The BBC this morning reported on a bizarre case in Israel of an Arab man convicted of “rape by deception,” because he’d led the Jewish woman with whom he’d had consensual sex to believe he was Jewish. Ha’aretz has the story here. Plainly it’s a racist verdict, and a bizarre one — but there’s more to the story than Ha’aretz lets on. According to the BBC radio report I heard, Israeli courts have previously convicted a man of “rape by deception”, after he pretended to be a government housing official who offered help getting an apartment in exchange for sex.
This is crazy. You start putting men in jail for rape for lying to women to get into their pants, you’ll run out of prison space within two weeks. What happens if a cad tells a woman he loves her to convince her to sleep with him, but doesn’t really mean it. Is that rape by deception? How do you prove such a thing?
Take this tour through some recent economic charts from the Federal Reserve to get a picture of how terrible our economy really is. Seriously, it’s staggering stuff.
Here are 15 questions Google asks potential employees. Can you answer them? They broke my dang head.
I wrote earlier about how useful it is to humble yourself and try to see what the world looks like through the eyes of your opponents. Jonathan Rauch, the gay journalist and same-sex marriage backer, does an exemplary job of that in a recent speech. Excerpts:
Contrary to what some of my friends in the gay-marriage movement believe, however, homophobia is far from the only reason for opposition. Another group, which I think is at least equally large, feels threatened–less by the normalization of homosexuality than by the abnormalization, so to speak, of the conventionally defined family. “Nothing personal, do what you want,” they tell us, “but leave the definition of family–of marriage–alone!”
One way to see that more is going on than homophobia is to reflect, for a moment, on a peculiar fact: gay marriage is far more controversial in America than either same-sex adoption or same-sex child custody.
Think about that. Isn’t it odd? The care of children, by definition, involves third parties who often have little or no choice about their situation. If there is a case for harm, one would think it would be strongest here–not in the union of two mutually consenting adults. In fact, the other side has a very hard time articulating any concrete harm at all that gay marriage would do. Yet efforts to make a political issue of gay adoption have consistently failed, while, wherever it appears, gay marriage finds it cannot not be a political issue.
What is behind the alarm raised by gay marriage?
To answer this question, I think one must widen the aperture and look at same-sex marriage in the context of a much larger cultural battle over the nature of family, of marriage, and even of adulthood: a debate over what it is that constitutes, and should constitute, the template for “normal” in all of those areas.
Rauch says that his side often likes to point out that the states that are most anti-SSM are those with the highest level of divorce and family dysfunction. But the pro-SSM side, says Rauch, takes the wrong lesson from that fact. The truth is, people in these states are worried about the failure of the family system to civilize young people. Excerpt:
That is what “families form adults” means. Many teenagers and young adults formed families before they reached maturity, and came to maturity precisely by shouldering family responsibilities. Immature choices and what were once called, euphemistically, “accidents” were a fact of life; but the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation, combined with the pressure not to divorce, turned childish errors into adult vocations.
This paradigm is a traditional norm-set, well rooted in the human condition for untold generations. What the traditional norms say is: keep sex, marriage, and kids linked and more or less synchronized, and things are basically okay. Disassemble the package and you get social chaos.
Rauch goes on, in ways impossible to summarize here — I strongly encourage you to read the essay — to explain why “Red America” sees the marriage issue so differently, in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with bigotry. Here’s the killer graf:
Same-sex marriage, in this view, is in some sense the ultimate symbolic assault on what is left of the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation. “Ultimate,” I might add, in both senses of the word: “extreme,” but also “last,” the blow that completes the most destructive demolition work of the sexual revolution. After gay marriage, in the Red view of things, how can sex, marriage, and procreation ever be put back together again?
Exactly. This point, and the religious freedom question, are why I am so concerned about SSM. Gay marriage is the final act of the Sexual Revolution, the thing that institutionalizes it. If you think the Sexual Revolution (which Rauch cannily defines as global information culture + birth control) was on balance a good thing, you’re happy with this; if not, not. What’s so insightful about Rauch’s analysis — and he’s quite clear which side he’s on — is that he explains why conservative first principles on the meaning of family in society lead logically to opposing gay marriage. I have never read a more clear, cogent, fair-minded explanation of why social conservatives oppose gay marriage. Here’s more (this gets long, so I’ll put it below the jump, but it’s very good):