Last week, at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., the Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion, Dr. Angela McCaskill, was placed on administrative leave after it came to light that she had signed a petition at her church to put Question 6 on the ballot in her home state of Maryland. Question 6 is the initiative launched by the defenders of marriage, which, if it passes on November 6, will reverse the Maryland legislature’s recent enactment of a not-yet-in-force same-sex marriage law. [See update below.] The gay newspaper Washington Blade had acquired the list of signatures on the petition and published it, and an anonymous faculty member at Gallaudet had denounced McCaskill to her superiors, in true Stasi fashion. In a statement full of self-righteous wind and moral cowardice, Gallaudet’s President T. Alan Hurwitz said:
I want to inform the community that I have placed Dr. Angela McCaskill on paid administrative leave effective immediately. It recently came to my attention that Dr. McCaskill has participated in a legislative initiative that some feel is inappropriate for an individual serving as Chief Diversity Officer; however, other individuals feel differently. I will use the extended time while she is on administrative leave to determine the appropriate next steps taking into consideration the duties of this position at the university. In the meantime an interim Chief Diversity Officer will be announced in the near future
Note that preciously arm’s-length characterization of what “some feel is inappropriate” political opinion on the part of someone responsible for “diversity.” Oh yes, “other individuals feel differently,” but we know whose feelings are privileged in situations like this.
To their credit, the editors of the Washington Post chide Mr. Hurwitz in an editorial today. (Whenever I read something this sensible in an unsigned Post editorial, I guess it must have been written by Charles Lane, whose arrival on the editorial board vastly improved its tone, lifting it above the level of the reflexive drivel at the New York Times.) Noting Dr. McCaskill’s record at Gallaudet as never showing the slightest anti-gay animus (quite the contrary, in fact), the Post‘s editors go on to make this telling point: “Proponents of same-sex marriage must persuade citizens who may have good-faith reservations. The surest way to repel voters—and to vitiate the marriage movement’s broader goals and values—would be to say, or even seem to say, ‘agree with us or else.’” They note that Maryland’s Governor Martin O’Malley, who opposes Question 6, has called for McCaskill to have her job back, as have other opponents of the marriage-defending referendum.
But in Hurwitz’s rush to judge McCaskill, and to threaten her career, we see the main thrust of the movement for same-sex marriage. “Agree with us or else” is actually a central goal of that movement’s agenda, as advocate John Corvino admitted in his recent book with Maggie Gallagher, Debating Same-Sex Marriage (which I reviewed at Public Discourse). Once same-sex marriage is in place, the new moral norm of society is that dissent from the proposition that men can marry men and women can marry women is a self-declaration of one’s bigotry, of one’s status as a “hater” and an enemy of justice. It is to be equated with racist opposition to interracial marriage, and the only space to be made for the age-old understanding of marriage–for now anyway–is that no churches or clergy will be forced to solemnize same-sex unions.
It’s understandable that “agree with us or else” is not the message that same-sex marriage advocates want to send before a referendum on which their hopes are pinned. But it is assuredly the message that will be delivered good and hard afterward if they are victorious.
UPDATE: I thank Jesse, writer of the first comment below, for correcting me about the form of the Maryland ballot question. Although the defenders of traditional marriage petitioned for the popular referendum in order to overturn the Maryland same-sex marriage law, the form of the question is to ask voters whether they approve of the law, not whether they wish to reverse it. Hence a “No” vote defends the natural and historic understanding of marriage, while a “Yes” vote would redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
October 14th, 2012 | 4:52 pm
Correction:
“Question 6 is the initiative launched by the defenders of marriage, which, if it passes on November 6, will reverse the Maryland legislature’s recent enactment of a not-yet-in-force same-sex marriage law.”
A referendum is like if the people were voting for the law in the House; if it passes, the law passes. A ‘yes’ vote is a vote for marriage equality.
