John Westen

Who is Pope Francis talking about? ‘Obsessed’, ‘self-absorbed’, ‘sourpusses’

John Westen
John Westen
Image

In-Depth Analysis

VATICAN CITY, December 3, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The 220-page Apostolic Exhortation, entitled “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel) released last week gives the world  the first solid glimpse into the heart and mind of Pope Francis, as it comes by his own pen rather than that of a journalist.

The picture that emerges is of a faithful man who loves Christ and His Church. “How good it is to stand before a crucifix, or on our knees before the Blessed Sacrament, and simply to be in his presence!” he writes, for example.

Yet at the same time, as often in his interviews, we find a man whose words lend themselves easily to misinterpretation. His remarks can at times seem hurtful to faithful Catholics – those most committed to proclaiming and defending the truths of their faith, and could even, arguably, be dangerous insofar as they might inadvertently impede those efforts.

Yet clearly this is not his intention. As he himself writes in the text: “If anyone feels offended by my words, I would respond that I speak them with affection and with the best of intentions, quite apart from any personal interest or political ideology.”


Not a ‘Pope of the Left’

When read carefully and fully, The Gospel of Joy completely undermines the paradigm of Francis as the ‘Pope of the Left’, as concocted by the liberal media and Catholic dissidents hoping against hope for a dramatic new direction in the Church especially on key moral issues.

For example, one of the sine qua non causes for liberal Catholics is women priests, yet Pope Francis states unequivocally that that’s “not a question open to discussion.”

Likewise, he firmly shuts the door on campaigns to change Church teaching on the liberal media’s two great cultural fixations: abortion and marriage redefinition.

On abortion, the Pope writes: “The Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or ‘modernizations’.” And on marriage, he criticizes the notion that it is “a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will.”

“The indispensible contribution of marriage to society transcends the feelings and momentary needs of the couple,” he writes.

 
Is the Pope a Liberal?

While Pope Francis offers some of his clearest comments to date on abortion and homosexual “marriage” – emphasizing, for example, that the unborn are “the most defenceless and innocent among us” and deserving of “particular love and concern” – within the context of the document those issues come across as much lesser concerns compared to fighting poverty and environmental degradation.

The Pope focuses on “two great issues” that, he says, “will shape the future of humanity.” “These issues are first, the inclusion of the poor in society, and second, peace and social dialogue,” he writes.

Yet even though these are often taken as ‘liberal’ causes, his approach to these issues is hardly in line with the typical liberal Catholic.  There is a taste of what was often seen from Pope Benedict XVI – a truly Catholic and evangelistic interpretation of these stereotypically liberal notions (see, for example, Pope Benedict’s frequent appeals for a ‘human ecology’).

Take for instance the exhortation’s approach to poverty.  Liberal Catholics have worked for decades to distance the Church from its traditional approach to charitable works, which, while tending to the poor, gave first priority to sharing the the Good News of the Gospel. 

The modern liberal Catholic approach seeks rather a far more worldly approach. It seeks to change political, social and other “structures” allegedly the cause of poverty and places little, if any emphasis on religious evangelization. It includes often, if not preferably, working through organizations which would undermine or have no appreciation for Catholic moral teaching as long as they satisfy the material needs of the poor.

But Pope Francis instead emphasizes the spiritual needs of the poor. “I want to say, with regret, that the worst discrimination which the poor suffer is the lack of spiritual care,” he writes. “The great majority of the poor have a special openness to the faith; they need God and we must not fail to offer them his friendship, his blessing, his word, the celebration of the sacraments and a journey of growth and maturity in the faith.” 

“Our preferential option for the poor must mainly translate into a privileged and preferential religious care,” the Pope concludes. Many liberal “social justice” clergy, especially among Francis’s brother Jesuits, would vehemently disagree with this pronouncement.

He is also turning the progressives’ own notions against them when it comes to abortion.  Speaking of “unborn children,” he says, “Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative.” He adds: “It is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life.”

Whereas the liberal would wish to prevent religious conviction from gaining standing in the public square, Pope Francis says the voice of faith must be rigorous. “No one can demand that religion should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without influence on societal and national life, without concern for the soundness of civil institutions, without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society,” he writes.

“This would represent, in effect, a new form of discrimination and authoritarianism,” he adds. “The respect due to the agnostic or non-believing minority should not be arbitrarily imposed in a way that silences the convictions of the believing majority or ignores the wealth of religious traditions.”


And what of doctrine?

At the same time, the Pope offers strongly-worded criticisms against “defenders of orthodoxy” that appear directed at faithful, tradition-minded Catholics.

The exhortation repeats the phrase from the famous Jesuit interview about avoiding being “obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed.”

Further, Francis writes: “A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”

Yet it is clear from a full reading that he means to stick to the doctrines of the Church.

For instance, the Pope makes his own the observations of the US Bishops, noting that “while the Church insists on the existence of objective moral norms which are valid for everyone, ‘there are those in our culture who portray this teaching as unjust, that is, as opposed to basic human rights.’” He adds, “’Such claims usually follow from a form of moral relativism that is joined, not without inconsistency, to a belief in the absolute rights of individuals. In this view, the Church is perceived as promoting a particular prejudice and as interfering with individual freedom.’”

“In response,” says the Pope, “we need to provide an education which teaches critical thinking and encourages the development of mature moral values.”


Francis the Pessimist?

Another disturbing example is the soon-to-be-famous first-ever use of the term ‘sourpusses’ in a papal document.  “One of the more serious temptations which stifles boldness and zeal is a defeatism which turns us into querulous and disillusioned pessimists, ‘sourpusses’,” he writes.

The line could easily be taken to be directed at tradition-minded Catholics, as they are often falsely caricatured as ‘defeatists’ by dissidents and opponents of Christianity whenever they present a realistic appraisal of the rampant moral corruption in today’s world.

But such appraisals are most often offered in hope rather than pessimism. These Catholics’ fidelity, especially found in the pro-life and pro-family movements, allows the most ordinary persons to do extraordinary things for the benefit of society and the Church. These faithful also tend to have far larger families, resulting in much joy and active involvement in their civic and Church communities.

In fact, that same realistic observation of moral decay in the current world that would lead to the castigation of faithful Catholics as pessimists and defeatists can be found in The Gospel of Joy itself.

Pope Francis expresses a deep concern about what he calls “veritable attacks on religious freedom or new persecutions directed against Christians.”

He laments: “New patterns of behaviour are emerging as a result of over-exposure to the mass media. … As a result, the negative aspects of the media and entertainment industries are threatening traditional values, and in particular the sacredness of marriage and the stability of the family.”

“The process of secularization tends to reduce the faith and the Church to the sphere of the private and personal,” he says.  “Furthermore, by completely rejecting the transcendent, it has produced a growing deterioration of ethics, a weakening of the sense of personal and collective sin, and a steady increase in relativism.”

The Pope recognizes that “the family is experiencing a profound cultural crisis,” which, he notes, “is particularly serious because the family is the fundamental cell of society, where we learn to live with others despite our differences and to belong to one another; it is also the place where parents pass on the faith to their children.”

And in The Gospel of Joy, Pope Francis decries abortion, saying that “a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems.”

Francis warns:“Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be.”

If that’s not strong enough, he warns also of Divine retribution because of abortion.  “Reason alone is sufficient to recognize the inviolable value of each single human life, but if we also look at the issue from the standpoint of faith, every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offence against the creator of the individual.”


What about all that judgment and condemnation?

The Gospel of Joy was penned by the same Pope who famously said “Who am I to judge?” when speaking about “a person [who is] gay and seeks God and has good will.”  And for that reason many will marvel that the exhortation has quite a few uncomfortable references that seem to judge harshly and even condemn faithful, or traditional Catholics.  Here’s a sampling:

Spiritual worldliness, which hides behind the appearance of piety and even love for the Church, consists in seeking not the Lord’s glory but human glory and personal well-being. It is what the Lord reprimanded the Pharisees for…

Since it is based on carefully cultivated appearances, it is not always linked to outward sin; from without, everything appears as it should be. But if it were to seep into the Church, it would be infinitely more disastrous than any other worldliness which is simply moral.

… the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.

In some people we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church’s prestige, but without any concern that the Gospel have a real impact on God’s faithful people and the concrete needs of the present time.

For defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them.

So many and so strong are his condemnations of a particular type of Catholic it seems almost as if the Pope had someone particular in mind as he was penning his words.

Perhaps the most common question asked in response to the pope’s harsh criticisms of this type, is “Who is he talking about?” Many faithful Catholics and Christians of other denominations are confounded by these statements castigating persons or groups unknown to them, wondering what would justify such strong emphasis.

One clue comes courtesy of Professor Scott Nicholson, of Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy, an Ontario Catholic college renowned for its faithfulness to Catholic teaching. It is to be remembered that in the same city as the Pope’s own former Archdiocese of Buenos Aires was located a seminary of the schismatic traditional Catholic group the Society of St. Pius X. Moreover, the rector of that seminary duing Archbishop Bergoglio's time was none other than Bishop Richard Williamson. 

Yes, that same Bishop Williamson who, according to many, scuttled Pope Benedict’s attempts at uniting the SSPX into the Catholic fold. The same one who made controversial statements to the media that led to his being accused of denying the Jewish Holocaust, for which the SSPX expelled him from the Society and the Government of Argentina urged his departure.

Despite appearances, it’s clear that the Pope’s condemnations are not directed at faithful, tradition-minded Catholics because his descriptions of his target include key factors that eliminate them. Those whom he is condemning, he writes, are not “really concerned about Jesus Christ or others” and have a “self-centredness cloaked in an outward religiosity bereft of God.”

However, it seems rather obvious that Pope Francis would benefit from more personal experience with faithful, tradition-minded Catholics of many varieties. Those who, while having a desire for orthodoxy in doctrine and liturgy, also naturally have a great love for Christ and their fellow man, and live their whole lives with that love as their primary motivation.

That he may have a substantial misperception concerning faithful or traditional Catholics would not be surprising considering his very-likely disturbing experiences in Buenos Aires. Adding to this would be many distorted perceptions he has received as Pope from the more liberal bishops around the world who disdain Catholics who are enthusiastically and uncompromisingly pro-life and pro-family.

One further consideration in all this is Pope Francis’ native language of Latin-American Spanish which has a tendency to the superlative, to exaggerated expressions or hyperbole.  

 
So what exactly is he saying?

One of the primary messages that reads loud and clear from Pope Francis is he feels the need for the Church to express her teachings, especially her moral teachings, in a positive light. 

“As for the moral component of catechesis, which promotes growth in fidelity to the Gospel way of life, it is helpful to stress again and again the attractiveness and the ideal of a life of wisdom, self-fulfillment and enrichment,” he says. “In the light of that positive message, our rejection of the evils which endanger that life can be better understood.”

This is a message we can all take to heart, although, as witnessed by the life of Christ and all the saints, there is also a constant need for the proclamation of truth that some will always see as being deeply offensive and negative despite the love behind the message. All parents are familiar with this syndrome.

The pro-life movement, particularly in North America, has shown the way on the effectiveness of  loving, positive approaches in responding to personal crises related to abortion.  The focus on loving the mother and child, on providing aid unconditionally to women in crisis pregnancy situations, and even being there to pick up the pieces after the tragedy of abortion, are an awesomely powerful and positive witness to love and truth.

But in the other main moral battle of our day, namely same-sex ‘marriage’, we still may have a way to go before getting to that positive point.

Sadly, the typical response to homosexual activists offered by Catholic and pro-marriage leaders comes off as lacking any true concern for the men and women immersed in the homosexual lifestyle.

We are often confronted with the argument: ‘How can you be against the love between me and my same-sex partner?’

And the typical response from Catholic bishops and pro-marriage organizations completely ignores the homosexual desire for love, and focuses rather on the wonderfulness of natural marriage and how same-sex “marriage” would be bad for heterosexual married couples, children, and society.

There is a much more effective response, however. One which is rarely heard in this debate.

The response should be that we love our brothers and sisters actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle enough to let them know, no matter what the cost, that the sexual behaviours they engage in are deadly to their body, mind and soul.  We fear for them. We are ready to suffer ridicule, unpopularity, and one day perhaps even loss of freedom because this message of love must be preached and acted upon.

Perhaps that would be Pope Francis’ way of confronting same-sex ‘marriage’.  He seems to be a person who would disregard any personal cost to himself and would most willingly embrace the Cross in order to save others with the truth.

Back in his native Argentina, then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio fought a same-sex ‘marriage’ proposal by telling religious, "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God." He added, “We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

While that may be read as harsh by some, we must recognize that he was speaking to protect “the children of God,” which includes also those who are in homosexual relationships. He was expressing his concern for their welfare and the confusion of the devil that would lead them to heartbreaking self-destruction.


My hope for Pope Francis

Pope Francis has the heart of a liberal, and this time I’m not speaking here of ‘liberal’ in the pejorative sense, but in the positive sense - a generous and child-like heart.  With this heart and his mandate to care for souls, Pope Francis can perform miracles, even the miracle of halting the downward spiral of the Catholic Church in the West.  It will take radical action to achieve that miracle, and it is just such a heart that is needed to take such radical action.

In addition to having the heart for action, realistic perception is required, to see the varied needs and realities of the Church all over the world. Those who advise the Pope on the status of the situation globally aid in this monumental task.  This role is principally, but not exclusively, taken up by clergy from all parts of the globe who have regular meetings with the Pope to advise him.

However, it seems that he has had some very questionable advice. Let us pray for good advisors to the Pope so that he might discern what is best for the Church and how he can best use his influence for the good the whole world. 

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Banning reparative therapy for gay minors is ‘a form of child abuse’: former homosexual (Video)

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

SPRINGFIELD, IL, February 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Not only would Illinois legislators not be protecting children by enacting a ban on “conversion therapy,” they would be engaging in “a form of child abuse,” according to a man who left the homosexual lifestyle three decades ago.

Stephen Black of the Restored Hope Network told the Illinois Family Institute that reparative therapy helps minors who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction.

While opponents have said that psychological counseling to reduce sexual attraction violates truth in advertising laws and borders on torture, Black described it as little more than “pastoral care for people who want to come out of homosexuality.”

The Conversion Therapy Prohibition Act (H.B. 217), introduced by Democratic State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, would ban such therapy for minors, subjecting medical professionals to discipline by the licensing or medical review board.

"It would be tragic not to allow someone to have self-determination," Black said. "It's a form of child abuse."

“You've got a teenager...[who] actually believes the Bible. He finds himself same-sex attracted,” Black said. “In the Bible...the loving thing to do is to repent, to turn away from this type of lifestyle.”

“Now, this legislation is going to come in and keep him from getting the help he wants,” Black said.

He added that such legislation undermines the family, which may wish to steer a child away from homosexuality – with its attendant higher risk of STDs, depression, and suicide.

Legislation such as H.B. 217 says that “government knows best,” according to Black, and “conflicts with religious liberties.”

He finds confirmation in an unlikely source – far-Left Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu of California. As a state senator, Lieu introduced the ban on reparative therapy, signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown. Lieu said at the time, “The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill.” Barack Obama endorsed Lieu in his successful race for U.S. Congress in 2014.

Stephen Black says he has benefited from reparative therapy himself. After converting to Christianity, he says he eventually left behind his homosexual attraction.

Today, he's a proud grandpa. And he says other teens should have that same opportunity.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

He knows society is quickly turning its back on traditional moral stands, but he and Restored Hope Network continue to uphold the Biblical standard on all sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage, however unpopular his view.

“It's not politically correct, but it's Biblically correct,” Black said.

The Illinois House rejected a similar ban last April. IFI and Concerned Women for America, among others, have asked citizens to urge elected officials to oppose the bill.  

(Story continues following video.)

