natural law.
If the accumulated wisdom is to conform to natural law, then, it must be flexible, not rigid. Surely some of our received wisdom is wrong? Would you admit this possibility? (If not, at what point did our understanding become perfect?) Our institutions must therefore have feedback mechanisms that tell us when they do not comport with the natural law. The best way to discover natural law is experimentation – i.e., freedom to prove the received wisdom wrong. If it’s wrong, freedom will have been a beneficial discovery process. If it’s right, the experiments will fail, and we’ll know not to conduct those same ones in the future.
The amendment, then, far from being an expression of the natural law, rigidifies our received wisdom in a way that makes it immune to feedback. The Biblical arguments to public policy are flawed, but this “natural law” argument is just laughable.
Rob, do you not believe in natural law? Do you think incest/pedophilia/polygamy should be allowed, too? Wouldn’t they be instances of our silly old traditions needing to be fixed? Let’s talk about arrogance. It’s not arrogant at all to suggest that you know how we can ‘fix’ marriage, an institution that has been around for thousands of years (read the Justinian Code). The experience of human societies over thousands of years does not matter, all that matters is your personal desire. Well, fine, in a pluralistic society people disagree- and then, in a republic, they vote. Go convince the people you are right to want to redefine this institution. You won’t do this, of course; you’ll simply denounce them as reactionary lunatics, and perhaps morally equivalent to racists (even though it is likely that huge majorities of black voters will vote ‘yes’ on the measure).
I believe in gay marriage because I want to get married with someone since I have found not lately yet. I am not lucky at all. But, I know one day I will find one. I believe God has prepared one for me, the right one, who is Mr. Right, and I want a good man and a wonderful man who believes in God and who is not a prostitute, not a drug addict, a healthy man who has not been sexually abused, an intelligent man, a man who is not given to beers, a man who is not bisexual, a man who is firm and formal, tranquil, good man, who knows what he wants, and is ready to be married with me, and a man who is not a gangster, and a man who is clean, and pure, and a man who is realistic, and a man of God, a man who can respect me and a man who does not smoke. This is the type of man I want. I want gay marriage for me. The majority of gays men are sexually abused and I forgive them just in the case of these gays who have gathered to marry so fast. I believe that natural gays are few. That’s it. For me, it is impressive. I believe in gay marriage and support gay marriage for my sake and not for their sake or your sakes or their sakes.
Mike P, forgive me for intruding here with you. I just want to let you know. Polygamy is sin now. But, it was not counted sin when God commanded Abraham to take Hagar as her concubine whom God promised Abraham to multiply his descendants as the stars of the sands that no man can count. Abraham was special in that case. David was not respected by God like Abraham. Anyway. Pedophile, is a sin that God abominates. God hates these things. Incest is against the law of God, because God is immutable and incest is against the body of Christ and the sacrament for this reason Jesus Christ came to die to give his body for us. Read the bible. That’s all what you need so that you judge not that you be not judged.
I consider myself a natural gay.