in various formats -- now online

Click here to subscribe to the free daily RECORD newspaper email

Click here to go to the RECORD daily email archive

Click here to read timeless RECORD articles

"Fearful lest it be relegated to the position of an isolated sect, Christianity seems to be making frenzied efforts at mimicry in order to escape being devoured by its enemies--a reaction that seems defensive, but is in fact self-destructive. In the hope of saving itself, it seems to be assuming the colors of its environment, but the result is that it loses its identity. . . ."
--Leszek Kolakowski, from Modernity on Endless Trial

There's more than one attack on marriage going on right now

 Want to learn a brand-new
 insult? Let's all try on
 "heteronormative" and
 see how it fits.

 This appears to be the week for newspaper columnists to give advice to bishops (though, if truth be told, it probably would be more profitable for both parties if that happened the other way around).

 Bishop Richard Malone announced Tuesday that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (which includes the entire state) won't take a position on Gov. Baldacci's proposal to add "sexual orientation" to the state's human rights statutes.

 Five years ago, when the issue last came up and Bishop Joseph Gerry was in charge, the diocese had backed a similar measure.

 Therefore, this decision represents a step away from support for "gay rights" for the diocese.

 The bishop added that it was a difficult decision for him, because he had to balance his church's support for political equality with the experience of other states.

 In Vermont and Massachusetts, such laws had been used by advocacy groups and courts to justify the judicial imposition of either "civil unions" or same-sex "marriage," something that Malone's church staunchly opposes.

 If the bishop is looking for tips on how this whole argument might end up, however, here are a few things he might consider.

 One is the fact that the bill defines sexual orientation as "a person's actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression (my emphasis)."

 Private religious bodies are exempt from the law, but ordinary believers aren't. So, what happens the first time a male employee turns up to work at the auto parts counter wearing a dress and lipstick?

 I suspect that question will not be answered by the employer (mere dress codes don't override statutes), but by a judge. Want to bet how that ruling will go? I suspect we already know, and the bishop might consider how that will impact Roman Catholic laypeople all over the state.

 Second, other things are occurring in the wider culture. We saw an example at Harvard a few weeks ago, when the wife of movie actor Will Smith, Jada Pinkett Smith, gave a speech to the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations.

 She said, "Women, you can have it all. A loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career."

 Of course, she got in trouble - but not for committing an act of excessive optimism. No, she had done something far worse, mortally offending the school's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance.

 It seems she had engaged in "heteronormative" speech. She had assumed that male and female couples were the norm.

 It's not numbers - and certainly not morality - that's the issue for the BGLTSA (Motto: "We have lots more initials available, so watch your mouth").

 Instead, it's that straight men and women dare to think they are normal. That idea has to be beaten out of them. And - guess what - laws passed by liberals are just the clubs to use to do it.

  Third, same-sex marriage is only the beginning. Stanley Kurtz is a social scientist who analyzed the legalization of same-sex unions in Scandinavia. He found that watering down the central idea of marriage inspired lots of male-female couples to postpone or forego it, so many more kids are being born out of wedlock.

 In a column this week on National Review Online, Kurtz cites the views of a family law professor, Dr. Elizabeth F. Emens, whom Kurtz describes as a "whiz kid with a Ph.D. in English from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Yale Law School. (She) teaches the University of Chicago Law School (and) has published a major legal and cultural defense of polyamory (group marriage)."

 Kurtz notes, "Emens' presence at U. Chicago Law is a sign that the powers-that-be at this liberal institution believe that legalized polyamory is - or ought to be - the next big cause in family law. Anyone who believes that a serious public campaign for legalized polyamory is impossible should take a look at Emens' work."

 He quotes Emens as suggesting "that we view this historical moment, when same-sex couples begin to enter the institution of marriage, as a unique opportunity to question the mandate of compulsory monogamy."

 Boy, there's a mandate that needs questioning. We certainly don't have anywhere near enough screwed-up kids already.

 Kurtz adds, "Emens lays out a sophisticated case for treating polyamory not just as a practice, but as a disposition, broadly analogous to the (presumed) disposition toward homosexuality. That, in turn, allows her to call a whole raft of laws into question - from marriage laws to partnership laws, to zoning laws, to custody laws. All these laws, says Emens, place unfair burdens on those with a 'poly' disposition."

  So, now can we see that, after the Judeo-Christian ideal of marriage is totally shredded, what's left won't even be recognizable?

 Oh, sorry, I forgot. That's the whole idea.

 M.D. Harmon is an editorial page writer and editor. He can be contacted at 791-6482 or at: mharmon@pressherald.com

Home

The Christian Civic League of Maine

70 Sewall Street

Augusta, Maine 04330

v- 207-622-7634

f- 207-621-0035

email@cclmaine.org