Search This Blog

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Michigan Gay-Marriage Ban

Federal Judge Strikes Down Michigan Gay-Marriage Ban
by Scott Neumann
March 21, 2014 5:28 PM

A federal judge has struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making the state the latest to see such a prohibition overturned on constitutional grounds.

The Associated Press reports:
"[U.S. District] Judge Bernard Friedman ruled Friday, two weeks after a trial. Two Detroit-area nurses who've been partners for eight years claimed the ban violated their rights under the U.S. Constitution.

"It was not clear if gay marriages could begin immediately."
Kate Wells, of Michigan Public Radio, reports that Friedman said the ban had violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
Wells reports:
"In his ruling, Friedman says the ban does not advance any legitimate state interest.

"Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette — who argued in favor of the amendment — says he has filed an emergency request for the ruling to be put on hold while the decision is appealed to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals."
In his decision, Friedman writes that the state ban doesn't survive even the "most deferential level of scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause.
It does not seem to me that the State of Michigan defended the law very well.

The Michigan Attorney General is a Republican, and it seems that even though he supports the law, the issues involved are beyond his ability to comprehend.

He had put forward a Sherif Girgis as an expert witness to argue for the ban, but the court rejected this person as not having had enough experience to be an expert yet, even though at some future date - when he had finished his schooling and been in the real world - he would undoubtedly be so.

This Mr. Girgis writes in the Murdochian Wall Street Journal:
...As we argue in our book "What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense," marriage is a uniquely comprehensive union. It involves a union of hearts and minds; but also—and distinctively—a bodily union made possible by sexual-reproductive complementarity. Hence marriage is inherently extended and enriched by procreation and family life and objectively calls for similarly all-encompassing commitment, permanent and exclusive...
I find this deficient.

Mr. Girgis plays an old game here in describing three types of union, of hearts, of minds, and of bodies, and uses what he calls "sexual-reproductive complementarity" to get very, very descriptive of two bodies joining together...
but he has no such imagery to deal with unions of hearts and minds.
However, he assumes that the bodily union is somehow reflected in the hearts and minds unions; i.e., there is a part of the male mind that "fits" into a corresponding part of the female mind...

... and there is a part of the male heart that "fits" into a corresponding part of the female heart.

Argument from Mammalian Body Parts.
Argumentum Ex Membris Virilibus An Muliebribus.
(I wonder if there is a similar argument for other parts of the body. I mean, what conclusions could one draw from breasts, for example? Do they work somehow to form a more perfect union?)

The "all-encompassing commitment" Mr. Girgis talks about was disappearing over a century ago. It is foolishness to look for it where it does not exist; i.e., in illustrations and descriptions from a Sex Ed 101 textbook.

Furthermore, the New Testament has an outright condemnation of divorce.
There is no divorce ban anymore in any state that I know of. Since this move away from marriage-for-life has been going on for over 100 years, that means it pre-dates same-sex marriage by a long time.

Therefore, if the institution of marriage is in decline, the mortal cause is not same-sex marriage.
If traditional values mean anything.....

But that's the problem! Traditional Values today mean absolutely nothing, neither to the liberal minded nor to the conservative minded. We are a world of dunces.



The notion of "complementarity" brings to mind Niels Bohr and Quantum Theory.
Mr. Girgis' notion of complementarity is not anything like Bohr's. As mentioned. Mr. Girgis is philosophizing somewhere in the area of "sword fits into its sheath", but that is not a very interesting complementarity.

To be frank, Mr. Girgis uses "complement" in the sense of  "If A is the complement of B, then A fills up B."
Bohr used "complement" more in the sense of "If A is the complement of B, both A and B serve to render a full and complete description of the real world."

I do agree that "male" and "female" are complementary in that we need both to understand the world, but that is most definitely not what Mr. Girgis says. He says we need them both to procreate.)


No comments: