If "Obergefell Must Go" is an example of that First Things is publishing these days, another once-venerable conservative voice (like National Review) has flattened itself to fit into the neo-MAGA "Intellectual" system that is reflexively anti-LGBTQIA+, anti-diversity, anti-poor people, etc etc etc ad nauseam ad infinitum (for a good dose of Latin).
This article is written by one Robert P. George, who "is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University."
And he's very obviously a homophobic bigot.
Part of that understanding comes from Professor George's overly strident defense of his position in just those terms:
///Americans are waking up to the illiberal tactics—everything from invading churches to stigmatizing believers in marriage as a conjugal partnership as “bigots”—of the organizations that forced same-sex marriage on us by judicial fiat.////
Beware anybody who actually builds into his or her article the boldface sentence that other people (no matter of illegitimate they are presented to be) consider anyone holding the author's position is a bigot ... then you can start with the reasonable presumption that the author is ... a bigot trying to weasel his or her way out of it.
Which is in fact that case here.
Consider his opening paragraph, which characterizes Obergefell v. Hodges as "the case that invalidated state laws defining marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife and required states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex partners."
Our dear Professor George thereby asserts that, LEGALLY, marriage was a "conjugal union" (between one man and one woman) prior to the Supreme Court decision on Obergefell, and that it is this "conjugal" understanding of marriage that the case destroyed and which must be set right again:
////if one believes that marriage is inherently a conjugal bond—that is, the union of one man and one woman, and not a mere form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership—then the “law” imposed on the nation by the Supreme Court in Obergefell is a defiance of moral reality.////
Note the illegitimate shifting of positions here. In the first paragraph Professor George asserts that the "conjugal union" was an inherent element in the LEGAL definition, but then later on reduces that to the "belief" (as in "if one believes") rather than a legal component in the union.
This is critical because almost all legal definitions of marriage prior to Obergefell DID NOT include "conjugal union" (I haven't actually found one yet that did, but I only searched 28 states), and when the word "conjugal" appears it is in the context of the act of marriage conferring "conjugal RIGHTS" on each of the partners.
And that's where this particular bigot palmed his homophobic card.
Take the quickest note from Oxford Reference (I cite it because it is brief; I have not found any legal commentaries that disagree with it):
////Conjugal Rights
////The rights of either spouse of a marriage, which include the right to the other's consortium (company), cohabitation (sexual intercourse), and maintenance during the marriage. There is, however, no longer any legal procedure for enforcing these rights. The old action for restitution of conjugal rights was abolished in 1971 and a husband insisting on sexual intercourse against the wishes of his wife may be guilty of rape. See also consummation of a marriage.////
Note two critical points:
ONE: "conjugal rights" are one set of rights stemming from having become married, and are not viewed as part of the definition of marriage. AND ...
TWO: Since 1971 and the introduction of the legal concept of "spousal rape," that term actually has zero legal bearing on the institution of marriage.
Hmmm .... 1971?
That would ,mean that the legal element of "conjugal rights" (for which Professor George inappropriately substitutes "conjugal union") had already been eliminated from the legal definition of marriage ... 47 years BEFORE Obergefell v Hodges was decided.
Moreover, in order the reinstate it -- on conservative theological grounds -- would not only eliminate marriage equality, but also necessary return to the doctrine that within a "conjugal union" the husband has a right to sexual intercourse any damn time he pleases, no matter what the opinions or lack of consent by his wife.
Professor Brown knows this, which is precisely why his pontifications morph "conjugal rights" into "conjugal union," as even he must actually know that telling people you intend to remove the necessity for CONSENT for wives is a nonstarter.
He plays a few other silly, stupid games throughout the article, but this is the heart of it. His detestation of homosexuals engaging in a long-term relationship if so profound that he is quite willing to remove women's protections against spousal rape to prevent queers from being able to claim equal citizenship.
The problem, of course, is that Professor George's sleazy slight of hand will pretty much disappear when the article becomes a footnote in some Heritage Foundation position paper on why only "tradition families" should be considered legitimate.
Now you know.
Contrary to the current MAGA formulation of how liberal all the professors in higher education are, there are plenty of folks out there publishing queer-bashing op-eds in formerly respectable journals.
https://firstthings.com/obergefell-must-go/
No comments:
Post a Comment