The Marriage Debate II: What States Really Can’t Do
Jan 16, 2013
George Weigel
In his acute analysis of the character and institutions of the United States, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville, a nineteenth-century French liberal, stressed the importance of what we call “civil society.” American democracy, Tocqueville understood, wasn’t just a matter of the state, here, and the individual, there. Between the state (or government) and the people there were the many free, voluntary associations that formed the sinews and musculature of America. Those free associations performed many essential social functions: they educated the young, served the poor, and cared for the sick.
Writing a century and a half after Tocqueville, Pope John Paul II also highlighted the importance of voluntary associations for the free and virtuous society. Those associations, the pope argued, shape the human personality of a political community—what John Paul called, in his philosopher’s vocabulary, the “subjectivity of society.” Thus, in a democracy—a way of self-government that depends on the character of a people—the institutions of civil society are schools of freedom: the elementary schools of democracy.
Think about it this way: Every two-year-old is a natural-born tyrant, a beautiful bundle of willfulness and self-absorption who demands (sometimes winsomely and often loudly) that he or she get what he or she wants—now. Who, or what, turns all those two-year-old tyrants into democrats: mature men and women capable of being democratic citizens? Where do we learn what Tocqueville called the habits of mind and heart, and what moral philosophers from Aristotle to John Paul II have called the virtues, that are necessary for the machinery of democracy to work well?
We learn them first in the family, which is the fundamental, irreplaceable institution of civil society. We also learn those habits of heart and mind in friendships and in school, in clubs and sports and in religious communities. Men and women who, later in life, take responsibility for making government work first learned how to do so, not from the state, but from the civil society institutions in which they grew up. Adults who take the responsibilities of citizenship seriously did not learn their sense of civic obligation from a governmental agency. They learned to be responsible and civil and tolerant, flexible but principled, in more humane schools: the free, voluntary associations that Tocqueville and John Paul II celebrated.
Democracy means, among many other things, that the government is not everything; thus Mussolini’s definition of totalitarianism (“Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”) is the absolute antithesis of democracy—indeed, the very antithesis of freedom. Throughout history, just states (whether democratic or not) have understood that there are limits to their powers: There are certain things that just states simply cannot do.
With rare exceptions, the just state cannot interfere in the doctor-patient relationship or the lawyer-client relationship; it can never interfere in the priest-penitent relationship; it ought to be extremely chary of interfering in the parent-child relationship (save in obvious cases like abuse); and there are limits (always subject to debate and adjustment) about the state’s reach into the employer-employee relationship. The just state acknowledges the integrity of these primary, fundamental, civil society relationships and protects them legally. It has no business reinventing or redefining those relationships, for the just state exists to serve civil society, not vice versa.
Marriage is the primordial civil society relationship, for it is the basis of the family, which is the primordial civil society institution. That is why, for millennia, states have protected marriage, understood as what it is: the stable union of a man and a woman ordered to the begetting and raising of children. When a state claims the right to alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, it is tacitly claiming the right to redefine the number of persons who may make a marriage (why stop at two?); it is also tacitly claiming the right to redefine, by governmental fiat, every other pre-existing free association of civil society.
That claim is antithetical to the freedom of individuals, families, and society.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
1.16.2013 | 4:32am
Howard says:
"... the just state exists to serve civil society, not vice versa."
It seems to be an American characteristic to assume state=government and government=state. I doubt a Pole would think that Poland *is* the current form of government, let alone the current government. No; Poland has clearly existed for centuries, sometimes under kings, sometimes under puppet rulers, and sometimes with no government whatsoever. Poland is a real nation, and the nation *is* the civil society, which is justly served by the government.
It seems to be an American characteristic to assume state=government and government=state. I doubt a Pole would think that Poland *is* the current form of government, let alone the current government. No; Poland has clearly existed for centuries, sometimes under kings, sometimes under puppet rulers, and sometimes with no government whatsoever. Poland is a real nation, and the nation *is* the civil society, which is justly served by the government.
1.16.2013 | 5:59am
Paul Rimmer says:
George, excellent article. It seems, however, as though you have constructed a good democratic argument for allowing gay marriage. You say that the state should not interfere with the parent-child relationship. It is also assumed from your argument that the state should not interfere with the spousal relationship. If two men want to call themselves married, and some parents want to teach their children that these two men are married, should the state interfere? Isn't the state interfering with these two men by giving certain tax privileges to male-female marriages and not male-male or female-female marriages? As for your parenthetical question, about why we should stop at two, I think it is a very good question in light of your argument. Why should the state take sides and interfere on such matters? These issues seem to be entirely within the realm of the civil society.
1.16.2013 | 9:54am
Charles Lee says:
In the time of Christ, women were chattel, and marriage was little more than the exchange of this property between two men--one the father of the girl, the other, the patriarch of the bridegroom's family. The bride, all of eight or nine years of age, of course had no rights whatsoever in this transaction. This process would certainly produce a "stable union of a man and a woman ordered to the begetting and raising of children", as the author contends, but is this a "primordial civil society relationship" to which anyone would aspire in the 21st century?
Marriage is hardly a static institution--it has been changing and evolving all this time. At some point, in the Middle Ages or later, even love entered into the equation! Imagine that!
Marriage is hardly a static institution--it has been changing and evolving all this time. At some point, in the Middle Ages or later, even love entered into the equation! Imagine that!
1.16.2013 | 10:23am
Artaban7 says:
Government should never have gotten into the business of recognizing marriage to begin with. It is one of those "voluntary associations" mentioned earlier. Of course that still leaves the problem of determining distribution of property in the case of divorce or care of offspring, but there are legal mechanisms for that.
As an orthodox Catholic I oppose homosexuality, and support the biblical idea of marriage as a fruitful, exclusive, indissoluble covenant. And while I'll verbally advocate for that view, I'm not going to go into homes and separate people living in homosexual relationships, and I certainly will oppose those homosexuals that want to be able to force a priest and church to "marry them" against that congregation or person's conscience.
There is no need for government recognition of marriages, as there are already voluntary associations/churches willing to "marry" homosexuals. That's the beauty of those voluntary associations--if someone doesn't like what I do, I can form a new group of people that do.
The problem is we live in a society where too many have swallowed the totalitarian way of thinking, hook, line and sinker, and who only recognize something as legitimate if it exists in and through government. Several posters on these boards are unabashed socialists/totalitarians. And that is profoundly dangerous for Freedom.
As an orthodox Catholic I oppose homosexuality, and support the biblical idea of marriage as a fruitful, exclusive, indissoluble covenant. And while I'll verbally advocate for that view, I'm not going to go into homes and separate people living in homosexual relationships, and I certainly will oppose those homosexuals that want to be able to force a priest and church to "marry them" against that congregation or person's conscience.
There is no need for government recognition of marriages, as there are already voluntary associations/churches willing to "marry" homosexuals. That's the beauty of those voluntary associations--if someone doesn't like what I do, I can form a new group of people that do.
The problem is we live in a society where too many have swallowed the totalitarian way of thinking, hook, line and sinker, and who only recognize something as legitimate if it exists in and through government. Several posters on these boards are unabashed socialists/totalitarians. And that is profoundly dangerous for Freedom.
1.16.2013 | 10:24am
Joe says:
Is the state redefining marriage or is the citizenry?
(I just wanted to use the word 'citizenry'...)
(I just wanted to use the word 'citizenry'...)
1.16.2013 | 10:30am
Howard says:
Aaron Rasmussen: You are making the mistake of equating the civil society of which Mr. Weigel speaks with the voting public. This is wrong for several reasons. One is that not all residents can or do vote; surely you think a 15-year old participates in civil society, don't you? More importantly, civil society is not merely a collection of autonomous individuals. Institutions and customs are also a part of civil society. Our very national government reflects this somewhat; this is not the United Citizens of America, but the United STATES of America, so that the individual states have a standing, as well as the individual citizen.
1.16.2013 | 10:34am
Artaban7 says:
@Charles Lee,
Your information is seriously incorrect:
1) Women in the time/culture of Christ were not, as you put it "chattel". If that were the case, God and the Old Testament writers would not have taken the time to compare the relationship between Israel and God as that of a bridegroom longing for his bride, and faithful to and forgiving of her in spite of her infidelity to Him.
2) You claim the age of the bride was "all of eight or nine years of age". The youngest age I can find approved by a rabbinic source is twelve. Furthermore, the "process" of marriage took considerably longer than ours, lasting months or years.
How can we render any value to your words when your facts are wrong?
Your information is seriously incorrect:
1) Women in the time/culture of Christ were not, as you put it "chattel". If that were the case, God and the Old Testament writers would not have taken the time to compare the relationship between Israel and God as that of a bridegroom longing for his bride, and faithful to and forgiving of her in spite of her infidelity to Him.
2) You claim the age of the bride was "all of eight or nine years of age". The youngest age I can find approved by a rabbinic source is twelve. Furthermore, the "process" of marriage took considerably longer than ours, lasting months or years.
How can we render any value to your words when your facts are wrong?
1.16.2013 | 10:49am
Jameson says:
@Aaron Rasmussen
Interesting point, but the democratic mandate does not extend so far as to redefine reality. Simply because the state enacts the will of the people doesn't confirm the justice of the action. You are correct the state is acting "within its charter", however that's just the means to enact an end. I believe Mr. Weigel would suggest that the states' actions and the ends they pursue, especially when guided by the majority, must be measured against the natural law to determine their goodness and justice.
Interesting point, but the democratic mandate does not extend so far as to redefine reality. Simply because the state enacts the will of the people doesn't confirm the justice of the action. You are correct the state is acting "within its charter", however that's just the means to enact an end. I believe Mr. Weigel would suggest that the states' actions and the ends they pursue, especially when guided by the majority, must be measured against the natural law to determine their goodness and justice.
1.16.2013 | 1:59pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
@Jameson/Howard
It seems to me that if civil society has decided by democratic means to alter its own civil institutions then government has no choice but to follow the instructions given by its members. I am not one-sided in this position - I think it is very problematic when the courts overturn democratically enacted bans on same sex marriage.
No, the voting public does not represent all of civil society, but unless you have a better mechanism to suggest for how citizens should go about instructing their government to act, I don't see much of an alternative and I don't find this objection troubling.
As far as natural law goes, clearly Mr. Weigel and other opponents of same sex marriage are free to argue that it violates natural law and ought to be rejected by civil society. But once civil society has reached a different conclusion I see no way for government to override their decision, except insofar as the Constitution may prohibit government action altogether.
It seems to me that if civil society has decided by democratic means to alter its own civil institutions then government has no choice but to follow the instructions given by its members. I am not one-sided in this position - I think it is very problematic when the courts overturn democratically enacted bans on same sex marriage.
No, the voting public does not represent all of civil society, but unless you have a better mechanism to suggest for how citizens should go about instructing their government to act, I don't see much of an alternative and I don't find this objection troubling.
As far as natural law goes, clearly Mr. Weigel and other opponents of same sex marriage are free to argue that it violates natural law and ought to be rejected by civil society. But once civil society has reached a different conclusion I see no way for government to override their decision, except insofar as the Constitution may prohibit government action altogether.
1.16.2013 | 2:55pm
Chairm says:
Hang-on, Aaron Rasmussen.
You confuse the process with the outcome. A just process cannot justify an unjust outcome. The abuse of judicial review is clearly an unjust use of process. However, the means, either way, cannot justify the imposition of the SSM idea.
You confuse the process with the outcome. A just process cannot justify an unjust outcome. The abuse of judicial review is clearly an unjust use of process. However, the means, either way, cannot justify the imposition of the SSM idea.
1.16.2013 | 2:56pm
Chairm says:
Also, Aaron Rasmussen, the SSM campaign seeks at every turn to use the big hand of Government to override popular votes that favor the marriage idea and reject the imposition of the SSM idea. You would recognize their use of a double-standard, yes?
1.16.2013 | 3:01pm
Chairm says:
The proponents of the SSM idea have proposed, in effect, that Government set itself against the marriage idea. The SSM idea is the revisionist view but with an unmistakable emphasis on gay identity. The marriage idea is the conjugal view that has withstood the test of time across cultures and across the anthropological and historical records. The revisionist view -- with or without the gay emphasis -- is quite different.
The injustices that follow resolution of the conflict of ideas in favor of revision are not made less benign and more sustainable by a popular vote to entrench a Specious Substitution for Marriage aka SSM. But you do point at a key component of the SSM campaign: the goal is not merely political and not merely legalistic but is also cultural -- to change the culture via a change in how society may regard the marriage idea. SSM is an outright rejection of the marriage idea and so demands of society that we turn a blind eye to what makes marriage, marriage, and instead treat the marriage idea as unfair, hateful, and bigoted. That goal is the desired outcome. It is an unjust outcome via whatever means one might imagine using to bring it about.
The injustices that follow resolution of the conflict of ideas in favor of revision are not made less benign and more sustainable by a popular vote to entrench a Specious Substitution for Marriage aka SSM. But you do point at a key component of the SSM campaign: the goal is not merely political and not merely legalistic but is also cultural -- to change the culture via a change in how society may regard the marriage idea. SSM is an outright rejection of the marriage idea and so demands of society that we turn a blind eye to what makes marriage, marriage, and instead treat the marriage idea as unfair, hateful, and bigoted. That goal is the desired outcome. It is an unjust outcome via whatever means one might imagine using to bring it about.
1.16.2013 | 3:03pm
Andrew says:
German "civil society" put the National Socialist party in power in March of 1933. By Aaron's calculation, that's merely an example of government reflecting the changing will of the civil society that it serves. The right thing to have done? Apparently, nothing.
1.16.2013 | 3:09pm
Chairm says:
Marriage is foundational to civil society. It is not foundational to government. The people have a government, not the other way around. Government does not own civil society nor does it own the foundational social institutions of civil society. One might forget that when listening to the pro-SSM advocates.
SSM is not foundational to civil society. It depends, utterly, on government imposition.
Marriage unites the sexes. SSM is sex-segregative. At best, the merger of SSM with marriage in the law and policy means lopping off whatever does not fit the one-sexed scenario. It means merging non-marriage with marriage. It means treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives. It means negating the unity of motherhood and fatherhood.
Marriage provides for responsible procreation (which a set of principles that hang together as a coherent whole), the first principle of which is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, are to be held responsible for the education and well-being of our offspring -- together as mom and dad. The flipside of that coin is the birthright of the child to know and to be known by her mother and her father (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). SSM cannot provide for responsible procreation. It actually is a rejection of this.
Marriage is the coherent whole (integration of the sexes combined with provision for responsible procreation) and is, in other words, a social institution of civil society. SSM is a conceptual mess and, as a purely legalistic construct, it lacks the coherence to sustain itself in civil society. It depends on the arbitrary exercise of Governmental power -- in whatever form that might take.
SSM is not foundational to civil society. It depends, utterly, on government imposition.
Marriage unites the sexes. SSM is sex-segregative. At best, the merger of SSM with marriage in the law and policy means lopping off whatever does not fit the one-sexed scenario. It means merging non-marriage with marriage. It means treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husbands or wives. It means negating the unity of motherhood and fatherhood.
Marriage provides for responsible procreation (which a set of principles that hang together as a coherent whole), the first principle of which is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, are to be held responsible for the education and well-being of our offspring -- together as mom and dad. The flipside of that coin is the birthright of the child to know and to be known by her mother and her father (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). SSM cannot provide for responsible procreation. It actually is a rejection of this.
Marriage is the coherent whole (integration of the sexes combined with provision for responsible procreation) and is, in other words, a social institution of civil society. SSM is a conceptual mess and, as a purely legalistic construct, it lacks the coherence to sustain itself in civil society. It depends on the arbitrary exercise of Governmental power -- in whatever form that might take.
1.16.2013 | 4:54pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Absolutely right.
Basic social institutions presumably exist because, in some form or other, they have to be there for humans to manage a social world. Marriage is one such institution. Why it exists as an institution is important for knowing what its parameters are--such as who is included within it. But why have an institution of marriage at all? Why not just have cohabitation? Intimate sexual relationships can be satisfied by cohabitation, and cohabitation can be formally or informally regulated by society, and so the exceptionally rigorous type of intimate sexual relationship that is marriage is not really necessary. Right?
Well, no.
Cohabitation comes in different degrees of commitment. If marriage--which comes only in a maximum degree of commitment--is ultimately about commitment, then what’s the difference between strong-commitment cohabitation and marriage? If there’s no difference, then what’s the difference between cohabitation as such and marriage? They both involve some degree of commitment. Indeed, that’s what distinguishes them from dating, not to mention from “friends with benefits.”
So what if cohabitation, on average, involves less commitment than marriage. Commitment is inherently a matter of degrees, from moderate or relatively minimal commitment to strong commitment. If marriage is ultimately a matter of commitment, why should marriage be privileged over cohabitation? After all, cohabitation does include strong commitments--and not only includes them but also creates a well-lighted path for moving from minimalist to strong commitment. Maybe cohabitation should be privileged over marriage.
Bad idea. Procreation, not commitment, is the reason marriage as an institution exists. Without the definite strong commitment involved in marriage, society would have trouble regulating and guiding the unruly phenomenon of procreation. That’s why traditional marriage--in which commitment is seen in light of procreation, instead of in lieu of it--is exclusively indispensable.
Basic social institutions presumably exist because, in some form or other, they have to be there for humans to manage a social world. Marriage is one such institution. Why it exists as an institution is important for knowing what its parameters are--such as who is included within it. But why have an institution of marriage at all? Why not just have cohabitation? Intimate sexual relationships can be satisfied by cohabitation, and cohabitation can be formally or informally regulated by society, and so the exceptionally rigorous type of intimate sexual relationship that is marriage is not really necessary. Right?
Well, no.
Cohabitation comes in different degrees of commitment. If marriage--which comes only in a maximum degree of commitment--is ultimately about commitment, then what’s the difference between strong-commitment cohabitation and marriage? If there’s no difference, then what’s the difference between cohabitation as such and marriage? They both involve some degree of commitment. Indeed, that’s what distinguishes them from dating, not to mention from “friends with benefits.”
So what if cohabitation, on average, involves less commitment than marriage. Commitment is inherently a matter of degrees, from moderate or relatively minimal commitment to strong commitment. If marriage is ultimately a matter of commitment, why should marriage be privileged over cohabitation? After all, cohabitation does include strong commitments--and not only includes them but also creates a well-lighted path for moving from minimalist to strong commitment. Maybe cohabitation should be privileged over marriage.
Bad idea. Procreation, not commitment, is the reason marriage as an institution exists. Without the definite strong commitment involved in marriage, society would have trouble regulating and guiding the unruly phenomenon of procreation. That’s why traditional marriage--in which commitment is seen in light of procreation, instead of in lieu of it--is exclusively indispensable.
1.16.2013 | 5:26pm
Howard says:
"But once civil society has reached a different conclusion I see no way for government to override their decision, except insofar as the Constitution may prohibit government action altogether."
Take Prohibition. Was that decided by civil society? It was decided democratically, and even became an amendment to the Constitution. Did that make it irrevocable?
Certainly Prohibition was not irrevocable. It was democratically put into place, and it was democratically overturned. Maybe you and I will live to see "gay marriage" revoked by the voters of Washington and Maryland, maybe not. It would be foolish and contrary to history to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE, though.
But when Prohibition was in place, was it supported by civil society? Not so much. When a law is so widely hated and widely skirted, which is why it was eventually repealed, does it really represent the judgment of civil society, even it if was instituted through democratic means?
You can ask the same about marijuana use today. Its recreational use is still illegal, but the electorate seems not to care when it turns out that a presidential candidate has used drugs recreationally.
I would not really argue, as you seem to, that whatever comes from a democratically elected government is the will of civil society. I would not even say that about a direct ballot proposition, though maybe that comes closer. Regardless, the WILL of civil society has changed in the past and will change in the future; it is clearly impossible to say something is always right or always wrong because of the opinions held about it by civil society today. That, however, is not what Weigel is talking about. He's talking about what is GOOD FOR civil society, not what civil society WANTS.
Take Prohibition. Was that decided by civil society? It was decided democratically, and even became an amendment to the Constitution. Did that make it irrevocable?
Certainly Prohibition was not irrevocable. It was democratically put into place, and it was democratically overturned. Maybe you and I will live to see "gay marriage" revoked by the voters of Washington and Maryland, maybe not. It would be foolish and contrary to history to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE, though.
But when Prohibition was in place, was it supported by civil society? Not so much. When a law is so widely hated and widely skirted, which is why it was eventually repealed, does it really represent the judgment of civil society, even it if was instituted through democratic means?
You can ask the same about marijuana use today. Its recreational use is still illegal, but the electorate seems not to care when it turns out that a presidential candidate has used drugs recreationally.
I would not really argue, as you seem to, that whatever comes from a democratically elected government is the will of civil society. I would not even say that about a direct ballot proposition, though maybe that comes closer. Regardless, the WILL of civil society has changed in the past and will change in the future; it is clearly impossible to say something is always right or always wrong because of the opinions held about it by civil society today. That, however, is not what Weigel is talking about. He's talking about what is GOOD FOR civil society, not what civil society WANTS.
1.16.2013 | 8:01pm
TeaPot562 says:
The lifetime birthrate per woman (or per 1000 women) ages 15-45 has fallen BELOW the rate needed to replace the adult population in most countries in the so-called developed world. The populations of Russia and Japan are declining, year by year. The US population is still growing, but only from immigration, and because women who immigrate to the USA mother larger families than the natives.
The push toward legitimizing SSM is merely another nail in the coffin of the future lifetime of our culture.
Maybe the end of the world is when the last adult dies (children having already gone extinct.)
TeaPot562
The push toward legitimizing SSM is merely another nail in the coffin of the future lifetime of our culture.
Maybe the end of the world is when the last adult dies (children having already gone extinct.)
TeaPot562
1.16.2013 | 9:13pm
yan says:
Aaron R. puts his finger on a real problem: what recourse does previously unlegislated traditional morality have against democratic majorities in a liberal democracy?
The recourse of minorities from oppressive majorities has always been the Courts. It is the Courts which homosexuals, as minorities, appeal to in order to defend their rights.
But what if what has been defined as right is wrong by the criteria of non-democratic transcendent value? How can a majoritarian political system recognize these values, when the majority refuses to do so?
Do transcendent rights have a political recourse outside majoritarianism?
Apparently, the answer is no.
It is disturbing to me that Aaron R. finds judicial interference with majoritarian decrees to be a greater evil than the failure of those majorities to be able to discern between their right hand and their left.
The recourse of minorities from oppressive majorities has always been the Courts. It is the Courts which homosexuals, as minorities, appeal to in order to defend their rights.
But what if what has been defined as right is wrong by the criteria of non-democratic transcendent value? How can a majoritarian political system recognize these values, when the majority refuses to do so?
Do transcendent rights have a political recourse outside majoritarianism?
Apparently, the answer is no.
It is disturbing to me that Aaron R. finds judicial interference with majoritarian decrees to be a greater evil than the failure of those majorities to be able to discern between their right hand and their left.
1.16.2013 | 9:29pm
yan says:
Jameson,
How, in our political system, do the natural law, goodness and justice, declare themselves in such a manner that decrees of ill-advised majorities are overturned?
Does natural law have any other recourse than that of attempting to convince those same majorities again, sometime in the future?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the natural law was written down somewhere in addition to men's hearts! It is not; at least, not in its entirety, alas.
The Church claims to be able to interpret natural law and apply it correctly in regard to matters of faith and morals. Perhaps a Church advisory committee could be appointed to review legislation, judicial decrees and executive orders for violations of the natural law. It could make binding recommendations so that legislation, judicial decrees and executive orders which contradict natural law would legally nullified.
Voters vote for gay marriage? Nullified. Courts say gay marriage is a constitutional right? Nullified. HHS mandate to cover contraception? Nullified.
Somehow I don't think Americans are ready to accept such an idea.
But I for one am in favor...
How, in our political system, do the natural law, goodness and justice, declare themselves in such a manner that decrees of ill-advised majorities are overturned?
Does natural law have any other recourse than that of attempting to convince those same majorities again, sometime in the future?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the natural law was written down somewhere in addition to men's hearts! It is not; at least, not in its entirety, alas.
The Church claims to be able to interpret natural law and apply it correctly in regard to matters of faith and morals. Perhaps a Church advisory committee could be appointed to review legislation, judicial decrees and executive orders for violations of the natural law. It could make binding recommendations so that legislation, judicial decrees and executive orders which contradict natural law would legally nullified.
Voters vote for gay marriage? Nullified. Courts say gay marriage is a constitutional right? Nullified. HHS mandate to cover contraception? Nullified.
Somehow I don't think Americans are ready to accept such an idea.
But I for one am in favor...
1.17.2013 | 12:01pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
@Yan:
"It is disturbing to me that Aaron R. finds judicial interference with majoritarian decrees to be a greater evil than the failure of those majorities to be able to discern between their right hand and their left."
I should clarify. I find it problematic when courts overturn democratically enacted bans on same sex marriage because I am not convinced that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage. As a general matter I recognize the legitimacy of judicial review and have no problem with laws being overturned to protect minority rights. But I should also note that I don't believe there is a constitutional right to NOT have gay marriage. I can't see how a court could overturn, on constitutional grounds, a democratically enacted initiative approving gay marriage. There are some constitutional issues regarding freedom of religion, and I support strong protections for people who object to same sex marriage on religious grounds. But gay marriage could be enacted while still offering these protections.
"It is disturbing to me that Aaron R. finds judicial interference with majoritarian decrees to be a greater evil than the failure of those majorities to be able to discern between their right hand and their left."
I should clarify. I find it problematic when courts overturn democratically enacted bans on same sex marriage because I am not convinced that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage. As a general matter I recognize the legitimacy of judicial review and have no problem with laws being overturned to protect minority rights. But I should also note that I don't believe there is a constitutional right to NOT have gay marriage. I can't see how a court could overturn, on constitutional grounds, a democratically enacted initiative approving gay marriage. There are some constitutional issues regarding freedom of religion, and I support strong protections for people who object to same sex marriage on religious grounds. But gay marriage could be enacted while still offering these protections.
1.17.2013 | 12:15pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
@Howard:
These are good points. I don't disagree that the democratic process sometimes goes astray. One of the beauties of it is that it can be corrected by later democratic action. Such was the case of prohibition.
And marijuana legalization is a good example. It seems that public attitudes about marijuana prohibition are out of sync with the current laws, and many of those laws have changed recently to reflect those changes in attitude. Possession of small amounts of marijuana was just legalized in Washington State and Colorado, and medical marijuana has been approved in several other states as well. This appears to be a case where the laws are changing to reflect changes in civil society.
