Reason, Logic, and the Law

Now that the election is over and change is in place—the face of that change is commencing to take shape—the need to take stock of Catholic Legal Theory on many fronts will be the task of the day, yet again.

Some of us have suggested that religious freedom will become a pawn in the new games of political and legal chess that will be begin as we get closer to January 20, 2009. Already there have been suggestions that groups are reviewing statements made by Catholic bishops during the election season on matters of public import in order to assess the possibility and probability of challenges to the Church’s—including local churches—tax exempt status. A chill wind is beginning to blow on these horizons.

I am one of those who considers and believes that Catholic Legal Theory has something to say on these and most matters legal. Moreover, I consider that reason and logic are critical elements of the law in a democratic society and that reason and logic are essential to expressions of Catholic Legal Theory. So I am troubled by an article which appeared in today’s Boston Globe entitled “Utah Faces Boycott after Push by Mormons vs. Gay Marriage.” I am not sure why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has been singled out since other religious groups joined in the debate and campaign in several states to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. On this point, the Latter Day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church are of the same belief and presented the same arguments in the political discussion surrounding the nature of marriage. Based on reason and the logical argument that accompanies the exercise of reason, these two religious communities, and others, have entered the democratic debate to present their views knowing full well that homosexual lobbies have contested, sometimes bitterly, the arguments advanced by the Mormons, Catholics, and others regarding the nature and definition of marriage. I submit that these religious communities have done nothing untoward that threatens freedom and democracy in the United States or anywhere else. Moreover, their participation is what is expected of citizenship and the role it must play in the public square where our lives in common are addressed.

Today’s article in the Globe to which I have referred carried me back to my first year of law school (almost forty years ago) when I had the occasion to read and contemplate some of the revered maxims of the law. One such maxim is: when the reason for the law changes, so must the law. But, if reason is the foundation of the law and, therefore, the justification that motivates individuals, groups, and legal societies to do certain things rather than others, reason triumphs, and the law is based on a solid foundation. The catalyst in the article that made me focus on reason and the law was this quotation attributed to Mr. John Aravosis, who is identified as a “gay rights activist”:

At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one. They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards. You don’t do that and get away with it.

It appears that Mr. Aravosis is not only outraged by an exercise of democracy, but he is willing to do something about what he perceives to be an injustice, i.e., consider a boycott against the State of Utah and an end to the Mormon church’s tax exempt status (but why not the State of California where the vote of which he complains took place; why not the end of the tax exempt status of other religious organizations that contributed their voices to those of the Mormons?). It seems that he thinks that the Mormons responsible for the successful vote on Proposition 8 are all in Utah. Where is the reason and logic in that? He takes no account of other groups, religious and secular, who also supported Proposition 8—some in Utah, some in California, and others located elsewhere. Where is the reason and logic in that? He seems unable to register that until the California Supreme Court decided In Re Marriage cases in May of this year, the “20,000 marriages” about which he is concerned were not recognized as marriages at all under California law. Where is the reason and logic in that? And, he argues that the children of persons who are now in five-month old “marriages” are “bastards.” He does not stop to consider: from where did these children come—surely not from the physical, sexual relation of two men or two women. Where is the reason and logic in that?

Mr. Aravosis appears to be on a crusade against the Mormon church. I must stop for a moment and ask: when will he diversify his campaign against the Catholic Church and other religious communities that also supported Proposition 8? For the time being, I must be satisfied to watch how he manages his current battle which is described in this fashion:

The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand. At this point, honestly, we’re going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state.

Should his campaign show promise, I ponder where else will he return to “destroy” that which he despises and labels “hate”? The fact that he is willing to commence his war against one religious group and one state does not bode well for democracy or religious freedom—something with which Catholic Legal Theory clearly has an interest.

RJA sj