Social Conservatives

[Bob Sheridan]

Perhaps I could put it another way to avoid condemnation and admonition 
for serving up non-academic footwear which one does not need to don 
unless it comfortably fits.

Using modern examples: 

Attorney, later Justice, Thurgood Marshall, felt that the formula of 
Brown II, of "All deliberate speed," used to ascertain when public 
school integration would be implemented, meant "never."  "Never" was 
social conservatism in action.  Marshall felt that the ruling in Brown I 
(1954) meant that his clients, the black public school children, had 
rights to equal protection of law that meant NOW (I don't mean to 
shout).  Social conservatives ("massive resistance") felt that blacks 
shouldn't push the matter of equal treatment, especially in the public 
schools "too fast."  That meant that the people who supposedly enjoyed 
the newfound constitutional right would have to wait awhile longer, 
which might be decades.

Rosa Parks, who in 1955 refused to give up her seat on a public bus 
despite the law of Jim Crow in Montgomery, Alabama, passed away a few 
days ago.  Her remains are now scheduled, by action of Congress in 
recognition of the blow that she struck for freedom and equality, to lie 
in honor in the rotunda of the Capitol Building.  Pierre L'Enfant was 
the last civilian so honored, I've heard.  Social conservatives in 1955 
had Rosa Parks arrested.  The young Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 26, 
organized a boycott of the Montgomery bus system that developed into 
what we now honor as the Civil Rights Movement, a revolution, which was 
resisted all the way by social conservatives.

"Social conservative" may mean different things, for all I know.  It may 
denote a reluctance to tolerate social change.  It may be a cover for a 
refusal to recognize new claims of human rights, which I rather think it 
is.  Social change is no doubt difficult to accept for many, as old 
truths are sometimes shown to be no more than devices for depriving 
individuals of the right to participate fully and be accorded full legal 
respect by our most powerful institutions. 

In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy declared that gays were 
entitled to the full respect of the law.  Social conservatives have a 
problem with this, as I understand it.  Perhaps they look to the bible 
for their authority.  In American Constitutional Law terms, this smacks 
of an establishment of religion issue. Gays are still discriminated 
against in the U.S. military.  This smacks of an equal protection of law 
violation.  It smacks of a Palmore violation, if the constitutional law 
professors, below, reported that case correctly in their Lawrence 
brief.  I thought Lawrence vindicated their argument from Palmore.

In the Lawrence case, these few dozen professors of constitutional law 
signed an amicus brief that cited Palmore v. Sidotti, the Florida 'Marry 
a black, lose your baby' case, for the proposition that it held that 
while government might recognize that discrimination on invidious 
grounds often exists in society, government may not bow to it.

The same may be said as to some conlawprofs, as well as other learned, 
and less learned people.  It is one thing to recognize that bigotry 
exists, but quite another to succumb to it.   Please do not don this 
shoe unless it quite fits, please, I say in the interest of avoiding 
rustling feathers further.  In this regard, I might point out that if 
constitutional law were not worth getting exercised about, it wouldn't 
be very fundamental, would it.  And further that constitutional law 
generally starts with a shout, not academic nicety or a law review 
article, and when it does start in academia, as in Prof. Zachariah 
Chafee's contribution to First Amendment law, it still starts with a 
shout in the streets.

Social conservatives dislike Lawrence, it appears.  See the Scalia 
dissent, in which he predicted with accuracy that gays would next demand 
an equal right to marriage.  This drives social conservatives up the 
wall, some anyway.  Are they  motivated by some useful principle which 
we all should learn, and if so, which?  Or is the label "social 
conservative" simply a handy, useful, 'respectable' label to denote that 
they are bigoted or prejudiced against a group they regard as second 
class citizens because of a defining characteristic they despise.  Which 
useful principle, I ask in seriousness, do list contributors suggest we 
use to distinguish respectable social conservatism from cases of 
outright bigotry? 

As it happens, I've been sort of a mixed bag of "I hate to change" 
myself over the years.   A little conservative here, and a little 
liberal there.  I try not to get too lopsided either way.

 "Why are these people insisting on all sorts of things I wasn't brought 
up to believe or respect," I've sometimes wondered. 

By virtue of the insight afforded by reviewing various historical 
accounts as well as the daily news and a few Supreme Court decisions, 
and the responsibility involved in teaching constitutional law, I 
decided that perhaps some of my ideas needed changing.  Once my eyes 
opened to the idea of equal rights for people whether they were or 
appeared more or less superficially different from me in some manner, or 
occupied some social category that existed since before I was born, I 
found it possible to consider and accept equal rights for people of 
other races, gays, etc.  I found that I was happy to do so.  It was no 
skin off my back and they, and I, felt better.  I prefer to think of it 
as growing up a bit further.  It is better for the country.

The label "social conservative" covers too many sins historically, and I 
suspect at present, to pass without challenge. 

Kindly forgive my throwing a little lighter fluid onto the barbecue. 

rs
sfls




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bobsheridan.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051030/2d26eef8/bobsheridan.vcf