I guess what I would offer in regard to gay marriage is that there really has been a newfound and widespread change in cultural attitudes toward homosexuality in general, and gay marriage in particular. Laws approving gay marriage would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. And 20 years ago I don't believe you would have found a court in the land that would have overturned a law banning gay marriage. The recent changes in public policy really do reflect significant changes in the way that the public views these issues. While the issues are still hotly contested and there is no overall consensus, the change is real and can't be written off. The fact that laws have changed is really a consequence of the fact that society has changed.
It is strange to suggest, as Mr. Weigel does, that this is a problem with government. If it is a problem at all, it is a problem with the changing attitudes in our culture. If you lose the culture war, you will lose the legislative war. And that is how it is designed to work.
These are good points. I don't disagree that the democratic process sometimes goes astray. One of the beauties of it is that it can be corrected by later democratic action. Such was the case of prohibition.
And marijuana legalization is a good example. It seems that public attitudes about marijuana prohibition are out of sync with the current laws, and many of those laws have changed recently to reflect those changes in attitude. Possession of small amounts of marijuana was just legalized in Washington State and Colorado, and medical marijuana has been approved in several other states as well. This appears to be a case where the laws are changing to reflect changes in civil society.
I guess what I would offer in regard to gay marriage is that there really has been a newfound and widespread change in cultural attitudes toward homosexuality in general, and gay marriage in particular. Laws approving gay marriage would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. And 20 years ago I don't believe you would have found a court in the land that would have overturned a law banning gay marriage. The recent changes in public policy really do reflect significant changes in the way that the public views these issues. While the issues are still hotly contested and there is no overall consensus, the change is real and can't be written off. The fact that laws have changed is really a consequence of the fact that society has changed.
It is strange to suggest, as Mr. Weigel does, that this is a problem with government. If it is a problem at all, it is a problem with the changing attitudes in our culture. If you lose the culture war, you will lose the legislative war. And that is how it is designed to work.
1.17.2013 | 1:43pm
Michael PS says:
As Jacques Maritain said, “it is through rational means, that is, through persuasion, not through coercion, that the rational animal is bound by his very nature to try to induce his fellow man to share in what it knows or claims to know as true or just. And the metaphysician, because he trusts human reason; and the believer, because he trusts divine grace, and knows that "a forced faith is a hypocrisy hateful to God and man", as Cardinal Manning put it, do not use holy war to make their "eternal truth" accessible to other people, they appeal to the inner freedom of other people by offering them either their demonstrations or the testimony of their love. And we do not call upon the people to decide because we are aware of our ignorance of what is the good, but because we know this truth, and this good, that the people have a right to self-government.”
1.17.2013 | 1:57pm
Don Roberto says:
yan, go out into the street and look around. You think society should be governed by the tatooed, reality-TV-watching, uneducated people living much as do the animals (if you doubt this, ask them if they know what benefits accrue to us from Jupiter's position in space, or how it came to be that Hitler took power) that you see? Society needs a solid moral anchor. That the majority unthinkingly accept the notions of contraception (a poisonous pill that promotes promiscuity and pollutes the planet) and "gay marriage" (legal recognition of which makes no more sense than would societal encouragement of unisexual activity or anything else that is demonstrably harmful to health) does not mean these things are good. Part of good government inivolves putting the brakes on the bad ideas and whims of a capricious and easily swayed electorate.
1.17.2013 | 3:40pm
Joseph Dooley says:
Top-notch article!
But I think Weigel's mistake here was jumping too quickly from the tyranny of government unmitigated by civil society to the "dictatorship of relativism" that has taken hold of the people, leading them towards a public philosophy of radical non-discernment.
But I think Weigel's mistake here was jumping too quickly from the tyranny of government unmitigated by civil society to the "dictatorship of relativism" that has taken hold of the people, leading them towards a public philosophy of radical non-discernment.
1.17.2013 | 4:49pm
yan says:
Aaron R.,
I think your position was clear, at least to me, the first time. Your answer to the question posed by democratic enactment of, shall we say, blatantly immoral laws, is unsatisfying to me. While technically it does not make a god of democracy, it allows democracy to exclude God, if democracy so chooses. As Andrew says, the only response permissible to the election of Hitler, in your view, is no response at all, except to try to convince others to elect someone else next time.
You say that changing culture and minds is the only way. Sometimes, that way is not enough.
I believe our Founders had an understanding of natural law which permitted them to stand outside their legal government, even a democratically elected one, and say: 'this government violates natural law to such an extent that it has become morally permissible to use undemocratic means to alter or abolish it.'
I agree with them. [So did Martin Luther King, among others.] Now, as to the selection of those means, there are many difficulties to overcome. But respect to the natural law demands that we carefully consider them if we believe that the condition for extra-democratic action has been met.
In the case of permissive abortion, I think it already has been met. What do you think?
I think your position was clear, at least to me, the first time. Your answer to the question posed by democratic enactment of, shall we say, blatantly immoral laws, is unsatisfying to me. While technically it does not make a god of democracy, it allows democracy to exclude God, if democracy so chooses. As Andrew says, the only response permissible to the election of Hitler, in your view, is no response at all, except to try to convince others to elect someone else next time.
You say that changing culture and minds is the only way. Sometimes, that way is not enough.
I believe our Founders had an understanding of natural law which permitted them to stand outside their legal government, even a democratically elected one, and say: 'this government violates natural law to such an extent that it has become morally permissible to use undemocratic means to alter or abolish it.'
I agree with them. [So did Martin Luther King, among others.] Now, as to the selection of those means, there are many difficulties to overcome. But respect to the natural law demands that we carefully consider them if we believe that the condition for extra-democratic action has been met.
In the case of permissive abortion, I think it already has been met. What do you think?
1.17.2013 | 4:51pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Unlike procreation, commitment is inherently a matter of degrees. So why didn’t the social system of intimate sexual relationships, from the very beginning, match this fact by keeping marriage more or less on the drawing board, and creating a degrees-oriented custom of cohabitation, with gradations for the amount of commitment involved? What reason is there for the rigorously maximal-commitment (and privileged) custom of marriage?
There is a reason, but it has nothing to do with commitment for the sake of commitment and everything to do with commitment for the sake of procreation, in which procreation rather than commitment is the determinative value. This is why procreation and not commitment is the criterion of belonging-to-marriage. Procreation not commitment is the raison d `etre of marriage.
Traditional marriage is analytically tolerant and SSM is analytically intolerant. In traditional marriage, commitment is seen in the light of procreation. Commitment is *embraced*. In SSM, commitment is viewed independently of procreation. Procreation, as a criterion or a component of the meaning of marriage, is *rejected*.
I’m not sure whether romantic relationships necessarily end when the commitment ends. Does commitment itself end when it ends, at least in the domain of intimate sexual relationships? When the commitment ends, is the relationship hopeless insofar as commitment is what typifies the relationship?
Furthermore, where does the distinct idea of commitment-in-light-of-procreation figure in this? Does it answer these questions better than commitment-in-lieu-of-procreation?
These points are meant to support George Weigel's thesis by showing how traditional marriage is the proper fulfillment, in civil society, of intimate sexual relationships.
There is a reason, but it has nothing to do with commitment for the sake of commitment and everything to do with commitment for the sake of procreation, in which procreation rather than commitment is the determinative value. This is why procreation and not commitment is the criterion of belonging-to-marriage. Procreation not commitment is the raison d `etre of marriage.
Traditional marriage is analytically tolerant and SSM is analytically intolerant. In traditional marriage, commitment is seen in the light of procreation. Commitment is *embraced*. In SSM, commitment is viewed independently of procreation. Procreation, as a criterion or a component of the meaning of marriage, is *rejected*.
I’m not sure whether romantic relationships necessarily end when the commitment ends. Does commitment itself end when it ends, at least in the domain of intimate sexual relationships? When the commitment ends, is the relationship hopeless insofar as commitment is what typifies the relationship?
Furthermore, where does the distinct idea of commitment-in-light-of-procreation figure in this? Does it answer these questions better than commitment-in-lieu-of-procreation?
These points are meant to support George Weigel's thesis by showing how traditional marriage is the proper fulfillment, in civil society, of intimate sexual relationships.
1.17.2013 | 5:13pm
yan says:
Aaron R.,
The problem with your analogy to Prohibition is that the overall legal trajectory of the Anglo-American project is never to take away rights and freedom once given or enjoyed. That is precisely why Prohibition was doomed from the outset.
Law does not always follow culture. Sometimes culture leads, and sometimes law leads. In respect to gay marriage, law and culture have taken turns for a long time in preparing the way for legalized gay marriage. Such things as the liberalization of divorce laws at different times, the weakening or diminishing of torts relating to marriage and the alienation of affection, and of course constitutional case law liberalizing the rational enjoyment of sex outside marriage, inside marriage, and with the same sex, have both followed changes in societal attitudes towards these things, and solidified and strengthened societal attitudes in relation to them.
To take just one example: was the decision in Lawrence a consequence of changing social attitudes, or was it a spur to changing social attitudes? I would say, both.
Once the genie is out of the bottle in terms of something becoming a right, is there any going back in America?
This is a reality that even an extra-democratic solution to a democratic problem must face. Because of it, any opposition to any kind of rights once granted and enjoyed is a battle against history.
The problem with your analogy to Prohibition is that the overall legal trajectory of the Anglo-American project is never to take away rights and freedom once given or enjoyed. That is precisely why Prohibition was doomed from the outset.
Law does not always follow culture. Sometimes culture leads, and sometimes law leads. In respect to gay marriage, law and culture have taken turns for a long time in preparing the way for legalized gay marriage. Such things as the liberalization of divorce laws at different times, the weakening or diminishing of torts relating to marriage and the alienation of affection, and of course constitutional case law liberalizing the rational enjoyment of sex outside marriage, inside marriage, and with the same sex, have both followed changes in societal attitudes towards these things, and solidified and strengthened societal attitudes in relation to them.
To take just one example: was the decision in Lawrence a consequence of changing social attitudes, or was it a spur to changing social attitudes? I would say, both.
Once the genie is out of the bottle in terms of something becoming a right, is there any going back in America?
This is a reality that even an extra-democratic solution to a democratic problem must face. Because of it, any opposition to any kind of rights once granted and enjoyed is a battle against history.
1.17.2013 | 9:20pm
yan says:
Mr. Weigel is right as to his description of the proper boundaries of state and civil society. But as these combox comments show, his observations avoid the question of how to prevent a state from doing what it is doing, or how to correct the state once it has done such a thing as he rightly condemns, in the case where 'l'etat, il est nous.'
That is obviously not his point here. But it is a point that sorely needs to be addressed by someone, especially in view of that fact that it seems that the Church herself, beginning with Dignitatis Humane, has foreclosed against any option other than that proposed by Aaron Rasmussen.
So, Mr. Weigel, I would like to kick off the discussion by asking: has the Church foreclosed against any option other than that proposed by Aaron Rasmussen?
That is obviously not his point here. But it is a point that sorely needs to be addressed by someone, especially in view of that fact that it seems that the Church herself, beginning with Dignitatis Humane, has foreclosed against any option other than that proposed by Aaron Rasmussen.
So, Mr. Weigel, I would like to kick off the discussion by asking: has the Church foreclosed against any option other than that proposed by Aaron Rasmussen?
1.18.2013 | 11:40am
Aaron Rasmussen says:
@Yan:
I appreciate all of your points. I submitted a comment earlier which never made it onto the board - I'm not sure why. I felt it was applicable to the debate and civil in tone. Maybe it was a computer error of some kind.
I agree that there are some governmental actions which are illegitimate from the outset and can be resisted by extralegal means. I include in this category things like torture, slavery, racial segregation, the rise of National Socialism in Germany, etc. And civil disobedience, including the violation of unjust laws (albeit in a peaceful manner) in the style of Martin Luther King, Jr., is not only appropriate, but necessary. Witness Dietrich Bonhoeffer's opposition to Hitler, going so far as to even plot his assassination. I recognize that these situations exist and don't object to people standing up against evil.
But for me, gay marriage doesn't fall into this same category of evil. There are many things my government does which I consider immoral. Many of our taxing and spending policies are immoral. We have fought immoral wars. Nevertheless, despite my objection to these policies, I don't consider them illegitimate acts of government. They are enacted through our elected representatives, and sometimes through direct democratic vote. They pass constitutional muster. There may be significant problems with them, I still pay may taxes, I still vote, and I still engage in public debate, or even protest against them. But for me they are appropriately decided by the democratic process. That is where I see gay marriage. I don't think this is an outlandish or unreasonable position.
I appreciate all of your points. I submitted a comment earlier which never made it onto the board - I'm not sure why. I felt it was applicable to the debate and civil in tone. Maybe it was a computer error of some kind.
I agree that there are some governmental actions which are illegitimate from the outset and can be resisted by extralegal means. I include in this category things like torture, slavery, racial segregation, the rise of National Socialism in Germany, etc. And civil disobedience, including the violation of unjust laws (albeit in a peaceful manner) in the style of Martin Luther King, Jr., is not only appropriate, but necessary. Witness Dietrich Bonhoeffer's opposition to Hitler, going so far as to even plot his assassination. I recognize that these situations exist and don't object to people standing up against evil.
