So here’s a taste of what I’m going to say at BYU on Friday. I hope to see you in Provo. It’ll be hard, but not impossible, for you to buy me a drink or a coup of coffee:
Marriage has become, we can say, individualized or Lockeanized enough that homosexuals can reasonably wonder why they are being excluded. It seems to them oppressively stigmatizing or degrading to be arbitrary denied benefits and recognition available to our citizens in general. Distinctions that used to seem necessary and proper, as the Court says, now seem to be based on pointless or merely prejudiced deprivations of liberty.
That the American people, working through their legislatures, could choose to vote in same-sex marriage has actually never been in doubt, although the possibility was only given serious thought only very recently. What’s new, of course, is the idea that the question—being a matter of individual liberty or autonomy—isn’t left to the people. And so the people opposed to the same-sex marriage are said not to have reasons worthy of trumping liberty, and their prejudice is no different from, say, racism. What’s new is the rights-based tendency to stigmatize those opposed to same-sex marriage as unjust, as deniers of the self-evident truths that bind us all together.
It does make a strange sort of sense to say that same-sex marriage didn’t used to a constitutional right, but it is now. It makes a kind of sense to say that we’ve worked out a dimension of individual liberty or autonomy to which our Founders were blind. We’re still all about their devotion to liberty, but we’ve progressed by working its implications through. So what’s self-evident to us is more consistent or expansive than what was self-evident to our Founders. And all Americans today are bound by what we can know about who we are as beings with inalienable rights.
Who can deny that the Court is right that what we have here is a new birth of freedom, and arguably one consistent with individualistic principles that we can arguably find among our Framers and in the Constitution itself? It’s hard to say, let me repeat for emphasis, that this view of freedom is an alien importation of Hegelian idealism into our country by the Progressives. Its premise is that the individual is in no sense a part of History or his country or his species or anything els. He exists for him- or herself. This expansive view of individual freedom might be the cause of a troubling birth dearth that may endanger our country or, who knows, maybe even our species. But we still can’t say we can compel free individuals to think of themselves as part of anything greater than each of their selves.
Our Court now affirms what might be called Locke’s “nominalism.” Words are weapons to be used to maximize individual liberty. That’s different from what might be called Progressive nominalism; words are weapons to advance History, because particular people are nothing but Historical products and History fodder. It’s also different from what might be called Darwinian nominalism; words are weapons for the flourishing of the species because people, whether they know it or not, are basically species fodder. The Lockean view is that we become, as individuals, more free from nature and each other over time. And the Court’s view is that its own words are the main weapons in the progress toward individual liberation.
November 17th, 2010 | 5:01 pm
[...] Lawler writing at First Things / Postmodern Conservative: “Marriage has become, we can say, individualized or Lockeanized enough that homosexuals can [...]
November 18th, 2010 | 12:39 am
This expansive view of individual freedom might be the cause of a troubling birth dearth that may endanger our country or, who knows, maybe even our species.
The birth dearth will be cured by effective anti-aging biotechnology. The birth dearth will be no more of a problem in 2100 than the accumulation of horse manure on city streets is a problem today (this was actually a seriously debated issue in 1900).
November 18th, 2010 | 10:21 am
That anti-aging success will be yet another new birth of freedom on a Lockean “foundation” that will, no doubt, eradicate procreative sex altogether.
November 21st, 2010 | 7:50 pm
Whether marriage is an individual or a societal good, you still fail to explain why same sex couple should be denied access to civil marriage. Same sex couples still add value to society from the domesticating effects of marriage.
November 22nd, 2010 | 9:08 am
Gary, I actually tried to show that your question is reasonable these days. But what are the domesticating effects of a piece of paper from government according rights and no duties? Just asking…
November 22nd, 2010 | 10:14 am
Peter Lawler – the domesticating influences (IMHO) are a result of the expectations of society, which influence personal behavior in positive directions. The benefits are clear from the stability of family life: married people are markedly healthier and wealthier than unmarried; the dedication of spouses to one another “for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sickness and in health” and the desire of same sex couples to enter this state.
The opponents of marriage equality are clearly anti-Gay and not pro-Marriage, or they would not have banned civil unions / domestic partners in 19 of the 31 state amendments. This anti-Gay animus is clear, and Walker and the Iowa supreme court picked up on this in their decisions.
As an aside, it was unclear to me where you stand on marriage equality. Right or wrong, I read into your essay that you oppose this change to marriage as an individual good.
November 22nd, 2010 | 9:59 pm
Peter Lawler,
Christians are the keepers of something — something very precious — something we are to give to others. Jesus said, “As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.” (Matthew 10:7-8 NIV)
In the giving to others we are to do as children of God, Jesus said, “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6 NIV)
Knowing God is difficult enough when one correctly uses and understands the many words that are universally recognized as accurate translations of the original languages of The Holy Bible. Those “many words” are sacred words, because they hold in themselves the mystery and the clarity of The Presence of God. It is no small and trivial thing that Saint John began his Gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.” (John 1:1-4 NIV)
Some Jewish mystics consider the unutterable Name of God to be all of the letters of the Torah together as one word, that is: all of the words of the Torah and the knowledge and the thoughts they express together in revealing God are an inseparable and holy Oneness. When Christians think of the Word that is Jesus, they should think like Jewish mystics, and they should defend those words that are descriptive of God.
Saint John wrote:
“And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’” And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of God.” And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (Revelation 19:6-10 NKJV)
The word “marriage” is not an abstract philosophical concept that is available for intellectualizing and nuance concoction. Ask yourself, sir: What is your purpose in your language gymnastic? Is it to open a door that should remain shut?
There are wrongs in our society that need to be righted, and the fight for same-sex marriage rights reveals some of those wrongs. The solution offered in legalizing same-sex marriage is weak-minded, short-sighted, and simply wrong. No amount of clever wordplay can change that. But other solutions are possible.
Please read my comment at:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/18/hardly-obsolete-restoring-the-health-of-families/
Then read:
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/11/legal-co-equal-solution-for-everyone.html
The law in America is a growing mess, and that mess grows and grows because the language we use is not being honored and respected. Consider:
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/bill-of-rights-in-plain-sentence.html
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/second-amendment.html
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/all-citizens-of-us-are-eligible-to-be.html
Saint John wrote:
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.” (Revelation 22:18-19)
To change the definition of the word “marriage” is to not heed Saint John’s warning. Wisdom dictates that we should heed the warning, for Saint Paul wrote: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.” (Galatians 6:7-8 NKJV)
Steven A. Sylwester
November 23rd, 2010 | 1:29 am
Gary47290: I’m not sure that the banning of civil unions/domestic partners some state amendments was not intended to protect the traditional meaning of marriage. After all, the availability of domestic partnerships in California with rights similar to marriage was a major basis for overturning the proposition previous to Proposition 8.
You said: “the domesticating influences (IMHO) are a result of the expectations of society, which influence personal behavior in positive directions. The benefits are clear from the stability of family life” . . .
And these are important considerations.
But what if same-sex marriage CHANGES the expectations of society for behavior within marriage so that marriage no longer provides as much stability to family life?
For example, it was reported in the NYT that only about half of married gay men in Massachusetts considered sexual fidelity to be important to their marriage. (I’m not sure that this percentage was reached by a particularly scientific method, but it seemed to be consistent with the anecdotal information reported).
It has also been my personal observation that gay men often maintain deep and loyal bonds to a partner without necessarily insisting on sexual exclusivity. There are reasons why this relaxed attitude does not usually work as well for heterosexual couples.
So, (1) will “the expectations of society” concerning marriage need to change, minimizing the importance of sexual fidelity in order to treat same-sex and opposite-sex married couples in the same manner, or (2) will society start to expect gay men to be faithful sexually if they are married?
November 29th, 2010 | 5:08 pm
KarenT,
“But what if same-sex marriage CHANGES the expectations of society for behavior within marriage so that marriage no longer provides as much stability to family life?”
Indeed.
However, the change must be causal for this argument to be valid. The failure to demonstrate such causality was a basis for the ruling in the California court case.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact