Robert P. George on DOM and the Link to Abortion

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal featured an opinion piece by Robert P. George on traditional marriage. George is the professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and founder of the American Principles Project. He writes about the dangers of redefining marriage:

If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.

Now before anyone gets excited and argues that gay marriages would be monogamous, Professor George is talking about the basis for marriage in general. His major argument is that marriage is designed to have the potential for procreation. Not that every marriage will result in children or that every sexual act in marriage will result in children but that the institution of marriage is designed for the creation and rearing of children. He also points out:

Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.

Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S.

Now all of these arguments are to point out the dangers of the Supreme Court ruling against California's Proposition 8 that is likely to go before the Court following a federal lawsuit that was filed.

Professor George notes the relationship between a potential decision creating a "right" to gay marriage and the "right" to abortion created in Roe v. Wade:

By short-circuiting the democratic process, Roe inflamed the culture war that has divided our nation and polarized our politics. Abortion, which the Court purported to settle in 1973, remains the most unsettled issue in American politics—and the most unsettling. Another Roe would deepen the culture war and prolong it indefinitely.

Some insist that the Supreme Court must invalidate traditional marriage laws because “rights” are at stake. But as in Roe, they are forced to peddle a strained and contentious reading of the Constitution—one whose dubiousness would undermine any ruling’s legitimacy.

Professor George, as always, writes well-reasoned, informative articles and opinion pieces. This one is no different and certainly makes the case that our generation could see another Roe ruling.

By removing decisions like abortion from the democratic process, the Court created an issue that troubles America's very core and divides us today--over 35 years later.

If Sotomayor is confirmed, would they have the votes to do it again with the definition of marriage?

Taylor's Interview with Robert P. George

On January 21st, Justin Taylor who blogs at "Between Two Worlds," interviewed Robert P. George for his blog. The interview was mentioned on Christianity Today's website in commentary about Barack Obama and abortion.

George sits on the President's Council on Bioethics and is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. He is also an author. His latest book, written with Christopher Tollefsen, is Embryo: A Defense of Human Life.

Barack Obama on Abortion

Just as I did for Hillary Clinton's July 17th Planned Parenthood speech, I've been working on the Barack Obama transcript for the speech he also gave before the group. You can watch the speech at www.imoneinamillion.com. I'm nearly done with the transcript but thought that I would post a quote. It is appropriate, in light of yesterday's anniversary, to point out how pro-abortion this man is--especially as we mourn the loss of life caused by Roe v. Wade.

Unapologetically pro-abortion, Barack Obama even defended the horrific partial-birth abortion technique:

And there’s a lot at stake in this election, especially for our daughters. To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.

Now we all know that when a pro-abortion liberal refers to a "health" exception (especially an attorney who made Roe "the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law,") they also likely know that Roe had a companion decision handed down with it the same day. And he, or she, knows how health was defined by the Court in that decision. The companion ruling was Doe v. Bolton and it defined health from a legal standpoint. This is what the law means when you say “health” in relation to abortion:

"all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient."

Under Doe, a woman can have an abortion for any reason. The only one who has the right to judge her reasoning? The abortionist.

Roe v. Wade

You will likely read this or something like it on virtually every conservative and/or pro-life website today but I'm going to say it too: Roe is the worst Supreme Court decision in history.

Why?

Three main reasons:

1. Roe has caused the deaths of approximately 50 million unborn babies since 1973. That number is staggering but real.

2. Roe has yet to be overturned. Other horrible decisions (e.g. Dred Scott) have been overturned. Today, these rulings are generally referenced only by lawyers and remembered by the rest of us when we are helping our kids study for a history test.

3. Roe was an exercise in "raw judicial power." Written more as a defense of doctor's rights than anyone else's, the decision was based not in law but in convoluted and distorted reasoning.

Roe has helped no one; it has killed millions of children and harmed their mothers. It's time this Supreme Court decision was tossed into the dustbin of history.