First, philosphically (setting aside the practical problems and costs for the moment), what would be wrong with the state adopting an "Intimate Associations Act." These associations would be situated on a continuum between business associations and marriage (privileged domestic associations). This form of partnership could be used by any two or more persons who decided to form intimate friendship (with unspecified rights and duties) whether sexual or not. It could be used by two single brothers who want to share their lives in common. It could be used by two sisters raising their dead brother's child. It could be used by two or three friends who want to share life together. And, it could be used by homosexual partners who don't have the benefit of marriage. It would be irrelvant to the state as to why someone would want to form such an association and whether or not sex is involved (at least between consenting adults).
Second, you say "It is difficult to imagine marriage maintaining its privileged status (as I believe it should) twenty years from now if a significant portion of the population is ineligible." Why?
I saw my old friend Doug Kmiec on campus at Notre Dame today, which reminded me that I needed to grumble a bit about his most recent "Catholic Online" column, in which he discusses (again) the much-discussed question, "for whom should Catholics who embrace the Church's teachings on abortion vote?"
First, the (unfortunately) obligatory preface: Neither Doug Kmiec nor anyone else should (or, I would think, may) be denied communion merely for supporting Sen. Obama's campaign rather than Sen. McCain's. And, it is, I take it, the case that faithful Catholics can -- and many do -- believe that, given all the givens, the right course is to support Sen. Obama (or Sen. McCain) over Sen. McCain (or Sen. Obama). In this context, I think we have (and Doug has) the "right to be wrong".
That said, Doug's column goes off course in a few places, I think. He writes:
Given that abortion is an intrinsic evil without justification, thinking the overturning of Roe “solves” the abortion problem, when it does not, can mislead Catholics into the erroneous conclusion that any candidate unwilling to pledge reversal of Roe is categorically unworthy of support.
Yes and no. True, overruling Roe does not, by a long shot, "solve" the abortion problem. It would, however, do two very important things: (a) It would solve another, serious, problem -- namely, it would undo the major error that was Roe, thereby improving the state of our constitutional law (about which Doug cares quite a bit); and (b) it would make it possible for We the People, acting through our legislatures, to take measures that might, bit by bit, "solve" the abortion problem. The fact that overturning Roe does not, by itself, end abortion does not change the fact that the persistence of Roe effectively removes abortion from the arena of legislative (even if only incremental) action and compromise. Doug writes:
Senator Obama’s position accepts the existing legal regime which leaves the abortion decision with the mother as a “constitutional right.” Senator McCain's position would leave the decision with the individual states. Neither position is fully pro-life, both are pro-choice, with the former focused on the individual and the latter focused on the right of the states. Senator McCain's position is sometimes described as pro-life, but in truth, it is merely pro-federalism (states being free under the McCain position to decide to permit or disallow abortion as they see fit).
But this is not quite right. Sen. McCain's position is not (merely) pro-"the right of the states" or pro-"federalism"; it is pro-"the right of the People" to try to promote the common good through law. Sen. McCain, unlike Sen. Obama, also supports a wide range of federal policies that regulate abortion and protect the consciences of pro-life citizens. Doug continues:
Independent of my Catholic faith, as a constitutional law teacher, I respectfully disagree with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain since the Constitution was intended as a means to enforce and guarantee the unalienable right to life recited in the Declaration of Independence, where of course it is explicitly traced to our Creator. Since neither candidate presents a position fully compatible with Catholic teaching recognizing abortion for the intrinsic evil that it is, Catholic teaching asks us to work for the reduction of the incidence of abortion through the most prudent way possible.
I am also a constitutional-teacher and, independent of my Catholic faith, I think that the Constitution probably does not, in fact, require governments to outlaw or regulate abortion. In any event, it *is* compatible, it seems to me, with Catholic teaching to have the view (as McCain does) that the Constitution permits (but does not require) We the People to legislate in accord with Catholic teaching, by regulating abortion (and banning capital punishment, and welcoming immigrants, etc., etc.). And, even if one thought that McCain's view was not "fully compatible" with Catholic teaching, it is not clear why one should regard him as, in effect, in a "tie" with his rival, whose views on *this* question seem quite *in*-compatible with Catholic teaching. Doug then says:
There is no single answer on the most effective manner to reduce abortion either. My experience, and that of others whom I greatly respect for their tireless efforts in parish work and with Project Rachel and Catholic pregnancy centers, suggest that Senator Obama’s emphasis on personal responsibility (conveying especially to young people the need to understand the maturity and commitment needed for sexual intimacy) is the course most likely to make a difference.
This statement surprises and disappoints. One gets used to pro-abortion-rights advocates tossing around the charge that pro-lifers are single-mindedly focused on legal prohibitions (or only on the welfare of unborn children) rather than on in-the-trenches outreach to the needy and vulnerable but, as Doug knows full well, this is an unfair caricature. *Of course* those of us who oppose abortion should engage in these "tireless efforts" and emphasize "personal responsibility". It hardly follows that we shouldn't care about fixing (or, at least improving) the law, or should be indifferent to the prospect that, under President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, the laws of the Nation will almost certainly move dramatically in a pro-abortion-rights direction. Finally, Doug writes:
it is my own conclusion that Senator Obama would be more open to these considerations since he is more dedicated toward reducing the partisanship of the past, has very responsibly and very consistently called upon our better natures, and has articulated -- long before he sought the presidency -- a genuine appreciation for the importance of faith in the public square.
Here, I suppose there's not much to say. I do not believe the *evidence* supports the conclusion either that Sen. Obama is less "partisan[]" than Sen. McCain or that Sen. Obama appreciates more than does Sen. McCain "the importance of faith in the public square." (I have, I realize, publicly endorsed McCain, and so might be suspect here, but it seems worth recalling the serious political risks that McCain has taken by *not* being "partisan" on many issues.) To say this is not to say that Sen. Obama is a bad person or deny that there is something exhilarating about a youthful, African-American major-party candidate; it is just to doubt -- his charisma notwithstanding -- that he's meaningfully different, in his plans and policies and views, than other left-liberal American politicians.
Yesterday's Boston Globe had a lengthy article on the push by some legal academics to have the law recognize friendships. The reporter did a fair job, especially considering who she had to work with as the designated skeptic (me). The article does not focus on the SSM debate, but this issue does underscore, in my view, the cost of excluding an entire segment of the population from the institution of marriage. Gays and lesbians understandably will seek state support through non-marital relationships, which takes us closer to a world where individuals simply choose the category of relationship through which to receive state support, and the state is neutral as to the form of, and committments embodied in, those relationships. It is difficult to imagine marriage maintaining its privileged status (as I believe it should) twenty years from now if a significant portion of the population is ineligible.
In a recent NCR cover story I described a phenomenon in Texas I
called "Evangelical transfer," meaning ways in which the state's strong
Evangelical Protestant ethos shapes the Catholic experience. This week, I want to describe another "evangelical" face of
Texas Catholicism, this time in the sense of lives lived in radical
witness to the values of the Gospel.
Meet Mark and Louise Zwick, founders of the Casa Juan Diego on
Houston's West side, a remarkable center of welcome and advocacy on
behalf of the city's mushrooming immigrant population.
In Catholic circles around the world, Mark and Louise Zwick are probably best known for the Houston Catholic Worker,
a newspaper and labor of love in which they blend deep Catholic piety
with keen social analysis. The paper is legendary for tweaking American
Catholic neoconservatives, and anyone sucked into their orbit; in 2004,
for example, the Zwicks lampooned the work of a certain Rome
correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, who, they
felt, had been overly influenced by lunches in the Eternal City with
prominent Catholic neo-cons. (In charity, they wrote at the time, they
would refrain from saying that I was "out to lunch.")
On the streets of Houston, however, the Zwicks are famed not for
literary production, but for love in action. One Wednesday morning in
mid-February, Mark was showing me around the property when a mini-mob
scene developed. A group of Hispanic men had clustered outside awaiting
"Marco," and one by one they came forward to ask him, in polite
Spanish, for various kinds of help. I watched as Mark found a jacket
for one of the men to wear against the cold, a pair of shoes for
another, and explained to a third how to get eyeglasses from Casa Juan
Diego's free medical clinic.
Louise told me that this experience of living alongside the poorest
of the poor, struggling daily to help meet their material and spiritual
needs, fuels Casa Juan Diego's social advocacy.
[Read the rest of this remarkable, inspiring story, here.]
In so many ways, Tony Blair is not your typical Anglican convert to the Catholic church.
For one thing, of course, Blair is the former British prime
minister. Almost as atypical these days, however, is the fact that
Blair does not belong to the traditionalist wing of Anglicanism,
meaning Anglicans disenchanted with the ordination of women and
homosexuals, the blessing of same-sex unions, and other liberalizing
currents, and hence usually most likely to contemplate the "Roman
option."
Instead, Blair espouses a theologically moderate, socially engaged
Christianity. By the standards of British politics, Blair is a social
moderate, and his largely permissive positions on abortion, birth
control and embryonic stem cell research have drawn strong Catholic
criticism over the years. (Some outraged English Catholics have gone so
far as to charge that Blair should not have been received into
communion with the church, at least until he recants.)
Last Friday, I attended a press conference at the Time-Warner Center
in New York to present Blair's new "Faith Foundation," a global
inter-faith coalition designed to mobilize religious leadership to
achieve social good. Most immediately, the Faith Foundation intends to
enlist religious believers in global efforts to eradicate malaria,
estimated to kill one million people each year, primarily in the
developing world, and the vast majority are children. A related aim is
to combat extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of religious
belief.
Interestingly, Blair's Faith Foundation counts a slew of prominent
religious leaders among its advisors - Sir Jonathan Sacks, for example,
Chief Rabbi of England, as well as Reverend Rick Warren, Senior Pastor
of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. Yet there's not a
single Catholic, though promotional materials say that Cardinal Cormac
Murphy-O'Connor of England will join the advisory council after he
steps down as Archbishop of Westminster.
To call Friday's press conference "high-profile" is an exercise in
under-statement. It was hosted by CNN's Christiane Amanpour, and
featured opening remarks from former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who
said he had come to "wish my friend well." Richard Levin, President of
Yale University, where Blair will be a visiting professor, was also on
hand.
Eboo Patel, founder and director of the Interfaith Youth Core in
Chicago and another advisor to Blair's Faith Foundation, provided the
day's sound-bite.
"The worst mistake would be to think that the fault line of the 21st
century runs between Christians and Muslims, or between theists and
secularists," said Patel, a Muslim. "It's between pluralists and
totalitarians."
That line was picked up by other speakers, so much so that it almost
became an anthem - with Blair and his admirers clearly on the side of
the pluralists.
Blair was careful to say that his foundation does not seek "to
subsume different faiths into one universal faith of the lowest common
denominator." Nevertheless, it seemed clear that Blair's Faith
Foundation reflects what one might call a "center-left" religiosity,
with emphasis on tolerance, dialogue, and cooperation in the pursuit of
humanitarian objectives.
What future the foundation may have is tough to handicap. From a
purely Catholic point of view, however, it's at least worth noting that
the church's most high-profile recent convert also seems a natural
spokesperson for a more "progressive" or "liberal" form of Catholicism,
at a moment when that constituency appears to be, in many other ways,
on the ropes.
Like Rob says, Doug Kmiec's recent post at Slate is quite ambiguous with respect to his position on same-sex marriage and the law. Certainly, in the past, he has been a staunch opponent of moves to constitutionalize a right to same-sex marriage, and a supporter of an amendment to the Constitution to prevent such constitutionalization. Consider, for example, this back-and-forth, with Larry Tribe, on the NewsHour a few years ago. Kmiec said (among other things):
I respectfully disagree with my friend Professor Tribe. I think he's taken a definite position that he favors gay marriage and he's therefore sees it as an expansion of right. Others of us would see it as a disregard of created reality, of in fact the fact that states have preferred marriage, have given it a position of prominence because it does some very important things. It supplies new members to our community and it supplies a household that is the most important educator for our community. In this sense it's not a denial of right; it is an affirmation of what is important.
And, as he writes in this earlier Slate post, discussing the California decision, he wrote a brief in the case contending that "marriage is properly reserved to a man and a woman."
Doug is someone who does his best, I think, to find points of agreement, and to blunt, to the extent possible, points of disagreement. Maybe that's what was going on in the exchange with Dale Carpenter (who is also, in my experience, an admirably charitable discussant).
With respect to our conversation about pro-life speech, secular universities, etc., a reader sent me this:
I would like to discuss a little bit more about the context of abortion in Canadian Universities. First off, I am a university student (Laurentian) in Ontario, majoring in political science. I am a convert to the Catholic Church, and my main interest (as my classmates will attest) has generally been in religion and politics.
Regarding this whole situation, I think a few things should be included. One, York is a public university, therefore, it is provided with plenty of public funding. This primarily comes from the province, since education is constitutionally granted to the provinces. While we do not have the First Amendment in Canada, we do have Charter protections that do substantially protect many of the same issues surrounding the First Amendment, but they can be limited by legislature when it is deemed appropriate. While this may seem like that this university would be held to this standard, the courts have ruled that universities are not government institutions. I am unsure if this a positive development or not.
Relatedly, York is (I believe) the second largest university in Canada, with the University of Toronto the first, having approxiamtely 45 000 students. For the student body to even consider limiting discussion goes against the spirit of the university . . . .
However, one of the more interesting developments is the response of the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). CFS comprises most of the universities in Canada, with fees costing over $10 a student from each member school. They are a union that claims to represent the interests of students, yet, there is little consultation between them, various student governments, and students. To take one example, Ontario recently had a electoral referrendum which asked if voters wished to switch to a mixed-member proportional system. It was defeated. However, CFS came out in favor of it and listed Laurentian as a supporter of their position. Consequently, the school president had to write a letter to the school newspaper stating that they were not consulted at all. This behavior typifies the CFS and how it treats its members.
Doug Kmiec has an entertaining retelling of his debate last night on same-sex marriage against Dale Carpenter. Maybe someone else can enlighten me, because this brief narrative is tantalizingly ambiguous -- does Prof. Kmiec, in reality, favor same-sex marriage?
South Carolina is moving
forward with plans to issue “I Believe” license plates, complete with
an image of the Cross and a stained glass window. Here’s an image of
the plate
According to the New York Times, South Carolina has a process by
which private groups can “sponsor” a specialty plate, and a number of
disparate groups have opted to do so. Had this plate been created by a
private sponsor, I think it would arguably pass constitutional muster.
The state, in such a case, would merely be offering its plates as a
sort of open forum for the expression of any number of private
commitments, religious and secular (and even anti-religious). But by
taking the initiative to direct the department of licensing to create
the plate, the state has, I think, crossed the line into sectarian
advocacy. Expect a successful constitutional challenge to this,
followed by much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Religious
Right. Of course, that’s half the point, right?