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Mark Regnerus

, ,

New research on same-sex households reveals kids do best with mom and dad

Mark Regnerus
By Mark Regnerus

February 27, 2015 (ThePublicDiscourse.com) -- A new study published in the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Science appears to be the largest yet on the matter of same-sex households and children’s emotional outcomes. It analyzed 512 children of same-sex parents, drawn from a pool of over 207,000 respondents who participated in the (US) National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) at some point between 1997 and 2013.

Results reveal that, on eight out of twelve psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems, or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents. The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 percent, compared with 7 percent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender, and parent’s education and income. Rates of ADHD were higher as well—15.5 compared to 7.1 percent. The same is true for learning disabilities: 14.1 vs. 8 percent.

The study’s author, sociologist Paul Sullins, assessed a variety of different hypotheses about the differences, including comparative residential stability, experience of stigma or bullying, parental emotional problems (6.1 percent among same-sex parents vs. 3.4 percent among opposite-sex ones), and biological attachment. Each of these factors predictably aggravated children’s emotional health, but only the last of these—biological parentage—accounted for nearly all of the variation in emotional problems. While adopted children are at higher risk of emotional problems overall, being adopted did not account for the differences between children in same-sex and opposite-sex households. It’s also worth noting that while being bullied clearly aggravates emotional health, there was no difference in self-reported experience of having been bullied between the children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents.

Vocal critics, soon to emerge, will likely home in on the explanatory mechanism—the fact that two mothers or two fathers can’t possibly both enjoy a biological connection to a child—in suggesting the results of the study reveal nothing of value about same-sex households with children. On the contrary, the study reveals a great deal. Namely, there is no equivalent replacement for the enduring gift to a child that a married biological mother and father offer. It’s no guarantee of success. It’s not always possible. But the odds of emotional struggle at least double without it. Some critics might attribute the emotional health differences to the realities of “adoption by strangers,” but the vast majority of same-sex couples in the NHIS exhibited one parent with a biological relationship with the child.

Even research on “planned” same-sex families—those created using assisted reproductive technology (ART)—reveals the significance of biological ties. Sullins notes such studies

have long recognized that the lack of conjoined biological ties creates unique difficulties and relational stresses. The birth and non-birth mother . . . are subject to competition, rivalry, and jealousy regarding conception and mothering roles that are never faced by conceiving opposite-sex couples, and which, for the children involved, can result in anxiety over their security and identity.

The population-based study pooled over 2,700 same-sex couples, defined as “those persons whose reported spouse or cohabiting partner was of the same sex as themselves.” This is a measure similar to that employed in the US Census, but it has the advantage of clarity about the sexual or romantic nature of the partnership (being sure to exclude those who are simply same-sex roommates). Among these, 582 had children under 18 in the household. A battery of questions was completed by 512 of them.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

This is not the first time the NHIS data have been used to analyze same-sex households and child health. A manuscript presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the Population Association of America assessed the same data. Curiously, that manuscript overlooked all emotional health outcomes. Instead, the authors inquired only into a solitary, parent-reported measure of their “perception of the child’s overall health,” a physical well-being proxy that varies only modestly across household types. Hence, the authors readily concluded “no differences.”

I’m not surprised.

This juxtaposition provides a window into the state of the social science of same-sex households with children. Null findings are preferred—and arguably sought—by most scholars and journal editors. Indeed, study results seem to vary by author, not by dataset. It is largely a different approach to the presentation of data that distinguishes those population-based studies hailed by many as proof of “no differences” from those studies denounced by the same people as “junk science.”

In fact, population-based surveys of same-sex households with children all tend to reveal the same thing, regardless of the data source. It’s a testimony to the virtues of random sampling and the vices of relying on nonrandom samples, which Sullins argues—in another published study—fosters “a strong bias resulting in false positive outcomes . . . in recruited samples of same-sex parents.” He’s right. Published research employing the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), the ECLS (Early Childhood Longitudinal Study), the US Census(ACS), the Canadian Census, and now the NHIS all reveal a comparable basic narrative, namely, that children who grow up with a married mother and father fare best at face value.

The real disagreement is seldom over what the data reveal. It’s how scholars present and interpret the data that differs profoundly. You can make the children of same-sex households appear to fare fine (if not better), on average, if you control for a series of documented factors more apt to plague same-sex relationships and households: relationship instability, residential instability, health and emotional challenges, greater economic struggle (among female couples), and—perhaps most significantly—the lack of two biological connections to the child. If you control for these, you will indeed find “no differences” left over. Doing this gives the impression that “the kids are fine” at a time when it is politically expedient to do so.

This analytic tendency reflects a common pattern in social science research to search for ‘‘independent’’ effects of variables, thereby overlooking—or perhaps ignoring—the pathways that explain how social phenomena actually operate in the real world. By way of a helpful comparison, I can state with confidence that after controlling for home ownership, residential instability, single parenthood, and neighborhood employment levels, there is no association between household poverty and child educational achievement. But it would be misleading to say this unless I made it clear that these were the pathways by which poverty hurts educational futures—because we know it does.

The academy so privileges arguments in favor of same-sex marriage and parenting that every view other than resounding support—including research conclusions—has been formally or informally scolded. I should know. The explosive reaction to my 2012 research about parental same-sex relationships and child outcomes demonstrates that far more is at work than seeking answers to empirical research questions. Such reactions call into question thepurpose and relevance of social science. Indeed, at least one sociologist holds that social science is designed “to identify and understand the various underlying causal mechanisms that produce identifiable outcomes and events of interest.” That this has not been the case with the study of same-sex households raises a more basic question.

Is the point of social science to win political arguments? Or is its purpose to better understand social reality?

What to Expect from a Topic Emerging from Its Infancy

One byproduct of better data—or perhaps the smell of impending victory by proponents of civil same-sex marriage in America—may be greater intellectual honesty about such relationships. Indeed, researchers have admitted the tendency to downplay “any inequities between same-sex partners . . . in part because of the dominant mantra that same-sex couples are more equal than different sex couples.”

It’s not the only consequential admission. Scholars are increasingly—and openly—squabbling over the nature of sexual orientation itself, signaling the comparative infancy of the social science here. Moreover, there’s a good deal of sexual identity switching being reported among young adults, a fact that does not comport with a honed narrative of immutability.

So should scholars trust self-reported sexual orientations? If people report something different a few years later, should we attribute this to their malleable sexuality or consider them heterosexual “jokesters” bent on messing with survey administrators? It is profoundly ironic that social scientists make strong social constructionist arguments about nearly everything except sexual orientation.

Stanford demographer Michael Rosenfeld’s survey project How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) reveals that while only 3 percent of heterosexual married persons reported being “at least sometimes attracted” to persons of a gender other than the gender of their current partner in the past year, the same was true of 20 percent of men in same-sex relationships and 33 percent of women in same-sex relationships. While the malleability of self-identified lesbian women is now taken for granted among social scientists of sexuality, the one-in-five figure among men in gay relationships is higher than most would guess.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In keeping with the data, expect those robust legal arguments leaning on the immutability of sexual orientation to bleed out within the next five years. Indeed, sociologists have never been fans of such biological essentialism, but have kept their mouths shut out of a sense of political duty to a movement they helped birth. No more.

Social scientists will soon wrestle with, rather than overlook, the elevated levels of poverty among well-educated lesbian women in America (as seen in the ACS, NFSS, NHIS, and HCMST). Until now, scholars predictably elected to employ income as a control variable in their studies of child and adult life outcomes, enabling them to avoid confronting the reasons for the unprecedented negative association of education with income among the population of same-sex female couples. Here again, it’s not been about understanding but about winning political battles.

We will also learn much more about the relationship stability distinctions that are common in the data between gay and straight parents. Unpublished research exploring the stability rates of same-sex and opposite-sex couples using data from yet more population-based surveys finds that claims about thecomparability of same-sex and heterosexual couple stability (again, after a series of controls) are actually limited to couples without children. For couples with children, the dissolution rate for same-sex couples is more than double that of heterosexual couples. What remains unknown yet is whether this difference is an artifact that will disappear with legal marriage rights. I doubt it, given that same-sex relationships are distinctive in other ways, too. But it’s an empirical question.

As it turns out, the NFSS was not unique. It was simply more transparent than most datasets and offered a clearer glimpse into the messy reality of many Americans’ household histories. It did the work social science was intended to do—to richly describe and illuminate—but in so doing invited unprecedented hostility.

On a Thursday morning in late June 2015, Americans will be treated to the Court’s decision about altering an institution as old as recorded human history. But one thing that day will not change is the portrait of same-sex households with children. After a series of population-based data-collection projects, we know what that looks like: a clear step down, on average, from households that unite children with their own mother and father.

Biology matters—as new research released this week confirms—and no amount of legislation, litigation, or cheerleading can alter that. Whether the high court will elect to legally sever the rights of children to the security and benefits of their mother's and father’s home is anyone’s guess.

Reprinted with permission from The Witherspoon Institute. 

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen

,

The case for imposing gay ‘marriage’ is remarkably similar to that for slavery. But can the GOP produce a new Abe Lincoln?

Michael Stokes Paulsen
By Michael Stokes Paulsen

February 27, 2015 (ThePublicDiscourse.com) -- No, of course Old Abe never said a lick about same-sex marriage. The idea would have been unheard of in the 1850s—or even the 1950s. The issue of Lincoln’s day was slavery—in particular, the extension of that peculiar institution into federal territories and even into free states. But in connection with the slavery issue, Lincoln had plenty to say about the use and abuse of judicial authority to propagate social policy and about the dangers of judges usurping legislative authority. The man whose birth we honored two weeks ago thus spoke, indirectly, to one of the central controversies of our own era, and to a case pending before the Supreme Court right now.

Lincoln’s specific concern was the expansion of slavery into federal territories, mandated by the Supreme Court’s horrendous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857. Lincoln warned of the prospect of a “second Dred Scott” decision following on the heels of the first, mandating the extension of slavery into (formerly) “free” states where the institution of slavery was banned, like Illinois. “We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free,” Lincoln intoned, in the famous House Divided speech launching his (unsuccessful) 1858 campaign for Senate, “and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois slave State.”

The logic of the Dred Scott case, Lincoln argued, would seem to imply that no state could deny recognition to the property rights of slaveholders coming from another state. Dred Scott had held that a right to own slave property, conferred by the laws of a slave state, bound the federal government, in administering federal territories that had not yet become states. Federal law could not ban slavery in the territories, for that would unfairly and unconstitutionally deprive slave-owners of a benefit they had possessed under state law, and thus deny them “due process of law.”

However convoluted and unpersuasive the Court’s reasoning, Lincoln recognized the implications of its logic: if the federal government had to recognize slavery as a result of some states’ laws, how could a free state (like Illinois) deny recognition to slave status conferred by a slave state’s laws (like Missouri’s)?

A House Divided

Lincoln warned that politicians and judges, like builders working according to a common plan, were preparing the framework to make slavery the uniform national rule: “Put that and that together, and we have a nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery within its limits.” And once that had happened, a state could scarcely deny to all citizens of a state the same “constitutional right” to the institution of slavery that it had to recognize to newcomers or travelers from slave states. A case presenting exactly these issues was kicking around in the New York courts, and seemed at the time destined to make it to the US Supreme Court, presenting the perfect opportunity for such a second Dred Scott.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand,” Lincoln said, quoting Jesus. Lincoln did not expect the house to fall, but he did expect that “it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.” The only way to prevent slavery from becoming the national rule was to resist the decision of the Supreme Court and to seek to prevent its extension—to “meet and overthrow the power of” the “political dynasty” that was seeking to extend slavery to the entire nation.

Lincoln lost that Senate campaign to the incumbent Stephen Douglas, but then beat Douglas in a rematch two years later, this time for the presidency. The rest, as they say, is history: southern states revolted against what they considered a revolting, lawlessly antislavery president; Lincoln considered it his constitutional duty to maintain the Union, faithfully execute the laws, and put down the rebellion; and during a four-year bloody Civil War that tragically claimed 620,000 lives—more than all of America’s other wars combined—Lincoln found it necessary to proclaim the emancipation of slaves held in the states in rebellion. The Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery throughout the nation, was proposed by Congress 150 years ago this month, and Lee surrendered to Grant 150 years ago this April. Barely a week after that, Lincoln was killed by an assassin’s bullet—having seen, but never entered, the promised land of a nation free of slavery.

Parallels between Dred Scott and Windsor

So what does all this have to do with same-sex marriage? A lot. Two years ago, in the contrived test case of Windsor v. United States, a bare majority of Supreme Court justices held that a legal status conferred by state law had to be recognized within the federal sphere. The court held that to deny such a status, as federal law did, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In legal form and substance, the decisions in Windsor and Dred Scott are surprisingly parallel. Windsor involved a same-sex marriage that was recognized by the state of New York but not recognized by the federal government due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Court held that DOMA denied “due process of law” because it withheld federal recognition to a state-law legal status. That is exactly the same thing the Court did in Dred Scott. Instead of marriage, Dred Scott involved the status of slavery, which was recognized by the state of Missouri, but not by federal law in federal territory. Scott’s master, a captain in the army, had taken Scott to Fort Snelling, in the free federal territory of present-day Minnesota. The federal Missouri Compromise of 1820 banned the status of slavery in federal territory north of a designated line. Dred Scott held that the Missouri Compromise denied “due process of law” because it withheld federal recognition to a state-law legal status. That is just what Windsor did with respect to DOMA.

In both Dred Scott and Windsor, the Court’s legal analysis was transparently result-oriented: the justices wanted a particular result, and manipulated the law to reach the outcome they thought preferable as a social-policy matter. In both cases, the majority’s “reasoning” wanders aimlessly before finally settling into the same oft-discredited judicial invention of “substantive due process”—the idea that it is simply morally wrong, or mean, for a democracy to deny a legal right or status conferred under the law of a different jurisdiction. In both cases, the majority opinions were subject to devastating dissents, and they produced greatly divided public reaction. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Dred Scott and Windsor are two peas from the same judicial-activist pod.

A Second Windsor?

Lincoln warned that there could be a “Second Dred Scott” making slavery national. “Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Could there be a “Second Windsor” making same-sex marriage national?

Quite possibly yes. A case is now pending before the Supreme Court asking whether four states—Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee—acted unconstitutionally by not recognizing the status of same-sex marriages under their laws. Some of the plaintiffs are same-sex partners who were married under the laws of other states before moving to a state not recognizing such status. Other plaintiffs seek simply to be married in their home states, the laws of which limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Just as with Dred Scott and slavery, the logic of Windsor does not quite require extension to invalidate the laws of every state that denies same-sex marriage status. But an argument will be made that it does. The reasoning of Windsor is that it was gratuitously and indefensibly mean, and therefore unconstitutional, for the federal government to deny recognition to a same-sex marriage recognized under state law. Just as Lincoln asked with respect to Dred Scott, how likely is it the Court will say that a state can then deny to other state’s citizens, or even to its own, the status of same-sex marriage? “Put that and that together,” as Lincoln said, “and we have another nice little niche” for the next Supreme Court decision.

Same-sex marriage is obviously an entirely different social institution than slavery. Reasonable and honorable people today disagree about whether the traditional view of marriage as a conjugal and intrinsically male-female union should be abandoned for an understanding of marriage as embracing any sexual-romantic bond into which two (or more) people might enter. Nobody today disagrees about slavery.

But that is not the point. The point is that, in the structure and logic of the legal arguments made for judicial imposition of an across-the-board national rule requiring every state to accept the institutions, the two situations appear remarkably similar.

If recent lower court opinions on marriage are any guide, the judicial winds may be blowing on the marriage question in the same direction Lincoln seemed to perceive them blowing on the question of extending slavery into northern states by judicial decree. (Lincoln’s prediction probably would have proved right had he not been elected president.) As with slavery in the 1850s, so too with same-sex marriage in 2015: the house very likely will soon cease to be divided. I wouldn’t want to say it’s inevitable, but it is certainly possible that a Second Windsor is coming.

Will the Republican Party produce another Lincoln to stand against it?

Reprinted with permission from The Witherspoon Institute

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook