GetReligion has an interesting article on the same Washington Post article on the legal tactics of polygamists I discussed on Tuesday. It starts by looking back at the Lawrence v. Texas case and what the justices said then.
In 2003, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas law against sodomy. “Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court.
Justice Atonin Scalia disagreed with the decision — and even more so with the reasoning behind it. The court wrote the ruling so broadly, he argued, that the current social order would be massively disrupted. Since the court didn’t “cabin the scope of its decision,” state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would also be attacked, Scalia predicted.
High-profile efforts to introduce same-sex marriage have been covered frequently. Jon Pomfet, writing for the Washington Post, looked at what progress has been made on the first of Scalia’s list: bigamy. He talks to various polygamists, including “Valerie” about their efforts to legalize polygamy.
I like GetReligion because the writers spend time examining the way stories get covered as opposed to just what the stories say. Of course, they also point out what gets left out of stories.
If you’re going to say the Mormon Church was able to get law enforcement officers to stop enforcing the law in order to bolster the church, you need some support. Also, if you have that information, that would make a fantastic story. But no one from the LDS is quoted.
Sometimes, the story isn't just the story; it's about how certain issues should be discussed but aren't.
Whether or not polygamists are successful in using the Lawrence decision to help legalize bigamy, their efforts need to be covered. In general it would be helpful for reporters to look down the road at more marriage stories.
If fundamentalist Mormons succeed in overturning laws against bigamy based on the First Amendment instead of the Fourteenth Amendment as in Lawrence, what would be some of the unintended — or intended — consequences of such a decision?
If gay marriage is legalized, will that help formally sanction families such as the ones profiled in the New York Times last week — with multiple female and male partners? How might that affect family law, the tax code and inheritance laws?
If barriers to marriage are lowered, would there be an incentive for non-intimate couples or groupings to marry for benefits? If so, would that change how companies confer benefits? If companies cease offering benefits for partners, would that affect whether or not — for instance — one spouse is able to stay home and raise offspring?
Writing, as many reporters do, stories about how arcane our marriage laws are fine. But it would be nice to see more in-depth reporting about the consequences of changes to marriage laws.
To me, it is particularly important that the consequences of changing marriage laws get covered, considering the number of "it doesn't affect my marriage, so why should I care?" people out there.
|