In my work on conscience, I focus on our society's need to allow a vibrant moral marketplace to flourish, urging culture war combatants to resist using the levers of state power to shut down arguments with which they disagree. In the California legal system, this does not appear to be a particularly popular position. A couple of months ago, a California court ruled that an Arizona adoption-related website was subject to California law in a suit brought by a same-sex couple alleging that the website's owners unlawfully discriminated against them by refusing to post their profile online as potential adoptive parents. This ruling was key because of California's Unruh Act, which forbids discrimination by any "business establishment." The statute has been interpreted to apply to discrimination based on marital status and sexual orientation. After the ruling, the parties settled, with the website owners agreeing not to post the profiles of any California residents unless they were prepared to post the profiles of same-sex couples.
Now there is a suit against the online dating service e-Harmony alleging that the company (which was started by evangelical Christians) violates California law by not including categories of "men seeking men" and "women seeking women." The plaintiff's lawyer explains that:
[T]he lawsuit was "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."
[The] lawyers expect a significant number of gays and lesbians to join the class action, which seeks to force eHarmony to end its policy as well as unspecified damages for those denied eHarmony services based on their sexual orientation.
To be clear, I agree that gays and lesbians have (and should have) the right to "meet other people with whom they can fall in love." The more pressing question is: against whom should that right be enforceable? I support legally enforceable rights against discrimination -- including discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status -- in the economic (i.e., employment) and political (i.e., voting) spheres. But in the wider social arena (e.g., Boy Scouts, student groups, adoption/dating services) the law can be a blunt (and dangerous) hammer. And the internet raises the stakes for these invocations of state power, as state borders are increasingly irrelevant. If the plaintiffs are serious about "making a statement" and doing so in a way that maintains the space needed for others to make their own statements about contested moral issues, I suggest that they boycott eHarmony, support more inclusive dating services, and write fiery op-eds urging the public to do the same. "Making a statement" suggests that there is a conversation going on; it seems to me that this lawsuit is a conversation-stopper.
CNN will live broadcast "A Presidential Forum on Faith, Values, and Poverty" tonight (Monday, June 4) from 7 to 8 p.m. ET, with reporters and religious leaders asking questions of Democratic candidates Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. It's sponsored by several groups led by Jim Wallis's Sojourners, which reports that it "has extended an invitation to the leading Republican candidates for a September forum in Iowa."
Tom
I've posted a (mostly negative) comment at Prawfsblawg on the article by Prof. Kim Yuracko arguing that more regulation of homeschooling is a constitutional duty. I'll just mention one point here dealing with empirical issues rather than theory. Prof. Yuracko seems to think that the studies showing homeschoolers doing well educationally compared with non-homeschoolers are undercut by a selection bias of "family characteristics of the home schooling and non homeschooling families being compared." But this makes no sense. If homeschoolers do better than or as well as non-homeschoolers, what does it matter whether that's because homeschooling itself works better or because families who are inclined or willing to homeschool tend to have certain educationally positive characteristics? We're not doing a scientific study to isolate the educational effect of homeschooling vs. institutional schooling; we're discussing whether homeschooling as an overall institution needs more regulation. It seems to me, from anecdotal evidence, that homeschooling has a self-limiting nature that tilts it toward adequate education: i.e. parents drawn to it will tend to have energy for teaching their children well, because otherwise it would be a lot easier just to shoo them out the door to school.
Tom
The Washington Post reports that Gonzales v. Carhart has made a split among pro-life groups wider and more visible, with some groups publicly accusing James Dobson of being a leader of the "pro-life industry."
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Re. the discussion between Rick, Michael, and Eduardo on Sen. Brownback and evolution: I agree that Brownback studiously dodged the question of macroevolution, the most important scientific point. He should be commended for articulating clearly, at the end of his op-ed, the philosophical and theological bedrocks on which Christians must stand in approaching evolution:
The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.
The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos.
But given the strength of evidence for macroevolution, it seems to me a quixotic effort to make these vital assertions of human dignity dependent on either denying or (like Brownback) sidestepping the validity of macroevolution. Better to follow John Paul II's model: put intellectual resources into understanding evolution within theological frameworks such as God's providence and sustenance of creation. Two scientists who have done so, as orthodox Christians, are geologist Keith Miller and astronomer Howard Van Til. That's why I was interested to come across this 2003 book, edited by Miller and with contributions from both (and from philosophers and theologians), laying out the claim that "[t]he common prevailing view of conflict between evolutionary theory and Christian faith is a false caricature."
Tom
Down at the multiplex, it looks like this year's "40 Year Old Virgin" (which I thoroughly enjoyed) is Judd Apanow's "Knocked Up," about a slacker whose special friend (for one night) gets pregnant, after which hilarity and maturing ensures. According to Ross Douthat, the movie is pretty much a pro-life tract, as well. Dana Stevens, at Slate, and to whom Douthat is reponding, has a very different view.