October 14th, 2012 | 6:08 pm
Gallaudet University is a private university, and thus has the right to determine who is or is not fit to hold such a position. I happen to think that it is wrong in this particular case, but I can note one thing. Any criticism of a decision made by a religious university is deemed to be “persecution”, but a secular university can’t require its employees to espouse particular values? But it is rather… strange for religious fundamentalists to cry out against this decision, seeing how the organizations that they support, like the Boy Scouts, have extremely exclusionary policies. It’s not even that certain political positions would be off limits for me, I would be banned simply because I refuse to believe things without evidence. This is an order of magnitude more intrusive than this decision, but but curiously, this is not called an attempt to force religion down the throats of every man, woman and child. So in order to be consistent and credible, anyone opposing this decision needs to take a good look at organizations like the Boy Scouts.
October 14th, 2012 | 6:22 pm
But in Hurwitz’s rush to judge McCaskill . . . .
Wouldn’t a rush to judgment been either an immediate dismissal or an affirmation of her right to go on record opposing same-sex marriage? It looks like Hurwitz is doing anything but rushing.
It seems to me that chief diversity officers (especially at federally funded universities) ought not to take public stands on hot-button issues. (Yes, signing a petition is taking a public stand.) On the other hand, it seems like Angela McCaskill has proven herself in her job, and even supporters of same-sex marriage are going to bat for her.
I think it is a difficult question as to whether same-sex marriage is a civil-rights or human-rights issue similar to racial issues. But certainly for those who believe it is, it’s unreasonable to expect them to ask politely if they can have their rights or expect them to agree to disagree with those who would deny them.
October 14th, 2012 | 7:55 pm
Maxi — Gallaudet is NOT a private university. It’s funded by the Federal Government.
October 14th, 2012 | 8:12 pm
Marriage is perfectly equal. It could not be a human right if it were not something that every individual can do in thr same way as ecery other individual.
Genlegally erase the differences between males andfmales, even though marriage only exists – as a physical relationship and as a legal institution – because of those differences. A redefinition of maizat
October 14th, 2012 | 8:32 pm
Marriage is a human right because it is something that every human can do in the exact same way as every other human. That’s what human rights are – universal abilities. A civil right cannot redefine a human right because – by definition – human rights are inherent and therefore exist independent of human will. Genderless marriage legally erases the physical difference between men and women – even though marriage exists as a relationship and a legal institution solely because of that difference. In legally homogenizing our bodies, genderless marriage denies the very difference that accounts for our continued existence: our inherent heterosexual nature. Genderless marriage is a hideous attack on difference/diversity.
October 14th, 2012 | 8:42 pm
With respect, I believe it’s important to separate the rightness of a cause with how well- or ill-behaved its supporters are.
Look. Gay people have long been stigmatized, attacked, even killed just for being gay, and all but the most ardent anti-gay forces would argue that such attacks are wrong. No one should be afraid to walk down the street for fear of being bashed, and that includes those “evil” sinning gay people, correct?
Similarly, the rightness of allowing a committed gay couple to sign a legally-binding legal contract to protect their most important relationship doesn’t suddenly become wrong because some official fires an anti-gay employee. The two things are separate. Even the most fervent pro-equality gay groups condemn the mistreatment of this employee, as misguided as she may be in her own fervent beliefs.
Allowing gay couples to marry is the right thing to do. Period. Pointing out excesses or abuses doesn’t change the arguments. Sorry. You don’t get to deny some people their rights just because you are afraid others will lose theirs. Instead, you work to ensure EVERYONE’S rights.
October 14th, 2012 | 9:19 pm
Gallaudet University Private but congressionally chartered university. Notice the Private part comes first. The charter was granted by Congress. That does not make the private university a federal university. As a private institution they do have the right to determine who does and does not work as part of the university.
October 15th, 2012 | 7:45 am
Franck wants to paint the gay rights movement as dominated by the goal of “agree with us or else,” using his distortion of Corvino’s words as proof. When the Washington Post “chides” Hurwitz, Franck figures that Lane must be the reason. There’s no way, in other words, that the Post could have reached a liberal conclusion all by itself (liberals, after all believe in free speech). He hangs onto this bias against liberals even after the liberal Governor O’Malley also criticizes Hurwitz.
In the meantime, Franck describes a faculty member at Gallaudet as like a “Stasi” member and Hurwitz as “full of self-righteous wind and moral cowardice.”
Does Franck have to exaggerate his case because it is that weak? Is he so biased against liberals that he can’t understand that liberals don’t agree on every point? Or are my expectations of reasonable discourse too high?
October 15th, 2012 | 7:54 am
Matthew J. Franck wrote:
David Nickol writes:
David, perhaps you can enlighten us a bit on this with regard to what the “or else” might involve for those of us here at First Things that don’t believe the government should redefine marriage. Is it not unreasonable for us to lose our jobs for having this opinion? Not unreasonable to suffer physical attack? Not unreasonable to for us to be incarcerated for as long a we express out opinions?
Of course YOU don’t think we should be tortured or placed in jail. You merely point out that for those who believe that redefining marriage is a human rights issue it would not be unreasonable for THEM to pursue actions against us similar to the sort of thing that happened to Dr. McCaskill. I’m just saying that you probably know some of these people, and so it’d be nice to hear your perspective on what some more of the “not polite” punishments might look like for us.
October 15th, 2012 | 8:46 am
So, this reminds you of secret police with an extensive network of paid informants who executed dissidents. OK.
Let’s say a faculty member noticed McCaskill’s name on the list and had some honest concerns. To avoid the ‘stench of Stasi’, how should they go about handling it? Would reporting it publicly instead of anonymously be enough? Should they write an open letter?
October 15th, 2012 | 8:55 am
I think the Supreme Court decision about Grove City College some years back is relevant here. Grove City, like Hillsdale and maybe a couple of other colleges, does not accept federal funding. This is necessary to preserve their right to hire and fire without regard to federal affirmative action policies, and to avoid the whole tangle of federal regulations. The case was about whether accepting students who were receiving federal loans or grants was equivalent to receiving federal funding. The Supreme Court ruled that it was equivalent, and these colleges now have their own extensive student aid programs. They cannot even accept GI Bill students.
You can see from this that an iota of federal involvement means the college is covered by all the federal government regulations.
October 15th, 2012 | 9:44 am
Linguist writes: “Allowing gay couples to marry is the right thing to do. Period. Pointing out excesses or abuses doesn’t change the arguments.”
Linguist subtly and unintentionally makes the points of the article. There’s no argument here to change. “Rightness” is just claimed. How do you know it’s “right”, Linguist? That’s the part we need to hear.
October 15th, 2012 | 10:20 am
“Gallaudet University is a private university, and thus has the right to determine who is or is not fit to hold such a position.”
It does not, however, have a right to false advertisement. When you have a diversity coordinator to facilitate the multifarious views you make welcome, you have no right to suddenly draw a line and say, that one is grounds to reject you. You must honestly and forthrightly assert that you are advocating what you are in fact advocating — the worship of Priapus, for instance.
October 15th, 2012 | 12:18 pm
David, perhaps you can enlighten us a bit on this with regard to what the “or else” might involve for those of us here at First Things that don’t believe the government should redefine marriage.
Douglas Johnson,
For those who believe same-sex marriage is a right, the same methods to secure it are appropriate as to secure any right, for example, the right to religious liberty or, for those who believe life begins at conception, the same methods they would use to attempt to secure the right to life for the unborn. As I said, when the issue is a true right, the people demanding the right cannot agree to disagree with the people denying it. This is why pro-lifers accuse those who oppose them of supporting the murder of babies. They do not say, “Let’s hold a referendum, and if the pro-choice side wins, that will settle it.”
If same-sex marriage is a right, then people who oppose same-sex marriage should expect to be regarded as other people who deny a group their rights.
October 15th, 2012 | 12:32 pm
<blockqBut in Hurwitz’s rush to judge McCaskill, and to threaten her career, we see the main thrust of the movement for same-sex marriage. “Agree with us or else” is actually a central goal of that movement’s agenda
And a central goal of Christian evangelism is to enforce Biblical moral laws on people who don’t believe in the Bible, because I can point to a Christian who said that once. Or maybe two. Or three.
Or perhaps politics and religion and people in general aren’t quite as monolithic as that?
October 15th, 2012 | 1:21 pm
A take home lesson from this and from Prop 8 petitions in CA and a few other petitions is that when one signs a ballot petition, one is publicly proclaiming one’s support for that question being put on the ballot. It is a public stand, not a private or anonymous stand. With internet posts and google maps, they can find out where you live.
I have signed forms advocating Candidate A to be on the ballot, even if I didn’t agree with Candidate A, but because I think the more choice the better. Are those signatures public? If so, I must be on record as being a Conservative-Liberal-WorkingFamilies-Libertarian-Green-Communist-RentIsTooD#$n High-Independent supporter!
October 15th, 2012 | 2:01 pm
David Nickol,
You write:
True, we regard the killing of, say, an eight-month old baby in the womb as literally the killing of a eight-month-old baby in the womb. But there are some huge differences here with the pro-life camp and the redefine marriage camp.
I just sat in on a significant pro-life discussion in Illinois and what dominated the night was a discussion of how to make the pro-life camp more welcoming to women who had had an abortion and were suffering because of it. The topic of discussion is that there is healing and a way home for these women, and we can’t let our opponents get away with describing this is somehow “anti-woman.” I am around this crowd day in and day out and none of us would even countenance the thought of trying a woman for murder because she had an abortion.
Our objective is to see as few abortions as is possible, and no one in his right mind believes that putting a woman in jail, or depriving her of her job, or anything of the sort could help that cause. As I said above, the approach of the vast majority of the pro-life crowd is just the opposite–to help the women who have suffered because of this evil.
But you say that those of us who oppose the government redefinition of marriage should expect severe punishments, as happened to Ms. McCaskill, at the hands of our opponents as their power grows.
Well, FWIW, I think you are absolutely right. I think in a few years what has happened to Ms. McCaskill will seem like child’s play compared to what’s coming. Those threats won’t change our position, but many of us might spend a chunk of our lives in jail for merely asserting marriage exists because it takes a man and a woman to create new life. It certainly didn’t go well for those who opposed the Bolshevik effort to redefine marriage, and I think you are correct that it won’t go well for us if the movement to redefine marriage is ever successful here.
October 15th, 2012 | 2:08 pm
David,
You compare SSM and pro-life approaches but leave out the meat. Pro-lifers articulate a rationality behind their positions based to a large extent on science. “Human being begin at conception and concepts of person hood should be tied to that.” Pro-SSMers just claim the right by redefining marriage so the right is obvious. “Marriage is about two adults loving each other,” though romantic marriage is a relatively recent Western invention. “Marriage will help us be monogamous,” where all data say monogamy is independent of marriage. When arguments based on the history of the institution with all its ups and downs are offered, they are just denied as irrelevant. There is a fundamental lack of rationality on the pro-SSM side that is essential to persuading people. And in the end, that is what it will take: persuasion or coercion.
I do agree with you that making a law whether in the legislature, the courts, or by referendum does not settle either matter. I do pray we step back from coercion. We humans have too much history and blood around coercion which, by the way, is independent of any religious/secular divide.
October 15th, 2012 | 2:33 pm
Douglas,
“perhaps you can enlighten us a bit on this with regard to what the “or else” might involve for those of us here at First Things that don’t believe the government should redefine marriage.”
Perhaps you tell us what your “or else” means for those of us who want gay couples to have their marriages recognized by the state.
October 15th, 2012 | 2:53 pm
“I think it is a difficult question as to whether same-sex marriage is a civil-rights or human-rights issue similar to racial issues. But certainly for those who believe it is, it’s unreasonable to expect them to ask politely if they can have their rights or expect them to agree to disagree with those who would deny them.”
It is certainly true that we would expect people who think that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is bigotry to fight very hard against those of us who hold the traditional view. The problem is that they simultaneously want to claim that redefining marriage will have absolutely no effect on anyone at all, so we really shouldn’t care about it. As Maggie Gallagher and others have observed many times, these two positions are irreconcilable. We all know that the modern left is not very interested in free speech, nor freedom of association, nor freedom of religion- at least not when they conflict with their radical new egalitarian dogmas. These traditional liberties are very much at stake in this debate.
October 15th, 2012 | 3:15 pm
Michael,
You ask:
Matthew Franck referenced John Corvino’s “or else.” David Nickol echoed the same point arguing that it is reasonable for people like Ms. McCaskill to lose her job if she holds certain opinions. I then asked David Nickol to put his cards on the table and let us know what kind of punishments he had in mind.
Now you attempt a little tit-for-tat by asking me to lay out what legal punishments I have in mind for people who hold opinions different from my own. The thing is, unlike Corvino and David Nickol I regard such “or else” threats as totalitarian and barbaric. So does everyone else I’ve ever read who opposes the redefinition of marriage. Where in the world did you get the idea that Maggie Gallagher, or Matthew Franck, or Robert George, et. al. ever suggested that people who hold opinions different than their own should be threatened with an “or else” and lose their jobs? Where did I ever suggest such a thing the way Corvino and Nickol did?
Sorry, Michael, I believe in free speech and natural right. I don’t play that game.
October 15th, 2012 | 3:19 pm
Mike Melendez,
I did not offer an opinion as to whether same-sex marriage was a right. My point was that if you are attempting to have a what you believe to be a right recognized, you don’t “agree to disagree” with those who want to deny that right. If the latter are in the majority, the minority doesn’t say, “We respect your right as the majority to prevent us from exercising our right.”
Opponents are concerned that if same-sex marriage is recognized as a right, they will be the object of social opprobrium for refusing to recognize it as such. Well, if it is a right, then they ought to be the objects of social opprobrium. And while I believe civility is extremely important, if people are prejudiced against gay people, then they are bigots and they ought not to be surprised that they are considered bigots. If same-sex marriage is a right, those who want to deny gay people the right to get married are bigots.
I really am undecided as to whether same-sex couples have a right to marry. I don’t think it is necessary to believe same-sex marriage is a right to support it, and I do support it, but I am not at this point prepared to claim that those who oppose SSM and try to prevent it are denying gay people rights. But for those who have concluded SSM is a right, I think it is foolish and naive to condemn them for—in some form or another—insisting on “my way or else.” As I said above, the “or else” for same-sex marriage proponents should be similar to the “or else” for any other group fighting to secure rights. That includes social pressure.
October 15th, 2012 | 3:53 pm
Mike P. –
Really? Those exact words?
October 15th, 2012 | 5:15 pm
I want to backtrack a bit and agree with David Nickol to a certain extent. Marriage is not a civil right created by the state (such as the right to vote), but falls into the category of natural right because it is open to all men and women and premised on our biological ability to create new life. Marriage existed before the state, and in fact marriage and family must first exist to even create a state.
When David Nickol says he is unsure if redefining marriage is a right, I take him to mean that he is unsure if the state should take this step of creating a new right for homosexuals.
But then he writes:
I understand what he is saying here, but I still find this remarkable. Think about this: David says he’s unsure if the state should redefine marriage as a new civil right for gay people, but he says for those that ARE SURE that the state should redefine marriage as a gay right, then from them it is reasonable that I should expect severe punishments, along the lines of what happened to Ms. McCaskill, for believing what I believe. All Ms. McCaskill did was sign a petition expressing her opinion. I too have signed a number of such petitions. David Nickol doesn’t think I should lose my job or go to jail, but if he changes his mind and decides that the state should redefine “gay marriage” as a civil right then my opinions would no longer be legal and it would be foolish for me not to expect punishment from him and his allies as they secure state power for their beliefs.
October 15th, 2012 | 5:18 pm
David Nickol echoed the same point arguing that it is reasonable for people like Ms. McCaskill to lose her job if she holds certain opinions.
Douglas Johnson,
Pardon me, but I didn’t say that. I said
Saying that chief diversity officers ought not to take public stands on hot-button issues is not the same as saying they should be fired if they sign a petition in their church. Also, note the part that begins, “On the other hand . . . . ” It seems to me that someone in charge of diversity should try to remain impartial and to maintain the appearance of impartiality. But diversity officers are really quite new on the scene, and if there is a consensus on rules of conduct, I don’t know where to go to look for it.
The thing is, unlike Corvino and David Nickol I regard such “or else” threats as totalitarian and barbaric.
The “or else” threats I said would be appropriate would be the same as for any rights movement. I specifically mentioned the pro-life movement. Do you find them totalitarian and barbaric?
Where in the world did you get the idea that Maggie Gallagher, or Matthew Franck, or Robert George, et. al. ever suggested that people who hold opinions different than their own should be threatened with an “or else” and lose their jobs? Where did I ever suggest such a thing the way Corvino and Nickol did?
Where did I say people who hold different opinions about same-sex marriage than I do should lose their jobs? Of course, you may remember that one of Romney’s advisors lost his job because he supported same-sex marriage. Do you think it was acceptable for the Romney campaign to get rid of an advisor who supported same-sex marriage? What about freedom of speech?
October 15th, 2012 | 10:59 pm
but he says for those that ARE SURE that the state should redefine marriage as a gay right, then from them it is reasonable that I should expect severe punishments, along the lines of what happened to Ms. McCaskill, for believing what I believe.
Douglas Johnson,
No “severe punishment” has been imposed on Angela McCaskill. She is on paid leave. Both pro- and anti-SSM advocates are calling for her reinstatement.
You seem to have a very difficult time understanding my position. I am saying it is appropriate for pro-SSM advocates to use the same tactics as pro-life advocates, or, for that matter, anti-SSM advocates or pro-choice advocates. I am saying that pro-SSM advocates have a perfect right to insist that they are right and anti-SSM advocates are wrong in the same way that pro-life advocates have a right to insist pro-choice or pro-abortion advocates are wrong. Or in the same way that pro-choice or pro-abortion advocates say that pro-life advocates are wrong.
Pro-SSM advocates do not have to cease holding fast to their position just because some people have religious reasons for opposing SSM. Some people had religious reasons for persecuting Jews, or justifying slavery, or believing in racial segregation, or opposing gambling or contraception or electricity!
October 16th, 2012 | 4:44 am
People should be protected from coercion by the state. They have no right to protection from the influence of public opinion around them. Pressure from fellow citizens is not to be equated with government persecution, even if it amounts to social ostracism.
October 16th, 2012 | 8:32 am
Douglas Johnson –
A correction.
Opinions are not, and have never been, illegal. The Westboro Baptist Church got support from the Supreme Court on that point. NAMBLA is legally allowed to present their (reprehensible) positions, too. You are in no danger whatsoever of having your opinion made illegal.
Some actions based on those opinions might be made illegal. I’m not sure what that might entail in your case. Is there any area where you don’t think the Westboro Baptist Church goes far enough, for example?
October 16th, 2012 | 8:45 am
Douglas,
My point was satiric. I think there’s too much talk of the sky falling. The GOP is not waging a war on women, and Democrats are not planning on herding Christians into FEMA-run concentration camps.
When you say that “Matthew Franck referenced John Corvino’s “or else,” you take Franck’s word for it that Corvino uttered an “or else.” He didn’t. Franck has decided to paint Corvino and the gay marriage movement as totalitarian and barbaric. He has misconstrued what Corvino has said.
In the meantime, you have misconstrued David as uttering an “or else” when he hasn’t.
I’d like to see a little sanity return to these discussions.
October 16th, 2012 | 2:25 pm
“IF it’s a right . . .”
A positive law right–or fundamental positive law in the case of constitutional law (the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court).
Fine. But positive law may conflict with natural law or the with the good. Liberals insist that the right is prior to the good. Fine again. That’s the current orthodoxy. I’m a heretic on this. I believe liberal neutrality is a house built on sand, and that citizens who reject it, either outright in part, are rationally entitled to do so.
Should I be castigated, or worse, for being a heretic? That is, for denying that liberalism is the truth written in the stars? Probably. After all, how is it possible to be such a vicious heretic unless you *deserve* to be persecuted?
Facetiousness aside, the point is that you can’t just say, “If it’s a right, then people who deny that it’s a right are bigots” when we may reasonably disagree about whether it’s a right, or about what implications individual rights have.
Here’s one way of looking at it. Liberals believe that an implication of having individual rights is the “right to do wrong.” Wow. Really? What kind of wrong? Is there a right to kill innocent adults? Innocent babies? Helpless fetuses? If there is indeed a right to do wrong–and it follows from the belief in the priority of the right over the good, a belief that is at the heart of liberalism–where do we draw the line?
Maybe at “harm to another”? Then what about abortion? It harms another. What about divorce? It harms children. What about affirmative action? It harms the arbitrarily excluded candidate (arbitrarily excluded in relation to other whites of similar merit who are not excluded, and who thereby gain an unequal competitive advantage).
If, however, there is no right to do wrong (and thus it cannot truly be said that the right is prior to the good), then the liberal-neutrality house of cards collapses–utterly.
Suppose there is reasonable disagreement about same-sex marriage. In that case, even if same-sex marriage is legally recognized, wouldn’t it be tyrannical for the government to marginalize or penalize citizens who believe same-sex marriage is not real marriage–and who have perfectly good, but maybe not rationally compelling, reasons for so believing? (Do liberals have rationally compelling reasons for anything they believe?)
Are you prepared to say (as I think you must if you oppose blatant governmental tyranny) that defenders of traditional marriage DON’T have good reasons for opposing same-sex marriage? What if someone says, “And the reason sterile and aged couples can marry is that they could procreate if their bodily organs were functioning normally”? What is the liberals’ response? I’ve never seen one. I can imagine sophistical responses (“Tom and Bob would be able to procreate if Tom had been born a girl”), but not any good ones.
In describing the same-sex marriage debate as one of reasonable disagreement, the opponents of same-sex marriage are bending over backwards to reason with their fellow citizens. What they privately believe (if they’re like me) is that the case against same-sex marriage–more so than the case against abortion or the case for capital punishment–is a slam dunk.
The debate about same-sex marriage can easily get much uglier than it already is, and the reason for that, at the end of the day, is sheer liberal insularity–the ludicrous belief that “to be reasonable is to be liberal.”
IMO, and notwithstanding any contumely that may come my way from the ignorant and the unreflective, marriage equality is jabberwocky.
October 16th, 2012 | 6:09 pm
Ken,
“Do liberals have rationally compelling reasons for anything they believe?”
No, we don’t.
“I can imagine sophistical responses (“Tom and Bob would be able to procreate if Tom had been born a girl”), but not any good ones”
We liberals only engage in sophistry. It is one of the pledges we sign and take seriously as long as it suits our whims and harms only those we don’t happen to care about today.
October 16th, 2012 | 6:50 pm
Michael writes:
Sanity?
We are looking back through all known time and civilization and are now discussing this new made-up idea: whether we should redefine marriage so that it has nothing in particular to do with a man and a woman procreating a family. If you want a little sanity you’ll have to turn the clock back to before the discussion started.
October 16th, 2012 | 10:08 pm
Douglas,
“If you want a little sanity you’ll have to turn the clock back to before the discussion started”
Exactly. That’s the point. If you back up to before the discussion started, then you don’t have to discuss anything at all. You get to pretend that gay marriage is merely and entirely irrational.
In the meantime, you’ll complain long and loudly when anybody calls your position bigoted, even though you’re acting just like they are when you paint your opposition as insane.
If you want to actually debate the issues, discuss them respectfully and reasonably with someone who believes that you might have rational reasons for supporting a position I disagree with, then let me know.
By the way, gay marriage is hardly a new idea. You can find gay couples in every century, and if you think they didn’t wish they could live openly and happily, then you don’t understand human nature very well.
October 17th, 2012 | 8:35 am
Ken Zaretzke –
Actually, most Christians do, too. At least, these days. I’m not aware of any church planning on firing up an Inquisition, at least.
As a first step, yes. It’s not the only principle, though. For example….
“Suppose there is reasonable disagreement about” when a fetus becomes a human person. “Are you prepared to say (as I think you must if you oppose blatant governmental tyranny) that defenders of” abortion “DON’T have good reasons for” supporting the option of abortion in at least some cases?
As much as being raised in an unsuccessful, bitter marriage? And who decides?
Again, balance of harms. Is it possible that an inequality of opportunity in one area could be used to help compensate for – and eventually eliminate – an inequality of opportunity in another area?
How marginalized or penalized? I mean, as I asked Douglas Johnson before, the Westboro Baptist Church gets plenty of legal protection for their activities. Where do you think WBC doesn’t go far enough?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact