From Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion:
As all parties agree, many [polygamous and polyamorous groups] provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such [groups].
Excluding [polygamous and polyamorous groups] from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of [polygamous and polyamorous groups].
[Polygamous and polyamorous groups] are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex [and same-sex] couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that [those with a polygamous or polyamorous orientation] are unequal in important respects. It demeans [those with a polygamous or polyamorous orientation] for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society. [Polygamous and polyamorous groups], too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.
The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex [and same-sex] couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding [polygamous and polyamorous groups] from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter.
These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry [whomever one wishes to marry] is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment [polygamous and polyamorous groups] may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that [polygamous and polyamorous groups] may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
Now tell me, on the basis of the reasons given, why not?
Ah, I see once again, the religious right is pointing and staring at polyamorous people in an attempt to shock and horrify their opponents.
Knock this off. Me and people like me are not a horror show for you to advance your losing agenda. You should be ashamed.
Oh, and by the way, you're going to lose on polyamory too. As well as any other consensual relationships you decide aren't worth as much as yours. Society doesn't like your exclusion politics anymore. Get used to it.
Posted by: SkepticismFirst | June 27, 2015 at 06:48 PM
@ SkepticismFirst
What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?
Posted by: Brent | June 27, 2015 at 07:18 PM
@SkepticismFirst, you are such a hater and a bigoted polyphobe. Who are you to judge who or how many people a person can love and marry? People ought to be able to marry whomever, whatever and how many of the aforementioned if they love him, her, it, whatever and however many. I really can't believe such bigoted people still exist in 2015. Love wins, baby.
Posted by: marmels | June 27, 2015 at 07:23 PM
I am sorry that you have felt hated and shamed by the "religious right". You are loved by God.
Posted by: Kimberly Webb | June 27, 2015 at 07:26 PM
Do please bother to read the whole thing, particularly
I mean, you'd think that his repeated use of the phrase "right to marry" would serve as a hint. And also try to read up on Equal Protection analysis, particularly Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 , which established that to discriminate based on sex, the government must demonstrate that the discrimination is substantially related to an important government objective.
Posted by: Phillip A | June 27, 2015 at 10:11 PM
SkepticismFirst;
You said: "Oh, and by the way, you're going to lose on polyamory too."
Isn't that the point, really?
And I have to add...are you 'skeptical first' of your own comments, or just those of others? Your name would imply that.
Posted by: Robert | June 28, 2015 at 06:35 AM
SkepticismFirst,
I hope you were equally upset at homosexual activists who stood on the graves of suicide victims in order to try and shock and horrify their opponents into embracing same-sex marriage. They've consistently treated the religious right like a horror show them to advance their losing agenda. And when their agenda couldn't win through popular vote they went further and cheated the system by judicial abuses of power. So you should be even more upset with them.
Posted by: Coca-Cola | June 28, 2015 at 06:42 AM
The decision is one thing- what offends me the most is the insensitivity shown to a large part of the nation by turning the whitehouse into a rainbow house on Friday.
Any chance someone from the other side (pro same-sex marriage) can concede that this shows poor judgement at all?
Posted by: Jeff | June 28, 2015 at 01:29 PM
No SkepticismFirst, she is making a logical argument. She is asking a question, not trying to shock and horrify. What is to prevent polyamorous marriage from being legal now? Really, I would like to know at this point why people might be against it (that are for homosexual marriage). It's not shock and horror, I'm just interested in knowing what the argumentation is. If you are against polyamorous marriages, please chime in and let us know why. We'll need every argument we can get in the coming years to try to convince our fellow Christians it's a bad idea.
Posted by: JBerr | June 28, 2015 at 03:02 PM
Great article.
Marry whom or what you love. Your dog, your computer, a tree....
Posted by: Insectman | June 28, 2015 at 06:10 PM
Since words are used to convey our thoughts, it sounds as justice Kennedy's use of the word "liberty" is a hijacking of a word better fitting the discription of "libertine". The opinion of the SCOTUS majority is not the advancement of "Liberty" but for libertinism. The court took the issue of SSM out of the democratic process to promote the ideologue of libertines. The SCOTUS majority has shown favoritism for libertinism values while denying the true liberty that many states had enacted through the power of THE PEOPLE through democracy. If justice Kennedy thinks these matters aren't settled at the ballot box, then how does the SCOTUS have its authority? Was the constitution not ratified by the states and these state legislative bodies, which ratified, were elected at the ballot box? SSM would be considered to fall within the bounds of libertine philophosy and what the SCOTUS majority did through their "reasoned judgement" has denied THE PEOPLE of the states, that voted to turn down SSM approval, their liberty of a democratic republican form of government. The SCOTUS majority gave themselves super legislative powers to impose libertine legislation and call it liberty. To have legislation without representation is not a democratic republic; maybe it is more akin to the Politbureau (a committee of nine which ruled the former USSR) and this is how the SCOTUS has behaved on behalf of libertinism but not liberty.
Posted by: Kenneth | June 28, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Luke 10
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
How can any sincere follower of Christ claim that she has some religious right to shun some people? Jesus Christ was about loving other people, not judging them. Anyone claiming such a right is painting himself as the antithesis of a Christian. (I'm not saying you are necessarily, Amy.)
Also, you should have read more carefully, as:
"[Polygamous and polyamorous groups] are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex [and same-sex] couples would deem intolerable in their own lives."
..doesn't make any sense at all. They explicitly reject the stability of a couple relationship, so your substitution fails.
Posted by: jose | June 28, 2015 at 11:31 PM
Is this a joke or for real?
Posted by: Victoria | June 29, 2015 at 04:56 AM
I realize this was meant to be hyperbolic.
But you are making the case. The truth of the society we live in is that the line or metric is simply consent. If the parties are legally capable of consent then there is no justifiable reason to stop their marriage. I have brought this argument up to a few and all remain steadfast...no problem at all, as long as the parties are of age and have the capacity to give consent, they should have the right to marry. Cousins, multiple people, a mother and son.
Now my argument, whether worthy or not, against polygamy, is that more often than not, polygamy is an institution of subjugation, most often of women but conversely, is most detrimental to men, only a select few men, who are often older, richer and have gained more power have free access to many women while young men will be left without the opportunity to marry and take part in this institution thereby creating a subclass of young, frustrated, unmarried males -- an untenable situation, historically, for society,leading to a more militant and violence based community. Of course, we will be able to objectively observe this phenomenon in the next decade, as India and China's boys come of age in a society that has killed massive numbers of girls in utero, thereby skewing the gender ratio. Time will tell.
Posted by: Michelle | June 29, 2015 at 05:20 AM
Jose, you miss the point entirely but also prove the point while missing it.
The argument that almost every comment on this post makes boils down to their own belief in their personal autonomy. "Consent" is merely your nice way of saying that people should all have the "right" to govern themselves. Question: SAYS WHO? Who gives you that right? You will have no answer other than to eventually resort to yourself. "I say so." That's cute, but as soon as your perception of your own autonomy runs against another's, one is going to kill the other.
"What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel." -James 4:1-2
I'm sure many people religious people are trying to use their own perceived autonomy to "shun" other beliefs as well, but that too can only go so far.
What the BIBLE teaches, and what true Christianity must uphold is that there is one Sovereign Lord over the universe. And by virtue of that all-encompassing reality, HE ALONE HAS RIGHTS... specifically to your life because you're his creature.
Jose, you did not manifest yourself. You have always lived under a ruler: you breathe HIS air, and you parasite HIS logic that HE has given you to build your self-defeating case. You have absolutely ZERO rights outside of what HE has given you... and you can never get away from that. Have fun trying, but you will answer to Him for every failed attempt.
So, because there is a Sovereign Lord over all--Jesus Christ, and because He designed the universe a specific way and for His own glory, He has the right to define marriage for what it is. And He has--the Bible is undeniably clear on this. The issue lies not with interpretation, but with submission. None of us wants to submit to an authority outside of ourselves, but that's totally irrelevant because we all will (and do).
Since God has defined marriage FOR us, we neither have the right or the capacity to redefine it. You can marry your same-sex partner or your "consenting" horse, but that carries no weight. It's illegitimate and will never qualify as marriage--ever--no matter what the courts say. This is why those relationships will eventually break down and defeat themselves. They weren't DESIGNED to work, and so they won't, because none of us was designed to be our own gods.
Jesus has a lot to say about his lordship, Jose. Take up and read.
Posted by: Aaron | June 29, 2015 at 10:48 AM
To answer "why not?" we can choose sentences from Kennedy's opinion that are (arguably) not true (or not true to the same degree) when "[polygamous and polyamorous groups]" is substituted for "same-sex couples" Some possible choices:
...many [polygamous and polyamorous groups] provide loving and nurturing homes to their children...
It could be argued that the rate at which polygamous and/or polyamorous groups provide loving and nurturing homes to their children is significantly lower than the rate for same-sex couples and, as such, it is in the state's interest to decline to allow polygamous and polyamorous groups to legally marry.
And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such [groups].
This is likely not true of polygamous and polyamorous groups.
They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents...
Not necessarily true of polygamous and polyamorous groups, since at least two members of the group can be married. Which is not the case with same-sex couples when the law is written to explicitly exclude them.
Posted by: buddyglass | June 29, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Read it again. The Court was saying that stability comes from marriage, not from being "a couple." After all, the original wording said that same-sex couples were consigned to an instability opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable. Why? Not because they're not couples, but because they're not married. It can't be because they're not couples because they are couples. If marriage gives stability, then polygamous and polyamorous groups likewise do not have the stability marriage offers. Since Kennedy cites this instability as something the Court must give to everyone, it follows that it must also give it to these people. Whether or not they're couples has nothing to do with it.
And I honestly don't understand what recognizing the natural definition of marriage and its function has to do with judging people.
Posted by: Amy | June 29, 2015 at 11:51 AM
Not good enough. First of all, how would you go about proving that polygamous families don't provide loving homes? Second, the necessity of having a mother and father for the sake of the development of children was argued extensively, and children of same-sex parents spoke of how they were harmed by missing either a mother or father, and that meant nothing to the Court. Why should your prejudice against having many mothers and/or fathers make a difference?
Even if you're correct (and I don't concede that you are—unions of men and women are more likely to yield children than same-sex unions for obvious reasons, not less, and there are many polygamous communities out there), how many children do there have to be in order for these people to be given their rights? Rights aren't based on numbers. Your objection will not hold here.
That's fine for the children of the first wife, but what about those of the second, third, and fourth? They do not have those benefits. Again, this objection will not hold under a consistent application of the principles Kennedy has put forth here.
Posted by: Amy | June 29, 2015 at 11:58 AM
Not good enough.
Why not? It seemed to be important to Kennedy, in his opinion, that same-sex couples are providing loving, nourishing environments for children. If it could be demonstrated that polygamous groups are not providing such an environment or, at least, not to the same degree, than that would severely damage the case for extending them marriage rights. At least, using Kennedy's logic.
First of all, how would you go about proving that polygamous families don't provide loving homes?
Forgot "nourishing". Ask Mark Regnerus.
Second, the necessity of having a mother and father for the sake of the development of children was argued extensively, and children of same-sex parents spoke of how they were harmed by missing either a mother or father, and that meant nothing to the Court.
Because it's anecdotal. No doubt we could also trot out children of same-sex parents who would attest to not having suffered any harm from the lack of a father or mother. We could probably also trot out kids who grew up in an abusive home who would testify that they wished their abusive parent had never existed.
But all this is beside the point, because I'm not arguing for the equivalence of same-sex parents to opposite-sex parents. What I'm saying is that one could argue that polygamous parenting arrangements are sufficiently inferior to same-sex (and opposite-sex) parenting arrangements that they should be excluded from marriage rights for that reason alone.
Of course, one would need data. Or, failing that, the negative anecdotes of children raised in polygamous environments might be somewhat more "compelling" than the negative anecdotes supplied by children raised by same-sex parents. Think FLDS horror stories.
Even if you're correct (and I don't concede that you are—unions of men and women are more likely to yield children than same-sex unions for obvious reasons, not less, and there are many polygamous communities out there)
Are you really arguing there are more children currently being raised by polygamous parents than there are being raised by same-sex couples? Neither of us have stats so we can't know for sure (and I doubt such stats are forthcoming), but I would be shocked if there were more kids being raised by polygamous/polyandrous parents.
..how many children do there have to be in order for these people to be given their rights?
Who knows? Not me. But it is one difference between same-sex couples and polygamous couples. And it seemed to be important enough to Kennedy to mention in his opinion. Maybe he has some threshold in mind.
That's fine for the children of the first wife, but what about those of the second, third, and fourth? They do not have those benefits.
Have them be adopted by the husband and the wife he's actually married to. Kids get the legal and economic benefits of married parents. The only ones to really get the shaft are the non-first wives.
Posted by: buddyglass | June 29, 2015 at 08:19 PM
Aaron:
"Jose, you miss the point entirely but also prove the point while missing it. The argument that almost every comment on this post makes boils down to their own belief in their personal autonomy."
I don't recall making that argument. Would you mind quoting the part of my comment in which you think I do?
"What the BIBLE teaches, and what true Christianity must uphold is that there is one Sovereign Lord over the universe. And by virtue of that all-encompassing reality, HE ALONE HAS RIGHTS... specifically to your life because you're his creature."
Which has nothing to do with what I wrote, which is a criticism of the incredibly lame claim of some Christians that their rights are being violated. Try responding to what I actually wrote--that's the ethical thing to do.
"...You have absolutely ZERO rights outside of what HE has given you... and you can never get away from that. Have fun trying, but you will answer to Him for every failed attempt."
So why aren't you criticising the claim that Christians' religious rights are being violated?
"So, because there is a Sovereign Lord over all--Jesus Christ, and because He designed the universe a specific way and for His own glory, He has the right to define marriage for what it is. And He has--the Bible is undeniably clear on this."
It's anything but! Do I have one wife or multiple wives, Aaron?
"Jesus has a lot to say about his lordship, Jose. Take up and read."
I do. I see the words of Jesus Christ:
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
Nothing about shunning gays who want to get married to each other there, is there, Aaron? Now if you claim that there's something about marriage more important than this, you are directly contradicting Jesus Himself.
Take up and read, particularly the teachings of Jesus.
Posted by: jose | June 30, 2015 at 04:21 AM
A commentor at another site noted that divorce and adoption are both legal processes controlled by the state, so why shouldn't marriage be as well? In light of Friday's Supreme Court ruling, I have to agree. SCOTUS has folded marriage into the civil legal realm, and it is now the State that defines marriage.
Fine: render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. If Caesar wants to construct a golden calf, let him. God--not any of us--will be the final judge of that.
Pastors can still perform Christian marriage ceremonies, but let the couple get married in a civil ceremony first. That way the Pastor can decide who he will/won't marry based on the Word of God without falling into earthly traps set by sinners. We are not of this world folks. Time to get used to that and get on with God's business not the business of running governments.
Posted by: Anuschka | June 30, 2015 at 08:44 AM
We have to move carefully when quoting items about the (factual) problem of the family breakdown. It’s an accurate statement, of course. It’s a mammoth problem. The BET awards the other night mentioned the (factual) problem of the absent father. It’s *measurable*. However, the essence therein resides, in great part, in a peculiar milieu which offers the highest chance of success in socializing the child’s emotional intelligence amid the sexes as a functional adult.
The inescapable problem of the absent father is but one robust line of hard data in that arena, and one championed by all sides here.
For good, data-driven reasons.
Because it’s true.
The social sciences consistently echo that data when we look at other combinations and permutations.
Loving the child means championing the childhood milieu which will extract from her early childhood plasticity the highest feasible degree of success in socializing the child’s emotional intelligence amid the sexes as a functional adult.
The early plasticity specifically under review is unquestionably maximized amid that singular milieu that is the stable, ongoing, emotionally intelligent, caring environment which the robustly feminine amalgamated with the robustly masculine predictably, measurably delivers. There are *degrees*, that is to say, there is so-so, there is okay, there is better, and then there is the “best chance for the highest degree of extraction” or the ideal milieu relative to the child’s plasticity and future emotional intelligence amid the sexes as a functional adult.
Marriage is one thing. Aquinas on tolerance and law may perhaps apply.
But marriage is not the whole unit if and when we mean to invoke the essence of early childhood plasticity. That essence has eons of data which are inescapable.
Ignoring the fundamental truths of our human essences led some to claim a “difference” amid black/white. That same intentional shunning of the fundamental essences of our humanity does equal harm if and when we claim “sameness” in widely different milieus in-play atop early childhood plasticity.
Ignoring the essence of our humanity didn’t help mankind amid black / white issues. It was ultimately unloving. Repeating that same mistake can’t ultimately love the child either. Not factually.
Adoption is wonderful. *Any* stability is better than none. And so on, in said degrees.
The early plasticity specifically under review is unquestionably maximized amid that singular milieu that is the stable, ongoing, emotionally intelligent, caring environment which the robustly feminine amalgamated with the robustly masculine predictably, measurably delivers. There are *degrees*, that is to say, there is so-so, there is okay, there is better, and then there is the “best chance for the highest degree of extraction” or the ideal milieu relative to the child’s plasticity and future emotional intelligence amid the sexes as a functional adult.
This is not a statement on legality, rather, this is merely an observation of human essence.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 30, 2015 at 10:45 AM
victoria,
Looks like Amy quoted the Supreme Court opinion, replacing any words referring to gay marriage with words in square brackets referring to polygamy and polyamory.
Joke or real?
That's up to you to decide.
Posted by: RonH | June 30, 2015 at 05:08 PM
I visited a grade school (1st and 2nd grade) in an impoverished area and recall the (all women) teachers essentially pleading with me to return. That felt good until I learned why the request came. The children in that class were, for the most part, fatherless and me, as a male, had, these teachers felt, a certain “some-thing” which their young impressions needed, but were lacking. They didn’t need me to be a rocket scientist. They needed something far more expensive – they knew their young students needed a generator, an image, a model of appropriate and consistent male-impressions, as it were. And the community in question knew all too well the unfortunate reality of gambling away the greater for the lesser. It still “felt good” to be asked to return as often as possible – though for unexpected reasons.
We’re forever seeing hints of this leaking onto the floor in all sorts of places.
As noted earlier, buried in the midst of the BET awards the other night, a comment on the (factual) problem of the absent father seemed important enough to drop into the mix. Everyone understands, or gets, that reality – as it’s just palpable, measurable. All the affairs of our children’s masculinization and of our children’s feminization carry us unavoidably into the inescapable problem of the absent father over there and the absent mother over here, and so on. All of that is clear, observable, and all of that is so unfortunate that communities champion those who fight to untie such painful knots in the next generation of young parents. All of these are robust lines of hard data in an arena which is championed by all sides here and such (unfortunate) data presents us with something from which nearly no one dissents.
For intelligent, data-driven reasons.
Because it’s true.
The social sciences consistently echo that data when we look at other combinations and permutations.
The child’s potential need not be fully actualized as it us painfully and unfortunately obvious that we all enter our world already in possession of potential which our world, the world we enter, is, quite often, unsuccessful in fully actualizing. When it comes to the maximal potential of a child’s plasticity as such relates to the fullest actualization of the child’s emotional intelligence amid the sexes, we come to an uncanny observation:
Early submersion within an ongoing, stable, and emotionally perceptive environment insightfully exhibiting that which is fully human inside of the robustly feminine milieu amalgamated with the robustly masculine milieu observably provides the necessary stimuli and interfaces sufficient to maximally elicit the child’s embryonic intuitiveness. Mechanistically speaking, such caring reciprocity recurrently interfacing amid those distinct milieus are then levied atop the child’s highly plastic potential and that, as it relates to the child’s future capacity for authentic adult interfacing amid the sexes, houses our most credible or balanced consistency.
It seems that we have two approaches which allow us to arrive at that location – that of final causes (the God paradigm) and that of the latent potentiality of an already-present and deeply embedded neuro-biological network (reductionist, no-god paradigm) as the “end of the line”, as it were. In both we find an uncanny degree of convergence. The reductionist (no-God paradigm) who appeals to neurobiology as the end of line where our humanity’s employable substrate is concerned finds all the evidence of his stimuli-outcome trajectories converging in all the same locations as those trajectories predicted by final causes (the God paradigm).
We find no effective difference in what provides the child’s plasticity the greatest opportunity of fullness in a robust development of the child’s emotional intelligence across the full range of the robustly feminine to the robustly masculine as the child progresses to a fully functional adult. The relational landscape which provides that early childhood plasticity with the highest degree of actualization is the stable, ongoing, emotionally intelligent, and caring environment of submersion in the singular atmosphere which is itself constituted of the fully feminine milieu amalgamated with the fully masculine milieu.
That singularity sums to the relational milieu which is the factual some-thing found in the real world as granting our children the most predictable degree of success. As already noted, none of this is to say that other combinations or permutations don’t get by, often quite well – they do – but we are speaking here of the fullness of range of what just is our humanity’s fundamental essence as it relates to childhood’s early plasticity and a robust emotional intelligence amid the sexes.
The data on children raised with one parent is relevant in a few ways here. Children raised by the single father are found to be less aware of, and more likely to possess some degree of maladroitness in, many relational contexts where the feminine is concerned. And the reverse is seen in those raised by the single mother. This of course does not amount to simple dysfunction, but rather to degrees of awareness, to degrees of ability to fully interact in and with and by our humanity’s full range of potential, of capacity as all the affairs of masculinization and of feminization come to the forefront. Obviously this can be in part overcome by emersion – from day one – with a wider circle of close – daily – contacts (it takes a village, so to speak). However, we still, even there, do not seem able to find that which factually equals that which is yielded by the daily intimacy of the home submerged in the masculine/feminine of father/mother as our own humanity’s fully feminine to fully masculine range weighs in on childhood plasticity.
Ignoring the fundamental truths of our human essences led some to claim a “difference” between Blacks/ Whites, between African Americans and Caucasians. We cannot expect to fully actualize Mankind’s Good when we thusly ignore, out of fear, ignorance, or both, the elementary truths of Mankind’s essence, and that is why Pastor MLK got it right – his essentialism finally out-distancing such misguided thinking. We cannot evade reality and expect to find something worth having and Pastor MLK Jr. pressed in on that fact. It is a peculiar danger that of late that same intentional shunning of, willful neglect of, even disenfranchising of, key fundamental essences of our humanity where our children are concerned may be evolving, and the price there can only sum to those which Pastor MLK taught us so well. Such a repeat of yesterday’s unfortunate approach to Mankind can, and ultimately must, bring equal forms of genuine psychological harm and human misguidedness and those then must in return bring some new layer of emotional harm, and those then must bring yet some new layer of….. and so on. Such is the danger of ignoring what we’ve learned from our past mistakes if and when we claim “sameness” among a collection of different milieus found in-play atop early childhood plasticity. Ignoring the essence of our humanity didn’t help mankind amid “Black / White” issues and, in fact, it ended in the actualization of the antithesis of the Good – that is to say – it was ultimately unloving. Repeating now with our children that very same fear-driven mistake, that very same dis-invitation of yet another key slice of our elementary essence, cannot, ultimately, end in that which sums to loving our children.
Not factually, that is.
Disinviting truths about our humanity from the assembly cannot serve humanity in the long run. No one, none of us, can move forward in a degree of autohypnosis or in some degree of wish-fulfillment and expect to succeed. We simply cannot commit the same emotional and intellectual crimes of the past and expect to find our fullest humanity.
As already noted, adoption is wonderful, and two parents there seems to be more promising than one. *Any* stability is better than none, and so on in said degrees and where there are degrees there are, painfully for our children should we repeat the mistakes of the past, the grave potential of wasted opportunities – opportunities excluded or disinvited or marginalized merely out of fear, or ignorance, or both. The early plasticity specifically under review is with nearly across the board consensus most fully actualized by the submersion within an ongoing, stable, and emotionally perceptive environment insightfully exhibiting that which is the fully human inside of the robustly feminine milieu amalgamated with the robustly masculine milieu as such observably provides the necessary stimuli and interfaces sufficient to maximally elicit the child’s embryonic intuitiveness. Mechanistically speaking, such caring reciprocity recurrently interfacing amid those distinct milieus are then levied atop the child’s highly plastic potential and that, as it relates to the child’s future capacity for authentic adult interfacing amid the sexes, houses our most credible or balanced consistency. There are *degrees*, that is to say, there is so-so, there is okay, there is better, and then there is the “best chance for the highest degree of actualization” or the ideal milieu relative to the child’s plasticity and his or her future emotional intelligence amid the sexes as a functional adult.
Of course, just because “X” for various reasons offers the highest possible chance for actualization, for a robust emotional intelligence amid the sexes does not mean that good functionality is not obtainable with X-minus-some-thing. We all get by with various levels discomfort or unawareness, or what have you, amid something less than fully healthy interfaces as adults. But being functional has gradations, or layers, or degrees, as it were. We find here an unfortunate reality on the part of one certain narrative in the denial of such layering in our humanity as it develops. Where that narrative of late is concerned, as Pastor MLK taught us all so well, disinviting truths about our humanity from the assembly cannot serve humanity in the long run. No one, none of us, can move forward in some degree of autohypnosis or in some degree of wish-fulfillment and expect to succeed. We simply cannot commit the emotional and intellectual crimes of the past and expect to find our fullest humanity. The very essence of what makes us fully human was ignored and that made-up-reality was used to show a supposed “difference” amid Black and White human beings. Just the same, genuine opportunity for the child’s best shot at actualizing the full range of masculine/feminine emotional intelligence is always awaiting the child upon his or her entry into the world and, for all the same reasons which Pastor MLK taught us, disinviting truths about our humanity from the assembly cannot serve humanity in the long run. No one, none of us, can move forward in some degree of autohypnosis or in some degree of wish-fulfillment and expect to succeed. We simply cannot commit the emotional and intellectual crimes of the past and expect to find our fullest humanity. The very essence of what makes us fully human cannot be ignored as we just cannot seek a reality that is “as we wish it were” and attempt to, thereby, show “sameness” amid factually different milieus of robust emotional opportunity in-play atop early childhood plasticity.
As already noted, where the child’s future is concerned, *any* stability is better than no stability, and that less/more merges unavoidably into palpable degrees of opportunity for the child. But similarity is not sameness and (unfortunately for all of us) we have a wide array of converging data from which very few dissent that we do not find elsewhere that which factually equals that which is yielded by the daily intimacy of the home submerged in the masculine/feminine of father/mother as our own humanity’s fully feminine to fully masculine range weighs in on childhood plasticity and future emotional intelligence amid the sexes.
As noted, other combinations or permutations do well enough – but we are speaking here of a sort of identity claim – that A and B are identical realities where early childhood plasticity amid the full range of masculine/feminine emotional intelligence weighs in vis-à-vis the child’s opportunity. Observational reality seems to be declaring such to be (in at least some vectors of crucial import) a factually flawed identity claim. Marriage is one thing, and, indeed, Thomas Aquinas on Tolerance and Law may perhaps apply. But marriage is not “the whole” if and when we mean to invoke the essence of early childhood plasticity. That essence has (unfortunately for all of us) eons of data which are simply unavoidable.
The crimes against African Americans which were fueled by our own willful dis-invitation of the fundamental realities of our own human essence created a painful, genuine, and preventable shortfall in the very substance of our humanity and, fortunately, we were gifted with the likes of Pastor MLK to brilliantly lead us out of such error as he, thankfully, got it right. That is to say, Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. taught us with unmistakable clarity that when false narratives built atop fear, ignorance, or both begin to succeed they are themselves fated to come down on the wrong side of history – time and truth just do have that peculiar sort of relationship. History is both our teacher and a kind of proof in this arena. Narratives built atop our own self-deception or our own hope to have reality live up to what we wish it to be, rather than what it actually is, just cannot endure over time. Eventually the truth of our humanity rises and we’ve seen these principles of Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. play out over and over again on the world stage – for millennia.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons many of us find ourselves embracing the metaphysical paradigm which converges in Christ – simply on the grounds of grace’s embrace of every last one of us – and – simply on the grounds that reality does in fact have a true narrative, perhaps up ahead of us, perhaps within us, or perhaps both – and – simply on the grounds of reason’s categorical imperative to embrace reality’s true narrative – to experience His unquenchable instantiation.
Many of us need to beware here, lest we offend grace, and, for all the same reasons, others of us need to beware here, lest we offend various inescapable and factually measurable truths of own human essence. On whatever topic may arise we press – it’s difficult – to use caution in our own interior navigations of our own tendencies both towards and away from grace, and, just the same, in our own tendencies both towards and away from truth. We cannot offend grace towards our own selves and towards one another and think our narrative will – ultimately – flourish. We cannot offend truth towards our own selves and towards one another and think our narrative will – ultimately – flourish. Such shortsightedness has been found wanting upon the world stage – over and over again. History seems to reveal our final causes surfacing – ever spying somewhere within us – ever spying somewhere up ahead of us – His unquenchable instantiation. On such navigations amid grace and truth I’ve proven to be an inept sailor. Fortunately though, He holds all things and outdistances me. We are, it seems, not on the side of any Will-To-Power in any ipso facto sense, nor are we on the side of any Temporal Brand per se, but rather we are on the side of reality’s singular meta-narrative, that is to say, we are on the side of Grace in all directions – towards all – full stop – and – in the same sense – we are on the side of Truth in all directions – towards all – full stop. Grace and Truth as an *actual* singularity. That is the Narrative Whose Name is The-Real as we find all such lines seamlessly converging in Christ.
This need not be and indeed is not a statement on legality, rather, this is merely an observation of our own human essence.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | July 01, 2015 at 03:17 AM
An OP elsewhere commented on the common mistake of asserting that Jim Crow laws and Segregation laws are “Scriptural” and of asserting, thereby, a misinformed comparison to the issue of today.
The Christian Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. was, fortunately, well-educated and hence was well aware of the long established and factual statements which Christ and Scripture declare of all men everywhere, of mankind.
Those long established and factual statements were obviously a part of why he served Christ with such intensity, defending Scripture’s definitions and truths with his life. Hence, asserting that Jim Crow laws and segregation laws, and so on, are “Scriptural” obviously doesn’t stand up to more sophisticated eyes.
On the topic of the inherent value of Every-Man vis-à-vis Christ and Scripture, we can look at the Christian Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. and at history and we can, for a moment, zoom the lens out and gain factual perspective. History, groaning in pain, finds the Truth of God's love compelling Mankind towards His Instantiation on the world stage and on the individual's stage. Both stages, of course, internally struggling between said Truths of Scripture (on the one hand) and deeply embedded mindsets in need of renewal (on the other hand). Such are but a few of several obvious reasons why Scripture compels us to define reality by God’s love in and by Christ rather than by the disciple or by the non-disciple.
The lens zoomed out finds, coming into focus, not the misguidedness of those who, seeking to harm, to damage, make the uninformed step of equating Jim Crow laws and Segregation Laws to “Scripture”. Rather, we re-discover, with the lens zoomed out, the power of Christ's Grace to change a man's heart and mind, bit by bit, little by little, and, thereby, to change many hearts and many minds, bit by bit, little by little, and, thereby, to change a nation's heart and mind, bit by bit, little by little, as the God Who is love pressing in upon Man comes into view.
How are we to treat one another?
A few examples:
The right of physicians, and other citizens, to refrain from participating in state executions, and, from participating in elective abortions (as opposed to measures in saving the mother’s life, Etc.), and, from participating in a military action which conflicts with their moral conscience were and are a legal safe-house.
That non-participation is legally housed in two nuances. First, it is a right of conscience arena. Second, its focus is on non-participation, not on refusal, and the law recognizes that there is a difference. In these cases no harm can be claimed, as another can (reasonably) provide said service.
One citizen has the right to abort, and, another citizen has the right to refrain from participation in an act which the state has declared legal. The state has the right to execute someone, and the citizen is given legal margin which provides him with the wherewithal to refrain from participating in an act which the state has declared legal. And so too with any compulsion to participate in a military activity which one’s conscience cannot affirm.
The law recognizes possible harm and addresses it, and, compulsion is found unwarranted, and so on.
There are well established ways in a genuinely pluralistic society for all parties involved to grant one another due respect, and all while avoiding any unilaterally suffered injury.
As a Christian, God does not afford me the moral latitude to take an Atheist’s livelihood away from him, and his family, if he will not make me a banner saying “Ultimate Reality Is Love”, or what have you, for this or that event. There, as in abortion and state executions and military conflicts one opposes on point of conscience, the tangible connection between his (the Athiest’s) participation and his conscience is both immediate upon contact and recognizable by average onlookers. And, also, the tangible connection between my own participation in that bit of selfishness inside of me which would strip him and his children of their livelihood (on the one hand) and my conscience vis-à-vis Christ’s prompting (on the other hand) is immediately clear to me upon contact and easily recognizable for what it is. And, that is especially clear to me given God’s clear command to me as His disciple, and, especially given our Nation’s longstanding non-participation laws which grant him the safe harbor and right of non-participation.
As a citizen, perhaps, I may be able to obtain the right to attempt to strip him and his family of some or all of his livelihood. Only, that won’t satisfy God should I employ that right, and so, even then, I’m unable to feed that bit of selfishness inside. Instead, I follow Christ’s leading.
There is plenty of legal precedent in all of this. The heat of emotion in 2015-16 will for now likely drive some to inflict as much verbal damage and/or legal damage as possible. Etc. However, ultimately the longstanding legalities surrounding non-participation will resurface as said emotion recedes and cooler heads prevail on all sides.
C.S. Lewis noted that it is not necessarily new information that is needed, but merely the reminder of information one has already gone over. Non-participation precedent is (perhaps) one example.
The OP mentioned earlier (Segregation laws and Jim Crow laws are “Scriptural” etc….) is another good example of Lewis’ point, as our Christian Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. reminds both them and us not of such misinformation spoken in emotion’s heat, intending to harm, but, rather, of the long established and factual statements which Christ and Scripture declare of all men everywhere, spoken by our noted Christian Pastor to heal, not to hurt, and at great cost to himself.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | July 06, 2015 at 04:08 AM
A little further along here:
Corporations have the right to refuse to carry, say, clothing lines of this or that designer if said designer offends the conscience of said corporation. “We’ll no longer be carrying X’s line of clothing” emerges as fully justified here and for obvious reasons which the law factually recognizes. The right of physicians, and other citizens, to refrain from participating in state executions, and, from participating in elective abortions (as opposed to measures in saving the mother’s life, Etc.), and, from participating in a military action which conflicts with their moral conscience were and are a legal safe-house.
There are, in all of these, illegitimate thresholds, such as a person’s color, religion, sex, or orientation (“CRSO”). This or that person’s CRSO, and, the fact that an event is declared legal, fail to emerge as germane for obvious reasons and that is important as the focus of the law fully acknowledges that there can be illegitimate non-participation (either the person or the person’s CRSO) and forces the would-be non-participant to factually qualify legitimate non-participation vis-à-vis both an intended context and an immediate context of a specific event.
Non-participation is legally housed in two nuances. First, it is a right of conscience arena. Second, its focus is on non-participation, not on refusal to interact, and the law recognizes that there is a difference. In these cases no harm can be claimed, as another can (reasonably) provide said service, and, further, the color, religion, sex, and orientation (CRSO) of the state prisoner, of the mother-to-be, or of the military’s target, or the fact of the legal status of all such events, are all viewed as immaterial, for, it is not the person nor the CRSO nor the fact that the event is legal, but, rather, it is the nature of the intended context and of the immediate context of a specific event which the law is addressing vis-à-vis conscience. The law is responsible to all parties involved by first acknowledging that there can be illegitimate reasons, such as this or that person’s CRSO, being used as the basis on which to avoid transactions with said person, and, then, acknowledges that both the person’s CRSO and the factual legal status of said event all fail to emerge as germane given that it is the intended context and the immediate context of a specific event which is factually isolated by the conscience. The physician cannot refuse to see the mother-to-be in his office and provide services, for example, for nothing there carries the intended context or the immediate context of that which his conscience opposes. In the same way, the electrician cannot refuse to work on the state prison’s lunchroom lights, for example, because the intended context and immediate context of the event in question fails to be either intended or immediate.
We find here an interesting and important compulsion by the law upon all citizens to otherwise interact with every person regardless of the person's CRSO, and, indeed, the Christian is commanded to love every person, and, the non-participation language surrounding conscience laws allows the Christian to remain faithful to that fundamental obligation.
Moving a little further with these laws and their precedents, one citizen has the right to abort, and, another citizen has the right to refrain from participation in an act which the state has declared legal, as once the facts carry us inside of the intended context and of the immediate context of a specific event neither the person’s CRSO nor the fact that said event is granted full legal status by the law emerges as germane. Similarly the state has the right to execute someone, and the citizen is given legal margin which provides him with the wherewithal to refrain from participating in an act which the state has declared legal, as once the facts carry us inside of the intended context and of the immediate context of a specific event neither the person’s (the prisoner’s or the state’s embrace of this or that CRSO) nor the fact that said event is granted full legal status by the law emerges as germane. And so too with any compulsion to participate in a military activity which one’s conscience cannot affirm.
The law’s precedent clearly recognizes possible harm and addresses it, and, compulsion is found unwarranted vis-à-vis, not person, not CRSO, and not the fact that said event is fully legal, but specifically the intended context and the immediate context of a specific event. This or that person’s CRSO, and, the fact that an event is declared legal, fail to emerge as germane for obvious reasons and that is important as the focus of the law fully acknowledges that there can be illegitimate non-participation (either the person or the person’s CRSO) and forces the would-be non-participant to factually qualify legitimate non-participation vis-à-vis both an intended context and the immediate context of a specific event.
All citizens are found compelled by the law to interact with every person regardless of their CRSO, all the while providing citizens the wherewithal to refrain from participating in an event which violates their conscience, as we clearly see in the physician, the electrician, the nurse, the custodian, the manufacturer of syringes, and so on.
These laws are both peculiar and longstanding and we find all citizens (such as the Atheist who abstains from serving clearly religious goals of events) who for reasons of conscience choose non-participation informed that there is in fact an interesting and important compulsion by the law upon all citizens to otherwise interact with every person regardless of the persons’ CRSO, and, also, there is in fact an interesting compulsion by the law which forces the would-be non-participant to factually qualify legitimate non-participation vis-à-vis both an intended context and an immediate context of a specific event. Interestingly, as noted already, the Christian is commanded to love every person and the non-participation language surrounding conscience laws allows the Christian to remain faithful to that fundamental obligation.
There are well established ways in a genuinely pluralistic society for all parties involved to grant one another due respect, and all the while avoiding discrimination based on either a person or a person’s CRSO.
As a Christian, God does not afford me the moral latitude to take an Atheist’s livelihood away from him, and his family, if he will not make me a banner saying “Ultimate Reality Is Love”, or what have you, for this or that event. There, as in abortion and state executions and military conflicts one opposes on point of conscience, the tangible connection between his (the Atheist’s) participation and his conscience is both immediate upon contact and recognizable by average onlookers. And, also, the tangible connection between my own participation in that bit of selfishness inside of me which would strip him and his children of their livelihood (on the one hand) and my conscience vis-à-vis Christ’s prompting (on the other hand) is immediately clear to me upon contact and easily recognizable for what it is. And, that is especially clear to me given God’s clear command to me as His disciple to love those who would harm me or – simply – to love all people period. It is also especially clear to me that I must grant him his room, not merely to avoid that bit of selfishness inside of me which would strip him and his family of his livelihood, but, also, our Nation’s longstanding non-participation laws which grant him the safe harbor and right of non-participation emerge as fully applicable.
As a citizen, perhaps, I may be able to obtain the right to attempt to strip him and his family of some or all of his livelihood. Only, that won’t satisfy God should I employ that right, and so, even then, I’m unable to feed that bit of selfishness inside. Instead, I follow Christ’s leading.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | July 07, 2015 at 02:28 AM