Skip to main content

McEnroe Starts the Great Debate

A threatened veto – no matter the bill – is always an invitation to the opposition to strut their views, which will have no live consequences because a veto is, among other things, a prophylactic that prevents the germination of consequences.

Therefore, a pre-announced veto by Rell on bills to legalize the marriage of gays is a most welcomed opportunity for the opposition to ventilate their views and snag a few votes from gays and their supporters. Though the veto makes winning on the issue unlikely rather than impossible– the Democrats do, after all, have a veto proof margin in the legislature -- the supporters of the vetoed measure have everything to win and nothing to loose.

The likelihood of another bill legalizing marriage for gays has re-opened the debate on gay marriage. Talk show host and columnist Colin McEnroe was first out of the gate in support of gay marriage. A Yale graduate and an Illuminati, McEnroe advances a compelling argument that might serve to open a reasonable debate on the issue. McEnroe’s remarks are in italics.

Connecticut is poised to consider, again, the idea of same sex marriage. It came up on the show today, and I have been hearing, ever since, this type of argument:

Why for instance can't an adult daughter marry
her mother? If they are consenting adults? If it's a matter of law – change the law. You have no problem doing that with gay marriage proper.

If you redefine marriage there is simply no logical or legal end as to what can eventually be defined as marriage. Then marriage becomes meaningless...

1. First of all, the slippery slope argument is basically an argument made by people who don't want to argue the point itself. It's as if I said: if I let you ban abortions, how do I know you won't ban vasectomies next? And then heart bypasses! And soon, I won't be able to have any surgery at all! Obviously, that's a foolish argument.

It sure is. But then McEnroe is a master at constructing foolish arguments and placing them in the mouths of his debating opponents.

The right way to discuss it is to discuss whether or not we should ban abortions or, perhaps, whether we can come to an accommodation on the topic.

But then, of course, there are different kinds of abortion, some more offensive than others. Here in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade that abortion is to be unrestricted up to the third month, when the fetus becomes viable, after which the states may regulate abortion. But China permits the state to regulate births through contraception, abortion and other means. This may be offensive to certain women’s groups here in the United States which have successfully argued that the decision to have an abortion should be made by the pregnant woman in consultation with her doctor. The state should bug off. State forced abortions, practiced here in the United States, certainly would make McEnroe and other pro-abortion advocates uncomfortable, and yet, applying the McEnroe rule – ancillary concerns should play no part in the discussion of abortion; we may only discuss whether abortion should be banned – would make it impossible to prohibit the hateful practice. Actually, the “what comes next” people do have a point when they argue that partial birth abortion – it came next after the US Supreme Court decreed that states statutes prohibiting abortion from the moment of conception were unconstitutional – might reasonably be opposed even by people who think some forms of abortion should be allowed. However, none of this would figure in a debate on abortion monitored by McEnroe. He would not allow such incidental concerns to bear on the debate.

1a. Similarly, if we debate gay marriage, let's debate that, and not the blizzard of other things that might happen later. If Incest Makes a Family wants to introduce its own bill later, we'll debate that separately ... on its separate merits. I, personally, will not support the legalization of incest.

The question before the court is not: What is pleasing to McEnroe? Upon what ground can the legalization of incest, and other practices McEnroe might find repulsive, be opposed: That is the more important question.

I do support gay marriage. I can tell the difference between the two. Hooray for me!

1b. Ah, you say, but if you act as though marriage laws are fungible, you've opened the floodgates. Nonsense. There were anti-miscegenation laws in this country until 1967! They were eventually repealed. I assume you think that's a good thing. But it didn't make other marriage laws change.

2.The above is by far the more important argument, but let's not pretend that the two conditions are equivalent.

Imagine that, in your neighborhood, you have on one side of your house Mel and Mike, a gay couple in a long term relationship. On the other side of your house live Marty and Mildred, a father and daughter who also have a long term relationship. Marty has sex with his daughter Mildred.

Guess what? Those two households are not currently equivalent in the eyes of the law or of society. Mel and Mike are tolerated by both. Marty and Mildred are reviled and subject to criminal prosecution.

This is true for the moment, but moments pass into history. The laws having been modified for gays, why should they not be modified for incestuous couples? It is not enough to point out that McEnroe sees a distinction between the two cases, finding one tolerable and the other repugnant. These are private feelings, always subject to change. The fact that some gay bashing McEnroe, in pre-enlightenment days, long ago found homosexuality repulsive did not prevent the advent of new and more acceptable feelings about gays. Why should an enlightened freedom loving society not follow the same course in the case of incest, which need not result in the production of children, since birth preventatives are available? Why shouldn’t polygamy be allowed? Considered as a social arrangement, polygamy has decided advantages. For instance, children would be attended by more mothers, and a family that contains 1000 wives would be, purely from an economic perspective, more stable than two party households. The important question is not who prefers what; in a democracy, people should be free, up to a certain point, to be their potty old selves. The important question is: Upon what grounds may society say to individual arrangements, “This shall not stand.”

Another way to look at it is this. Imagine yourself at lunch with Dick Cheney and his pregnant daughter Mary. Would you be telling them that Mary's relationship with Heather Poe has no better moral or legal status, to you, than if Dick Cheney left his wife and decided to marry his daughter and make her pregnant?

Explain to me how you would make that case to Dick and Mary. I personally don't think it should be legal for Dick Cheney to have sex with his daughter and make her pregnant.

I do believe Heather and Mary should be allowed to marry, if they want to. I can tell the difference between those two ideas. Hooray for me!

But, getting on the far side of feeling, mere personal preferences, how will McEnroe make incest illegal, and keep it so? Here are some passages on adult incest from Wikipedia:

“Incestuous relations between adults, such as between an adult brother and sister, are illegal in most parts of the industrialized world. These laws are sometimes questioned on the grounds that such relations do not harm other people (provided the couple have no children) and so should not be criminalized. Proposals have been made from time to time to repeal these laws — for example, the proposal by the Australian Model Criminal Code Officer's Committee discussion paper "Sexual Offenses against the Person" released in November 1996. (This particular proposal was later withdrawn by the committee due to a large public outcry. Defenders of the proposal argue that the outcry was mostly based on the mistaken belief that the committee was intending to legalize sexual relations between parents and their minor children.)

"In the wake of the Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558 2003) decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, striking down laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy as unconstitutional, some have argued that by the same logic laws against consensual adult incest should be unconstitutional. Some civil libertarians argue that all private sexual activity between consenting adults should be legal, and its criminalization is a violation of human rights — thus, they argue that the criminalization of consensual adult incest is a violation of human rights. In Muth v. Frank (412 F.3d 808), the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the case applying to homosexual activity, and refused to draw this conclusion from Lawrence, however — a decision that attracted mixed opinions.

In France, incest isn't a crime in itself. Incestuous relations between an adult and a minor are prohibited and punished by law, but not between two minors or two adults.”

It would be interesting to know if McEnroe is repulsed by the French (forgive the pun) position. If he is offended to the point of proposing a law forbidding the practice, how would he construct the law in such a way as to preseve it from attacks from a possible future opposition made up of pro-incest groups and their sympathizers? How would McEnroe handle the argument that adults ought to be able to express their first amendment rights under the privacy provisions of the US Constitution, as interpreted by libertarian judges, provided no children are involved and the activity is mutually agreed upon?


Marriage, a religious institution?

Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. They can choose a church marriage, they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace, by a ship captain and the most beautiful and holy place I can imagine to pledge their vows of love and fidelity and the promise to be there through thick and thin, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. The best part, no one has to even get out of the car and the best man and woman are readily available for one of the most holy of events in ones life; holy matrimony. Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look to awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual white Anglo-Saxon citizens. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that it slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our countries history we should then know that whenever we veer off from what the beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution says, it is eventually changed for reasons of being unfair. Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not to be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver; Fennville, Mi 49408
Don Pesci said…

“Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal?”

You may be confusing the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides equal treatment under the law. If a “right to gay marriage” were stipulated in the US Constitution, the effort underway to legalize gay marriage would be irresistible. Nothing in the Constitution interferes with the right of a state to establish a right of gay marriage through statuary law; this is what happened in Massachussetts where a judge, interpreting a state constitution, found laws prohibiting gay sex to be unconstitutional and forced the legislature to allow gay marriage. You maybe thinking of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, which says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Rights devolving from a "Creator" are sometimes called "natural rights." Because of their origin, they are said to be “imprescriptible.” Only the lawgiver can withdraw a right. A right given by God is for that reason thought to be inviolable. This idea is present in the saying, “What God has joined together, let no man tear apart,” a phrase found in many religious ceremonies.

Thanks for your contribution.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton, a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Dave Walker, Turning Around The Misery Index

Dave Walker, who is running for Lieutenant Governor on the Republican Party ticket, is recognized by most credible political observers as perhaps the most over qualified candidate for Lieutenant Governor in state history.
He is a member of the Accounting Hall of Fame and for ten years was the Comptroller General of the United States. When Mr. Walker talks about budgets, financing and pension viability, people listen.
Mr. Walker is also attuned to fine nuances in political campaigning. He is not running for governor, he says, because he had moved to Connecticut only four years ago and wishes to respect the political pecking order. Very few people in the state think that, were he governor, Mr. Walker would know less about the finance side of government than his budget chief.

Murphy Stumbles

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy has been roughly cuffed by some news outlets, but not by Vox, which published on April 16 a worshipful article on Connecticut’s Junior Senator, “The Senator of State: How Connecticut’s Chris Murphy, a rising Democratic star, would run the world.”
On April 15, The Federalist mentioned Murphy in an article entitled “Sen. Chris Murphy: China And The World Health Organization Did Nothing Wrong. The lede was a blow to Murphy’s solar plexus: “Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy exonerated China of any wrongdoing over the global pandemic stemming from the novel Wuhan coronavirus on Tuesday.
“’The reason that we’re in the crisis that we are today is not because of anything that China did, is not because of anything the WHO [World Health Organization] did,’ said Murphy during a prime-time interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.”