Andrew Sullivan

I wrote Monday about how torture is incompatible with Christian Ethics. All Christians, everywhere, but particularly in the United States, of any political stripe or party, ought feel obligated by their faith to condemn the use of torture by our government.

The recently announced legislative compromise brought McCain, Warner, and Graham back to the fold. But it doesn’t prohibit torture. (There are other problems with the legislation, but few as outrageous as this).
Sure, on the face of it it does. But it doesn’t. At least, so argues Andrew Sullivan, who first links to analysis by Marty Lederman and then concludes:

So we “formally” leave Geneva alone, but grant the executive branch complete discretion in determining what “cruel” means; and the language of the bill certainly can be construed to allow waterboarding, hypothermia, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and long-time standing. It even allows for a person to be beaten, cut, or near-drowned.

Sullivan believes that McCain doesn’t see this to be the case, but, through an Orwellian use of language, these abuses remain viable. (More Sullivan on this issue here and here, and a link to the actual proposed legislation. (pdf)) I’d commend it all for your reading.

I’m no attorney. I’m a pastor and an ethicist I don’t know if Sullivan is correct without much more study. But granting that he might be: what will we do about it? Do we even care?

I’m mortified and sickened tonight by the thought of what this legislation will permit.

…Note analysis and news from:

NY Times: Detainee Deal Comes with Contradictions
Washington Post: On Rough Treatment, A Rough Accord
And news about two dead after torture by US forces, LA Times: Secrets in the Mountains of Afghanistan

Sullivan articulates a crucial distinction that I think gets lost in the shuffle:

Gay people are not asking for the right to marry anybody. We’re asking for the right to marry somebody. Right now, heterosexual polygamists have an option: marry someone. And gay people are told: you can marry no one at all. That cannot be just. It cannot be fair. And it cannot be conservative to refuse to give 9 million people an incentive to settle down and take care of one another.

His premise is that sexual orientation isn’t a choice, but polygamy is. That’ll be an interesting debate, but I think he’s correct. Among the goods of marriage (Augustine scholars, review your notes) are the reigning in of sexual appetites within a healthy sphere (that is, with a consentual spouse) in a way that deepens and strengthens the bonds of the union. One of the evils of breaking the marriage covenant (through adultery, say) is the weakening of those bonds. One can choose adultery, or fidelity. One can choose to give oneself entirely to a life-long partner, or not. And in a similar way, one can choose, I gather, to try to do that with muliple partners (the previous problems of polygamy to be noted). The point that conscious choice is involved. One isn’t choosing the orientation to a particular sex (though certainly how one acts that out is chosen), nor the fundamental desire to be united with someone (for all the goods of a marriage or other committed relationship). Those are more or less innate.

So a good case could be made for that distinction. Good argument. Go read it….

On Torture II…

Sullivan on the distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy…