By James M. Kushiner -
Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing for his appointment to the U. S. Supreme Court began at fever pitch with loud protests and demonstrations. The trigger for all the concern is the judge's view on abortion law and how he might vote on a future case involving abortion.
An atmosphere of anticipation prevailed in many quarters, with some ready to erupt along party lines (mostly) in either joy or anger should Kavanaugh be confirmed. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has thrown a wrench into the proceedings, which now has turned into a debate about teenage sexual harrassment.
But let me press another case, not to settle this one (as if I could) for myself, but to widen the lens a bit on where this affair is taking place. Imagine that an encounter between two high school seniors at a party in the early 1980s started out as this one allegedly did–only up to a point. Only the boy is not really forceful, yet aggressive, as boys and girls can be under the right (or wrong) circumstances, and is looking for a sign of mutual consent. Their eyes lock, and, having had a few drinks, both say, "Let's do this." Three months later the girl tells the boy, now her boyfriend, "I'm pregnant." Both sets of parents agree they want her to abort the child. She does, under duress.
Any objections to this scenario out there? Is that man qualified to sit on the bench? Does it depend on which party he belongs to or what he did at a party in high school? I have no doubt that the scene I just described has occurred multiple times over the years. Would the abortion lobbyists opposing Kavanaugh see anything wrong? They will say, "Consent is the key." Without consent, it's assault. Okay. So, in abortion, a search and destroy mission, there is no assault? The girl's consent? Is it consent when she'd rather keep the baby but feels she cannot oppose her parents and her boyfriend? Let a professor come forward decades later and tell how her parents and boyfriend cornered her into a Planned Parenthood "clinic." Will the responses break down along party lines?
The nature of the current allegations shock no one anymore. Teenagers have been told for decades that is is okay, even healthy, to have sexual relations with other young people on demand, as long as demand was welcomed. At parties, alcohol was provided for minors, condoms distributed, immodesty welcomed, and stuff happened. Sinful stuff, leading to moral confusion. Many witnesses today relate the trauma from these practices, which were approved, even encouraged, by educators and counselors, ignoring moral and physic consequences. We're at a point when some young people find going out for coffee more personal than a casual "hook up." Seriously:
A seed for The Dating Project was sown when [Boston College Professor Dr. Kerry] Cronin had the common sense simply to reflect back to her students what they were saying and doing. "So, you're willing to make out with somebody, take off some of your clothes, or all your clothes, do some stuff that's very intimate-and that's more casual than going for a cup of coffee with someone?" Once she said it out loud, they would see how crazy and nonsensical it was. (Salvo Fall 2018)
Obviously, the sexual revolution has spun out of control. We're still picking up the pieces, old and new. Except there is no agreement on which are pieces and which are not, or where to put them or how they fit together. Who is telling the truth? Who is lying? What should the consequences be for various crimes or misdemeanors? For teenagers? Adults?
Will the revolutionaries ever admit there are intrinsic differences between the sexes that requires a strict moral code that needs recovery? As long as sex is unhinged, abortion will be demanded. It's a partisan issue. Driving the drama of Ford v. Kavanaugh is a dispute over a baby, threatened with violent dismemberment: Roe v. Wade. Is there a Solomon in the house? You, be the judge.
James M. Kushiner
Executive Director, The Fellowship of St. James