SCOTUS, SSM, and Baltimore’s Mother of the Year

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

More people are beginning to wake up to the reality — which, let’s be honest, was always obvious for those willing to look — that same-sex marriage is not some a step toward a libertarian live-and-let-live ideal.  The refrain used to be “how will their marriage affect you.”  That’s now changed to “it’s certainly going to be an issue.”  From the related Supreme Court hearing:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­ exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I ­­ I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I ­­ I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is ­­ it is going to be an issue.

Colleges.  Private schools.  Other charitable organizations.  Private businesses.  “It’s going to be an issue.”

I grabbed the above transcript from an article by David French, who recently issued a mea culpa for having fallen for the line that SSM “changes nothing.”  (The phrase is from something French wrote in 2004 taking the pro-SSM side.)

Again, this shift in message was always obvious; I’ve been pointing it out for almost fifteen years.  Unfortunately, this particular “it’s going to be an issue” isn’t even the biggest problem.  As I’ve also been saying for almost fifteen years, the most profound consequence of the radical change is that our society will have given up its best tool for enshrining the cultural message that the couples who create children should work together to raise them.

That principle was already under assault, but it will be entirely untenable now.  And anybody who wants an image of what that will mean needs only look to Baltimore, where a lone, apparently single, mother has become something of a sensation — a standout parent — for braving a riot to drag home her teenage son, a full head taller than her, so she could ensure that he wasn’t helping to burn down his own city while risking arrest, injury, or even death.



  • pamela azar

    I believe she is

  • Mike678

    IMHO the mother of the year sets an example for her children who in turn choose not to riot/loot. Good for her trying to get the young man off the street, but too little, too late.

    If we had to give an award, I’d give it to the Mom whose child was offering water to the Police defending their homes.

  • Warrington Faust

    Like everyone, I have seen the mother/son cut several times. I have wondered what result if the circumstances were unknown and the mother was shown beating her son? I suppose there can be no doubt, that as a nation, we approve of corporeal punishment under the right circumstances. Imagine if a cop had done it.

    • Max

      If you watched NBC News coverage you also saw what people on the street
      thought. Most approved except one older woman. Her response was and I paraphrase, “I don’t think
      it called for cussing him out and beatin’ on him like that.” Mom may have not been the solution but you can see where the problem is.

    • ShannonEntropy

      Imagine if a cop had done it.

      It was HIS MOTHER who did it

      That is a lot, Lot, LOT different than having some random cop hitting your kid

      • Warrington Faust

        OK, then let us speculate on the perception if it was a father slapping his daughter around.

  • ShannonEntropy

    I am a little confused by your linking your opposition to SSM to the Baltimore mom

    You state she is “apparently single”. Maybe her husband was at work. Maybe her spouse is another woman

    I will address your main point in another post

    • Justin Katz

      In all of the coverage of this woman’s family, have you seen mention of a husband or other partner? Even without the evidence of that omission, the statistical odds that she’s a single mother are very good.

      • ShannonEntropy

        Even agreeing to stipulate that Baltimore Mom is a single mother, I fail to see how that ties into an opposition to SSM

        All I see is a mother literally slapping her kid upside the head to try to get him to conform to society’s behavioral standards

        As someone — admittedly part of a heterosexual married couple — who had to do that slapping figuratively to my own kids way back when they were teens, I can relate directly to that

        But I *still* do not get how that ties into an opposition to SSM

        • Justin Katz

          Because marriage has been the method by which our civilization has linked parents together and to their children. If it is explicitly not about couplings that can create children, then it won’t be very useful as a relatively soft cultural means of linking couples with their children. That will leave more disadvantaged children without fathers in the home as models and leave more single mothers to have to choose whether they’re going to march out into a riot to bring back their teenage sons, who are a foot taller than they are.

          • ShannonEntropy

            It seems to me that SSM will leave *fewer* children in single-parent households

            Picture TWO big black women slapping that Baltimore teen into not being a looter

          • Justin Katz

            So straight women are going to marry other straight women for the purpose of collectively raising children?
            That strikes you as the foundation for a healthy society? Men fathering children and then walking away to let women communes raise them?

          • ShannonEntropy

            I think we both agree that the best arrangement for society is the traditional male-female nuclear family

            But gay people can’t stop being gay any more than I can stop being heterosexual

            If they choose to marry and raise kids, that is a whole lot better than a single mom with zero spousal support relying of gum·mint goodies to live barely trying to do it

            Hey, even Babe Ruth didn’t hit a home run at every plate appearance. If you had left that last paragraph off, your basic point would have been a lot stronger

          • Justin Katz

            You’ve pretty succinctly summarized the social question, here. What’s more important, a social foundation to foster “the best arrangement for society” (your words), particularly with respect to the children born into it, or the ease with which adults can feel like there is no difference between them and other adults? I was raised to understand that adults should be expected to be, well, adults, and address society in a non-selfish, mature manner.
            You also get right to the point of this post. It’s already proving to be false that “their marriage won’t affect anybody.” I’m suggesting that it will also prove false that we can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples without completely severing the single greatest purpose of having an institution called “marriage” in the first place.
            Freedom and contracts can secure for same-sex couples everything except the government’s assurance that there is no substantive difference between their relationships and intimate heterosexual relationships. And even you affirm that difference, because the premise is biologically false and culturally corrosive, and the people most harmed will be children in disadvantaged families. In grabbing that final trophy, supporters of same-sex marriage are ensuring suffering and social deterioration.

          • ShannonEntropy

            the people most harmed will be children in disadvantaged families.

            Gay couples tend to have higher incomes and educational achievements than the general population =►

            http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-couples-more-educated-higher-income-than-heterosexual-couples

            One of my fave Doonesbury™ strips has a newly out-of-the-closet gay character being asked what the advantages of being gay are

            He says … “Well for one, the food is better”

  • ShannonEntropy

    It is my prediction that the plaintiffs will prevail in the SCOTUS case Obergefell v Hodges 14-556

    But the reason WHY they should prevail comes down to a pure matter of gender discrimination (( i.e. Andy can marry Betty but Charles cannot marry Andy solely because of his gender ))

    But the oral arguments so far seem to be centering on the “dignity” arguments

    And from the Be-Careful-What-You-Wish-For Dept =►

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-dangerous-doctrine-of-dignity/391796/

    Of course, in practice it will depend on whose ox is being gored. No Jewish deli will be forced to cater a Neo·nazi Pig Roast … but a Christian pizza hut not wanting to cater a gay wedding ?? They can count on having their business burned down around them

    … just like how Justin is the only one I know of who pointed out that Gina’s ‘girls-only’ Governor-for-a-Day Contest violated the State’s Constitution

    Where were the civil libertarian activists then, huh ??

    • Mike678

      It’s not about fairness or justice–it’s about political power. Discussions of equality, dignity, fairness, and so forth are all convenient tools to attain that power–the objective.

      Pointing out the regressive’s hypocrisy is important, but also indicates that one doesn’t understand that their overall objective isn’t “fill in the blank ism,” it’s divide and conquer to obtain power. The sad thing is that the anarchists and other followers of this methodology don’t understand that once their dear leaders are in power, they will be the first to get thrown under the bus.

      • Warrington Faust

        Although idiomatic, 1930’s, German does not translate with force to English; Hitler’s speeches are all the evidence which should be required on this point.

        • ShannonEntropy

          I have a video of Hitler delivering some of his speeches … sub·titled in English

          While you can feel the fire & passion in his delivery, his words more often than not use the language of high ideals … patriotism, courage, social justice, faith, unification of all the communities of Germany [[ never hear talk like that here any more ]] … etc etc

          The scariest thing is how all this rhetoric got perverted into what Nazi Germany became … just like what the ‘high ideals’ of ‘Progressive’ intolerant “Tolerance” etc etc is leading us to today

          • Warrington Faust

            I am not sure the idiomatic meanings of ” patriotism, courage, social justice, faith,” are fully translated by subtitiles. Would “I am concerned with women’s health issues” translate into German as “I am pro abortion”? Would “I favor social justice and equality” translate as “I favor same sex marriage”?

Quantcast