Barney Frank is deeply offended by Rick Warren, and he wants to the world to know it. On CNN’s Late Edition yesterday, Representative Frank criticized President-elect Obama for inviting Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. According to Frank,
Mr. Warren compared same-sex couples to incest. I found that deeply offensive and unfair. If [Obama] was inviting the Reverend Warren to participate in a forum and to make a speech, that would be a good thing. But being singled out to give the prayer at the inauguration is a high honor. It has traditionally been given as a mark of great respect. And, yes, I think it was wrong to single him out for this mark of respect.
What has Frank and other gay rights advocates riled up is that Warren backed a California ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage (the measure was approved by voters last month). In the course of defending his stand, Warren has made the point that there are lots of arrangements one could envision consenting adults wanting–from polygamy to incest–that we would not want to label “marriage.” In making that comparison, gay rights advocates have decided to try to turn the Reverend Warren into a reviled figure. Let’s therefore try to examine the argument Warren is making.
The core of this case, which is articulated in William Bennett’s 2001 book The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family (full disclosure: I assisted Bennett in writing the book), is that marriage is not an arbitrary social arrangement; it is, rather, based on teleology and the different, complementary nature of men and women. It is also an institution that cannot be understood apart from its cultural, biological, and religious underpinnings. It cannot be redefined by fiat.
Suppose, for example, that a man and three women, all adults, wanted to marry. They insist they love one another and that marriage would strengthen their bond. As consenting adults, they should be allowed to enter any arrangement they desire. Or assume that a man and his 22-year-old daughter decide that they, too, love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives together. They, too, insist that they love each other and that allowing them to marry would represent the best of America: tolerant, respectful of the desires of individuals, and part of the expansion of individual rights that we witnessed during the Civil Rights era. Now ask advocates of same-sex marriage to make an argument against these arrangements.
They will say that marriage isn’t about marrying as many people as you love; it’s about marrying one other person you love. It should therefore be restricted to two people. But why is this? Who are gay-rights advocates to insist that we limit the number of people in marriage to two? Polygamy, after all, has been much more prevalent in history than gay marriage, a movement that was essentially unheard of until a few years ago. But homosexuality is “morally and psychologically” superior to polygamy, others insist. And how do they know? As Charles Krauthammer has pointed out, many Americans believe heterosexuality to be “morally and psychologically” superior to homosexuality, which is why they deny the validity of homosexual marriage.
Same-sex marriage advocates, in dismissing the time-honored definition of marriage and de-linking it from its cultural, religious, and traditional understanding, have lost the ability to draw boundaries against a slew of other arrangements. Once people decide that their own human longings give them license to lay claim to marriage, the definition of the institution is arguably up for grabs. Everyone who wants to redefine marriage will invoke the arguments made by same-sex marriage advocates–from insisting that society should not set up roadblocks to their happiness and their desire to enter into loving, faithful relationships; to arguing that their lives would be incomplete without marriage; to claiming that government is wrong to deny them equal protection.
In the words of Mr. Bennett:
Having just rewritten the central rule of the marriage bond, proponents of same-sex marriage are hardly qualified to dictate to others what constitutes its central meaning, or why it can be felt only between two human beings, and not more than two. What arguments would they invoke? Tradition? Religion? The time-honored definition of the family? These are the very pillars they have already destroyed. No, once marriage has been detached from the natural, complementary teleology of the sexes, it becomes nothing more than what each of us makes of it.
That, I think, is what Rick Warren was getting at, rather than comparing homosexual behavior to incest. Now one may disagree with Warren’s position and believe that gay marriage is simply part of the centuries-long evolution of marriage that has occurred and that it would not harm, and may even marginally help, the institution of marriage. I disagree, but I understand such a case can be made–and, in fact, that case has been made by intelligent and sober advocates for same-sex marriage (like Jonathan Rauch). But to say that the arguments put forth by Warren are “deeply offensive and unfair” is itself, I think, unfair. And the effort to portray Warren as a bigoted and benighted figure is both unfair and wrong.
By all accounts, Rick Warren is a man of enormous integrity who oversees a wonderful, life-saving ministry. He also gives voice to the views of millions and millions of Americans–including presumably Barack Obama, who also opposes same-sex marriage–and Warren does so in a civil manner. Beyond defending the traditional view of heterosexual marriage, Warren has done several other things, including broadening the vision of evangelical social ethics to issues such as AIDS and helping the continent of Africa. He has also shown a generosity of spirit by having Obama speak at his church (and has been criticized from the right for doing so).
President-elect Obama deserves credit for asking Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. It is a symbolic gesture for sure–but symbolism matters, and this reciprocal generosity of spirit is good for the country. It is Barney Frank and his allies who are determined to turn the Obama inauguration into yet one more battlefield in America’s “culture war.”
The outrage directed at Warren is an effort by some to intimidate those who oppose same-sex marriage into silence and de-legitimize their arguments rather than answer them. This effort needs to be resisted, especially by those who claim to care so much about “tolerance” and the free and open exchange of ideas. It would be nice if, from time to time, those who claim to represent modern liberalism would reacquaint themselves with the classical version.
OK, Mr. Attorney General, at your request we will drop our cowardice and be blunt. Here, and in Massachusetts, are a couple of affirmative action products that have slipped and slithered through the system on the basis of skin color, always getting the additional 30% “credit” (like that which sunk the Connecticut firefighters), uttering banalities which have been regarded as clairvoyance simply because of their vacuity. Now, because of the Peter Principle, both have found themselves completely over their heads, and perplexed because slowly but surely the crowd along the parade route is realizing that, forsooth, the Emperors are, in fact, completely nude.
Is there any point to a David Brook’s column? I mean, one David Broder seems like quite enough.
I see that the FBI is getting a $1 billion increase in its budgets. Presumably Eric Holder’s tour of Gitmo was for some pointers on setting up the domestic gulags that $1 billion will buy — hope they’re “shovel ready.”
Speaking of gulags, I see that Number One, along with the D’s in Congress, will be shutting down the few million dollar voucher program for the black kids in DC next year. Need to be fiscally responsible, don’cha know.
I can see now why Jesse Jackson questioned Number One’s blackness. The voucher-killer decision is symbolic of Number One’s assessment of the politics of the situation. He will do the biding of the white National Teachers’ Unions and condemn urban blacks to another generation of mis-education (he’ll extend their non-education to some wretched new unionized colleges, of course, so that they can claim they’re “college educated” while continuing to be marginalized). All he needs the blacks to do is vote for him — better that they be illiterate.
People are astonished and impressed by the President’s cheerful self assurance, how he exudes confidence in his ability to master the ailing financial system, and even dares throw the chips of massive new govt programs into the game.
A leader must undoubtedly appear positive and optimistic in the face of frightening troubles. But I am beginning to think that Obama’s cheerfulness is less a reassuring tactic than recklessness, a cavalier trust that his life long luck will continue to serve him.
I don’t see how a responsible man who understands the dangers can take such risks, beyond and above what is unavoidable.
We are hanging from a cliff by our fingernails and need all our strength to chin our selves back up on a ledge, yet the President weighs us down with heavy new programs.
Every time I see Brooks’ stupid monkey face (he’s white, so I can say it), I switch the channel.
Meanwhile, Kathleen Parker, who got to fly with Obama, has a daring column denouncing the chimp cartoon.
——————————–
“make the Democrats suffer the consequences of raising the price of gas and electricity. ”
——————————–
What consequences would that be? Everyone I’ve ever heard complain about the price of gas seems to think Dick Cheney calls all the gas stations every morning and tells them what numbers to post outside. And I’ve actually asked a number of people how much they pay per kilowatt hour for electricity and NO ONE has ever been able to give me an answer. Businesses and institutions will have a problem with leaping electric bills but consumers/voters won’t be all that offended.
I came over here becuase I still have good memories of Commentary from the late 1970. But sweet cheeses on a bagel, this is just awful!
Why do we need Jennifer Rubin when we’ve already got Fox News?
This is a tiresome regurgitation of right-wing hackery: After six weeks grappling with two wars, a global depression and a financial meltdown, Rubin collects a motley group of fools who’ve determined that President Obama is “…a far left pol” … “a talented, but a wily and dishonest, salesman” … “trying to socialize this country.” I wonder if you’ve any idea just how ignorant and stupid this looks to readers who aren’t Limbaugh ditto-heads?
Obviously this blog is simply a duller version of cable-channel conservatism. My time’s not been completely wasted, though. I’ve been looking for intelligent conservative commentary (e.g. Larison, Frum) and I’ve learned that Ms. Rubin’s writings can forever be safely ignored, and the bookmark for Commentary’s blog deleted.
So Senatard this is the last we’ll hear “Frum” or are you just troll-teasing.
senatard…very clever! prance on back to sullivan now with the “real” “conservatives”…your insightswil be sorely missed.
I’d invite Senatord to stick around, maybe offer up some reasoned arguments in place of empty assertions and insults, but he seems as uselessly unlikeable and self-superior as some of our other occasional Rubin-bashers. So, speaking just for myself, I’d like to say please, Senatord, stay confirmed in your utterly uninteresting personal opinions and never virtually darken the Contentions virtual door again!
Pedant — you’re not helping. Stop with the “monkey” and “chimp” already. After the Sensitivity Intervention of last week, all I can think of is “Obama”…
JRub — pay no attention to Senatord. Flot/Jet is a touchstone for me every day now. I’m not likely to give much of an ear to a poster who flounces in, lobs an ad feminam pop-cracker, announces unending disgust, and bangs the door leaving in a huff. Bit too much like a four-year-old for me to believe “Senatord” was reading Commentary 30 years ago.
Shorter Senaturd:
Readers who aren’t Limbaugh ditto-heads are just ignorant and stupid.
The philosophers navigating today should be interested in this: http://abcdunlimited.com/ideas/liberalism.html
JED
I’ve been reading Commentary since the early 70s, almost 40 years, & I don’t think it was different in tone or substance then
From Inwood — sorry I wasn’t clear. It’s not the quality of Commentary across time I question, but the age of “Senatord.”
“No, generally a minority party doesn’t recover unless it opposes asinine policies and sets itself up as the alternative. Moreover, it never pays to harm the country.”
The first sentence is definitely true. Unfortunately, the second sentence isn’t. Look at the Democrats. Barney Frank and his colleagues decided to “roll the dice” with subprime mortgages. As a result the Democrats are in complete control and Frank is more powerful than ever.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR MR. BUFFET:
Huffington Post: May 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/warren-buffet-backs-obama_n_102451.html
Because you might get what you with for.
Warren Buffett is 78 years old. George Steinbrenner, George Soros, and James Baker are 79. Alan Greenspan and Paul Volker are 82. Jack Welch is 74. These guys are too old to make big decisions and formulate solutions for complicated problems. Their minds can’t be what they once were. They’re actually vulnerable adults now.
chuck martel — you may be right about the “vulnerability,” but an issue I have is simply the longevity. An 82-year-old, or a 78-year-old billionaire, isn’t going to have to live with the fiscal decisions that are made today.
This reminds me of the Democrats lining up waves of old people a few years ago, to protest Bush’s proposal to offer a privatization option for a portion of our SocSec contributions. Not one single person among them would have been affected by the proposal. They were all over 55, the cut-off age above which there would have been NO CHANGE to their benefits.
We should have been hearing from people my age and younger. I feel for people 20 years younger than I am, but they won’t be 81 when SocSec goes completely broke — they’ll be 61. And just like them, I have paid into SocSec my entire working life, since I was 17. It’s people my age — Generation W, between the Boomers and the X-ers — who will feel the first big effects from the bankruptcy of the system, and be the most vulnerable, at least on the current predicted timeline. (And no, I don’t plan to rely on SocSec. But raise your hand if you think the federal government will leave MY private savings or investments alone, when the system goes bankrupt. No hands? Shock.)
Life is too short to keep wasting time. I am not interested in any economic analysis that doesn’t focus on reducing government spending, and government’s hand in the economy — no matter who it comes from.
“An 82-year-old, or a 78-year-old billionaire, isn’t going to have to live with the fiscal decisions that are made today”
well, they also aren’t going to be around for any hopeful bounce back. If dryships and rio go back to where they were a year ago in 5 years I’ll be (even more ) rich then . If i were 85 I couldn’t wait that long and would have to cash out with whatever paltry amount were left.
So an older person may actually have a vested interest in a solution after all.
“. I am not interested in any economic analysis that doesn’t focus on reducing government spending, and government’s hand in the economy ”
lol you don’t want less govenment or spending. you want to divert the government spending into wars. your budget would be the same number as obamas if not bigger.
J.E. Dyer, you’re right and it’s more justification for not relying on their memories and ideas for guidance today. Generations ago these people would have already left this veil of tears and been replaced by others in their prime of life. I’m not discounting the wisdom and judgement maybe acquired through life experience, but soon or later we all fail. We don’t have 82 year old airline pilots. The biographies of various statesmen and public figures, I’m thinking of Churchill, show a definite decline with advancing age. In fact, the triumvirate at Yalta were all in advancing stages of decrepitude yet deciding the fates of millions.
Anti-poll as I am, I’d like to see the results of one that interviews twenty-somethings as to their projections of what things will look like when they reach retirement age. Chances are most don’t think about it at all. Social security is just another tax on their pay stub. Some might believe that that deduction goes right into a “lock box”, like Scrooge McDuck’s money silo. I know older adults that believe that.