Thursday, March 5, 2009
Top Chef, King Cake, and the Naked Public Square
Same-sex marriage, biology, and the public interest
Last week I expressed skepticism that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage can be justified based on the nature of the sexual act. A reader says "not so fast":
You stated that you "don't think the nature of the sexual act argument is convincing," but you did not say why. It seems to me that the arguments put forward by Nussbaum and others too quickly brush aside the biological reality that there is only one relationship - man and woman - that can produce children through sexual intercourse. The state's interest in marriage flows from the *unique* nature of this child-producing relationship between man and woman. As you noted in your post, the issue does boil down to the "nature of sexual union", but I think there is a meaningful and objective difference in the nature of the sexual union between a man and a woman who can produce a child through through sex that is formed from and naturally connected to both of them, and homosexual sexual relationships - whether between sisters or unrelated lesbians - that cannot produce children through sex. Disgust and religious sentiment are not really the drivers here - it's biology.When this biological reality is not taken seriously, the case for gay marriage always focuses on utilitarian arguments about social good (as your argument did in the MOJ post). The problem with the utilitarian argument - to expand marriage to include gays because it is a social good - has no end point and marriage ends up encompassing more than just gay relationships. Lots of groupings of people can adopt and raise children, or make meaningful life-long commitments to each other (including elderly sisters and lesbians and polygamists). Marriage stops having any objetive basis and becomes whatever the social scientists determine is best. In the end, I think that will undermine marriage (and not because marriage will include gays, but because marriage will have no objective basis).
The Ninth Circuit's decision on the Holy See's immunity
Here, thanks to Prof. Friedman's "Religion Clause" blog, is an update on the Ninth Circuit's decision regarding the Holy See's immunity (under the FSIA) in a clergy-abuse-related lawsuit.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Sebelius, Tiller, and the the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus
The level of deceit by Catholics for Sebelius is breathtaking!
Michael P. has posted a response from a reader attempting to exonerate Gov. Sebelius from guilt by association with the abortionist Tiller. The reader says "Tiller won the reception after bidding the most for it at a silent auction sponsored by the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus. Sebelius donated her time to help the caucus raise money, something she said she had done before. The silent auction was part of the group's annual Torch Dinner. Sebelius had no control over who won the auction or who attended. She didn't even pay for the reception that was paid for by the Women's Political Caucus."
Similarly, the Group of 26's colleagues at Catholics for Sebelius claim that "fringe" groups are engaged in a "smear campaign" against Governor Sebelius. Part of this supposed smear campaign is tying Sebelius to the abortionist Tiller. They say: "George Tiller purchased the right to attend a reception at the governor's mansion with Gov. Sebelius by buying a table for the reception in a fundraising auction. Gov. Sebelius did not invite him to attend. Gov. Sebelius has not taken financial contributions from Tiller as a gubernatorial candidate or as governor and she appointed the state Attorney General who is prosecuting the case against him."
Not so fast! First, she may not have taken contributions as a "gubernatorial candidate" directly from Tiller, but Archbishop Naumann has said that she took money from his PAC and that earlier in her career she took money from him. Second, the organization Sebelius was fundraising for, the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus, "support[s] the right of women to control their own reproduction without governmental intrusion." From a pro-life perspective, Sebelius' hands are dirty whether or not she knew explicitly that Tiller would win the auction. The Group of 26 says that “She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief.” If they are correct in this, then what was she doing fundraising for a pro abortion rights group in the first place?
UPDATE: I have been informed that the Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus only endorses pro-abortion rights candidates.
School Vouchers in D.C. and the Classmates of the Obama Girls
Rick Garnett has posted a link to a powerful video by school-children in Washington, D.C. who have benefitted from the school choice program and who ask President Obama to oppose the efforts of the Democratic leadership in Congress to kill the program.
A column in the Wall Street Journal yesterday makes the point even more poignantly, by telling the story of Sarah and James Parker, who also are beneficiaries of the D.C. school choice program. Because of the opportunities afforded by the D.C. voucher program, the two Parker children are able to attend Sidwell Friends School -- the very same private school that President Obama chose for his daughters, Sasha and Malia.
