Jeniffer Roback Morse email newsletter | Jennifer Roback Morse | September 24, 2007
Last week I was able to deliver the following statement before the San Diego City Council. The Council was considering whether to add the City of San Diego’s name to a Friend of the Court brief supporting a case in favor of same sex marriage, currently pending before the California Supreme Court.
Next week, I will be going to Canada to do a briefing for their Members of Parliament about why cohabitation is not the same as marriage. I mention that to indicate that my primary job is to straighten out the straight people. And believe me, it is a full-time job. I am here today to explain why I believe instituting same sex marriage will make that job immeasurably more difficult. The needs of same sex couples and opposite sex couples would both be better served by having distinct institutional arrangements, rather than by trying to have one institution serve the needs of both groups.
Opposite sex couples have children, without any specific intervention by the state. Same sex couples can not have children without specific legal institutions in place to do two things: first, the rights of at least one of the genetic parents must be terminated. Second, at least one member of the same sex couple must have parental rights specifically assigned to them.
The advocates of same sex marriage hope that “marriage” will allow them to skip these steps. They hope, for instance, that any child born to either member of a lesbian couple will be presumed to be the child of both. But that requires that somehow, the male contributor to the conception of the child must be safely out of the way. That step still has to be taken, no matter what kind of union the members of the lesbian couple have with each other. Renaming their relationship should not be enough to invalidate the father’s rights to his child.
In practice, there are two possible things that can happen with the opposite sex parent. Either that parent will be considered legally superfluous. Or, the child can have three parents, the two same sex parents, plus the cooperating opposite sex parent.
Neither of these options are particularly good for children. We know that children thrive when they are raised by two married parents. We know that children suffer specific kinds of losses from the absence of their mother or from the absence of their father. And we know that children in step-families have a specific set of emotional and behavioral risks. We can only imagine how those problems would be compounded in the event of three, rather than two, legal parents juggling the children from one home to another, disputing about custody schedules and fighting over child support.
These are some of the negative outcomes we can expect from trying to make marriage into a gender-neutral institution that applies identically to same sex and opposite sex couples.
1. Triple parenting will emerge, as it has already done in both Canada and Pennsylvania.
2. The state will have to determine, not just record, parentage of same sex couples. If same sex marriage is really treated as the equivalent of opposite sex marriage, that authority will be extended to cover opposite sex couples as well.
3. There will no longer be “natural parents,” only “legal parents.” In Spain, the birth certificates were changed from “mother” and “father” to “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B.” In Canada, the birth certificates were changed from “natural mother” and “natural father” to “legal parent A” and “legal parent B.”
4. Same sex marriage will further the process of marginalizing men from the family. If children don’t really need one parent of each gender, the natural conclusion will be that fathers, not mothers, are disposable.
Legally recognizing same sex marriage will destabilize the legal determination of parentage. In cases in both Canada, which has legal same sex marriage, and Pennsylvania, which does not, courts have recognized three adults as legal parents. In the Pennsylvania case, Jacob v. Schulz-Jacob, the two members of the estranged lesbian couple as well as the biological father, all dispute one another’s rights and responsibilities. The children have all the trauma of divorce, multiplied. They have visitation with three adults, none of whom live together, none of whom are cooperating with each other. It is a psychologist’s nightmare.
We have all seen children of divorced parents shuttling from one household to another. If same sex marriage comes to California, we will be seeing children going among three or even more parents. I urge you to vote against this resolution. Picture a little girl, going from her mom’s house to her mom’s former partner’s house, to her dad’s, to her dad’s former partner’s. Those little children, with their backpacks and their sleeping bags, will be on your head, if the resolution supporting same sex marriage passes.
I speak on behalf of the many supporters of traditional marriage who are arrayed in this room. We come from all the major faith traditions, and no religion at all. But we are united in two core beliefs.
1. We believe that men and women are different in socially significant ways. We believe that mothers and fathers are not perfectly interchangeable. The advocates of same sex marriage must insist that gender is irrelevant to parenting.
2. We believe that something is owed to the child. We believe that every child is entitled to be born into a family of the mother and father who brought them into being through an act of love. Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents.
Like many others here today, I am devoted to helping opposite sex couples see the importance of life-long married love. Our efforts would be greatly hampered by a judgement of the state saying adults are entitled to cut off a child’s relationship with one of his parents at birth, and that the child should be indifferent as to whether he has both parents or not.
That is why we have come here today: to speak on behalf of those children yet to be born, to affirm our commitment to the principle that every child deserves a mother and a father.
Fr. Hans writes: “What’s changed? Am I missing something here?”
Perhaps I was reading you too literally. But first you said “Thus, you first have to define the assumptions behind your definition of “medical intervention” before any progress can be made.” Having then defined my assumptions on that issue, you wrote: “The issue is not whether a hydration or feeding tube is a ‘medical intervention.’ ” So I thought I was answering the question you asked, but then it turned out that there was a different question. So be it.
Fr. Hans: “‘PVS’ is not a consistent diagnostic category in the sense you employ it here, thus the question, framed as a negative, doesn’t make ethical sense.”
I would say it’s not an “easy” diagnosis, but one that requires medical imaging, EEGs, and in-person neurological exams repeated over time. That said, there is a point at which the diagnosis of PVS is correct. I believe that in Terri Schiavo’s case it was the correct diagnosis.
Fr. Hans: “You need to ask “in what situations does the removal of a feeding tube not violate ethical norms” which brings you back to foundational assumptions.”
Well, yes. But in past discussions, was I not clear about my assumptions?
My main assumption is that people have a right to make decisions on their own medical care. I am often accused of treating Terri Schiavo as a non-person. The reality is the opposite. Because Terri Schiavo was a person, she had to right to decide whether or not she would be maintained indefinitely in a PVS. When a patient cannot communicate, then we have to try to determine what his or her decision would have been.
Here we get into matters of fact. I don’t want to rehash an old discussion, but suffice it to say that I believe Judge Greer got it right, that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to be maintained like that. We can argue about that, but let’s say that Greer got that right.
So you have someone who is in a PVS, who would not have wanted to be maintained like that. If those are true, and I believe they were, then why wouldn’t we remove the feeding tube? In fact, I would say that we would have a moral obligation to remove the tube — not because Terri Schiavo wasn’t a person, but because she was a person.
In the past I’ve said that the person who was Terri Schiavo was gone long before the tube was removed. Upon reflection, I don’t think that was correct. What I would say is that the most fundamental characteristics that we associate with personhood — thought, consciousness, awareness, perception, and so on — these were gone years before, and gone permanently. It is similar to brain death, the only difference being the existence of enough brain tissue to maintain respiration, involuntary movement, and so on. And in her case the brain tissue was not just dead, but literally gone, liquified.
Fr. Hans: “And yes, a basic position regarding feeding and hydration exists: food and water are a fundamental human right. You don’t agree with this (neither does James). It’s that foundational assumption thing again.”
Actually I do agree with that. (Within the limits of medical feasibility. I think you would agree with that.) However, like any right one can choose to exercise the right or not. An even more fundamental human right is the right to air. But one can choose not to be on a ventilator. In the case of PVS, tube feeding is essentially forced feeding. This is why it is essential to try to understand whether that is something that the person would actually want.
Jim, the early Christians did not have to deal with a culture founded on a systematic, wholesale denial of the sacred and the transcendent. I am discouraged for you Jim, not myself. You were formed in a mileau of revolt (protest ant). You are deluded in the belief that there are a multitude of essentially equivalent choices each of us must make that are real and concrete. God is a fantasy that interferes with making appropriate choices. Much of our culture is formed by the same attitude. Obedience, repentance, humility are words that are hard words to hear in the best of circumstances. For many today they are absolute insanity.
A marytr is a witness
An apostate is someone who revolts against faith, an anti-witness.
The consequences of witness to the truth is not often fame, fortune and acceptance. The consequence is rejection and persecution. If we seek the reward of the world either on a personal level or as the Church that is a form of apostasy.
All of the little revolts that impinge on me from modern culture and my own passions harden my heart and viatate my witness to Christ. The only effective way to overcome such impingement is to “take up my cross daily”. Every compromise leads to greater apostasy, every little crucifixion leads closer to God and strengthens my witness.
Among all of the false dichotomies and illusory choices that the modern mind loves to trumpet, there is an absolute refusal to face the real dichotomy, the real choice: Christ and Him crucified or Nothing. In this world we exist on the edge of the precipice. We are either turned toward the light or we are not.
Homosexuality is a revolt against our Creator as is all sexual license. It is fake and has no substance at all. It denies the reality of who we are as human beings as well as the nature and purpose of sex. You refuse to even engage the nature of human being except on the most superficial.
No one has addressed even one of the 11 aspects of man that I listed in
#143. Not even to ask a question.
note 249:
As I mentioned, I’m not arguing for the things I think others here assume I’m arguing for.
Another denial
Had Terri been in a coma, been only mentally impaired or had Alzheimers, I’d be agreeing with you that the tube needed to stay in.
And another confirmation of the very thing denied in the very next sentence! I have a hard time believing your this dense!
We just disagree on the medical diagnosis, that’s all.
Wrong. We disagree on a lot more. In this case, we disagree on the moral import of any medical diagnosis, because we disagree on ontology (i.e what is man).
note 250:
was I not clear about my assumptions?
Yes: your a materialist, a death eater. We understand that.
My main assumption is that people have a right to make decisions on their own medical care. I am often accused of treating Terri Schiavo as a non-person. The reality is the opposite. Because Terri Schiavo was a person, she had to right to decide whether or not she would be maintained indefinitely in a PVS.
Uh oh, here comes yet another explication of materialist/modernist dogma about what a persons “rights” (a materialist version of morality), no doubt never getting to the underlying ontology about what makes all this true….some one make sure I don’t fall asleep…set the alarm for me….
When a patient cannot communicate, then we have to try to determine what his or her decision would have been.
a moral and even legal obligation of her fellow man based on what? Oh, that’s right, Jim never gets to his ontology…I will go back to sleep now….
Here we get into matters of fact.
Well that ends all debate, even Christians with their head in the sand can’t disagree on what a “fact” is…..this pillow is soooo soft…..
If those are true, and I believe they were, then why wouldn’t we remove the feeding tube?
Radical individualist proclaiming the “right” to absolute self determination without reference to any moral obligations to others or God or even themselves. Why, how utterly predictable. Is the sun going to rise tomorrow – IS IT? I am worried!….ah, but this pillow is so inviting…snore….
In fact, I would say that we would have a moral obligation to remove the tube — not because Terri Schiavo wasn’t a person, but because she was a person.
He thinks we think he is “post-human” because he thinks we think he does not know what a person is, so he thinks by emphasizing person we will see that he does in fact know what a person is. The fact that he has a radical, materialistic, in-human philosophy of what a person is that is post-human, absolutely de-humanizing ,so much so that it can not even really be described as “evil” or “wrong”, it simply is not even within the category of good and evil (like a stone or the wind), why the fact that we are not even talking about the same thing when we say person, why this never occurs to the dim witted materialist….is there something good on TV???
What I would say is that the most fundamental characteristics that we associate with personhood — thought, consciousness, awareness, perception, and so on
Who is “we”….oh yea, dim witted materialist who Trolls at Christian web sites and who have no idea (not one little itty bitty tiny iota) of an idea of what a Christian might associate with personhood….What channel was that game on??
This is why it is essential to try to understand whether that is something that the person would actually want.
Yep, what is essential in all this (based on the materialistic view of man and morality) is what the radical individual post-human would have “wanted” (a want is a sacrament don’t you know) and we just have to base all morality, all legality, all medical “ethics” on a reasonable ascertain of what that “want” was – what else can we do?? Anything else would mean we would have to bring mythology and legend, like Christianity (or Jewish or Buddhist or Stoic or Wickan or Voodoo) ideas of what man is and what morality is (and what silly ideas they are) and besides, even you silly Christians really agree with me, no one really believes that stuff (you know, like we are created in the Image and Likeness of GOD), so why don’t you “dudes” buck up and get on board with the post-human universe…..oh wait, is that my alarm going off??????
WAKE UP JIM!!! TIME IS SHORTER THAN YOU THINK. YOUR MATERLISTIC SLUMBER WILL END ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IT’S TIME NOW TO SEE PAST IT. WAKE UP JIM!!!!!!!
One more thought:
What I would say is that the most fundamental characteristics that we associate with personhood — thought, consciousness, awareness, perception, and so on
This sentence right here really is choice. This may be the closest that Jim has ever come to admitting his ontology that I can remember. Completely unconscious of course, as it is said while in the machinations of reasoning within his worldview. If you can Jim, spend the next 200 posts or so focused right here, between the “What” and the “on” above. I will try not to fall asleep. You will find that you will get a certain excitement (i.e. a few posts) from Michael, Missourian, and others. Fr. Jacobse knows your not really ready for this yet however and will continue to respond to the machinations (that’s what the honey is for after all), but at least your Troll bait will do what you want it to…;)
Christopher, just so you know, your overly-heated posts don’t really bother me. For all I know, you’re a troll who is attempting to slander the Orthodox by making them appear like cartoonish, ape-like buffoons. From what I read on other sites, they don’t really seem that way, which is why I don’t get the schtick.
What does irk me, however, the fact that you refuse to answer one single question:
– What is physical death and how do you determine it?
– What is physical death and how do you determine it?
Answer: with spiritual discernment.
Now go get that catechism and stop posting these inane questions – we are only human you know (not that you know what that really means), our patience (despite our calling) is not infinite…;)
Christopher writes: “Radical individualist proclaiming the “right” to absolute self determination without reference to any moral obligations to others or God or even themselves. Why, how utterly predictable.”
There are all sorts of other ways that these decisions could be made. You could have a law that says that that no feeding tube or any other medical intervention could be discontinued until the person was dead and the body decomposing. Or, if you don’t like the legal route, you could convert everyone to Orthodoxy and then presumably all such decisions would be made correctly, whatever that would be. Or whatever. All sorts of options.
I would ask you what you would propose, but you wouldn’t answer the question. Because if you did answer, it would start to appear that you were having an actual discussion on the issue, and that can’t happen. Or, worst yet, it would be playing the “materialist” game. And worse than that, it would be dignifying the question, giving the impression that the question had some validity, which of course it doesn’t. Worst of all, you would actually have stated a position that could be critiqued by others. So I’m not asking.
Much better to snipe and sneer at “materialists” from the sidelines. So you go ahead and stay over there on the side. You’ll be safe there.
Christopher writes: “What is physical death and how do you determine it?”
Answer: with spiritual discernment.
Fascinating! All along, those EMTs and emergency rooms have been using this expensive, useless hardware, and all they had to do to determine the time of death was call Christopher who apparently can pinpoint with razor-sharp accuracy the actual time of death by merely looking at the patient!! LOL!
My gosh, do you know how much money we could save on health care by eliminating all that superfluous technology!!
JamesK asks: “What is physical death and how do you determine it?”
Christopher responds: “Answer: with spiritual discernment.”
You really need to share that with the medical profession. They are under the delusion that physicians declare that someone is dead. Maybe you can get a job as a consultant.
Hey Jim and James, I have a question for you:
What sound does a Troll make when he is hungry?
I found this link on Father Seraphim Rose, who is frequently referred to in posts here as a good model of Orthodox Christian thought. At the same time, other posters here tend to portray Orthodoxy as an aggressive, uncomprising and rigid faith (with these traits characterized as virtues, no less). That is why I found the following post so interesting (and refreshing!) and why I’m sometimes a bit perplexed by the tone that has become such a trend here:
Of course, Fr. Rose is referring to squabbles within the Church, but in my experience, people who cannot countenance disagreement from others in one venue usually have the same issues elsewhere.
JamesK writes: ” . . . but in my experience, people who cannot countenance disagreement from others in one venue usually have the same issues elsewhere.”
On the internet there are basically two kinds of religious discussion groups — those in which the discussions are highly controlled and moderated, and those that aren’t. These differences cut across all theologies and philosophies.
For example, I spent time on an atheist forum in which it was specifically forbidden to say anything positive about theism. So you could say that Christianity was worse than plague and nuclear warfare. But if you said “I don’t think it’s as bad as that,” then you were “arguing for theism,” which was forbidden. I thought it was a strange kind of rule, since a-theism defines itself in contrast to theism. The net result was a lot of cheap shots at religion, poor thinking, no distinction between sound and unsound arguments, etc. It was kind of like these “hunting farms,” where the elk is tethered to a post and the “hunter” walks up and shoots the poor thing. It takes about as much talent to do that as it does to shoot down a belief that no one is allowed to defend.
I eventually got kicked off of that list for having made some offhand comment about a relationship between faith and history. I was told immediately that there was “no relationship!” between faith and history, and was denounced as a “zombie worshipper,” and banned from the list. When it comes to intolerance of other viewpoints, Christians certainly don’t have the market cornered, nor are they the worst. It happens everywhere.
In venues with open discussions, it typically happens that an “enforcer” emerges to try to control the content of the discussion. The enforcer serves two functions: first, to try to disrupt actual discussions, and second, to “articulate the popular rage,” as Faye Dunaway says in the movie Network, of those who take umbrage at the presentation of other viewpoints. The enforcer hopes to enlist the support of others on the list so as to either join in a feeding frenzy against the “outsiders,” or to persuade them not to respond to them.
Again, this happens in all sorts of venues, regardless of religion or non-religion. Some years ago Fr. Hans and I participated in a discussion group that was mostly fundamentalist, though not restricted to that. There, the enforcer was “Paul,” who denounced Fr. Hans and other Orthodox with personal attacks on a daily basis, and also criticized the list owner for “allowing” that sort of person on the list to “spew” his lies, etc.
So it’s deja vu all over again.
Hey Jim and James, I have another question for you:
What does one Troll say to another before he goes to bed?