No More Catholics On The Court?
Here's Maggie Gallagher whining away over The Corner:
Second, it's not as if American Catholics uniformly oppose marriage equality. The eight states with the largest Catholic population by percentage are Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, California, and Connecticut. What do those states have in common? Well, three of them have already legalized gay marriage. And the other five will very likely be the next states to do so.
More importantly, though, the notion that differences of opinion between the Catholic church and U.S. law will somehow render Catholic judicial nominees unconfirmable is demonstrably ludicrous. In addition to opposing gay marriage, the Catholic church also opposes divorce, birth control, abortion, and any number of other things that are permitted by U.S. law. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to many of these activities. And yet, somehow, even after those decisions, we've gone from having one Catholic Supreme Court justice in the 1980s to having five Catholic justices on the current Court.
What Gallagher is really worried about is that she will soon find herself in a world where her particular brand of close-mindedness is viewed by most as bigotry and people who believe what she believes won't be politically mainstream enough to be nominated and confirmed as judges. But that's a ridiculous thing to whine about because it pre-supposes that you've already utterly lost the public opinion battle. And if you believe something that the vast majority of people don't believe, you don't have a right to have everyone else agree with you. If you're right, try to convince people that you're right and stop whining about how you will be marginalized in the future when everyone disagrees with you. That's just pathetic.
After gay marriage, the most religiously committed Americans will be effectively marginalized as a public force—because they cannot act or support the idea that gay unions are marriages. Such people will, if we lose the marriage debate, be treated the way we treat bigots who oppose interracial marriage. Imagine: All it will take to make, say, a judicial nominee unconfirmable will be to establish that they are indeed Catholic .Oh please. First, it's probably worth pointing out that a hugely disproportionate number of Supreme Court justices are Catholic. A majority in fact (five of the nine). That's pretty good considering only 22% of the U.S. population is Catholic. And given that Supreme Court justices have lifetime tenure, I'm pretty certain that there is approximately zero risk of Catholic Americans being under-represented on the Court any time soon (unlike, say, gay Americans).
Second, it's not as if American Catholics uniformly oppose marriage equality. The eight states with the largest Catholic population by percentage are Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, California, and Connecticut. What do those states have in common? Well, three of them have already legalized gay marriage. And the other five will very likely be the next states to do so.
More importantly, though, the notion that differences of opinion between the Catholic church and U.S. law will somehow render Catholic judicial nominees unconfirmable is demonstrably ludicrous. In addition to opposing gay marriage, the Catholic church also opposes divorce, birth control, abortion, and any number of other things that are permitted by U.S. law. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to many of these activities. And yet, somehow, even after those decisions, we've gone from having one Catholic Supreme Court justice in the 1980s to having five Catholic justices on the current Court.
What Gallagher is really worried about is that she will soon find herself in a world where her particular brand of close-mindedness is viewed by most as bigotry and people who believe what she believes won't be politically mainstream enough to be nominated and confirmed as judges. But that's a ridiculous thing to whine about because it pre-supposes that you've already utterly lost the public opinion battle. And if you believe something that the vast majority of people don't believe, you don't have a right to have everyone else agree with you. If you're right, try to convince people that you're right and stop whining about how you will be marginalized in the future when everyone disagrees with you. That's just pathetic.
posted by A.L. at 12:59 PM
15 Comments:
This is just more proof of the cultural chauvinism of fundamentalist Christians who believe they and only they are really Christian. There are a good number of 'religiously committed Americans' who do not feel as Maggie Gallagher does on a host of social issues. For which I can only be grateful, considering that if she had her way we would be living in a monarchy with a state church.
One sad and strange thing about Gallagher's latest outburst is that it's reminiscent of the concern, when John Kennedy ran for President, that his values as a Catholic would somehow be in conflict with "American values." This is the kind of silliness that should have stopped in 1960, and of course in the late 1960's, when interracial marriage was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Some Republicans are really working overtime to divide the country. Recognition of love between two people of the same sex has somehow become a reason to set Catholics apart from everyone else. In these difficult times, the country does not need more "us versus them".
Gallagher seems to be re-initiating the notion (last hurled against JFK) that Catholic public figures are taking orders from the Vatican.
Perhaps the problem here is that the author is herself so bigoted that she cannot imagine a world without bigotry. For indeed it is as much bigotry to oppose someone who simply self-identifies Catholic or attends a Catholic church (by assuming that they, therefore, must also be anti-gay) as it is to oppose gay rights. As surprising as this might be to some fundamentalists (if indeed that's what Gallagher is), religious affiliation and cultural beliefs are separable!
The Catholic Church also opposes torture. Will Gallagher insist on that point of orthodoxy from her beloved Catholic Supreme Court justices?
God, I love the smell of right-wing irrelevance. It sucks to be on the wrong side of history, doesn't it?
No Michael, I don't think she will. I remember her writing particularly strongly in support of torture.
This compares nicely to my biggest beef with the recent effort by the leadership of the Catholic Church to force politicians to heel on the issues of abortion and gay rights. The pro-life policy of the Catholic Church is also opposed to capital punishment, but conservative Catholic politicians who support the death penalty are not denied communion as are liberal Catholic politicians who believe the Church should not dictate state policy.
Maggie Gallagher is fat and ugly.
Plenty of majority Catholic countries have secular judiciaries, and have disestablished Catholicism as a state religion. Example, Mexico.
There are Catholic judges in countries where the official religion is NOT Catholicism, like England.
I'm an American who is in England, an entire country where gay civil unions are legal. I don't see anyone here who sees that as a threat to heterosexual marriage. Heck, if I recall correctly, some states in Mexico have legalized the practice, too.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion, Eclectic. And let's not forget the Iraq War, which the Church also opposed while Gallagher and her NRO minions led the cheer-leading squad.
So Gallagher is a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing what she believes, based more on ideological preference than true religious sentiment. Why am I not surprised? Is there any major issue that hasn't exposed these people's rank hypocrisy?
Ms. Gallagher would best close up shop and go back to her kids. Quite while you're behind rather than when you're snowed under. The tide is turned. If she keeps at it, in 20 years she'll be viewed as a loathesome bigot. If she quits now, she'll be viewed as a confused person who belatedly discovered the idea of equality before the law.
The Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, was re-elected one year ago, despite being an evangelical Christian, even though 70%+ of Canadians support keeping same-sex marriage legal.
She make her living by being the unappealing face of the anti-gay marriage movement. How much money is she raking in? If gay marriage becomes legal throughout the United States she would have to drum up hatred against some other group, wouldn't she- otherwise no juicy paycheck.
Michael, you're welcome.
No, Homer, she'd be able to write plenty of stuff defending the poor victimized CIA agents being persecuted by bigots who have an irrational prejudice against torture. She'd be able to drone on about socialism and abortion. I'm sure she could get a job bashing tv shows from Brent Bozell. I don't see her going away anytime soon.
"Do unto others..." I think that this woman and other people like her just think that those with power will act like they would (and have) if the power were theirs. They think power is about destroying the way of life of people you don't agree with. Thus, they think that those who have the power now will do that to them. They see demons around every corner because they created them.
(i.e, what Palintropos said)
I always thought Catholics were the most likely religious group that you could win over to being if not for than at least not against same sex marriage. Most are well versed in the seperation of civil marriages and the sacrament of matrimony. Be advised, their support probably comes with a mandatory "marriage class." Helpful hint - gay couples should state that if they have biological children, they will be raised Catholic.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home