|
Contributors
Ken Masugi- Columnist
 Ken Masugi is the Director of the Claremont Institute's Center
for Local Government.
Its purpose is to apply the principles of the American Founding
to the theory and practice of local government, the cradle
of American self-government. Dr. Masugi has extensive experience
in government and academia. Following his initial appointment
at the Claremont Institute (1982-86), he was a special assistant
to then-Chairman Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. After his years in Washington, he
held visiting university appointments including Olin Distinguished
Visiting Professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Dr. Masugi
is co-author with Brian Janiskee of both The
California Republic: Institutions, Statesmanship, and Policies (Rowman & Littlefield,
2004) and Democracy
in California: Politics and Government in the Golden State (Rowman & Littlefield,
2002). He is co-editor of six books on political thought,
including The
Supreme Court and American Constitutionalism with
Branford P. Wilson, (Ashbrook Series, 1997); The
Ambiguous Legacy of the Enlightenment with William Rusher,
(University Press, 1995); The
American Founding with J. Jackson Barlow
and Leonard W. Levy, (Greenwood Press, 1988). He is the editor
of Interpreting
Tocqueville's Democracy in America, (Rowman & Littlefield,
1991). [go
to Masugi index]
 Welcome
Vermont!
Los Angeles Times On Same-Sex Marriage
[Ken Masugi] 3/16/05
I just concluded
a radio interview with Laurie
Morrow, conservative radio broadcaster out of Vermont.
I have enjoyed being a regular guest on her show. We in California
acquired the Vermont virus in full-blown measure through our
civil union law, but one judge in San Francisco radicalized
the situation further. Agreeing with the decision, which struck
down the limitation of marriage to men and women (see Proposition
22), the Los Angels Times concludes in
its editorial:
The
judge argues that forbidding same-sex marriage is gender
discrimination. A better argument would be that gays are
a classic example of a group that needs constitutional
protection from the tyranny of the majority. There is no
special reason to assume that the Constitution's framers
would disagree with that analysis if they were living in
today's society.
But where
does a right to marriage come out of all this? Is it “tyranny” that
limits marriage to those of an opposite sex (and of proper
age and non-blood relationship)? Or is this recognition for
an institution that has always been in need of societal (and
religious) protection? To extend marriage to all erotic relationships
is highly questionable—both for heterosexuals and homosexuals.
What some small number of homosexuals wish is the state’s blessing
of same-sex relationships. It is certainly not discrimination
against them to withhold that recognition, once we acknowledge
the uniqueness of marriage.
This is more
than just a fight to preserve “tradition” or even the force
of religion in contemporary life. It is about protecting an
institution that perpetuates by its very nature and existence
teachings about justice, duty, education, and respect that
are not replicable any other way. Men and women are different
but are united for a unique and trying purpose. Rejecting the
family of husband and wife means a terrible disjunction from
the most basic means of civilizing children. If a same-sex
couple may do this, why not some other institution, say a commune?
See our Washington Fellow Bill
Bennett on same-sex unions.
This is ultimately
about the coherence of the Declaration of Independence, which
teaches about human nature, rights, and happiness the basis
of our constitutional government.
The California
Supreme Court should take this view into consideration. Its
own legitimacy rests on principles they may not choose to articulate
but which are understood to be present by the framers of constitutional
government. CRO
copyright
2005 Claremont
Institute.
|
