Love

Ethical Quote Of The Month: Justice Richard Bossun of The New Mexico Supreme Court

/ Jack Marshall / 80 Comments

First-Amendment-on-scroll1

[The quote that follows is from the concurring opinion in the just-decided case of  Elaine Photography v. Willock, which challenged the proposition, discussed and endorsed on Ethics Alarms in several posts, that a business could not and ethically should not refuse service to same-sex couples.]

“On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

“In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world.”

——- New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Bossun, concurring with opinion in Elaine Photography v. Willock, which rejected the claim that legally requiring a photography shop to take photographs of a same-sex marriage was a violation of the First Amendment.

You can read the Volokh Conspiracy take on the case here, and here; Ken White has his usual trenchant observations at Popehat.

From an ethics perspective, however, Justice Bossuns’s words need no enhancement. I could not agree more, nor say it better.

______________________________

Graphic: Illinois Family

 

Unethical Website Of The Month: Minnesota For Marriage

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments
No, nobody's saying you can't advocate your beliefs, archaic and destructive though they may be. Just make sure they don't stop people from buying flowers and cakes like everyone else...

No, nobody’s saying you can’t advocate your beliefs, archaic and destructive though they may be. Just make sure they don’t stop people from buying flowers and cakes like everyone else…

I’ll spare you much commentary on this one, but it’s eye-opening in tone and content: an indignant, angry appeal to protest on the theory that legalizing same-sex marriage in Minnesota constitutes an attack on the freedom of religion.

A sample:

 “Now over 1.4 Million Minnesotans are considered the legal equivalent of “bigots” and have NO protection to live out their beliefs in the public square. The gay “marriage” law allows churches and SOME religious organizations to define marriage as only between 1 man and 1 woman. But, people of faith know that living out your beliefs means living what you believe OUTSIDE the walls of your church.

“Gay “marriage” supporters and their allies in the MN Legislature seem to think that Minnesotans with deeply held religious beliefs about Marriage will be content to believe that marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman in the walls of their church and then stay SILENT about those beliefs outside those walls. So, the MN Legislature passed the gay “marriage” bill with no protections for people outside the walls of their church. The MN Senate had the chance—and refused—to protect the religious liberty rights of Minnesotans outside their church walls….Now Minnesotans with the deeply held belief that marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 woman cannot act on this belief in the way they do their business or the way they practice their profession.

“The Minnesota Department of Human Rights has already confirmed our worst fears:  There is NO religious liberty protection for people of faith in the public square. The Department states specifically that nonreligious organizations are NOT exempt from the law and that nondiscrimination laws can (and will) be used as a weapon to punish people of faith. For example, if a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim florist refused to provide flowers for a same-sex “wedding” based on his religious beliefs, the same-sex couple can “file a claim with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights against the entity that discriminated against them.”

“Bottom Line?  The gay “marriage” lobby and their allies in the MN Legislature view Minnesotans of faith as “bigots” and will punish them accordingly using MN Human Rights laws—forcing men and women of faith to choose between their livelihood and their convictions.

“That is not acceptable.” Continue reading →

An Inclusive “I Do! I Do!” for A Post-DOMA U.S.

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Cup

I wasn’t going to mention my current theater (at Arlington, Virginia’s American Century Theater) project here, until I dropped Ethics Alarms’ conservative warrior Steven Mark Pilling a note on Facebook that I had just posted on the topic he is most passionate about, preventing the abuse of child actors in Hollywood. Steven is not, to say the least, a fan of gay marriage (this might be the topic he is next most passionate about) , and I realized that my Facebook thumbnail, showing two same-sex couples in an intimate moment from my show, might put him off.

The show I just finished directing ( with the assistance of Quinn Anderson and my musical director Tom Fuller)  the old Harvey Schmidt-Tom Jones chestnut, “I Do! I Do!”, ( Remember “My Cup Runneth Over,“ Ed Ames fans? Hello? ) the tw0-actor Broadway musical based on the 1950 play “The Fourposter.” Back in 1966, when Robert Preston and Mary Martin starred in the musical, it was considered an affectionate and  perceptive look at the institution of marriage, and the show has attracted nostalgic, usually elderly married couples to regional and dinner theaters ever since. Productions of  “I Do! I Do!” are becoming rarer, however, because the societal developments have rendered the tale of the epic marriage of Agnes and Michael Snow increasingly alien to the current American scene. In particular, what was once a musical intended to speak to all married couples and candidates for future nuptials now appears to exclude the very group that comprises musical theater’s hardiest supporters: gays.

In marked abandonment of my theater’s usual principles (we don’t update shows, believing that it is more interesting and fair to the authors to let audiences reflect on what has changed since an original production, and what has not), I decided that for the benefit of audiences, the culture and the show itself, it was time to re-conceive “I Do! I Do!” so it would gain renewed relevance and vitality in a post DOMA age. My approach, courageously and generously approved by the authors, was to show the marriage of the show’s couple through a constantly rotating prism that alternately revealed them as a same-sex female couple, a same-sex male couple, and the traditional heterosexual couple of the 1966 version. This required four very versatile and gutsy actors who could pull off the illusion of showing one marriage three different ways without giving the audience whiplash or confusing them hopelessly. In Steve Lebens, Esther Covington, Chad Fournwalt and Mary Beth Luckenbaugh, I found the dream cast. Continue reading →

Web Shaming Ethics: A Wife’s Tantrum, A Husband’s Betrayal

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

A fed-up husband named Jim decided to pave the ground for his impending divorce announcement by uploading a video of his wife’s ridiculous tantrum to YouTube, where it went viral. The wife, known to us only by her first name of Whitney, reacts to her husband’s refusal to “take her to the lake” with the kind of meltdown that would get any seven-year old to time-out. During her antics, Jim sounds alternately resigned and amused, playing the role of a long-suffering spouse who is tolerating, once again, his wife’s and abusive bizarre behavior.

But then he knew he was being recorded.

Here’s the video.

 

Obviously Whitney has problems. Jim, however, is a cur. Every marriage has its moments where one or both partners behave outrageously, childishly, disgracefully, foolishly, abusively, embarrassingly, and it is a vital component of the unspoken pact of wedlock that these moments are private and confidential. Marriage is a relationship of trust, the one safe environment in which husband and wife can be completely free to be themselves without fear of wider exposure, criticism or humiliation, because each is secure in the belief that the other’s conduct is governed by unconditional love. What Jim did to Whitney is a horrible betrayal, a vicious act of cruelty designed to cause humiliation and shame to someone who trusted him.

You can say he couldn’t stand her tantrums any more, you can say he had been pushed to his limit, you can say that she got what such immaturity deserves, you can find all manner of rationalizations. Nevertheless, placing this video of a private encounter on the web is indefensible and unforgivable, a breach of trust, honesty, fairness and respect. It causes me to wonder what other cruelties accumulated to make his wife into the unstable basket case she appears to be. She is the victim here.

Post script: Once again, I am faced here with the dilemma we have debated  before, regarding the ethics of my posting the video, the vehicle of the unethical web-shaming, and thus adding to the victim’s humiliation.  My decision is to post it, because the video is so easily accessible on the link provided and elsewhere, because realistically, my contribution to its circulation is minimal, and most of all, because it is presented here in a context that is very different from that of the original sites, like Gawker, that initially commented on it. This is presented as an example of unethical web-shaming, with the message that the treatment of the wife that it represents is unethical, unconscionable, and cruel. I do not believe there is sufficient basis for considering the issue without viewing the video itself. If this additional circulation adds to Whitney’s pain, I am genuinely sorry. My hope is that I can make some progress is stemming what I consider to be a dangerous social trend of using the internet as a weapon of revenge and gratuitous meanness.

_________________________________

Source: New York Daily News

The Deadliest Rationalization Of All?

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

woodys excuse

All rationalizations can be deadly and have been. History and human nature teach us, however, that “Woody’s Excuse,” #22 on the Ethics Alarms Rationalization list, can hold its own with any of them when it comes to tallying up pain, ruined lives, and death. This is “The heart wants what the heart wants,” the comedian, actor and acclaimed director’s personal pass for his seducing and marrying a girl who was, in essence, his adopted daughter.

Today the Washington Post carries the grim final act of a story so terrible that it crosses into the realm of black humor. A veteran Labor Department lawyer, married, with an impeccable record, was found dead in his cell after being arrested and charged with violently attacking a co-worker with whom he had become infatuated. The story is full of weird U-turns of phrase; for example, the judge called the lawyer, charged last week with first-degree burglary while armed and third-degree sexual assault relating to the June 5 attack, a “wonderful person in most respects”—-that is, “most respects” beside the implications of his breaking into a woman’s home, punching her in the face (or spraying her with mace,) then trying to incapacitate  her with a stun gun, handcuffing her hands behind her back and knocking her to the floor. The victim was so badly injured that a plate had to be surgically implanted in her face.

Other than that, Judge, you’re right: he was a hell of a guy. Continue reading →

Dear Sincerely Shallow: “It’s True, You’re Horrible. Show Your Fiancé Your Letter, And Go Pimp Yourself Out Like Anna Nicole.”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments
This could be you, SS!

This could be you, “Sincerely Shallow” ! Go for it!

Emily Yoffe is Slate’s stunt advice columnist, who in her “Dear Prudence” column answers questions reminiscent of the freak-show howlers they used to concoct for the “Penthouse Forum” (or so I’ve heard.) Sometimes Emily’s advice has me convinced she is the consort of Pazuzu, and other times her advice is measured and wise. This time, she sided with the demon, and I’m about finished with her.

Here is the query sent by “Sincerely Shallow” in its entirety. I’m sure it’s viral by now:

Dear Prudence,
I’m recently engaged to the most honest, thoughtful, and loving man I’ve ever met. He has supported me through many hard times, including losing my job and being assaulted. Here’s the but about him: He makes no money. He has ambitions, and he’s smart, but will likely only bring a middle-class income at best. I have an OK job and I’m self-sufficient. Now here’s the but about me: I’m really, really pretty. My whole life people have told me I could get any man I want, meaning a rich man, and are shocked that I’m engaged to my fiancé, nice though he is. I’ve never dated a rich man, but it does make me curious. So part of me thinks I’m squandering my good looks on this poor man, and the other part of me thinks that I’m so shallow that I don’t even deserve him or anyone else. Am I a fool for thinking that a poor man can make me happy, or an idiot for believing a sexist fantasy?

You can read “Prudence’s” annoying answer here, which concludes with this: Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Hero: David Blankenhorn, Former Same-Sex Marriage Opponent”

/ Jack Marshall / 52 Comments

eeyore1

In many ways, I love this post. I love it because it is passionate and serious, and from the heart, and because I am certain that it reflects what many Americans, especially those of a certain age, feel with frustration and a little fear and anger.  I also agree with much of what it concerns, the lack of respect for accumulated wisdom in many aspects of the culture, and the rush to discard old standards not because they have failed us, but just because they are old. The comment comes from a regular commentator, Eeyoure (not his real name, you’ll be relieved to learn, and yes, we both know how to spell the A.A. Milne character he honors) who is educated, decent, smart and articulate.

But regarding his lament’s  applicability to the controversy at issue, gay marriage, he is absolutely, utterly, tragically wrong. The conventional wisdom is that we should just try to ignore Americans who feel similarly to Eeyoure, because demographics are relentlessly removing them from the scene. As the politically active public becomes younger, the support for equal rights for gays, trangendered and bi-sexual citizens will grow into an overwhelming majority.  I think that’s a lazy and obnoxious way to win an argument, even when you are right. Smart but misguided people, like Eeyoure in this matter, should be able to evolve, learn, and realize when what they once thought was right, isn’t.  Realizing that one aspect of entrenched belief was, upon knowledge and reflection, wrong does not mean the whole foundation of civilized society has to crumble—this is the classic, irrational, self-defeating fallacy of conservatism. Change in the presence of enlightenment and experience is the essence of ethics, which constantly evolves. We should be able to explain what is wrong with this post so that even the poster agrees.

Here is Eeyoure’s Comment of the Day, on the post (and comment thread t0) Ethics Hero: David Blankenhorn, Former Same-Sex Marriage Opponent: Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Harley Tragedy

/ Jack Marshall / 44 Comments

I’m sure PETA thinks this is fair; I’m not sure that I do.

No goldfish for you!

No goldfish for you!

Tammy Brown,47, a disabled Moon Lake, Florida woman trying to make ends meet on her $508-a-month government check, argued that she was not able to afford veterinary care for Harley, her 14-year-old dog who had a painful ear infection as well as skin problems, periodic tumors, heartworms and ear mites. Because she did not get treatment for Harley, however—the fact that she tried to treat the dog’s problems with over the counter ointments wasn’t enough to mollify the judge— Brown was convicted of felony animal cruelty. She spent more than a month in jail awaiting sentencing, and then received six months of house arrest, 300 hours of community service, three years of probation, and $1,000 in court costs. Circuit Judge William Webb also commanded, “I don’t want you to own any animals. Not even a goldfish!” (Hartley had been euthanized.)

Apparently Harley’s physical condition was shockingly poor, so much so that jurors found photos hard to look at. An Animal Services officer testified that Harley couldn’t stand up without support. The prosecutor wanted Brown imprisoned.

Has society become so animal-sensitive that it has lost its priorities? Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz is this: Assuming that Harley’s lack of treatment was due to lack of resources and neglect rather than malice…

Was Tammy Brown’s sentence fair, or was it excessive and cruel? Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: Dick Hoyt

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

hoytsI don’t think I’ll have to explain why Dick Hoyt is an Ethics Hero.

Rick Hoyt has cerebral palsy and has been a quadriplegic since childhood. When he was in middle school, he told his father, Dick, that he wanted to compete in a charity marathon for a basketball player who had been paralyzed in an accident. Dick Hoyt agreed to push his son’s wheel chair in the race. When it was over, Rick told him, “Dad, when I’m ‘running,’ it feels like I’m not handicapped!” Touched and inspired, Dick Hoyt, 72, went on to push his son, now  51, in 1,091 events, including 252 triathlons, 70 marathons, 94 half marathons, and 155 five-kilometer races. They have never finished last. The father-son team is preparing to compete in their 31st Boston Marathon next week.

When they compete in the triathlons, Dick pulls his son in a boat tied to a cord as he swims, and pedals for him on a tandem bicycle for the cycle round. In 1989, the family set up the Hoyt Foundation which has the goal of helping disabled youths participate in activities that their disabilities would normally preclude.

Rick says his only wish is that he could make his dad sit in the chair and push him for once.

Every now and then, I learn about people whose kindness, selflessness and ethical instincts place me in awe.

Dick Hoyt is such an individual.

__________________________________

Facts and Graphic: Opposing Views

Ethics Dunce: Susan A. Patton

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments
Oh, yeah, ladies, if you can't hook one of these gems, you should just kill yourself...

Oh, yeah, ladies, if you can’t hook one of these gems, you should just kill yourself…

Ethics are built by values, and those whose values are warped and flawed are very likely to engage in unethical conduct consistent with their rickety ethical foundation. Thus it is that I have serious doubts about Princeton grad Susan A. Patton, who in a letter to the Daily Princetonian not only proclaimed her own lousy values but did so as “advice” to co-eds. (I hope the link starts working; it was not earlier today.) In her letter, she wrote…

“Forget about having it all, or not having it all, leaning in or leaning out … Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there…. Men regularly marry women who are younger, less intelligent, less educated. It’s amazing how forgiving men can be about a woman’s lack of erudition, if she is exceptionally pretty. Smart women can’t (shouldn’t) marry men who aren’t at least their intellectual equal. As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market. Simply put, there is a very limited population of men who are as smart or smarter than we are. And I say again — you will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you.”

How misguided, jaded and warped is this advice?

Allow me to take inventory. Continue reading →