But for me, gay marriage doesn't fall into this same category of evil. There are many things my government does which I consider immoral. Many of our taxing and spending policies are immoral. We have fought immoral wars. Nevertheless, despite my objection to these policies, I don't consider them illegitimate acts of government. They are enacted through our elected representatives, and sometimes through direct democratic vote. They pass constitutional muster. There may be significant problems with them, I still pay may taxes, I still vote, and I still engage in public debate, or even protest against them. But for me they are appropriately decided by the democratic process. That is where I see gay marriage. I don't think this is an outlandish or unreasonable position.
1.18.2013 | 3:01pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
At the risk of wearing out my welcome, I gotta say one more thing. :-)
When I see a democratic initiative to enact gay marriage compared to the rise of National Socialism in World War II Germany I can't help but feel a rush of confidence that the debate has tilted in favor of gay marriage. I don't doubt the sincerity of those views, but I do doubt their plausibility to a large audience. Likewise with regard to those who predict the demise of the human race should gay marriage become the law of the land. I trust that the human procreative instinct will survive, and the human race with it.
There are many arguments to be made against gay marriage, and I eagerly absorb First Things online and in print to help me understand them. But there is a hyperbolic edge to the debate that shows itself primarily in the blog comments and sometimes in the published pieces that assures a limit to the number of people who will take those arguments seriously.
When I see a democratic initiative to enact gay marriage compared to the rise of National Socialism in World War II Germany I can't help but feel a rush of confidence that the debate has tilted in favor of gay marriage. I don't doubt the sincerity of those views, but I do doubt their plausibility to a large audience. Likewise with regard to those who predict the demise of the human race should gay marriage become the law of the land. I trust that the human procreative instinct will survive, and the human race with it.
There are many arguments to be made against gay marriage, and I eagerly absorb First Things online and in print to help me understand them. But there is a hyperbolic edge to the debate that shows itself primarily in the blog comments and sometimes in the published pieces that assures a limit to the number of people who will take those arguments seriously.
1.18.2013 | 6:01pm
yan says:
Aaron,
Sorry; in reading your 2 posts together, I wrongly read your reference to an 'outlandish or unreasonable position' to refer to your support of gay marriage. Mea culpa; I did not read you carefully enough. I quite agree that your position of 'protest only,' if it were applied to a democratic response to gay marriage, is not an outlandish or unreasonable position. My only response to that is, perhaps it is not enough.
Sorry; in reading your 2 posts together, I wrongly read your reference to an 'outlandish or unreasonable position' to refer to your support of gay marriage. Mea culpa; I did not read you carefully enough. I quite agree that your position of 'protest only,' if it were applied to a democratic response to gay marriage, is not an outlandish or unreasonable position. My only response to that is, perhaps it is not enough.
1.19.2013 | 10:40am
JeffreyRO5 says:
"There are many arguments to be made against gay marriage"
But there really aren't. There are arguments and none of them is particularly compelling, especially against the arguments in favor of legal same-sex marriage, such as equal treatment of all citizens.
If you want to talk about civil society, especially in America, it's hard to get around the legal imperative to treat all citizens equally under the law. It's also ridiculous to keep reaching back to a distant past and insist things be how they were in hundreds or thousands of years ago. Apply that thinking to all things, and then we can just return to our Stone Age existence.
But there really aren't. There are arguments and none of them is particularly compelling, especially against the arguments in favor of legal same-sex marriage, such as equal treatment of all citizens.
If you want to talk about civil society, especially in America, it's hard to get around the legal imperative to treat all citizens equally under the law. It's also ridiculous to keep reaching back to a distant past and insist things be how they were in hundreds or thousands of years ago. Apply that thinking to all things, and then we can just return to our Stone Age existence.
1.19.2013 | 4:40pm
StraightGrandmother says:
Karen Z, "Procreation, not commitment, is the reason marriage as an institution exists."
Actually Karen you are factually incorrect. Our preeminent scholar on the History of Marriage in America, from the State's point of view (as opposed to the individual married couples experiences over the years) the preeminent Historian is Dr. Nancy Cott Professor of History Harvard University. Dr. Cott researched the History of Civil Marriage in America for TEN YEARS and wrote THE authoritative peer reviewed book on it, again from the States Interest in Marriage.
Dr. Cott testified in the Prop 8 Trial and she testified that the State's interest in Civil Marriage was PRIMARILY about the ADULTS, and the creation of stable households which the State could more easily govern. Her testimony is quite clear that the State's Intrest was firstly about the adults, but that there are benefits for children, but most importantly the hStates interest historically has been about adults forming stable households which same gendered couples are equally as capable of creating.
Having read all of the Prop 8 Testimony I feel that the most important testimony in the Trial is the testimony of Dr. Cott, and she was NOT impeached by the defense.
Here is a link to her testimony
http://www.scribd.com/doc/116836110/History-of-Marriage-Discrimination-in-the-USA-told-in-Dr-Cott-s-Testimony-in-the-Prop-8-Trial
Actually Karen you are factually incorrect. Our preeminent scholar on the History of Marriage in America, from the State's point of view (as opposed to the individual married couples experiences over the years) the preeminent Historian is Dr. Nancy Cott Professor of History Harvard University. Dr. Cott researched the History of Civil Marriage in America for TEN YEARS and wrote THE authoritative peer reviewed book on it, again from the States Interest in Marriage.
Dr. Cott testified in the Prop 8 Trial and she testified that the State's interest in Civil Marriage was PRIMARILY about the ADULTS, and the creation of stable households which the State could more easily govern. Her testimony is quite clear that the State's Intrest was firstly about the adults, but that there are benefits for children, but most importantly the hStates interest historically has been about adults forming stable households which same gendered couples are equally as capable of creating.
Having read all of the Prop 8 Testimony I feel that the most important testimony in the Trial is the testimony of Dr. Cott, and she was NOT impeached by the defense.
Here is a link to her testimony
http://www.scribd.com/doc/116836110/History-of-Marriage-Discrimination-in-the-USA-told-in-Dr-Cott-s-Testimony-in-the-Prop-8-Trial
1.19.2013 | 5:12pm
yan says:
JeffreyRO5,
Sexual complementarity has existed as far back as the beginning of mankind, and exists in the same way today as it always has existed. There is no reaching back required to understand that marriage is important because of sexual complementarity; that homosexual acts are not sexually complementary; and that therefore, there is a rational basis for reserving the marital institution to one man and one woman, since this is the only possible combination of the sexes that is sexually complementary, and for excluding every other kind of relationship based on a non-complementary sexual act.
Allowing sexually non-complementary relationships to be called marriage comparatively trivializes the man-woman relationship, which society has an interest in preserving for the sake of children; for the sake of encouraging the creation of future families of the same kind; and for the sake of helping people to fulfill the natural goal of their sexuality.
The goods which the law bestows on married couples and denies to non-married couples are justified in being reserved to married couples, since they alone are the foundation of civilization and civil society. Their sexually complementary relationship alone of all sexual relationships makes the creation of new human beings possible.
Constitutionally, it is fair and just for society to recognize this reality and give honor to God that made things this way, because this religious purpose of the government is narrowly tailored to promote a compelling interest.
Alternatively, if excluding all non-complementary sexual partners from marriage arguably does not involve a preference for a sect, it is constitutional because the law has a secular purpose, has a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not involve excessive government entanglement with religion.
Sexual complementarity has existed as far back as the beginning of mankind, and exists in the same way today as it always has existed. There is no reaching back required to understand that marriage is important because of sexual complementarity; that homosexual acts are not sexually complementary; and that therefore, there is a rational basis for reserving the marital institution to one man and one woman, since this is the only possible combination of the sexes that is sexually complementary, and for excluding every other kind of relationship based on a non-complementary sexual act.
Allowing sexually non-complementary relationships to be called marriage comparatively trivializes the man-woman relationship, which society has an interest in preserving for the sake of children; for the sake of encouraging the creation of future families of the same kind; and for the sake of helping people to fulfill the natural goal of their sexuality.
The goods which the law bestows on married couples and denies to non-married couples are justified in being reserved to married couples, since they alone are the foundation of civilization and civil society. Their sexually complementary relationship alone of all sexual relationships makes the creation of new human beings possible.
Constitutionally, it is fair and just for society to recognize this reality and give honor to God that made things this way, because this religious purpose of the government is narrowly tailored to promote a compelling interest.
Alternatively, if excluding all non-complementary sexual partners from marriage arguably does not involve a preference for a sect, it is constitutional because the law has a secular purpose, has a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not involve excessive government entanglement with religion.
1.20.2013 | 11:30am
yan says:
Straight Grandmother,
In reading through Dr. Cott's testimony I am struck by the fact that so much of what she says is equivocation, gobbledygook, and commentary which is legally conclusionary and for which she was not qualified to testify as an expert. I am unhappy that the defenders of Prop 8 did not make better objections.
In reading through Dr. Cott's testimony I am struck by the fact that so much of what she says is equivocation, gobbledygook, and commentary which is legally conclusionary and for which she was not qualified to testify as an expert. I am unhappy that the defenders of Prop 8 did not make better objections.
1.20.2013 | 12:07pm
David in Houston says:
"That is why, for millennia, states have protected marriage, understood as what it is: the stable union of a man and a woman ordered to the begetting and raising of children."
Rush Limbaugh, and his FOURTH non-procreative marriage, would disagree with that definition of marriage. As for a stable union, the current divorce rate would also disagree with that assessment. You cannot apply your own personal definition of marriage to society at large. (The legal definition of marriage does NOT include procreation.) If straight people can define their marriages however they see fit, gay couples should be able to do the same -- without government or societal interference.
Rush Limbaugh, and his FOURTH non-procreative marriage, would disagree with that definition of marriage. As for a stable union, the current divorce rate would also disagree with that assessment. You cannot apply your own personal definition of marriage to society at large. (The legal definition of marriage does NOT include procreation.) If straight people can define their marriages however they see fit, gay couples should be able to do the same -- without government or societal interference.
1.20.2013 | 4:53pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Commitment is inherently a matter of degrees, and so we will naturally want to know what justifies privileging *maximum* commitment in intimate sexual relationships (and privileging marriage over cohabitation). The usual answer will be that maximum commitment is privileged because it’s a human good. Exactly why is it a good? While trying to answer this question, the proponents of same-sex marriage suddenly stumble and fall in a heap on the ground.
Maximum commitment is a human good because these are intimate *sexual* relationships--bodily acts. And clearly, procreation involves bodily acts in a way that commitment does not. At the very most, commitment only indirectly involves bodily acts. Procreation involves them directly. At least where intimate sexual relationships are concerned, maximum commitment requires reference to procreation.
Since maximum commitment is what typifies marriage--as distinct from cohabitation--procreation rather than commitment explains why marriage exists. Commitment independent of procreation can’t be what marriage is about because commitment, in this context, is epistemologically bankrupt. How do we know what we know about the institution of marriage? Commitment in light of procreation is how, not commitment in lieu of procreation--the latter being the profoundly misguided core concept of same-sex marriage.
I think this all can be summed up by saying the general fact of procreation is presupposed by the institution of marriage. The capacity to procreate is the means, and generational succession is the societal end and complementarity-flourishing the personal end, of real marriage. There is a strong governmental interest in promoting procreation as a general fact about the institution of marriage--specifically, as the social and anthropological basis of the marriage institution. The governmental interest in procreation is as strong as, and rests on the same basis as, the connection between marriage and civil society.
Maximum commitment is a human good because these are intimate *sexual* relationships--bodily acts. And clearly, procreation involves bodily acts in a way that commitment does not. At the very most, commitment only indirectly involves bodily acts. Procreation involves them directly. At least where intimate sexual relationships are concerned, maximum commitment requires reference to procreation.
Since maximum commitment is what typifies marriage--as distinct from cohabitation--procreation rather than commitment explains why marriage exists. Commitment independent of procreation can’t be what marriage is about because commitment, in this context, is epistemologically bankrupt. How do we know what we know about the institution of marriage? Commitment in light of procreation is how, not commitment in lieu of procreation--the latter being the profoundly misguided core concept of same-sex marriage.
I think this all can be summed up by saying the general fact of procreation is presupposed by the institution of marriage. The capacity to procreate is the means, and generational succession is the societal end and complementarity-flourishing the personal end, of real marriage. There is a strong governmental interest in promoting procreation as a general fact about the institution of marriage--specifically, as the social and anthropological basis of the marriage institution. The governmental interest in procreation is as strong as, and rests on the same basis as, the connection between marriage and civil society.
1.21.2013 | 6:27pm
ZenMaster says:
Homosexual activists have a political agenda: to radically redefine the institution of marriage.
Militant Homosexual activists admit that their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more "inclusive," but to remake it in their own hedonistic image. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society." Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile rejects monogamy in favor of "a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often ... and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners."
Any comparison with interracial marriage is phony garbage.
Laws against interracial marriage sought to add a requirement to marriage that is not intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such moral objection to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely-accepted biblical teaching.
Militant Homosexual activists admit that their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more "inclusive," but to remake it in their own hedonistic image. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society." Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile rejects monogamy in favor of "a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often ... and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners."
Any comparison with interracial marriage is phony garbage.
Laws against interracial marriage sought to add a requirement to marriage that is not intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such moral objection to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely-accepted biblical teaching.
If "the state exists to serve civil society, and not vice versa," then what to do when it is civil society itself that approves of same sex marriage? In that case, the state is acting justly and within its charter to protect it.
Just about everything Mr. Weigel says is utter nonsense when taken in light of the fact that it is civil society itself that is changing with regard to same sex marriage. Government is just reflecting the changing will of the civil society that it serves.