Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Gay Marriage
Recently pundits and others have noted that President Obama is reluctant to commit himself on this issue. He says his opinion is evolving. Of course, he's in a political tight spot. The issue divides the public into three parts: those who strongly favor gay marriage, those who strongly oppose it, and those who don't care.
For a long time I was in the third category. I married a wonderful woman in 1950 and we lived together until the end in 2007. During that whole period the thought that the marriage of same-sex couples might be a threat to our marriage never crossed my mind. In recent years, when the concept has become a hot item politically, I have moved toward the "favor" camp. Actally, I care a lot more about what the Republicans would like to do about social security and medicare than I do about gay marriage. My attitude is that since it has great importance to gay people and poses no threat to anyone else, I favor allowing it to exist.
I once asked an Episcopal priest whether he would "marry" a gay couple. He said that the Book of Common Prayer has no ceremony for marrying two people of the same sex, and therefore he couldn't do it. He would be pleased, however, to bless the union of a gay couple. The Book of Common Prayer has blessings for everything. There is a lesbian couple who attend the church that I do and they are raising two adopted children. The children also attend the church. When I first started attending the church, one of them approached me and introduced herself and made sure that I understood that she and her partner were lesbians. Naturally I was pleased and flattered that she would make a point of introducing herself to me and welcoming me to the congregation.
For a long time I was in the third category. I married a wonderful woman in 1950 and we lived together until the end in 2007. During that whole period the thought that the marriage of same-sex couples might be a threat to our marriage never crossed my mind. In recent years, when the concept has become a hot item politically, I have moved toward the "favor" camp. Actally, I care a lot more about what the Republicans would like to do about social security and medicare than I do about gay marriage. My attitude is that since it has great importance to gay people and poses no threat to anyone else, I favor allowing it to exist.
I once asked an Episcopal priest whether he would "marry" a gay couple. He said that the Book of Common Prayer has no ceremony for marrying two people of the same sex, and therefore he couldn't do it. He would be pleased, however, to bless the union of a gay couple. The Book of Common Prayer has blessings for everything. There is a lesbian couple who attend the church that I do and they are raising two adopted children. The children also attend the church. When I first started attending the church, one of them approached me and introduced herself and made sure that I understood that she and her partner were lesbians. Naturally I was pleased and flattered that she would make a point of introducing herself to me and welcoming me to the congregation.
Labels: Book of Common Prayer, gay marriage, lesbian couples
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Justice Antonin Scalia
Leslie Stahl interviewed Justice Antonin Scalia tonight on the program SIXTY MINUTES. The judge comes across in the interview as a pleasant, likeable fellow who loves an argument. He knows that his opinion is the right one and smiles when he says it. Clearly he expects an attempt at rebuttal.
Anyway, leaving aside his personality and his personal friendship with people with whom he disagrees, I believe he has a mistaken idea of the federal constitution. To him the constitution is not a "living" document. It is a "dead" document, and must be interpreted according to the original meaning of the words and the language at the time each part of the constitution was adopted. He is, in his own words, an originalist, or one who believes that the original intent of the writers is the compelling interpretation.
I beg to differ. My father used to tell me that the constitution is a means to an end, not the end in itself. It is a means to achieve a more perfect union and an effective, representative government. The constitution should be reinterpreted in terms of what the framers would decide now, if they were somehow magically brought back to life. The framers were practical men. If they were alive now, there would be some women among them. Justice Scalia himself stated that the opening phrase "We, the people" had a different meaning in 1787 from what it has today. The phrase would not have included Leslie Stahl, or any of the slaves then living, or, in fact, anyone who did not own property.
To be fair, Justice Scalia believes that change in our way of life, our values, etc., should take place by State legislatures enacting laws. The constitution has no reference to abortion, homosexuality, or gay marriage. If a State wants to legalize gay marriage, it can do so. If a State wants to permit, forbid, or regulate abortions, it can do so. If it wants to permit or punish homosexual behavior, it can do so. To extend what I believe to be his philosophy, the federal courts should not be viewed as the last refuge of persons seeking an end to unfair and discriminatory treatment, except in so far as various amendments have been adopted to assure that every man and woman has the right to vote, has the right to free speech, etc.
It seems to me that an important consequence of Justice Scalia's thinking eliminates the legal principle of precedent, or stare decisis. Most legal scholars believe that a previous decision by the Supreme Court has the same legal standing as the constitution itself. The court interprets the constitution for the rest of us. To Scalia, a wrong decision made by the court ten, fifty, or two hundred years ago is still wrong and should be reversed. Actually, I should say a decision he believes to have been wrong should be reversed.
Mr. Scalia is an entertaining and likeable fellow. However, I would not like to have eight other justices just like him on the Court.
Anyway, leaving aside his personality and his personal friendship with people with whom he disagrees, I believe he has a mistaken idea of the federal constitution. To him the constitution is not a "living" document. It is a "dead" document, and must be interpreted according to the original meaning of the words and the language at the time each part of the constitution was adopted. He is, in his own words, an originalist, or one who believes that the original intent of the writers is the compelling interpretation.
I beg to differ. My father used to tell me that the constitution is a means to an end, not the end in itself. It is a means to achieve a more perfect union and an effective, representative government. The constitution should be reinterpreted in terms of what the framers would decide now, if they were somehow magically brought back to life. The framers were practical men. If they were alive now, there would be some women among them. Justice Scalia himself stated that the opening phrase "We, the people" had a different meaning in 1787 from what it has today. The phrase would not have included Leslie Stahl, or any of the slaves then living, or, in fact, anyone who did not own property.
To be fair, Justice Scalia believes that change in our way of life, our values, etc., should take place by State legislatures enacting laws. The constitution has no reference to abortion, homosexuality, or gay marriage. If a State wants to legalize gay marriage, it can do so. If a State wants to permit, forbid, or regulate abortions, it can do so. If it wants to permit or punish homosexual behavior, it can do so. To extend what I believe to be his philosophy, the federal courts should not be viewed as the last refuge of persons seeking an end to unfair and discriminatory treatment, except in so far as various amendments have been adopted to assure that every man and woman has the right to vote, has the right to free speech, etc.
It seems to me that an important consequence of Justice Scalia's thinking eliminates the legal principle of precedent, or stare decisis. Most legal scholars believe that a previous decision by the Supreme Court has the same legal standing as the constitution itself. The court interprets the constitution for the rest of us. To Scalia, a wrong decision made by the court ten, fifty, or two hundred years ago is still wrong and should be reversed. Actually, I should say a decision he believes to have been wrong should be reversed.
Mr. Scalia is an entertaining and likeable fellow. However, I would not like to have eight other justices just like him on the Court.
Labels: 60 MINUTES, abortion, Antonin Scalia, gay marriage, judicial precedent, Leslie Stahl, original intent, Supreme Court