(Sarah and James Parker)
The question is fairly and squarely presented to President Obama: Will he take a stand and support the same educational opportunity that he with his considerable wealth has chosen for his own children? Or will he capitulate to the Democratic leadership in Congress and the teachers' union and thereby deny that opportunity to his daughters' class-mates at Sidwell Friends School?
How President Obama responds to this matter may tell us much about whether the Obama Administration will be a friend to educational reform -- and there have been some positive signs, such as President Obama's past (and hopefully continuing) support of the reform-minded superintendent of public schools in D.C. If President Obama allows the D.C. voucher program to be killed by Democratic congressional leaders and the teachers' unions, we'll know that change in education apparently will have to wait for another president.
Greg Sisk
Sebelius' Archbishop on Kmiec and the rest of the Group of 26
What I have dubbed the Group of 26 (Kmiec, Hollanback, Gaillardetz, et al) said of Sebelius, "She’s made clear she agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief."
Her Archbishop responded saying: "I think that’s very, very dishonest and not at all accurate. ... At one time, she struck from the budget a pregnancy maintenance initiative that gave state funding to crisis pregnancy centers. Only when the legislature passed it by such an overwhelming margin that it was highly probable she would have been overridden, she allowed it to stay in the budget.
She’s on Emily’s List. During her last campaign she identified herself as one whose always been a leader in protecting a woman’s right [to abortion] and one who has tried to keep abortion safe legal and rare. ... What she did in the state of Kansas in terms of vetoing efforts to try to better regulate abortion clinics, certainly didn’t show a real concern for the safety of women either. ... She accepted money early in her political career from Dr. [George] Tiller who is a notorious abortionist in Wichita, and after that became politically not very convenient for her to do, Dr. Tiller formed a [political action committee] in which she was the principal beneficiary along with other equally staunch abortion-supporting politicians, and he put in hundreds of thousands of dollars to get her elected and re-elected. So I really think they may support Gov. Sebelius for this appointment, but they certainly can’t support her because she’s faithful in living the teaching of the Church on the life issues." (emphasis added)
John Breen on Kathleen Sebelius: A Response
Here is John Breen's post, his angry, even outraged, post.
And here, for those of you who are interested, is a response to John's post, from an MOJ-reader: "Tiller won the reception after bidding the most for it at a silent auction sponsored by the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus. Sebelius donated her time to help the caucus raise money, something she said she had done before. The silent auction was part of the group's annual Torch Dinner. Sebelius had no control over who won the auction or who attended. She didn't even pay for the reception that was paid for by the Women's Political Caucus."
I am a mere scrivener in this to-and-fro.
Amy Welborn's new blog-home
Is here.
Listen to the children, Mr. President
Powell on Insights from Islamic Jurisprudence
Our own Russ Powell has posted this new paper, "Zakat: Drawing Insights for Legal Theory and Economic Policy from Islamic Jurisprudence." Abstract:
The rapid development of complex income taxation and welfare systems in the 20th century may give the impression that progressive wealth redistribution systems are uniquely modern. However, religious systems provided similar mechanisms for addressing economic injustice and poverty alleviation centuries earlier. Zakat is the obligation of almsgiving and is the third pillar of Islam--a requirement for all believers. In the early development of the Islamic community, zakat was collected as a tax by the state and the funds were distributed to a defined set of needy groups. As a theoretical matter, there are three insights that make zakat an especially relevant subject for modern legal scholars. First, zakat is an example of a modest wealth tax combined with an income tax that may be illustrative in the discourse regarding wealth taxes. Second, the jurisprudence of zakat supports the ethical conclusions of scholars who contend that property rights are attached to post rather than pre-tax income. Third, to the extent that zakat is considered a principal source of revenue for public programs, it might imply a limited role for government, focusing on equitable distribution of goods. This paper begins with a thorough evaluation and synthesis of the traditional Islamic jurisprudence related to zakat. The next section identifies three broad approaches to zakat adopted by modern Muslim states, with particular emphasis on ways that zakat is institutionalized legally. This is followed by an empirical analysis of the correlation of the approaches to zakat with (1) individual income and (2) wealth stratification. The article concludes with observations and policy recommendations related to zakat and broader legal theory based on the earlier qualitative analysis and empirical findings.
A fascinating project! Thanks, Russ.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
