Philosophers in 90 Minutes (Part Three)

     In St. Augustine in 90 Minutes (1997), Paul Strathern comes right out and admits that the Bishop of Hippo was most likely the brightest Western mind between the death of Aristotle and the birth of Thomas Aquinas.  Unfortunately, he spends much of the limited space in the book lamenting that Augustine spend a fair amount of time trying to stamp out or refute heresies and cults instead of advancing thought beyond the strictures of the Church.  The end result is that Strathern comes off more mean-spirited than joking in his tone.
     There is plenty of worthwhile information in the small tome, but this is one that Strathern would have been well suited to farm out to another writer.  It isn't just because he clearly has an axe to grind against the Church for restricting philosophy for over a thousand years, though that has certainly put off many who have read this.  No, Strathern should have had someone else write this because he couldn't be bothered to put in the work to separate the philosophy of Augustine from Plato or the Church, deciding instead that it was just the merging of Platonic ideas with Christian theology.

     Strathern tries to be a little too cute in Thomas Aquinas in 90 Minutes (1998).  He tells the story of young Thomas' quest to become a philosopher-monk as though it were a truthful fairytale.  It does much to humanize Thomas and take some of the severity out of the era, but it is not a solid foundation upon which to explain the contributions he made to Christian philosophy (and what would come to be known as Thomism).  It is also weird that the picture on the cover doesn't show the cow-eyed, pot-bellied figure described in the book. 
      Strathern decides to spend his energy describing the connective tissues between Aristotle and Aquinas rather than allowing Thomas to have any ideas of his own.  Maybe that is accurate, but it feels like Strathern is still grinding an axe against the Catholic Church and wanting to keep philosophy as something that can only be infected by religion.
     It isn't a bad read; I think it does a fine job of giving a rough overview of Thomas Aquinas in short order.  But it is another one where Strathern was likely not the best choice to have as the author.

Why Can't the Americans...

     Close to a decade ago, a co-worker of mine quipped "Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?", borrowing that from the Lerner & Lowe musical My Fair Lady (1956).  He was making a veiled racist statement that African-Americans simply refused to learn how to speak better American English.  Not that the overall message is much different.  Henry Higgins is espousing a harsh form of elitism based upon conformity to an elocution.  One's worth based on how well can speak, and an abandonment of any heritage hidden in speech patterns or word choice.
      But this isn't about that.  This is about how Americans – my people – and how we seem to refuse to learn how to separate that which we wish to be true from the actual examination of facts at hand to arrive at a consensus of truth.  This is apparent whenever there is some sort of artificial dichotomy forced upon, say in an election or in the discussion of religion.  The American, it would seem, is of the mind that one can simply decide to create a fact out of belief; it is in his or her nature.  This is not some sort of mere belief, but some construct the American has come to believe to be core not just to his or her own experience, but to existence itself.
     Why can't the Americans teach their children how to approach the world rationally, with respect for reason and a sublimation of personal inclinations?  Maybe that sounds as impossibly biased as Professor Higgins.  But there is something that diminishes us all in the American rush to abandon judgment.
     Recent things that have troubled me include the following (some of them are the same person):

• A stubborn refusal to see how asking someone for identification before allowing them to vote is an example of an illegal search & seizure.
• A stubborn refusal to believe that gun control laws exist because there are ways to purchase guns without abiding them.
• Someone with an open mind as to whether on not the Moon Landings were faked.  Seriously.  There is absolutely no evidence (other than the will to believe) that we spent billions of dollars, employed the best scientists, and risked many lives in an effort to do something magnificent (at the time just for America) for humanity.
• The belief that hating people can be justified because it is out of love, and the desire to save these people being hated from burning in Hell.  
• The wonderment over just where our tax dollars go.  (Seriously, that information – save some classified spending – is readily available with just a small amount of research.)
• A woman on CNN, representing the stay-at-home mother who decided that the values she was representing were tied to destroying the EPA, unions, and access to affordable healthcare.  Someone else's talking points are not knowledge, lady.

That's the thing, though.  We, the American people, don't want to do the work, the research to find out those things we just want to doubt.  We don't want to confront our prejudices with reason.  We don't want to doubt our convictions, because they don't.  And they hate us.  Except, of course, that they and us are the same group of people: Americans.
     When there isn't room for reasonable discussion, for reasoned examination of the world we encounter, there is only belief.  But what is the point?  That belief relates to nothing.  It is an empty thing, useful only for the beating of one's chest and shouting the other down.  And that just eats away at our collective soul.
     Well, if you suffered through that, enjoy some good entertainment.

Doubt (2008)

     Doubt (2008) is the kind of film that I make a weak effort to see in the theater, fully comfortable in the fact that I will eventually see it at home.  It is what I really should be watching, but I am just too damn comfortable watching crap. Why take the time to watch something that invites me to think?  There are times when most of us like to be able to just have a movie play out without having to worry about it ever deviating from formula, but it is important to remember that thinking is good.  It is the defense against an endless and enduring stream of crap.
     Not that Doubt is the most demanding film to watch.  There is a smooth, sensible progression of the plot.  The characters are largely defined through their roles, with their personalities being defined more to show the contrasts between them and the range of humanity within the Church.  The conflict is intensely personal, avoiding the larger implications in direct presentation, but wholly engaging the audience to explore the implications of both the personal rivalries and damages covered up by the Church for such a long time.

     It isn't as though I did my homework and read or saw Doubt: A Parable (2004) before seeing the movie.  I read it shortly after seeing the film, but that sort of spoils the experience.  The dialogue takes on the cadence and rhythm of the actors who performed it, leaving the reader to simply remember the lines and scenes rather than to experience them anew.  But what it did allow was for me to better appreciate how John Patrick Shanley expanded his Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award winning play.  The film has no need to be as sparse or constricting as the play, and it brings extra life to it to have the children, other sisters and priests, and parishioners inhabit the same space as the essential characters. 
     I am positive that many qualified critics have dissected, critiques, and (largely) praised Doubt.  I am not going to lie.  I don't want to invest the time to even attempt to do that.  I am just going to encourage those who have not seen the movie or play (or read the play) to make time for it.  And to not be afraid of thinking.  Because one cannot question without thinking, and once cannot have doubt without questioning. 

The Shunning (2011)

     Okay.  The worst thing – for me – about this DVD was the (seemingly) 20 trailers for faith-themed movies that seem to insult religious convictions and film-making, or at least a reminder that some actors don't get much work these days.  Or, in one instance, that Doris Roberts is a more bankable star than Jewel Staite.  That may be true, but I'll forever hold out hope that Staite finally breaks through in a TV show co-starring fellow BC native Katharine Isabelle (they've worked together plenty of times in the past, but never on anything very good).  Enough about Jewel Staite.
      The Shunning (2011) isn't really in my wheelhouse.  Actually, if former co-worker and irregular contributor to this blog Silence Do Nothing hadn't shown an odd fascination with the Amish, I'm certain I would have never considered watching this.  Now, if Danielle Panabaker had become the live action Kim Possible [as was rumored around the time she did Sky High (2005)], I'm sure I would more interest in following her career.  But since I tend to think of her as the girl who gets a rather ignominious death in The Crazies (2010), she just doesn't stir much interest for me.  Nor is seeing Sherry Stringfield, who I really must assume regrets walking away from ER (1994-2009) in 1996 when she was one of the stars and culturally relevant.
     What does that leave me?  With a moderately well produced (if we accept that only one movie has ever done the Amish beard justice, and this isn't it) TV movie that doesn't feel the need to faithfully represent Amish culture or faith.  That is probably just as well, because it isn't like the Amish are going to see it and complain.  But with all of the clearly 'Christian' themed movies previewed on the disk, it struck me as odd that the faith an customs of the Amish were things to be overcome with singing and shopping.  I would like to think that these were handled better in the book, but again, it isn't like the Amish are going to fact check it.
     To go ahead and spoil this (seriously, if you've read my blog, you aren't going to watch The Shunning), the actual shunning gets ignored by the multiple members of the Amish community because, sometimes, there are problems that are just too big for the old ways.  I'd like to think that attitude would bring electricity in to a shared building so that dairy could bet kept from spoiling, but the movie wants it to be an excuse to love an adopted child and member of the community so much that they'll forgo their faith for her.  And apparently the Amish community is rife with secrets.  Because they are, at heart, a strange and devious people, right?
     As much as I was offended by how The Shunning dealt with the Amish, I still enjoyed it more than The Road (2009).  There is something to be said for having a story that at least goes somewhere.  And that ends much sooner.
    

Red State (2011)

     Kevin Smith's Red State (2011) stands as a near perfect example of how not to tell a story in film.  From its awkward imposed monologues to insert expository material to its inconsistent, schizophrenic emotional tone, to its thorough lack of any point or entertainment value as a whole, this movie is an unabashed disaster.  That is not to say that there have not been worse movies made, but I seriously doubt the directors of those have been as smug or self-satisfied as Smith seems to be with his own work.  If I were more generous, I could point out that Smith could have broken this into three separate films – each of which would have allowed for traditional storytelling or plot structure – and been better off for it.  His attempt to mash the disparate elements together comes off as amateurish and unimpressive; he should definitely be beyond the first by now.
     The sole bright point of the movie was the character of Cheyenne (Kerry Bishé), who has some depth and meaning beyond the leaden sermons and grindhouse style action sequences.  That writer-director Smith does not know what to do with the character – with any of the characters – may prove that Smith just isn't fit to be making films at this point.  Bishé stands out against the more established actors in being able to depict internal conflict without being obvious or dropping into caricature.  That may just be the writing, or Smith may have just decided that there only needed to be one role that really made the idea of conflicted loyalties and obligations well.  (I don't want to rag on Michael Angarano, an actor I usually enjoy, but he is not given enough to do – and what his character is allowed to do is often poorly shot – and his character feels thoroughly false.)
     There are many bad things I could write about this film, but what's the point?  It has the one bright spot.  Think of it as the cupcake in the pile of shit.  No matter how much you like cupcakes – and if you aren't starving – you aren't going for the one steeped in manure.  There isn't any social commentary here (though I'm sure Smith thinks there is).  It isn't the "actor's catnip" he thinks it is – who would want to be a part of something like this? – and it isn't going to matter in the space of a year.  All Red State did for me was convince me that Smith has no voice past Clerks II (2006).

The 2011-2012 Reading Project to Date (August - December)

     I thought I would give a visual recap of titles covered to date as part of the 2011-2012 Reading Project.  Sure, it is much less loaded with serious titles than the 2010-2011 Reading Project, but it already has more non-fiction titles in the first five months so I have not abandoned hope.  There are quite a few types of fiction covered, too, so I don't feel as though I have locked into just reading types of books.  Sure, there are five Dover Thrift Edition titles in the mix (one quarter of the books read), but they are just so damned affordable.
     Anyway, feel free to comment on any of the titles you may have read and enjoyed (or hated). I feel rather confident that most people will have read at least three of these books.  Or just take note that this would only be six rows of books if I yanked the comic books and graphic novels out.  I would like to say that fourteen of the titles pictured were courtesy of the Forest Park Public Library and another four were borrowed from family members, so the 2011-2012 Reading Project has been quite economical to date.

The Imperial Cruise by James Bradley, Walking the Tightrope of Reason by Robert Foegelin, Great Short Short Stories edited by Paul Negri, and What Jesus Meant by Garry Wills

Conan the Barbarian Michael A. Stackpole, Seinfeld and Philosophy edited by William Irwin, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Naked Heat by Richard Castle

Kremin issues 1-4 by Charles Moissant

A Study in Scarlet by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Ian Edginton, and I.J.N. Culbard, The Beast of Chicago by Rick Geary, and School issues 1-4 by Brian Defferding

Wrath issues 1-7, written by Mike W. Barr, mostly drawn by David Ammerman (Malibu Comics)

The Night Man issues 1-15 (Malibu Comics)

Rousseau's Dog by David Edmonds and John Eidinow, "Cat Calls" by Cynthia Leitich Smith, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, "Rogue Hunter #1 – Gaia: Into the Abyss" by Kevis Hendrickson, and Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Arcadia by Tom Stoppard, The Power and the Glory by Graham Greene, Richard Castle's Deadly Storm by Brian Bendis, Kelly Sue Deconnick, and Lan Medina, Lord of the Flies by William Golding, and The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece by Robert Morkot

The Hellenistic Age by Peter Green, "The New World" by Patrick Ness, The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane, and The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama

The Dead that Walk edited by Stephen Jones, "They" by Vincent Hobbes, The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, The Zombie Survival Guide: Recorded Attacks by Max Brooks, and Blockade Billy by Steven King

The Power and the Glory (1940)

     Back in the mid-1990s I had the good fortune to have a professor who took the GenEd literature course we students took during a summer session – some because it would transfer to real schools, some because they needed credits to get back into real schools, and some because they had no means of taking courses at a real school.  He had us read the standards that the good students read in high school, The Sun Also Rises (1926) and The Great Gatsby (1925) and an insane amount of short stories (I want to say we read 50 for the eight week class).  One of the short stories was "The Destructors" (1954) by Graham Greene.  He strongly encouraged us the read The Power and the Glory (1940) – he couldn't get approval to add it to the approved curriculum.  Strangely, I made no effort to read the novel for about 15 years.
     I don't know that anything I have to say about The Power and the Glory will do it justice.  It is surprisingly good and overcomes the disinterest Greene seems to have in his own characters for the first two chapters.  Sure, I had to actually look up the word "quay" (a wharf or reinforced bank where ships are loaded or unloaded) and had to flashback to how june bugs popped off the kerosene lamps at Owasippe (a Boy Scout camp near Whitehall, MI) in order to understand all of the beetles "exploding" against the walls and lights.  Once Greene seems willing to give some depth to his characters the story becomes alive and urgent. 
     Sadly, I am more than willing to admit my ignorance of the real world situation that lead to priests being outlawed in the state of Tabasco.  Part of me wanted this entire story to be allegorical, but Greene makes (some of) the sins of man into a type of virtue and gives an eloquent voice as to what the sacraments provide.  His Whisky Priest has plenty of time to reflect on the nature of the Church and what he has to offer to them.  There is a role that God plays in their lives, but he doesn't pretend to know what it is.  Those he tends to often have a type of weakness of character, where those who tend to him – non-Catholics all, and one atheist who may be the second most important character in the novel – display the strength of character the Church has not fostered.  Greene both celebrates and condemns the Church at the same time, a remarkable feat.
     There are a few lines/ideas that stuck out for me (and in a relatively short span of pages):
✝ On page 172, Greene's Whisky Priest muses on power and dangers of Love, thinking 'Love is not wrong, but love should be happy and open - it is only wrong when it is secret, unhappy... It can be more unhappy than anything but the loss of God. It is the loss of God. You don't need a penance, my child, you have suffered quite enough,' and to this other, 'Lust is not the worst thing. It is because any day, any time, lust may turn into love that we have to avoid it. And when we love our sin then we are damned indeed.'  Later, the priest allows for Love to be the scariest thing God has to offer.  He would run away from even a glimmer of that kind of force.
✝ On page 182, Greene has one of the best lines ever.  'All the same, it's good to see a priest with a conscience.  It's a sign of evolution'.  In the novel, a schoolteacher offers this biting critique of how the priests used to take what little money the peasants had and denied the children the things they needed to survive for the services of baptism and communion.  The Whisky Priest had finally come to terms with what he needed to do as a man, but he is properly diagnosed as having evolved from a man fleeing the persecution to one who will take seriously his sacred duties (and is hoping for information about one of his benefactors).
✝ On Page 194, on the topic of what is allowable Greene offers, 'A man may want to rape a woman.  Are we to allow it because he wants to?  Suffering is wrong.'  Now this seems pretty straightforward, but the Church – and the Whisky Priest – have argued that suffering in this world may make the blessings of Heavan that much more sweet.  The Lieutenant – the man who has been charged with eliminating the last remaining priest – is presenting what he feels to be a reasonable vision of the future.  There will be law and order, and thus justice.  But there won't be any lies about how there is something to be gained – something noble – in being made to suffer.  Suffering is something that should be abhorred and its causes challenged.  That this type of world needs the priest to be executed is the contradiction that cannot be overcome.
     How good is The Power and the Glory?  I would easily put it in the top 20 books I've ever read (I didn't feel this way in the early chapters).  While I abandoned Cormac McCarthy's The Road (2006) because I felt it was going nowhere – see what happens when books aren't part of a project – I have to imagine that it cannot put humanity, suffering, and the compassion in better light than Green did 66 years earlier.  I cannot imagine this novel making much of an impression on an adolescent and how it may deeply offend Catholics, so it makes sense that it is not a staple of high school literature classes.  But I would definitely recommend that everyone read it. 

The Value of a Citizen as Measured by Sexual Identity (2008)

     If all goes well, Monday's post will be about Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Feminist Utopian novel, Herland (1915).   Rather than fill space with what I planned on using, I thought I would dig up something I wrote in the summer of 2008 (as was required by the class I was taking) that is somewhat related to the idea of discovering the potential of a people forced to exist without full rights (nor full right of participation) in a society.

     A couple of things struck me as I read through this (really just checking for any corrections I needed to make, and I found three so there are probably some I missed).  First, this was only a little over three years ago.  What the hell?  Second, I remember not dedicating a lot of time to this, but it does appear that I did real research.  Lastly, this paper required me to cite in some manner other than APA, which bothers me as I see it now.

The Value of a Citizen as Measured by Sexual Identity

     There have been great strides in tolerance and acceptance regarding the status of homosexuals and homosexuality in America over the last few decades – note that homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental disorder, nor is sodomy specifically targeted as a crime in as many states and municipalities as it had been (sixteen states still have sodomy laws, four of which apply only to same-sex sodomy) – yet the status of gay and lesbian couples remains challenged.  This debate revolves around the notion of what constitutes a marriage, a question that has different answers for the persons involved, the society, and the state.  Indeed, when viewed legally, a marriage is a type of contract between two competent¹, adult individuals that is recognized by the state, and it is at this stage where the limitations as to what the state will recognize becomes problematic.  Some states have tried to alleviate the issue of same-sex marriage by allowing for civil unions (or domestic partnerships) – which must be viewed as somehow inferior to marriage as they have been offered as an alternative after the possibilities of same-sex marriages have been banned by the state (see Massachusetts).  The question then becomes one of what the differences are between civil unions and marriage, and to how they are to be recognized and protected at both the state and federal level.  The deeper question remains one of how the distinction between civil unions and marriage can be reconciled legally and within the ideals laid out in the Constitution.

     At the heart of the debate is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  DOMA was signed into law 21 September, 1996 by President Bill Clinton.  Primarily authored by Rep. Bob Barr (then R-Georgia), DOMA has three functions.  First, it states that no individual state is required to acknowledge the same-sex marriages or civil unions allowed by other states – a problematic solution when contrasted with the full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section 1) of the Constitution.  Second, DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even when allowed and recognized by a state.  Third, DOMA defines marriage in such a manner as to disallow the possibility of same-sex marriages.  Only five states – Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Rhode Island – do not have some kind of law prohibiting same-sex marriage.  Indeed, many states use DOMA as the template by which to ban same-sex marriage at the state level. (“Companies uncover loopholes in N.J. civil union law”)

     The objection to same-sex marriages is not one to be disregarded out of hand.  Marriage has long been defined as being between a man and a woman (ostensibly where both are consenting adults, though this is a more recent occurrence) and thereby establishing the basis of a familial unit capable of having and raising children.  While there has been some limited social stigma associated with those who enter into marriage for reasons other than creating a family – such as for wealth or social position – these have been accepted so long as they were between a man and a woman.  Moreover, there is often a religious component to the objection to homosexuality in general (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27) that has been used as the foundation (if not the entirety) of the objection to same-sex marriages.  Compounding the problem is the long-held belief that homosexuality is a type of sexual perversion, that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children, thus making them unfit to be part of a familial unit.  The more recent incarnation of this is the belief that gays and lesbians raise their children to be homosexuals (this interprets an acceptance of homosexuality as the promotion of homosexuality), and is closely tied to the notion that one’s sexuality is a matter of choice.  Indeed, there is a belief that allowing same-sex marriage would invalidate gender roles – a position tangential to the issue at hand, but one that clearly shows what may be perceived to be at stake by those who object.  While groups like The Family Policy Council of West Virginia use their website to encourage people to make honest friendships with people who disagree with their position (of opposing same sex marriage), they still hold to the notion that they have the ultimate truth, and one that must be shared in love (as that is what Christians do). (“KJV Gift and Award Bible”; “Family Voice: The Official Blog of the Family Council of West Virginia”)

     At the same time, the position of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia is that same sex marriage does hurt traditional marriages.  There is no objection to homosexuals forming a loving commitment with one another given, nor is one directly implied.  What the group believes at stake, however, is the concept of family.  Their belief is that same sex marriage being recognized leads to the position that “their gender, their being...do not matter to the family.”  Their objection is not one of same sex relationships, but an argument that recognition of same sex marriage is an admission of the necessity of eliminating gender roles within the family.  They hold that “[t]he proposition on the table is asking all of us in society to radically and permanently alter our own definition and understanding of family to say that ultimately male and female, husband and wife, do not matter for the family.”  While the merits of these arguments can be debated, it is easy to understand how deeply held beliefs, not just about God and religion, but about themselves, and what constitutes a family, have stirred their passions to rise up and resist same sex marriage. (“Family Voice: The Official Blog of the Family Council of West Virginia”)

     Not surprisingly, if same sex couples are believed to have destroyed the roles necessary within a family, there is going to be an objection to same sex couples raising children, and specifically adopting children.  The Family Policy Council of West Virginia posts information supporting their belief that not only are the children of homosexual parents more likely to self-identify as homosexual, but that the scientists who have reported “no differences” between children raised by heterosexual and homosexual parents are serving a pro-homosexual agenda.  The Family Policy Council of West Virginia specifically cites the work of Dr. Trayce Hansen, a clinical and forensic psychologist whose career is largely dedicated to revealing the pro-homosexual agenda in many studies regarding children being raised by openly homosexual parents as opposed to those raised by “others.”  Dr. Hansen alleges that children raised by openly gay parents are between four and ten times more likely to identify themselves as “other than heterosexual” as adults.  While this may reflect a genetic component to homosexuality or a more realistic representation of actual homosexuality – people who are not taught to fear or object to the notion of homosexuality are less likely to deny it if they themselves are homosexuals – even Dr. Hansen reports that the existing work in the field is not clear enough to draw any substantive conclusions.

     A necessary question in the debate over the value of same sex marriage is if one’s sexuality can be determined by choice.  There are certainly those who argue that this has been established.  As listed on Conservapedia: “The trustworthy encyclopedia”:

In respect to the issue of homosexuality and choice, given the existence of ex-homosexuals and given the existence of human cultures where homosexuality has apparently not existed, the position that homosexuality is ultimately a choice in individuals or at the very least can be a choice in individuals has strong evidential support. In addition, given that the homosexual population has significantly higher rates of many diseases and the homosexual population also has significantly lower rates of various measures of mental health it can be strongly argued that engaging in homosexual acts is a bad choice for individuals. Another other factor that makes engaging in homosexual acts a bad choice for individuals is the significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual couples. (“Homosexuality and Choice”)

The Conservapedia does not provide any evidence to support these assertions.  Instead, it appears to be content to provide a platform to beliefs that many conservatives already have.  The site does attempt to further define the issue.

In addition, a distinction is made between choosing to have homosexual desires and choosing to engage in homosexual sex acts. And there are other aspects of choice to homosexuality. One can decide the following aspects: whether or not to believe that homosexual acts are detrimental to one's immortal soul, emotional well-being or physical health and one can also obviously choose whether to enter into a homosexual relationship or not. Obviously one must use wisdom and also do diligence in regards to these matters. For example, the Bible condemns homosexuality and sound Bible exegesis reveals this matter. (“Homosexuality and Choice”)

With the choice being so tied to religious beliefs, it would appear that Conservapedia is not particularly interested in scientific studies, or even case studies, of homosexuality and choice.  The fact that homosexuality can be defined both as orientation (sexual desire of members of the same sex) and activity does little to alleviate the problem.  While it is entirely possible for a person to make the attempt to not act on his or her sexual desires in toto, that does not address whether that person should, or even if doing so is more healthy than acting on impulses found objectionable by others wholly not involved in their formation or resolution.

     Unresolved by the idea that sexuality is a choice is the question as to if one can choose his or her sexual orientation, is it valid to penalize (socially, legally, and economically) an orientation?   Does it not violate the basic tenet of equal protection under the law for all citizens?  Is it ever acceptable to penalize behavior that is nominally pro-social?  Perhaps this is one of the enduring reasons why homosexuals are presented as being against society, and that in developing their own sub-culture (a counter-culture according to those who strongly object to it), they have clearly demonstrated their collective lack of respect for the heterosexual majority.  However, is there truly such a thing as a gay or homosexual subculture, or is this merely a representation of the limited understanding and prejudice against homosexuals?  In reality, the latter is much more likely.

     However, the objection to same sex marriage is not limited to objections based upon preserving the known family unit or because of the dangers posed by homosexual parents creating future generations of homosexuals.  In one of the most famous, and perhaps most often mocked, objections, then Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) made a connection between homosexual acts and “man on dog” relations during an interview with the Associated Press (23 April, 2003).

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. (“Excerpt from Santorum interview”)

Senator Santorum is attempting to argue that there is no intrinsic or overriding right to privacy – a whole different debate – and that because there is no ultimate right to privacy, it does fall within the purview of society, and society’s legislative body (government) to regulate what are acceptable behaviors and even as to what relationships may be recognized.  While many will no doubt agree with the senator in regards that adultery, incest, and polygamy are viewed as behaviors that are rightfully shunned (though adultery is illegal only in Rhode Island) – and that bestiality is not a behavior to be encouraged – it is less likely that homosexuality would be viewed in the same light.  While Senator Santorum’s interview may have been seen as outrageous, he may have been prescient in foreseeing the case of Bimbala Das, a 30 year old Indian woman who married a snake on 2 June, 2006.  Around that same time, a tribal girl from Bhubaneshwar, India married a dog.  If Hindu rituals for marriage allow for such unions, then can there be a serious objection to it?  However, to assert that these two instance validates DOMA is a misunderstanding of what DOMA entails, as well as evincing a lack of knowledge as to existing state laws as to what is necessary to enter into a marriage. (“Love at First Bite: Woman Marries Snake in Eastern India”)

     The issue as to what is the difference between a civil union (or domestic partnership) and marriage – as viewed by the state – is what needs to be examined, for if there is a substantive difference then there is sanctioned inequality.  Some states have gone so far as to define homosexuals as not being a minority group so as to not allow them to qualify for protection against discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.  The most glaring instance of government sanctioned inequality is DOMA, which allows (amongst other things) states to ignore the civil unions/domestic partnerships sanctioned by other states. 

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things.  First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex "marriage."  Second, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law. (“Defense of Marriage Act”)

As noted above, DOMA mandates that same-sex marriages to be defined separately from traditional marriage (which is problematic for attempting to provide the same protections, benefits, etc.). 

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex.  The DOMA definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary.  More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony."  Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1985). (“Defense of Marriage Act”)

Now, if the state is bound to only recognize “holy” matrimony, then the issue becomes one of the difference between church sanctioned marriage and that of state sanctioned unions. While this does not address the issue of same-sex versus traditional marriage, it does beg the question if those who were married in a secular ceremony without any religious trappings or overtones are to be afforded less legal consideration than those married with God’s name invoked.  DOMA, as noted above, also defines spouse as referring “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”  This eliminates the possibility of realizing same-sex marriage while DOMA stands.

     The unfortunate, but perhaps not unforseen, consequences of DOMA are not limited to how partnerships are termed.  Indeed, by allowing individual states to chose whether they recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage (which has been interpreted as extending to civil unions and domestic partnerships), the protections provided by states that have enacted laws to allow for same-sex unions can be ignored by both state and the federal government.  The most glaring example of this is when DOMA and the Federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA – which deals with companies that hire outside agencies to administer insurance plans) interact.  Companies in both New Jersey and Vermont  have hired agencies based out of state to administer insurance plans.  These agencies then claim that they must act in accordance with DOMA (and thus restrict the definition of spouse and thereby eliminate spousal or partner benefits applied to same-sex partners without having to reduce the cost to the employee or the corporation) when administering the insurance accounts, and therefore cannot be held to provide the benefits and protections mandated by state law. (“Companies uncover loopholes in N.J. civil union law”)

      Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not allowed the same consideration under the law as are marriages.  This can be seen in regards to tax and next of kin considerations.  The most glaring example of inequality, however, comes from Massachusetts where support or alimony payments from dissolved civil unions are not tax deductible (where they are in regards to a dissolved marriage), and that even the division of property may be taxed. (“Same-sex divorce in Massachusetts isn't equal”)

     What is at issue here may be more directly addressed to the corporations, or the value of minimizing the benefits allowed to employees by any (legal) means available – under the aegis that this should benefit the corporation – becoming an accepted operation in current business ethics (if opposed in theory).  Just as there has appeared to be a reduced commitment to protecting citizens (the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to act upon its own findings, favoring business interests over the rights of the citizenry) from corporate actions in the name of commerce, the business community may hold the belief that disadvantaging a minority group (which, as detailed above often is not permitted to protected as a minority group) is acceptable as it does not directly affect the majority and financially benefits those with the greatest ability to influence policy.

     As has been eluded to earlier, there is an issue of equal protection under the law with which to be dealt.  How, in the light of the XIVth Amendment, can DOMA stand?  Section 1 of the amendment reads

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (“United States Constitution”)

Clearly, there becomes an issue of ownership of property in regards to marriage, but in allowing states and the federal government to disavow laws that allow for civil unions and same sex marriages in an effort to appease older, more conservative voters, there is a violation of the Constitution’s mandate of full faith and credit between the states and federal government, and violates even the possibility of equal protection for same sex couples under the law.

     More to the point, when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that miscegenation laws violated the fundamental right to marry, it laid the essential groundwork to allow for same sex marriages.  The court ruled that “the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”  The court establishes a fundamental right to marry, one that is not restricted by race – the issue at hand – and that has no wording as to restrict it by sex.  It would appear that marriage is a right afforded by the Constitution, and that DOMA stands to abridge this right from a minority group. (“Overruling Dred Scott”)

     While it is not necessary for the United States of America to follow the lead of other nations in recognizing same-sex marriages (the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada) or even allowing gays to serve openly in the military (see comments regarding NATO troops not being able to handle heavy fighting in Iraq because of this), it does reflect a fundamental rejection of the ideals of equality under the law for all citizens.  What is a greater risk, however, is that the emerging generation of voting-age citizens (18-29) does not oppose the notion of civil unions or same-sex marriages, and because of this, there has been a concerted effort to mandate the biases and fears of an older generation as law, and thus subvert the will of the people for generations to come.  (“The Legal Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage”)

     So long as there is legislation that allows for the rights granted by state laws to be stripped away or disregarded – even with the odd notion that it is the Christian position to take, there will be an inequality that needs to be addressed.  However, there is little legal justification for restricting marriage as DOMA does, or for separating civil unions and domestic partnerships from the marriage (especially in regards to the rights afforded by them).  While there may be sociological and psychological reasons for keeping the family unit and marriage defined as it has been, these simply do not trump the mandate of the government to provide equal and fair protection for all of its citizens.  So long as DOMA stands, the value of a citizen who also happens to be homosexual will be unfairly diminished.

Works Cited

Associated Press. "Excerpt from Santorum interview." USA Today 23 Apr. 2003.

Burt, Robert A. "Overruling Dred Scot: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage." Widener Law Journal 17 (2007): 73-95.

"Civil Union." Encyclopædia Britannica. . Encyclopædia Britannica Online.  <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9437570>.

"Companies uncover loopholes in N.J. civil union law." Contemporary Sexuality 1 Apr. 2008.

"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis." From the Lectric Law Library Stacks. 25 Sept. 1998. 29 July 2008 <http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm>.

"DOMA Watch." DOMA Watch. 29 July 2008. 29 July 2008 <http://www.domawatch.org/index.php>.

Family Voice: The Official Blog of the Family Council of West Virginia. 25 July 2008. 29 July 2008 <http://familyvoice.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/why-not-homosexual-marriage/>.

"Homosexuality and Choice." Conservapedia: The Trustworthy Encyclopedia. 29 July 2008. 29 July 2008 <http://www.conservapedia.com/homosexuality_and_choice>.

"Judeo-Christianity and homosexuality." Religious Tolerance.org. 29 July 2008. 29 July 2008 <http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm>.

KJV Gift and Award Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

"The Legal Debate over Same-Sex Marriages." Britannica Book of the Year, 2005. . Encyclopædia Britannica Online. <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-234913>.

"Love at first bite: Woman marries snake in eastern India." Khaleej Times Online. 2 June 2006. 29 July 2008 <http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarticlenew.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/june/subcontinent_june56.xml&section=subcontinent>.

"Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings." Dr. Tracye Hansen. 2 July 2008. 29 July 2008 <http://www.drtraycehansen.com/index.html>.

"Same-sex divorce in Massachusetts isn't equal." Contemporary Sexuality 1 Mar. 2008.

"US MArriage Laws." US Marriage Laws. 29 July 2008. 29 July 2008 <http://usmarriagelaws.com>.

"United States Constitution." Cornell University Law School. 29 July 2008. 29 July 2008 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html>.

"Why not "same sex" marriage?" Alliance Alert. 29 July 2008. 29 July 2008 <http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/07/29/why-not-homosexual-marriage/>.

---

¹“Marriage requires two consenting people. If either person cannot or does not understand what it means to be married (due to mental illness, drugs, alcohol, or other factors affecting judgment), then that person does not have the capacity to consent and the marriage is not valid.” –(“US Marriage Laws”)