Monday, December 30, 2013

Justice Scalia's "worst fears"; do the family relationships of others "really" affect "you"?

Justice Antonni Scalia’s “worst fears” (expressed in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas) that invalidating the Texas homosexual-only sodomy law in 2003 under due process or equal protection arguments would eventually compel governments to recognize gay marriage seem to be coming true, according to a Washington Post article Sunday by Robert Barnes, link here.

The comments on the article are interesting, especially one from “Blu-Dog Ex-Dem” who asks bluntly, “Do other people’s family relationships affect you? This has been studied and the answer is, of course. Why pretend otherwise?”  Some of what gets said here sounds irrelevant, but then the person notes that when one’s sibling has a child, the probability that person will have a child within two years increases.
Another distant story today on CNN reports “LGBT in Uganda, seeking acceptance from family, homeland” notes the horror of the passage of the vitriolic bill, and the deliberate outing of gays by tabloids. An Anglican Bishop there is quoted as saying, “We love gay people … we want them to repent.” Ordinary Ugandans are depicted as believing that homosexuality is a plot of colonialists to control the country. 

All of this points out a particular line of thought.  Many men see the complementarity demanded by longterm heterosexual marriage as challenging.  But they may be more likely to feel up to it if they think everyone else does.  To say that you love people enough to demand that they repent is to say that you need to see a particular standard of righteousness from others, so you can do yourself what you know is difficult.  That’s how I would answer Blu-Dog’s remark (although I haven’t logged on to the Post to do so yet; I hardly have time).  

No comments: