The Marriage Debate III: The Nature of Things
Jan 30, 2013
George Weigel
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago is, arguably, the most intellectually accomplished bishop in the history of the American episcopate. Earlier this year, when the Illinois legislature began to consider changing state law to “accommodate those of the same sex who wish to ‘marry’ one another” (as the cardinal put it), Professor George gave the readers of his column in the Chicago archdiocesan newspaper a lesson in metaphysics—and, I suspect, a high-voltage intellectual jolt:
Sexual relations between a man and a woman are naturally and necessarily different from sexual relations between same-sex partners. This truth is part of the common sense of the human race. It was true before the existence of either Church or State, and it will continue to be true when there is no State of Illinois and no United States of America. A proposal to change this truth about marriage in civil law is less a threat to religion than it is an affront to human reason and the common good of society. It means we are all to pretend to accept something we know is physically impossible. The Legislature might just as well repeal the law of gravity.
The crucial term here is “naturally.” And if people were shocked by the cardinal’s suggestion that a same-sex “marriage” law would be as fatuous as a statute repealing the law of gravity, it’s because our philosophically challenged culture has lost any grip on what “nature” means, beyond that physical world we venerate through such civic rituals as recycling.
There is little sense of the givenness of things, in the twenty-first-century postmodern West. And where there is no culturally affirmed conviction that some realities simply are, there will be a parallel intuition that everything is fungible, plastic, malleable: anything can be changed by an act of will. The legal ne plus ultra of this cultural phenomenon came in 2007, when the Spanish government allowed Juan to become Juanita on his/her national identity card by simply declaring (absent any surgical alteration) that he was now she. Cardinal George was suggesting, correctly in my view, that same-sex marriage is the same, essentially incoherent denial of givenness manifest in Spain’s Gender Identity Law 3/2007.
In his Christmas address to the Roman Curia last December, Pope Benedict XVI raised similar issues. We deplore the “manipulation of nature” today “where our environment is concerned,” the pope noted; but when it comes to human affairs, human “nature” has become a matter of our “choice.” Which means that we no longer experience ourselves as unique composites of matter and spirit. The “matter” of our humanness is mere ephemera; we are merely, as Benedict put it, “spirit and will.”
Who are the big losers, the pope asked, when societies and cultures lose their grip on the reality that “man and women are complementary versions of what it means to be human”? The family is certainly a loser: for if there is no “duality of man and women” that is accepted as the Way Things Are, than “neither is the family any longer a reality” established by anything other than our willfulness.
The biggest losers, though, are children, the pope argued. If children are simply a lifestyle choice in a “family” that is nothing other than a willed arrangement for mutual convenience, children lose their rightful place and their rightful dignity. Citing the chief rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, Benedict argued that children are, in this bizarre new world, no longer the subject of rights. Rather, “the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain.” The freedom to be creative, which finds its most awesome expression in procreation, has been reduced to the freedom to create myself, however I imagine myself to be.
The marriage debate is thus about more than the legal definition of marriage, although that is serious enough. It’s a debate about whether there are any givens in the human condition, or whether willfulness and self-assertion trump reality at every point. If they do, what happens to democracies built on self-evident truths?
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:
1.30.2013 | 8:15am
Sean says:
If Cardinal George is correct, when legal marriage is destroyed or obscured, marriage itself should reappear spontaneously, like a weed: Human nature will not change, and human nature wants marriage. If marriage doesn't exist, we will have to invent it.
In some places, this is happening. I know several unmarried couples who live together with their children. They have no intention of leaving each other, and they assume together responsibility for their children. They don't want sexual "freedom"; they simply don't understand why legal marriage is relevant to their situation. Legal marriage seems only to concern rules for owning property and inheritances, and boring stuff like that. This attitude probably comes from divorce; people say: When married people want to leave their spouse, they just do so. What does marriage add? Nothing apparently. So why go through the hassle?
Homosexual "marriage" will accelerate this trend - widening the gulf between legal and "anthropological" or "natural" marriage.
Of course, this is not to say there is no problem. More children will be born into chaotic situations, and they will be miserable. But this does explain why society has not (yet?) come to an end.
In some places, this is happening. I know several unmarried couples who live together with their children. They have no intention of leaving each other, and they assume together responsibility for their children. They don't want sexual "freedom"; they simply don't understand why legal marriage is relevant to their situation. Legal marriage seems only to concern rules for owning property and inheritances, and boring stuff like that. This attitude probably comes from divorce; people say: When married people want to leave their spouse, they just do so. What does marriage add? Nothing apparently. So why go through the hassle?
Homosexual "marriage" will accelerate this trend - widening the gulf between legal and "anthropological" or "natural" marriage.
Of course, this is not to say there is no problem. More children will be born into chaotic situations, and they will be miserable. But this does explain why society has not (yet?) come to an end.
1.30.2013 | 10:43am
Placidia says:
Doug Wendt is correct that what is at stake is the role of marriage in society, but I would say that the Cardinal is addressing that point. We only have a short excerpt here, but I think the meaning is clear. He seems to be saying that we all know exactly what marriage is, have always known, and always will. It is an exclusive, permanent sexual union between a man and a woman. As a society, we care because babies (typically) result, and because babies need parents. Society has no interest in same-sex unions.
The Church is not prejudiced against homosexuals. If a man and woman got married and limited their intimate relations to the kind of acts that homosexuals engage in, their marriage would be deemed unconsommated and open to annulment. As Bill Clinton famously remarked, it all depends on what you mean by sex, and in the Bill Clinton sense of the term, homosexuals don't have sex. It's an erotic relationship, but not a sexual one. This is thunderingly obvious, as the Cardinal points out. So we need to be obvious.
The Church is not prejudiced against homosexuals. If a man and woman got married and limited their intimate relations to the kind of acts that homosexuals engage in, their marriage would be deemed unconsommated and open to annulment. As Bill Clinton famously remarked, it all depends on what you mean by sex, and in the Bill Clinton sense of the term, homosexuals don't have sex. It's an erotic relationship, but not a sexual one. This is thunderingly obvious, as the Cardinal points out. So we need to be obvious.
1.30.2013 | 11:00am
Thomas Murray says:
To Mr Wendt's point:
"Unwillingness to accept the natural reality of inborn same-sex sexual attraction and relations as a fundamental aspect of humanity that existed before 'either Church or State' is actually very much akin to denying the law of gravity." In short, the natural law would (i.e. does) logically recognize the existence of this as a fundamental part of our existence.
While same sex relations have been tolerated, or even seen as a normal part of life in some pre-Christian societies, they have always been separate from the idea of marriage (despite the tortured arguements of some scholars). And, as regards 'fundamental aspects of humanity', there are many that are self-defeating or detrimental to the functioning of human society. Just because they may have a basis in human nature does not mean that they should be endorsed by our legal systems.
As a realist, you should be able to recognize the steady decline in the esteem in which marriage has been held since the 1960's. Pope Paul clearly saw the signs of things to come in Humanae Vitae, as the advent of the pill helped to separate the link between sexual relations and marriage. Easing the restrictions of divorce continued that trend, and the same sex marriage debate has only accelerated this trend. Data from those European nations that have adopted same sex marriage and/or civil unions show a marked decline in marriages and a dramatic increase in out of wedlock births.
"Unwillingness to accept the natural reality of inborn same-sex sexual attraction and relations as a fundamental aspect of humanity that existed before 'either Church or State' is actually very much akin to denying the law of gravity." In short, the natural law would (i.e. does) logically recognize the existence of this as a fundamental part of our existence.
While same sex relations have been tolerated, or even seen as a normal part of life in some pre-Christian societies, they have always been separate from the idea of marriage (despite the tortured arguements of some scholars). And, as regards 'fundamental aspects of humanity', there are many that are self-defeating or detrimental to the functioning of human society. Just because they may have a basis in human nature does not mean that they should be endorsed by our legal systems.
As a realist, you should be able to recognize the steady decline in the esteem in which marriage has been held since the 1960's. Pope Paul clearly saw the signs of things to come in Humanae Vitae, as the advent of the pill helped to separate the link between sexual relations and marriage. Easing the restrictions of divorce continued that trend, and the same sex marriage debate has only accelerated this trend. Data from those European nations that have adopted same sex marriage and/or civil unions show a marked decline in marriages and a dramatic increase in out of wedlock births.
1.30.2013 | 12:28pm
Doug Chappell says:
As Mr. Murray points out, contraception, abortion and liberal divorce laws have seperated marriage from procreation. The conjugal act is no longer conjugal, it is merely an act. Sean's acquaintances have realized this on their own, as have many young people. Awareness of this disonnect is why so many support homosexual "marriage". Recognition of same-sex "marriage" does not accelerate the errosion of marriage, it is the logical end result. Acceptance of homosexual "marriage is the equivalent of crossing the Tiber in the culture wars
Proof of the "natural law" aspect of marriage can be found in the sociological data. The risks to children in single parent households are well documentted. Perhaps this is a better approach for arguing against same-sex "marriage" -- as well as contraception, abortion, and liberal divorce laws -- in our secular society.
Proof of the "natural law" aspect of marriage can be found in the sociological data. The risks to children in single parent households are well documentted. Perhaps this is a better approach for arguing against same-sex "marriage" -- as well as contraception, abortion, and liberal divorce laws -- in our secular society.
1.30.2013 | 1:51pm
Don Roberto says:
The insanity of our society, especially in terms of what these changes in the law and in norms on display in the "culture" teach our children, evidences the influence of the Father of Lies. No other entity could mislead so many people. As Placidia says, "homo sex" it isn't any more meaningful than self-stimulation/gratification. It is a sin against the participants and any witnesses. But the worst sin is to teach that it is *not* a sin—that it is in fact the equivalent of Holy Matrimony! And now the Boy Scouts have apparently fallen for this lie. Do they, too, think Hollywood is right and the Holy Bible is mistaken? We are truly witnessing a frightening decline into decadence.
"And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left." (Matthew 25:33)
"And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left." (Matthew 25:33)
1.30.2013 | 2:42pm
Boo says:
Marrieg equality isn't winning because people don't realize there are slight differences in the way straight people and gay people have sex, it's winning because people do realize that those differences do not justify unequal treatment under the law. Not do some people's religious beliefs on the complementarity God intends between people.
1.30.2013 | 4:22pm
Don Roberto says:
Doug, I know what you mean, but if the libertines (and good-hearted but ignorant folk who buy into their deceptions) could brush aside the terrible cost of STDs (including AIDS), the more abstract approach won't have much chance of influencing them. Humanity just doesn't learn from its mistakes.
God is forgiving, but I think we're nearing our 490th chance (7 x 70).
God is forgiving, but I think we're nearing our 490th chance (7 x 70).
1.30.2013 | 6:20pm
andrew says:
It doesn't happen very often on this site, and in no way am I being a "bigot," but Boo's mentioning of "slight differences" was the funniest thing I've read all day. So much for lessons in metaphysics.
1.30.2013 | 6:23pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Doug Wendt,
No indeed, "the fundamental nature of human sexuality" and "the role of 'marriage'" are not, as you suggest, the same thing. Neither are a fish and water the same thing. But in each case, the nature of the former clearly indicates the proper "role" of the latter.
The fundamental nature of sexuality (and a proper morality of sex) assumes bodily complementarity, as does marriage properly (and traditionally) understood. In human sexuality, if you take away complementarity, you end up with a fish minus any conception of water. Redefine complementarity in an SSM-friendly way, and you end up defining bodily unity as mere sexual contact (as pro-SSMer Paul Weithman did in an important essay on the subject (in Martha Nussbaum, ed.). Not that he was explicit about it--too damaging to the cause.
As for the other part of your equation--the role of marriage--marriage without complementarity is also like a fish out of water. Complementarity, qua procreation as a general fact about the institution of marriage, makes the idea of marriage coherent and gives it an intelligible "role." The SSM criterion of marriage--the commitment of the partners--is incoherent or inadequate as "what marriage is about," as I pointed out (not as clearly as I wish I had) in Part II of this series.
No indeed, "the fundamental nature of human sexuality" and "the role of 'marriage'" are not, as you suggest, the same thing. Neither are a fish and water the same thing. But in each case, the nature of the former clearly indicates the proper "role" of the latter.
The fundamental nature of sexuality (and a proper morality of sex) assumes bodily complementarity, as does marriage properly (and traditionally) understood. In human sexuality, if you take away complementarity, you end up with a fish minus any conception of water. Redefine complementarity in an SSM-friendly way, and you end up defining bodily unity as mere sexual contact (as pro-SSMer Paul Weithman did in an important essay on the subject (in Martha Nussbaum, ed.). Not that he was explicit about it--too damaging to the cause.
As for the other part of your equation--the role of marriage--marriage without complementarity is also like a fish out of water. Complementarity, qua procreation as a general fact about the institution of marriage, makes the idea of marriage coherent and gives it an intelligible "role." The SSM criterion of marriage--the commitment of the partners--is incoherent or inadequate as "what marriage is about," as I pointed out (not as clearly as I wish I had) in Part II of this series.
1.30.2013 | 6:26pm
Fred says:
Boo, you're wrong. There are circumstances where differences do not justify unequal treatment under the law and circumstances where they do. We "discriminate" against the blind in hiring bus drivers; we "discriminate" against the mute in hiring radio personalities. Physical differences between men and women do justify "discrimination" against women in allowing them in combat, although unfortunately, the Obama administration is attempting to repeal reality on that one. You're also wrong about objections to gay "marriage" being solely religious. The same types of arguments you use for gay "marriage" (How does it hurt you? How can you limit people's freedom? You only object because of religion/racism/sexism/homophobia etc.) were used to support no-fault divorce and similar ones used to support welfare as it was practiced before the '96 reforms. How did that work out for us?
1.30.2013 | 7:08pm
Randy McDonald says:
"Doug, I know what you mean, but if the libertines (and good-hearted but ignorant folk who buy into their deceptions) could brush aside the terrible cost of STDs (including AIDS), the more abstract approach won't have much chance of influencing them."
It _was_ probably inevitable at some point that someone would bring HIV/AIDS into the picture.
It's worth noting that, according to the latest researches, HIV only became an global epidemic instead of an isolated zoonotic infection of central Africa because of charity: large-scale medical campaigns directed by well-meaning colonialists (sleeping sickness, particularly) made use of unclean needles and let the virus take off. Is charity thereby disproved as a virtue?
It _was_ probably inevitable at some point that someone would bring HIV/AIDS into the picture.
It's worth noting that, according to the latest researches, HIV only became an global epidemic instead of an isolated zoonotic infection of central Africa because of charity: large-scale medical campaigns directed by well-meaning colonialists (sleeping sickness, particularly) made use of unclean needles and let the virus take off. Is charity thereby disproved as a virtue?
1.30.2013 | 7:25pm
Aaron Rasmussen says:
I'm with Boo on this one.
The cardinal's argument is so easy to meet that it is farcical. It is nothing more than a problem of the level of categorization.
There's a simple analogy that I like to use: I have lots of different kinds of saws in my garage. I've got a tree saw, a table say, a miter saw, a hand saw, etc. They are all saws, and they are all for cutting things, but they can't all cut the same things. I can't use the table saw to cut down the tree in my front yard. But it would be idiotic to say that because I can't cut down a tree with it, it isn't a saw.
Are same sex marriages so different from opposite sex marriages that they can't be called marriages? I don't think so. Yes, they are different in some ways, but except for the fact that a same sex couple can't experience the same "organic bodily union" (a phrase that sounds as off to me as the phrases "precious bodily fluids" and "purity of essence" given to us by General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove) as an opposite sex couple, they otherwise look just about identical. In other words, yeah, there's a difference, but unless you have some kind of religious or moral bias against homosexuals, bid deal? It pales in comparison to the similarities.
The really committed same sex couples that I know have a relationship that looks exactly like a marriage in every way, particularly when compared to the opposite sex couples I know who are married but don't plan to have children. I suppose if you were to climb into bed with them you'd notice a difference, but I don't want to climb into bed with them and I don't want the law climbing into bed with them either.
Given the variety of functions that marriage fulfills in our society, the argument that it is only about procreation is too cute by half. It strikes me as an argument made up after the fact to justify a religious or moral bias against homosexuals that can't be justified on other grounds without making oneself appear intolerant. By focusing solely on procreation, it seems like the opponents of same sex marriage are the ones in denial - they ignore what marriage ***actually is*** in our society. Why? Because only by ignoring that reality and focusing solely on procreation can they justify excluding same sex couples from the institution.
The cardinal's argument is so easy to meet that it is farcical. It is nothing more than a problem of the level of categorization.
There's a simple analogy that I like to use: I have lots of different kinds of saws in my garage. I've got a tree saw, a table say, a miter saw, a hand saw, etc. They are all saws, and they are all for cutting things, but they can't all cut the same things. I can't use the table saw to cut down the tree in my front yard. But it would be idiotic to say that because I can't cut down a tree with it, it isn't a saw.
Are same sex marriages so different from opposite sex marriages that they can't be called marriages? I don't think so. Yes, they are different in some ways, but except for the fact that a same sex couple can't experience the same "organic bodily union" (a phrase that sounds as off to me as the phrases "precious bodily fluids" and "purity of essence" given to us by General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove) as an opposite sex couple, they otherwise look just about identical. In other words, yeah, there's a difference, but unless you have some kind of religious or moral bias against homosexuals, bid deal? It pales in comparison to the similarities.
The really committed same sex couples that I know have a relationship that looks exactly like a marriage in every way, particularly when compared to the opposite sex couples I know who are married but don't plan to have children. I suppose if you were to climb into bed with them you'd notice a difference, but I don't want to climb into bed with them and I don't want the law climbing into bed with them either.
Given the variety of functions that marriage fulfills in our society, the argument that it is only about procreation is too cute by half. It strikes me as an argument made up after the fact to justify a religious or moral bias against homosexuals that can't be justified on other grounds without making oneself appear intolerant. By focusing solely on procreation, it seems like the opponents of same sex marriage are the ones in denial - they ignore what marriage ***actually is*** in our society. Why? Because only by ignoring that reality and focusing solely on procreation can they justify excluding same sex couples from the institution.
1.30.2013 | 8:41pm
Boo says:
andrew- then perhaps you could explain for us why you feel those differences justify unequal treatment in law? You know, if you can stop laughing.
PS people who truly don't feel they are being bigots generally don't feel the need to mention that they don't feel they are being bigots. Just sayin.
PS people who truly don't feel they are being bigots generally don't feel the need to mention that they don't feel they are being bigots. Just sayin.
1.30.2013 | 8:51pm
yan says:
Far as I am concerned Mr. Weigel is 100% right. We should all know by now the things said here are all true. It is unfortunate that it needs to be repeated, since it is long time past since we should have been about attempting to answer his ultimate question: 'If [willfulness and self-assertion trump reality at every point], what happens to democracies built on self-evident truths?'
One answer is simply: they inevitably collapse. There is nothing to do about it except hoard food and ammo and hide your children.
Another is: take steps to remedy the situation in the hope that it can be remedied.
Before we do that, we should ask: can it be remedied? What are the odds?
What makes it most difficult to remedy, in my opinion, is the trajectory of rights throughout our history. Americans don't lose rights. Rights increase in number and scope. I can't think of any rights which were granted to us which since have been taken from us.
Thus, we are talking about an extremely uphill battle. What would be required to successfully wage that kind of battle?
Courage of course to persevere, and also to suffer persecution if and when required to do so. Then, massive amounts of propaganda, as they used to say. That requires resources of humanity and capital. And that requires organization.
This is not going to happen by itself, just with every Catholic faithful saying an extra Our Father for the preservation of marriage before he goes to bed.
We should be about the business of acquiring what is needed and organizing ourselves. Who will take the lead? What about as many of the pro-life organizations as possible uniting for this purpose?
One answer is simply: they inevitably collapse. There is nothing to do about it except hoard food and ammo and hide your children.
Another is: take steps to remedy the situation in the hope that it can be remedied.
Before we do that, we should ask: can it be remedied? What are the odds?
What makes it most difficult to remedy, in my opinion, is the trajectory of rights throughout our history. Americans don't lose rights. Rights increase in number and scope. I can't think of any rights which were granted to us which since have been taken from us.
Thus, we are talking about an extremely uphill battle. What would be required to successfully wage that kind of battle?
Courage of course to persevere, and also to suffer persecution if and when required to do so. Then, massive amounts of propaganda, as they used to say. That requires resources of humanity and capital. And that requires organization.
This is not going to happen by itself, just with every Catholic faithful saying an extra Our Father for the preservation of marriage before he goes to bed.
We should be about the business of acquiring what is needed and organizing ourselves. Who will take the lead? What about as many of the pro-life organizations as possible uniting for this purpose?
1.30.2013 | 10:16pm
Fake Herzog says:
Doug Wendt,
I don't think you understand the meaning of natural law. It does NOT mean whatever we find in nature within the human condition is good (as Mr. Murray points out). Instead, we must think of what our natural condition is as rational human beings means and then work from there to determine what is good for us. That is how the connection with marriage is made -- we are creatures designed for sexual complentarianism and get married to join together "in one flesh" to have children and raise those children.
If you haven't already, you really should read the wonderful paper by Girgis, George and Anderson called "What is Marriage?" for more on this subject matter.
God bless!
I don't think you understand the meaning of natural law. It does NOT mean whatever we find in nature within the human condition is good (as Mr. Murray points out). Instead, we must think of what our natural condition is as rational human beings means and then work from there to determine what is good for us. That is how the connection with marriage is made -- we are creatures designed for sexual complentarianism and get married to join together "in one flesh" to have children and raise those children.
If you haven't already, you really should read the wonderful paper by Girgis, George and Anderson called "What is Marriage?" for more on this subject matter.
God bless!
1.30.2013 | 10:49pm
Randy McDonald says:
Fake Herzog:
"That is how the connection with marriage is made -- we are creatures designed for sexual complentarianism and get married to join together "in one flesh" to have children and raise those children."
But reproduction isn't the only way sex is used, even among heterosexuals. The vast majority of heterosexual copulations--even, I'm willing to bet, the vast majority of acts of unprotected heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse culminating in mutual orgasms--don't result of conception. Sex is something people engage in because it makes them feel good and often brings them closer to particular people.
"That is how the connection with marriage is made -- we are creatures designed for sexual complentarianism and get married to join together "in one flesh" to have children and raise those children."
But reproduction isn't the only way sex is used, even among heterosexuals. The vast majority of heterosexual copulations--even, I'm willing to bet, the vast majority of acts of unprotected heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse culminating in mutual orgasms--don't result of conception. Sex is something people engage in because it makes them feel good and often brings them closer to particular people.
1.31.2013 | 2:59am
yan says:
Aaron R.,
Nice to correspond with you again.
I think the reason that the argument against gay marriage appears to some to be a pretext for bigotry is that our society has mostly cast the concept of purity into the dustbin of history. It is because of purity that we didn't have no-fault divorce, and had laws regulating sex of every kind, including every kind of sex in marriage which did not offer the potential of being procreative. And this was all true until the sexual revolution.
With no fault divorce, and the legal acceptance of every kind of sex between 2 consenting adults, it does indeed appear to be bigotry to single out homosexuals from being permitted to marry. 'We let heteros do what they do and be married; why can't we also marry gays then?'
But that is like saying, 'since the barn is on fire, everyone has the right to pour gasoline on it.'
Sure, the law has poured fuel on the fire. While in law, this may indeed be an argument for saying that others 'similarly situated' should also be able to do it [not necessarily a winning argument], it is not an argument which derives from a proper and logical understanding of sex which, being natural, SHOULD [and still does sometimes] also inform our laws.
We are saying that the understanding of sex is important. Gay marriage is the furthest step yet in the direction of saying that purity can have no support in the law, and that even the most unnatural sex act [which you think is no big deal] must be permitted to have the full support of the state in being exclusively, without even a possibility of normal sex, a basis for marriage.
We just don't want that to happen, and we don't think it has to happen. To explain why not, we have to 'ahem,' and explain about the birds and the bees again. That is what the Cardinal was doing.
Nice to correspond with you again.
I think the reason that the argument against gay marriage appears to some to be a pretext for bigotry is that our society has mostly cast the concept of purity into the dustbin of history. It is because of purity that we didn't have no-fault divorce, and had laws regulating sex of every kind, including every kind of sex in marriage which did not offer the potential of being procreative. And this was all true until the sexual revolution.
With no fault divorce, and the legal acceptance of every kind of sex between 2 consenting adults, it does indeed appear to be bigotry to single out homosexuals from being permitted to marry. 'We let heteros do what they do and be married; why can't we also marry gays then?'
But that is like saying, 'since the barn is on fire, everyone has the right to pour gasoline on it.'
Sure, the law has poured fuel on the fire. While in law, this may indeed be an argument for saying that others 'similarly situated' should also be able to do it [not necessarily a winning argument], it is not an argument which derives from a proper and logical understanding of sex which, being natural, SHOULD [and still does sometimes] also inform our laws.
We are saying that the understanding of sex is important. Gay marriage is the furthest step yet in the direction of saying that purity can have no support in the law, and that even the most unnatural sex act [which you think is no big deal] must be permitted to have the full support of the state in being exclusively, without even a possibility of normal sex, a basis for marriage.
We just don't want that to happen, and we don't think it has to happen. To explain why not, we have to 'ahem,' and explain about the birds and the bees again. That is what the Cardinal was doing.
1.31.2013 | 3:57am
Michael PS says:
Doug Wendt rightly asks us to address the rôle of marriage as an institution in society. Why, we should ask, does the state impose mandatory civil marriage? How does marriage differ from unregulated cohabitation or civil unions? In Europe, many opposite-sex couples are opting for civil unions. So, what is the difference?
In most countries, the civil code contains no formal definition of marriage, but generations of jurists have found a functional definition in the rule that that a child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for its father. This rule goes back at least to the Roman jurist Paulus - "is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant” (marriage point out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1]
In the first country to introduce mandatory civil marriage, France, which did so on 9 November 1791, the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925), Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003) all held this view, long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated.
It is this that defines the specificity of marriage, not only among other forms of life for couples, but as the foundational institution of the family.
Establishing the juridical bond between fathers and their children is central to the state’s concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. This is the justification for mandatory civil marriage.
In most countries, the civil code contains no formal definition of marriage, but generations of jurists have found a functional definition in the rule that that a child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for its father. This rule goes back at least to the Roman jurist Paulus - "is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant” (marriage point out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1]
In the first country to introduce mandatory civil marriage, France, which did so on 9 November 1791, the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925), Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003) all held this view, long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated.
It is this that defines the specificity of marriage, not only among other forms of life for couples, but as the foundational institution of the family.
Establishing the juridical bond between fathers and their children is central to the state’s concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. This is the justification for mandatory civil marriage.
1.31.2013 | 4:18am
yan says:
Aaron R.,
Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex:
'Reason is the soul of the law; the reason of the law being changed, the law is also changed.'
What this discussion comes down to is a question of what constitutes acceptable 'reason' in relation to marriage law. Is the reason for a law still legitimate when much of social practice has moved far away from the reason for the law?
I think that answer depends on how much importance you give to social practice, as compared to the original reason for the law.
The reasons for marriage are for the preservation of the human race, for the comfort of the spouses, and to prevent what would otherwise be the inevitable occurrence of widespread sinful copulation.
Homosexuals cannot continue the race, but neither can sterile straight couples. So in respect to that reason, the result of homosexual sex is not a problem for the marriage law, any more than a marriage of infertile straight couples is. We would just be adding a few more infertile couples to the institution; no big deal.
Homosexuals, I presume, and the evidence seems to show, comfort one another by their presence, in a manner similar to how straight couples are supposed to. Thus, their union does not pose a problem for that reason for marriage, either. What’s wrong with ratifying mutual human care?
But a homosexual act can never be anything other than a grievous sin. In that respect, it proposes an unsolvable problem for that reason for marriage. Contrary to the case of natural sex, the marriage would not be able to change a sinful act into a good act. Sodomy will in every case be a sinful act, despite the legal state of marriage conferred on it. Furthermore, unlike man and woman marriage, sodomy is the only sex act possible between persons of the same sex.
The question then arises: since a lot of people don’t care about that reason for marriage anymore, should we just do away with it, and make the other two reasons a sufficient basis for marriage?
I think the simple answer is: it depends on how sinful you think this sin is. And the response to that depends in large part on the state of your soul.
Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex:
'Reason is the soul of the law; the reason of the law being changed, the law is also changed.'
What this discussion comes down to is a question of what constitutes acceptable 'reason' in relation to marriage law. Is the reason for a law still legitimate when much of social practice has moved far away from the reason for the law?
I think that answer depends on how much importance you give to social practice, as compared to the original reason for the law.
The reasons for marriage are for the preservation of the human race, for the comfort of the spouses, and to prevent what would otherwise be the inevitable occurrence of widespread sinful copulation.
Homosexuals cannot continue the race, but neither can sterile straight couples. So in respect to that reason, the result of homosexual sex is not a problem for the marriage law, any more than a marriage of infertile straight couples is. We would just be adding a few more infertile couples to the institution; no big deal.
Homosexuals, I presume, and the evidence seems to show, comfort one another by their presence, in a manner similar to how straight couples are supposed to. Thus, their union does not pose a problem for that reason for marriage, either. What’s wrong with ratifying mutual human care?
But a homosexual act can never be anything other than a grievous sin. In that respect, it proposes an unsolvable problem for that reason for marriage. Contrary to the case of natural sex, the marriage would not be able to change a sinful act into a good act. Sodomy will in every case be a sinful act, despite the legal state of marriage conferred on it. Furthermore, unlike man and woman marriage, sodomy is the only sex act possible between persons of the same sex.
The question then arises: since a lot of people don’t care about that reason for marriage anymore, should we just do away with it, and make the other two reasons a sufficient basis for marriage?
I think the simple answer is: it depends on how sinful you think this sin is. And the response to that depends in large part on the state of your soul.
1.31.2013 | 8:39am
Ann says:
"slight differences in the way straight people and gay people have sex,..."
"Yes, they are different in some ways, but except for the fact that a same sex couple can't experience the same "organic bodily union"... as an opposite sex couple, they otherwise look just about identical. In other words, yeah, there's a difference, but unless you have some kind of religious or moral bias against homosexuals, bid deal? It pales in comparison to the similarities."
It is truly amazing how commenters inadvertently make the author's point with which they disagree:
"... less a threat to religion than it is an affront to human reason and the common good of society. It means we are all to pretend to accept something we know is physically impossible."
It is truly pointless to discuss this issue when human reason is optional.
The irony is that these commenters make such nonsensical statements thinking they are being clever-Cardinal George is being "farcical"? There is something farcical about this discussion but it is not the Cardinal's reasoning.
Like I said, discussion is pointless when reason is optional. And with the developement at BSA, it may be too late for discussion. Reason, has left the building.
"Yes, they are different in some ways, but except for the fact that a same sex couple can't experience the same "organic bodily union"... as an opposite sex couple, they otherwise look just about identical. In other words, yeah, there's a difference, but unless you have some kind of religious or moral bias against homosexuals, bid deal? It pales in comparison to the similarities."
It is truly amazing how commenters inadvertently make the author's point with which they disagree:
"... less a threat to religion than it is an affront to human reason and the common good of society. It means we are all to pretend to accept something we know is physically impossible."
It is truly pointless to discuss this issue when human reason is optional.
The irony is that these commenters make such nonsensical statements thinking they are being clever-Cardinal George is being "farcical"? There is something farcical about this discussion but it is not the Cardinal's reasoning.
Like I said, discussion is pointless when reason is optional. And with the developement at BSA, it may be too late for discussion. Reason, has left the building.
1.31.2013 | 2:08pm
yan says:
Aaron,
I think your 'saw analogy' is inapt, even though I think you are on to something by using tools for your analogy. I personally prefer automobile analogies: it is one thing to put gas in the gas tank. It is another to pump gas all over the engine, or into the trunk or interior of the car. While in both cases we are pumping gas, there is only one place where the action of pumping gas fulfills the teleology of the act. All others are useless or destructive or both, as the case may be.
If I were born with an inclination to pump gas anywhere and everywhere except inside a gas tank, it would still be reasonable to outlaw any kind of pumping except inside a gas tank, with gas which the law permits me to purchase. This would protect not only other people, but myself from harm.
Homosexuals have successfully argued that the benefit to them of legalizing sodomy is of greater worth than the foreseeable harm to them and society which their behavior causes. What harms? Moral harms to their souls by virtue of those acts, which, legally permitted, will increase in frequency; to their minds by legitimizing what is unnatural and thereby causing profound moral confusion; by the increase in venereal diseases because of their extremely high natural promiscuity; by the promiscuity itself, which is a bad example to others, encouraging promiscuity generally, scandalizing the young, and decreasing the possibility of liberation from the lifestyle; by trivializing sex, which together with promiscuity, endangers the preservation and existence of the family, the building block of civilization.
No wonder then, since the Court [in an opinion written by someone who seems to be, in his private life, a serious Catholic] has performed this moral calculus for us and determined that the harm does not outweigh the benefit, and has subsequently mandated the legal acceptance of consensual sodomy, that the rest of us may be disinclined to see the harm of homosexual marriage.
The Court got it wrong; simple as that.
I think your 'saw analogy' is inapt, even though I think you are on to something by using tools for your analogy. I personally prefer automobile analogies: it is one thing to put gas in the gas tank. It is another to pump gas all over the engine, or into the trunk or interior of the car. While in both cases we are pumping gas, there is only one place where the action of pumping gas fulfills the teleology of the act. All others are useless or destructive or both, as the case may be.
If I were born with an inclination to pump gas anywhere and everywhere except inside a gas tank, it would still be reasonable to outlaw any kind of pumping except inside a gas tank, with gas which the law permits me to purchase. This would protect not only other people, but myself from harm.
Homosexuals have successfully argued that the benefit to them of legalizing sodomy is of greater worth than the foreseeable harm to them and society which their behavior causes. What harms? Moral harms to their souls by virtue of those acts, which, legally permitted, will increase in frequency; to their minds by legitimizing what is unnatural and thereby causing profound moral confusion; by the increase in venereal diseases because of their extremely high natural promiscuity; by the promiscuity itself, which is a bad example to others, encouraging promiscuity generally, scandalizing the young, and decreasing the possibility of liberation from the lifestyle; by trivializing sex, which together with promiscuity, endangers the preservation and existence of the family, the building block of civilization.
No wonder then, since the Court [in an opinion written by someone who seems to be, in his private life, a serious Catholic] has performed this moral calculus for us and determined that the harm does not outweigh the benefit, and has subsequently mandated the legal acceptance of consensual sodomy, that the rest of us may be disinclined to see the harm of homosexual marriage.
The Court got it wrong; simple as that.
1.31.2013 | 2:35pm
Boo says:
Fred- you're criticizing an argument I did not make. I never said any and all forms of discrimination are wrong. In this particular case critics of marriage equality have been unable to muster an argument against it that does not boil down to religious belief, demonization of gay people, or false claims about gay people's supposed inferiority as parents. And people have realized none of those are sufficient to justify discrimination. That is why we are winning.
1.31.2013 | 2:46pm
Boo says:
Homosexuals have successfully argued that the benefit to them of legalizing sodomy is of greater worth than the foreseeable harm to them and society which YAN- "their behavior causes. What harms? Moral harms to their souls by virtue of those acts, which, legally permitted, will increase in frequency; to their minds by legitimizing what is unnatural and thereby causing profound moral confusion; by the increase in venereal diseases because of their extremely high natural promiscuity; by the promiscuity itself, which is a bad example to others, encouraging promiscuity generally, scandalizing the young, and decreasing the possibility of liberation from the lifestyle; by trivializing sex, which together with promiscuity, endangers the preservation and existence of the family, the building block of civilization."
And people wonder why I maintain that all arguments against gay mariage boil down to the desire to force one's religious beliefs on others, demonization of gay people, or false claims about gay people's inferiority as parents (hint: that's the one leg of the tripod you didn't include here).
And people wonder why I maintain that all arguments against gay mariage boil down to the desire to force one's religious beliefs on others, demonization of gay people, or false claims about gay people's inferiority as parents (hint: that's the one leg of the tripod you didn't include here).
1.31.2013 | 3:04pm
yan says:
Boo,
You say people have 'realized' that, to paraphrase, 'arguments against gay marriage' simply do not justify discrimination against homosexuals in the form of denying them same sex marriage.
'Realizing' implies they have discovered an important truth which they didn't formerly recognize. But what they have actually done is forgotten important truths which they have always known, and which will always be imprinted in their hearts, but which for now at least, they refuse to recognize anymore.
They have forgotten the truth about sex because of well-funded massive media and educational campaigns of disinformation, changes in the law, and because of a desire to indulge their own sexual inclinations without restraint.
One day sanity may return. At that time, the wreckage caused by gay marriage will not be able to be undone. [In fairness, neither will the damage caused by no-fault divorce.]
You say people have 'realized' that, to paraphrase, 'arguments against gay marriage' simply do not justify discrimination against homosexuals in the form of denying them same sex marriage.
'Realizing' implies they have discovered an important truth which they didn't formerly recognize. But what they have actually done is forgotten important truths which they have always known, and which will always be imprinted in their hearts, but which for now at least, they refuse to recognize anymore.
They have forgotten the truth about sex because of well-funded massive media and educational campaigns of disinformation, changes in the law, and because of a desire to indulge their own sexual inclinations without restraint.
One day sanity may return. At that time, the wreckage caused by gay marriage will not be able to be undone. [In fairness, neither will the damage caused by no-fault divorce.]
1.31.2013 | 3:41pm
Artaban7 says:
Boo has an awfully peculiar opinion of "winning"...which certainly doesn't seem to be held by the angry supporters of gay marriage I've seen.
If you're winning, why do you feel the need to demonize all non-supporters?
If it's true that there are "false claims about gay people's supposed inferiority as parents", why don't you bother citing some credible data to that effect?
Truth has its own power, that transcends beyond any fad or popularity contest. Truth stands the test of time. Cultures valuing and recognizing homosexuality have existed before--ancient Sparta, Samoa, etc.. History shows, however, that they don't last very long...
Kudos to Doug Chappell for the spot on observation, concerning existent sociological data and its support of Natural Law.
If you're winning, why do you feel the need to demonize all non-supporters?
If it's true that there are "false claims about gay people's supposed inferiority as parents", why don't you bother citing some credible data to that effect?
Truth has its own power, that transcends beyond any fad or popularity contest. Truth stands the test of time. Cultures valuing and recognizing homosexuality have existed before--ancient Sparta, Samoa, etc.. History shows, however, that they don't last very long...
Kudos to Doug Chappell for the spot on observation, concerning existent sociological data and its support of Natural Law.
1.31.2013 | 3:46pm
Artaban7 says:
No matter how many billions of times a lesbian or gay couple has sex, a baby will never result. In all the history of homosexual sex has a single child been produced.
Hardly a "slight difference"...
One can only claim "slight difference" and be taken seriously in a culture divorced from historical and biological reality, or a culture where sex has been reduced to a selfish act of pleasure, rather than a selfless giving that produces the miracle of life.
Hardly a "slight difference"...
One can only claim "slight difference" and be taken seriously in a culture divorced from historical and biological reality, or a culture where sex has been reduced to a selfish act of pleasure, rather than a selfless giving that produces the miracle of life.
1.31.2013 | 3:57pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
I think Doug Wendt assumes the validity of the private-public distinction--with sexual morality as “private” and the role of marriage as “public”--along with the assumption that religion may properly inform private matters but not public ones. If so, he is looking for Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. The private-public distinction has as many holes as the tax code (and it should not be confused with the church-state distinction, which is unexceptionable).
The tradition of exclusively opposite-sex marriage endures because the things that made procreation central to marriage in the beginning still make it central--human nature and the needs of social order. In both of these, the fact of procreation is assumed to be anthropologically essential. That is the context in which marriage is framed. There is no other context that does justice to the institution of marriage.
Advocates of same-sex marriage sometimes say that for homosexuals same-sex attraction is “natural,” and therefore that homosexuals understandably want to marry each other. It’s also “natural” to use a clock as a bookend. Does that mean the clock-as-a-bookend is equal (in any way that’s contextually relevant) to the clock-as-telling-the-time? Hardly.
We are being asked by some of our fellow citizens, apparently including the rather coy Mr. Wendt, to believe homosexuality is morally as legitimate as heterosexuality. Frankly, that’s a bridge too far. The Constitution itself does not imply that heterosexuality and homosexuality are morally or legally on a par, as would have to be the case for it to legitimately break the strong complementarity that links the institution of marriage (and its “role”) with human nature and human flourishing.
Embracing same-sex civil marriage means believing six impossible things before breakfast. My apologies to Lewis Carroll.
The tradition of exclusively opposite-sex marriage endures because the things that made procreation central to marriage in the beginning still make it central--human nature and the needs of social order. In both of these, the fact of procreation is assumed to be anthropologically essential. That is the context in which marriage is framed. There is no other context that does justice to the institution of marriage.
Advocates of same-sex marriage sometimes say that for homosexuals same-sex attraction is “natural,” and therefore that homosexuals understandably want to marry each other. It’s also “natural” to use a clock as a bookend. Does that mean the clock-as-a-bookend is equal (in any way that’s contextually relevant) to the clock-as-telling-the-time? Hardly.
We are being asked by some of our fellow citizens, apparently including the rather coy Mr. Wendt, to believe homosexuality is morally as legitimate as heterosexuality. Frankly, that’s a bridge too far. The Constitution itself does not imply that heterosexuality and homosexuality are morally or legally on a par, as would have to be the case for it to legitimately break the strong complementarity that links the institution of marriage (and its “role”) with human nature and human flourishing.
Embracing same-sex civil marriage means believing six impossible things before breakfast. My apologies to Lewis Carroll.
1.31.2013 | 4:15pm
yan says:
Aaron,
I do agree with you that the emphasis on procreation in the defense of traditional marriage is, in part, part of a conscious, concerted effort to avoid the appearance of intolerance. This is, to me, an established fact.
In fact, we do not have a religious or moral bias against homosexuals [or at least, we should not] in the sense that 'bias' connotes unreasoned prejudice. We believe that there are good reasons to oppose the proliferation and ratification of homosexual behavior. These reasons are clear when one reflects on the natural law of sex and the consequences of violating it.
Unfortunately, the difference between our views and simple prejudice do not always readily appear, because the consequences of our views entail many of the same effects in respect to gays as do the views of prejudiced people.
But I agree that focusing exclusively on procreation without delineating the implications of procreation in relation to the unnaturalness of same sex acts is not a good argument against gay marriage. If gays can marry, that will not prevent straights from marrying--even though it may discourage straight marriage to some extent. That gays cannot have children is not a reason in itself sufficient to deny them marriage either, since of course, straight couples who are infertile may also marry.
Thus it behooves us to argue against gay marriage by pointing out the unnaturalness and sinfulness of the act, and the legal and moral consequences for legitimizing it, especially in relation to the existence and preservation of natural families, for the common good.
I do agree with you that the emphasis on procreation in the defense of traditional marriage is, in part, part of a conscious, concerted effort to avoid the appearance of intolerance. This is, to me, an established fact.
In fact, we do not have a religious or moral bias against homosexuals [or at least, we should not] in the sense that 'bias' connotes unreasoned prejudice. We believe that there are good reasons to oppose the proliferation and ratification of homosexual behavior. These reasons are clear when one reflects on the natural law of sex and the consequences of violating it.
Unfortunately, the difference between our views and simple prejudice do not always readily appear, because the consequences of our views entail many of the same effects in respect to gays as do the views of prejudiced people.
But I agree that focusing exclusively on procreation without delineating the implications of procreation in relation to the unnaturalness of same sex acts is not a good argument against gay marriage. If gays can marry, that will not prevent straights from marrying--even though it may discourage straight marriage to some extent. That gays cannot have children is not a reason in itself sufficient to deny them marriage either, since of course, straight couples who are infertile may also marry.
Thus it behooves us to argue against gay marriage by pointing out the unnaturalness and sinfulness of the act, and the legal and moral consequences for legitimizing it, especially in relation to the existence and preservation of natural families, for the common good.
1.31.2013 | 10:46pm
Boo says:
"Boo has an awfully peculiar opinion of "winning"...which certainly doesn't seem to be held by the angry supporters of gay marriage I've seen."
Public opinion in favor of marriage equality has been steadily climbing for several years, and has actually accelerated in the last 5 years or so. It has crossed the 50% threshold and shows no signs of slowing down. We went 4 for 4 on marriage referendums in the past election, the attempt to recall a pro equality judge in Iowa was defeated, and gay marriage opponents have been complaining nonstop about how they are being outspent at every turn. One of the two main political parties has endorsed marriage equality and there are increasing voices in the other main party for giving up their stance against it. Younger voters overwhemingly favor equality, and opposition to it is concentrated more and more in the elderly. I don't see what is peculiar about recognizing the clear trend in our favor as winning.
"If it's true that there are "false claims about gay people's supposed inferiority as parents", why don't you bother citing some credible data to that effect?"
The internal audit of the journal that published Mark Regnerus's study on the supposed bad effects of children raised by gay parents admitted it was severly flawed and should never have been published. If you know of a credible study showing that gay couples create bad outcomes for children, please feel free to cite it.
Public opinion in favor of marriage equality has been steadily climbing for several years, and has actually accelerated in the last 5 years or so. It has crossed the 50% threshold and shows no signs of slowing down. We went 4 for 4 on marriage referendums in the past election, the attempt to recall a pro equality judge in Iowa was defeated, and gay marriage opponents have been complaining nonstop about how they are being outspent at every turn. One of the two main political parties has endorsed marriage equality and there are increasing voices in the other main party for giving up their stance against it. Younger voters overwhemingly favor equality, and opposition to it is concentrated more and more in the elderly. I don't see what is peculiar about recognizing the clear trend in our favor as winning.
"If it's true that there are "false claims about gay people's supposed inferiority as parents", why don't you bother citing some credible data to that effect?"
The internal audit of the journal that published Mark Regnerus's study on the supposed bad effects of children raised by gay parents admitted it was severly flawed and should never have been published. If you know of a credible study showing that gay couples create bad outcomes for children, please feel free to cite it.
2.1.2013 | 12:37am
Boo says:
"No matter how many billions of times a lesbian or gay couple has sex, a baby will never result. In all the history of homosexual sex has a single child been produced.
Hardly a "slight difference"..."
That's a matter of opinion. But if you're so hung up on that word "slight" then remove it from my first comment. It still stands.
Hardly a "slight difference"..."
That's a matter of opinion. But if you're so hung up on that word "slight" then remove it from my first comment. It still stands.
2.1.2013 | 5:22pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
In the same-sex marriage debate, the question of whether the private-public distinction is what liberals understand it to be is unfortunately neglected. What if it turns out that Kantian liberalism (including Rawls I and Rawls II) bowdlerizes the private-public distinction? I think that is the case. This is useful to know because it helps make clear the rationality and justifiability of exclusively opposite-sex marriage.
On the principle that nothing beats a Venn diagram for simplicity, draw two large and partly overlapping circles--label them respectively “the private” and “the public,” and then, in the non-overlapping part of the diagram, draw a small circle in each of the big circles, and label the one in the private circle “civil society” and the one in the public circle “government.”
This Venn diagram shows, I believe, that liberals wrongly use the private-public distinction to constitutionally bracket out religious values, morals legislation, and the like. In fact, this Venn diagram arguably paves the way for undermining, and perhaps even delegitimizing, Kantian liberalism. (I’m not sure what it means for John Stuart Mill’s liberalism.)
By the way, this Venn diagram shows, if I’m not mistaken, that Justice Scalia was largely right and Justice Kennedy largely wrong in Lawrence v. Texas.
The private and the public, unlike civil society and government, are internally related and must be understood in terms of each other. Civil society and government are entirely separate domains and have only an external and pragmatically necessary relation to each other. The institution of marriage belongs wholly in the domain of civil society. While the government has a crucial ordering and stabilizing role to play in civil society, government cannot legitimately take out of the hands of civil society the fundamental definition of marriage.
On the principle that nothing beats a Venn diagram for simplicity, draw two large and partly overlapping circles--label them respectively “the private” and “the public,” and then, in the non-overlapping part of the diagram, draw a small circle in each of the big circles, and label the one in the private circle “civil society” and the one in the public circle “government.”
This Venn diagram shows, I believe, that liberals wrongly use the private-public distinction to constitutionally bracket out religious values, morals legislation, and the like. In fact, this Venn diagram arguably paves the way for undermining, and perhaps even delegitimizing, Kantian liberalism. (I’m not sure what it means for John Stuart Mill’s liberalism.)
By the way, this Venn diagram shows, if I’m not mistaken, that Justice Scalia was largely right and Justice Kennedy largely wrong in Lawrence v. Texas.
The private and the public, unlike civil society and government, are internally related and must be understood in terms of each other. Civil society and government are entirely separate domains and have only an external and pragmatically necessary relation to each other. The institution of marriage belongs wholly in the domain of civil society. While the government has a crucial ordering and stabilizing role to play in civil society, government cannot legitimately take out of the hands of civil society the fundamental definition of marriage.
2.2.2013 | 5:28am
Michael PS says:
It is a fallacy is to suppose that the purpose of civil marriage is procreation, which is manifestly false. The law makes special provision for marriage in extremis (CC Art 169) and even for posthumous marriage (CC Art 171). This would be unintelligible, if procreation were the primary purpose of marriage and a posthumous marriage confers no rights on the surviving spouse. It does however confer incontestable inheritance rights on children of the couple previously born, both to the defunct and his or her ascendants; in other words, it establishes filiation.
The law assumes the fact of procreation and uses marriage to regulate its consequences and, in particular, to ensure that the legal, social and biological aspects of paternity coincide.
The law assumes the fact of procreation and uses marriage to regulate its consequences and, in particular, to ensure that the legal, social and biological aspects of paternity coincide.
2.3.2013 | 10:37am
Boo says:
Ken- gay people are part of civil society. What is good for gay people is therefore good for civil society. Especially as you, like everyone else, has failed to demonsrate exactly how marriage equality will cause harm to anyone.
2.3.2013 | 10:43pm
yan says:
Boo,
Every law forces someone's beliefs upon the rest of us. A religious belief may be the rationale for a law if we can show that the belief has a basis in reason. That is the debate we are having.
As for gay parents, they are not inferior because of a lack of parenting skills, but because they subject a child to an environment where he is necessarily robbed of one of his parents, and because they cause scandal by ratifying what is by nature a grievous and unnatural sin while living in the home with the child.
We have compassion for gay people afflicted with these desires and do not demonize them for having impulses which may be entirely not of their own choosing. That doesn't mean that we cannot also judge that the act is in itself and objectively considered an unnatural and a grievous sin.
Peace to you my friend.
Every law forces someone's beliefs upon the rest of us. A religious belief may be the rationale for a law if we can show that the belief has a basis in reason. That is the debate we are having.
As for gay parents, they are not inferior because of a lack of parenting skills, but because they subject a child to an environment where he is necessarily robbed of one of his parents, and because they cause scandal by ratifying what is by nature a grievous and unnatural sin while living in the home with the child.
We have compassion for gay people afflicted with these desires and do not demonize them for having impulses which may be entirely not of their own choosing. That doesn't mean that we cannot also judge that the act is in itself and objectively considered an unnatural and a grievous sin.
Peace to you my friend.
2.4.2013 | 1:32pm
Boo says:
Yan- no, laws have to have a secular basis.
"As for gay parents, they are not inferior because of a lack of parenting skills, but because they subject a child to an environment where he is necessarily robbed of one of his parents, and because they cause scandal by ratifying what is by nature a grievous and unnatural sin while living in the home with the child."
If gay parents are raising a child then they are that child's parents. Our society has already determined that it is permissible to raise children one is not biologically related to. Also, your religious beliefs to not determine gay people's parenting fitness. The law is not based on what you consider scandalous.
"We have compassion for gay people afflicted with these desires and do not demonize them for having impulses which may be entirely not of their own choosing. That doesn't mean that we cannot also judge that the act is in itself and objectively considered an unnatural and a grievous sin."
Once again, it is not the government's business to enforce your religious beliefs. And talking about gay people as being "afflicted with these desires" is demonizing them. Sorry.
"As for gay parents, they are not inferior because of a lack of parenting skills, but because they subject a child to an environment where he is necessarily robbed of one of his parents, and because they cause scandal by ratifying what is by nature a grievous and unnatural sin while living in the home with the child."
If gay parents are raising a child then they are that child's parents. Our society has already determined that it is permissible to raise children one is not biologically related to. Also, your religious beliefs to not determine gay people's parenting fitness. The law is not based on what you consider scandalous.
"We have compassion for gay people afflicted with these desires and do not demonize them for having impulses which may be entirely not of their own choosing. That doesn't mean that we cannot also judge that the act is in itself and objectively considered an unnatural and a grievous sin."
Once again, it is not the government's business to enforce your religious beliefs. And talking about gay people as being "afflicted with these desires" is demonizing them. Sorry.
2.4.2013 | 3:44pm
yan says:
Boo,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. When I say that laws can have a religious basis, I mean that people that believe what their religion tells them are permitted to take part in making law in accordance with their belief--or in accordance with their beliefs about what is scandalous. There is nothing in the Constitution or any of our laws that prevents them from doing so. The law of course must pass muster with the Constitution, but that is a different issue.
I understand your concern about demonization, but one may oppose an action without demonizing the actors, though certainly this causes practical problems in general. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to call a spade a spade when it is necessary to do so. It is the gays that are making this an issue; we have a duty to point out the truth.
As for gay parenting, it doesn't follow that because society has permitted straight infertile couples to adopt that therefore it must allow gay couples to adopt. Furthermore, your implication that what society determines is legal is therefore morally correct and therefore a fait accomplis is mistaken. We can change our minds.
Cheers.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. When I say that laws can have a religious basis, I mean that people that believe what their religion tells them are permitted to take part in making law in accordance with their belief--or in accordance with their beliefs about what is scandalous. There is nothing in the Constitution or any of our laws that prevents them from doing so. The law of course must pass muster with the Constitution, but that is a different issue.
I understand your concern about demonization, but one may oppose an action without demonizing the actors, though certainly this causes practical problems in general. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to call a spade a spade when it is necessary to do so. It is the gays that are making this an issue; we have a duty to point out the truth.
As for gay parenting, it doesn't follow that because society has permitted straight infertile couples to adopt that therefore it must allow gay couples to adopt. Furthermore, your implication that what society determines is legal is therefore morally correct and therefore a fait accomplis is mistaken. We can change our minds.
Cheers.
2.4.2013 | 4:08pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Initially, I didn’t take seriously Doug Wendt’s accusation of a “fundamental logical fallacy.” I still think the charge is bogus, but I believe it should be taken more seriously than I did earlier. The “fallacy” in question is apparently the naturalistic fallacy, and SSM advocates imply (they are rarely explicit) that sexual complementarity violates it.
Sexual complementarity assumes the normativity of male-female physiologically unitive sex acts, and by supposedly false inference it assumes the non-normativity of homosexual acts. Unlike SSM advocates, I don’t accept the naturalistic fallacy, especially where so-called function statements are concerned. The problem is, most people in our culture do accept it.
This is why we should employ the idea of a general fact of procreation. The general fact of procreation places complementarity under the umbrella of marriage considered as an institution. It crucially combines a matter of social order (responsible procreation) with a matter of human nature (sexual complementarity). The question becomes one of nature and origin rather than fact and value. Why does the institution of marriage exist? This is the all-important question, and the naturalistic fallacy is irrelevant to it.
The genetic fallacy says it’s a logical mistake to *necessarily* equate the origin of a thing (such as the institution of marriage) with the nature of that thing. The qualifying term (“necessarily”) works in favor of traditional marriage. The things that obtained in the beginning, with respect to human nature and social order, still obtain. Marriage today has the same internal logic as it had in the beginning. The genetic fallacy is not violated by exclusively opposite-sex marriage, understood as presupposing the general fact of procreation.
Sexual complementarity assumes the normativity of male-female physiologically unitive sex acts, and by supposedly false inference it assumes the non-normativity of homosexual acts. Unlike SSM advocates, I don’t accept the naturalistic fallacy, especially where so-called function statements are concerned. The problem is, most people in our culture do accept it.
This is why we should employ the idea of a general fact of procreation. The general fact of procreation places complementarity under the umbrella of marriage considered as an institution. It crucially combines a matter of social order (responsible procreation) with a matter of human nature (sexual complementarity). The question becomes one of nature and origin rather than fact and value. Why does the institution of marriage exist? This is the all-important question, and the naturalistic fallacy is irrelevant to it.
The genetic fallacy says it’s a logical mistake to *necessarily* equate the origin of a thing (such as the institution of marriage) with the nature of that thing. The qualifying term (“necessarily”) works in favor of traditional marriage. The things that obtained in the beginning, with respect to human nature and social order, still obtain. Marriage today has the same internal logic as it had in the beginning. The genetic fallacy is not violated by exclusively opposite-sex marriage, understood as presupposing the general fact of procreation.
2.4.2013 | 6:43pm
Boo says:
"When I say that laws can have a religious basis, I mean that people that believe what their religion tells them are permitted to take part in making law in accordance with their belief--or in accordance with their beliefs about what is scandalous. There is nothing in the Constitution or any of our laws that prevents them from doing so. The law of course must pass muster with the Constitution, but that is a different issue."
No, its the same issue. That is why you can't ban porn.
"I understand your concern about demonization, but one may oppose an action without demonizing the actors, though certainly this causes practical problems in general. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to call a spade a spade when it is necessary to do so. It is the gays that are making this an issue; we have a duty to point out the truth."
Your rationale for demonizing gay people does not change the fact that you are engaged in demonizing gay people.
"As for gay parenting, it doesn't follow that because society has permitted straight infertile couples to adopt that therefore it must allow gay couples to adopt. Furthermore, your implication that what society determines is legal is therefore morally correct and therefore a fait accomplis is mistaken. We can change our minds."
Yes but doing so would require a Constitutional Amendment to strip gay citizens of their 14th Amendment protections. I don't think this is going to happen any time soon.
No, its the same issue. That is why you can't ban porn.
"I understand your concern about demonization, but one may oppose an action without demonizing the actors, though certainly this causes practical problems in general. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to call a spade a spade when it is necessary to do so. It is the gays that are making this an issue; we have a duty to point out the truth."
Your rationale for demonizing gay people does not change the fact that you are engaged in demonizing gay people.
"As for gay parenting, it doesn't follow that because society has permitted straight infertile couples to adopt that therefore it must allow gay couples to adopt. Furthermore, your implication that what society determines is legal is therefore morally correct and therefore a fait accomplis is mistaken. We can change our minds."
Yes but doing so would require a Constitutional Amendment to strip gay citizens of their 14th Amendment protections. I don't think this is going to happen any time soon.
2.4.2013 | 10:29pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Boo,
If you don’t think marriage is about procreation, you must think it’s about commitment. I criticized the commitment-is-the-basis-of-marriage view in my comments in Part II of this George Weigel series. I’d rather shoot myself than have to repeat it, but I do think it shows why procreation is the key to the existence of marriage.
Regarding your earlier comment, it’s trivially true that gays are part of civil society. My point was that by taking civil society as a subset of the private domain and government as a subset of the public domain, we get a totally, and surprisingly, different picture of the SSM debate.
The upshot of this different picture is that the government should not take the lead, when it comes to contestable rights, in changing society and its norms. The change should be from the bottom up, via the evolving consensus of civil society. That means changing the meaning of marriage, if at all, via the legislature rather than the judiciary, and in the structural “format” of federalism.
Except in matters of war and certain kinds of social infrastructure, where centralized government is theoretically best suited to seeing things correctly, the feds in particular should not get ahead of civil society. And if they do, they better have very good justification, which is lacking in this case.
As for your harm question, note that Communism didn’t end the barter economy--just as SSM won’t end traditional marriage--but Communism did harm society (in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc.) in many ways, to the shock and decades-long denial of progressives everywhere. Also, do you think voluntary brother-sister incest harms anyone? No, yet society rightly condemns it. The harm principle, in other words, is way overrated.
If you don’t think marriage is about procreation, you must think it’s about commitment. I criticized the commitment-is-the-basis-of-marriage view in my comments in Part II of this George Weigel series. I’d rather shoot myself than have to repeat it, but I do think it shows why procreation is the key to the existence of marriage.
Regarding your earlier comment, it’s trivially true that gays are part of civil society. My point was that by taking civil society as a subset of the private domain and government as a subset of the public domain, we get a totally, and surprisingly, different picture of the SSM debate.
The upshot of this different picture is that the government should not take the lead, when it comes to contestable rights, in changing society and its norms. The change should be from the bottom up, via the evolving consensus of civil society. That means changing the meaning of marriage, if at all, via the legislature rather than the judiciary, and in the structural “format” of federalism.
Except in matters of war and certain kinds of social infrastructure, where centralized government is theoretically best suited to seeing things correctly, the feds in particular should not get ahead of civil society. And if they do, they better have very good justification, which is lacking in this case.
As for your harm question, note that Communism didn’t end the barter economy--just as SSM won’t end traditional marriage--but Communism did harm society (in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc.) in many ways, to the shock and decades-long denial of progressives everywhere. Also, do you think voluntary brother-sister incest harms anyone? No, yet society rightly condemns it. The harm principle, in other words, is way overrated.
2.5.2013 | 12:35am
yan says:
Boo,
You can ban much porn. The government hasn't tried to enforce the laws on the books. Obscenity is not protected by the 1st amendment.
In regard to the 14th amendment, you assume legal conclusions which have not yet been ruled on yet.
Would you at least grant that there is a difference between demonizing gay people by condemning them for their inclinations on one hand, and condemning their actions on the other? I am only condemning their actions. If that suffices to demonize them, then anytime we condemn an act, we are demonizing all those that do the act.
I wouldn't even demonize a murderer; I know he is as human as I am. But I would condemn his action. Does that mean I demonize him?
I think you are using that word in order to prevent us from making moral judgments about actions which you think are amoral or even moral.v In doing so you are not even allowing for the purposes of discussion that there is a possibility that a moral position other than your own may be correct. [Or perhaps you just think that respect for human dignity requires that we not judge the morality of a homosexual act?]
I allow that your opinion may be based upon your best moral judgment. If you would kindly return the favor, we might get further in our discussion.
Peace brother.
You can ban much porn. The government hasn't tried to enforce the laws on the books. Obscenity is not protected by the 1st amendment.
In regard to the 14th amendment, you assume legal conclusions which have not yet been ruled on yet.
Would you at least grant that there is a difference between demonizing gay people by condemning them for their inclinations on one hand, and condemning their actions on the other? I am only condemning their actions. If that suffices to demonize them, then anytime we condemn an act, we are demonizing all those that do the act.
I wouldn't even demonize a murderer; I know he is as human as I am. But I would condemn his action. Does that mean I demonize him?
I think you are using that word in order to prevent us from making moral judgments about actions which you think are amoral or even moral.v In doing so you are not even allowing for the purposes of discussion that there is a possibility that a moral position other than your own may be correct. [Or perhaps you just think that respect for human dignity requires that we not judge the morality of a homosexual act?]
I allow that your opinion may be based upon your best moral judgment. If you would kindly return the favor, we might get further in our discussion.
Peace brother.
2.5.2013 | 12:45am
yan says:
Michael PS,
Marriage law that covers non-procreative marriage is not made unintelligible by asserting that the primary purpose of marriage is to support procreation. Just because the primary purpose of marriage is to support procreation doesn't mean there cannot also be other purposes for marriage. That doesn't make the asserted purpose of marriage any less primary.
In relation to gay marriage, that is precisely the argument being made by those in favor: marriage has purposes other than procreation. We all ought to be able to agree with that point.
Thus the argument against gay marriage cannot simply be to assert that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. There must be additional reasons other than that which would prevent gays from marrying.
But surely one FACTOR, and no doubt the most important factor, in determining whether a couple may marry is whether or not their sexual acts are in accord with the purpose of marriage. It is just not the only factor.
Marriage law that covers non-procreative marriage is not made unintelligible by asserting that the primary purpose of marriage is to support procreation. Just because the primary purpose of marriage is to support procreation doesn't mean there cannot also be other purposes for marriage. That doesn't make the asserted purpose of marriage any less primary.
In relation to gay marriage, that is precisely the argument being made by those in favor: marriage has purposes other than procreation. We all ought to be able to agree with that point.
Thus the argument against gay marriage cannot simply be to assert that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. There must be additional reasons other than that which would prevent gays from marrying.
But surely one FACTOR, and no doubt the most important factor, in determining whether a couple may marry is whether or not their sexual acts are in accord with the purpose of marriage. It is just not the only factor.
2.5.2013 | 10:00am
Boo says:
Yan- you claim not to be demonizing gay people, then turn around and compare gay people to murderers. And of course the moral claims of those who endorse wholesale discrimination against a group of people aren't correct. They never are. And can you cite where exactly in law it says that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage?
2.5.2013 | 10:05am
Boo says:
Ken- The government does not require proof of fertility to get a marriage license, and allows people we know cannot procreate, such as the elderly, to get married. Thus, marriage is not about procreation.
"Regarding your earlier comment, it’s trivially true that gays are part of civil society. My point was that by taking civil society as a subset of the private domain and government as a subset of the public domain, we get a totally, and surprisingly, different picture of the SSM debate. "
What different picture? Once again, you, like everyone else attempting to make this argument, merely asserts harm without demonstrating exactly how or why this alleged harm will occur. You're acting like South Park's Underpants Gnomes;
Step 1- Gay people get married
Step 2- ???
Step 3- Harm
"The upshot of this different picture is that the government should not take the lead, when it comes to contestable rights, in changing society and its norms. The change should be from the bottom up, via the evolving consensus of civil society. That means changing the meaning of marriage, if at all, via the legislature rather than the judiciary, and in the structural “format” of federalism."
This exact same argument was used to defend segregation. Why have Constitutionally guaranteed rights at all if they should never be enforced?
"Regarding your earlier comment, it’s trivially true that gays are part of civil society. My point was that by taking civil society as a subset of the private domain and government as a subset of the public domain, we get a totally, and surprisingly, different picture of the SSM debate. "
What different picture? Once again, you, like everyone else attempting to make this argument, merely asserts harm without demonstrating exactly how or why this alleged harm will occur. You're acting like South Park's Underpants Gnomes;
Step 1- Gay people get married
Step 2- ???
Step 3- Harm
"The upshot of this different picture is that the government should not take the lead, when it comes to contestable rights, in changing society and its norms. The change should be from the bottom up, via the evolving consensus of civil society. That means changing the meaning of marriage, if at all, via the legislature rather than the judiciary, and in the structural “format” of federalism."
This exact same argument was used to defend segregation. Why have Constitutionally guaranteed rights at all if they should never be enforced?
2.5.2013 | 3:59pm
yan says:
Boo,
We are discussing both law and reasons for policy. Just because something is not in the law, does not mean we cannot argue from reason that it ought to be policy.
To answer your question about law then, I refer you to the Supreme Court cases Meyers, Pierce, Skinner and even Loving to an extent, which relies on those cases in coming to its holding. Therein you will see clearly that the reasons why we recognize a constitutional right to marriage are intimately connected to the need to have stable families for the raising of children.
Furthermore the Court in those cases uses the same natural law language to support its reasoning for recognizing a right to marriage as we are using to argue that gays do NOT have a right to marry. We are not trying to import concepts into the law with which it is unfamiliar.
I did not compare gays to murderers. I said that I would not even demonize a murderer; therefore how much less would I demonize someone who is gay for being gay?
I understand your concern that, humanly speaking, society might tend to demonize a group which commits an illegal or immoral act, and so did Kennedy in Lawrence. But if we are concerned that making an act illegal demonizes the class of people that commit an act, and we don't want to demonize anyone, then the only solution is to have no criminal laws at all. But if we believe an act should be a crime, then we must endure the risk to the group that commits a crime that some people will demonize those that do the act.
We are discussing both law and reasons for policy. Just because something is not in the law, does not mean we cannot argue from reason that it ought to be policy.
To answer your question about law then, I refer you to the Supreme Court cases Meyers, Pierce, Skinner and even Loving to an extent, which relies on those cases in coming to its holding. Therein you will see clearly that the reasons why we recognize a constitutional right to marriage are intimately connected to the need to have stable families for the raising of children.
Furthermore the Court in those cases uses the same natural law language to support its reasoning for recognizing a right to marriage as we are using to argue that gays do NOT have a right to marry. We are not trying to import concepts into the law with which it is unfamiliar.
I did not compare gays to murderers. I said that I would not even demonize a murderer; therefore how much less would I demonize someone who is gay for being gay?
I understand your concern that, humanly speaking, society might tend to demonize a group which commits an illegal or immoral act, and so did Kennedy in Lawrence. But if we are concerned that making an act illegal demonizes the class of people that commit an act, and we don't want to demonize anyone, then the only solution is to have no criminal laws at all. But if we believe an act should be a crime, then we must endure the risk to the group that commits a crime that some people will demonize those that do the act.
2.5.2013 | 4:58pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Boo,
Over the last two years here, I've explained ad nauseam why the so-called sterility objection to traditional marriage fails. I’m sorry you missed it.
I meant the “different picture” of the SSM debate provided by the civil society/government distinction as opposed to the broader (and more liberalism-manipulable) private/public distinction. (By liberalism-manipulable I mean "works to the advantage of SSM, however sneakily.") I will try to post a longer comment on this tonight.
Harm is not the sole indicator of right policy. If SSM is incoherent or inadequate as a conception of marriage, the harm issue is completely irrelevant (unless, of course, it is traditional marriage that causes the harm). I notice you didn't address my point about the "harm" of (morally odious) voluntary brother-sister incest. Reductio ad absurdum was what I was getting at.
Anyway, I would argue that SSM constitutes a per se harm to the institution of marriage. My comments in a nearby post concerning the inadequacy of the commitment criterion show that SSM totally undermines society’s privileging of marriage over cohabitation. When marriage is effectively dragged down to the level of cohabitation, you have a per se harm.
Ahhh, something I know firsthand, at least professionally . . . segregation. (I worked in the Civil Rights Division during the Reagan Administration.) Well, *Brown* was a unanimous decision and urged "all deliberate speed." That spoke to social consensus. Civil society started evolving in a serious way during under Eisenhower. The Court followed a clearly emerging and rational moral consensus. Federalism was important, but it was only a political issue, not moral.
A pro-SSM decision by the Court would be like *Roe* and not at all like *Brown*. Also, *Loving* assumes sexual complementarity, while SSM disregards or distorts it. That’s a big difference.
Over the last two years here, I've explained ad nauseam why the so-called sterility objection to traditional marriage fails. I’m sorry you missed it.
I meant the “different picture” of the SSM debate provided by the civil society/government distinction as opposed to the broader (and more liberalism-manipulable) private/public distinction. (By liberalism-manipulable I mean "works to the advantage of SSM, however sneakily.") I will try to post a longer comment on this tonight.
Harm is not the sole indicator of right policy. If SSM is incoherent or inadequate as a conception of marriage, the harm issue is completely irrelevant (unless, of course, it is traditional marriage that causes the harm). I notice you didn't address my point about the "harm" of (morally odious) voluntary brother-sister incest. Reductio ad absurdum was what I was getting at.
Anyway, I would argue that SSM constitutes a per se harm to the institution of marriage. My comments in a nearby post concerning the inadequacy of the commitment criterion show that SSM totally undermines society’s privileging of marriage over cohabitation. When marriage is effectively dragged down to the level of cohabitation, you have a per se harm.
Ahhh, something I know firsthand, at least professionally . . . segregation. (I worked in the Civil Rights Division during the Reagan Administration.) Well, *Brown* was a unanimous decision and urged "all deliberate speed." That spoke to social consensus. Civil society started evolving in a serious way during under Eisenhower. The Court followed a clearly emerging and rational moral consensus. Federalism was important, but it was only a political issue, not moral.
A pro-SSM decision by the Court would be like *Roe* and not at all like *Brown*. Also, *Loving* assumes sexual complementarity, while SSM disregards or distorts it. That’s a big difference.
2.5.2013 | 11:41pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
I’ve basically been suggesting a way of defanging liberal neutralism--the belief that the right is prior to the good--because that belief makes it harder to defend traditional marriage, which rightly is based on the good rather than on rights.
Liberal neutralism in effect diminishes civil society in its tug of war with government. (Roe v. Wade’s the poster child.) Government, the arbiter of the public domain, is being enabled by liberals to disregard or trivialize the natural authority of civil society, an authority often manifested as tradition.
Liberals bowdlerize the interdependent and overlapping private/public domains to reinforce the right-is-prior-to-the-good way of thinking, in which government freely dictates the terms of constitutional “truth” to civil society. Apparently, we must humbly allow ourselves to be blessed by whatever is flung from the brow of Jove.
Look no further than the first comment in this thread for a sophisticated stealthy attempt to justify this procedure.
If this conflict is viewed through the private/public distinction as such, we might miss the way the game is rigged. Suppose we debunk liberal mythologizing about the private/public distinction by focusing on the civil society/government distinction. Then “soft” tyranny can more easily be seen for what it is--an unjustified intrusion on civil society by government, as endorsed by liberals who think the job of government is to reinforce the right (individual rights) and keep the good out of the public domain as far as possible. (The “as far as possible,” by the way, is what the church-state battles are often about.)
Liberals are saying to civil society (as the counterpoise to governmental power): Heads we win, tails you lose. The bowdlerization of the private/public distinction is how liberals perform this very neat trick.
Liberal neutralism in effect diminishes civil society in its tug of war with government. (Roe v. Wade’s the poster child.) Government, the arbiter of the public domain, is being enabled by liberals to disregard or trivialize the natural authority of civil society, an authority often manifested as tradition.
Liberals bowdlerize the interdependent and overlapping private/public domains to reinforce the right-is-prior-to-the-good way of thinking, in which government freely dictates the terms of constitutional “truth” to civil society. Apparently, we must humbly allow ourselves to be blessed by whatever is flung from the brow of Jove.
Look no further than the first comment in this thread for a sophisticated stealthy attempt to justify this procedure.
If this conflict is viewed through the private/public distinction as such, we might miss the way the game is rigged. Suppose we debunk liberal mythologizing about the private/public distinction by focusing on the civil society/government distinction. Then “soft” tyranny can more easily be seen for what it is--an unjustified intrusion on civil society by government, as endorsed by liberals who think the job of government is to reinforce the right (individual rights) and keep the good out of the public domain as far as possible. (The “as far as possible,” by the way, is what the church-state battles are often about.)
Liberals are saying to civil society (as the counterpoise to governmental power): Heads we win, tails you lose. The bowdlerization of the private/public distinction is how liberals perform this very neat trick.
2.6.2013 | 1:18pm
Boo says:
"To answer your question about law then, I refer you to the Supreme Court cases Meyers, Pierce, Skinner and even Loving to an extent, which relies on those cases in coming to its holding. Therein you will see clearly that the reasons why we recognize a constitutional right to marriage are intimately connected to the need to have stable families for the raising of children."
Then you should support marriage equality for the stabilizing effects it will have on gay couples who raise children.
"I did not compare gays to murderers"
Yes, you did.
"I understand your concern that, humanly speaking, society might tend to demonize a group which commits an illegal or immoral act, and so did Kennedy in Lawrence"
That's actually the opposite of my concern. It is the demonization which is the basis for the outlawing, not the outlawing which leads to demonization.
Then you should support marriage equality for the stabilizing effects it will have on gay couples who raise children.
"I did not compare gays to murderers"
Yes, you did.
"I understand your concern that, humanly speaking, society might tend to demonize a group which commits an illegal or immoral act, and so did Kennedy in Lawrence"
That's actually the opposite of my concern. It is the demonization which is the basis for the outlawing, not the outlawing which leads to demonization.
2.6.2013 | 1:32pm
Boo says:
Ken- "I’ve basically been suggesting a way of defanging liberal neutralism--the belief that the right is prior to the good--because that belief makes it harder to defend traditional marriage, which rightly is based on the good rather than on rights."
Except that the reason we've seen a steady increase in support for gay rights over time, which, you seem to keep forgetting, is now the majority position, is that people have seen the good.
Except that the reason we've seen a steady increase in support for gay rights over time, which, you seem to keep forgetting, is now the majority position, is that people have seen the good.
2.6.2013 | 4:43pm
yan says:
"Then you should support marriage equality for the stabilizing effects it will have on gay couples who raise children."
I take it you did not read the cases I cited? If not, I cannot take you seriously.
"That's actually the opposite of my concern. It is the demonization which is the basis for the outlawing, not the outlawing which leads to demonization."
That's not true either as a matter of history or as a matter of fact today. Previously, sodomy was outlawed for everyone, gay or straight. Homosexuals are not the sole members of the class of people that can commit sodomy.
Homosexuality is only aggravated sodomy. It is aggravated by the fact that not only is the act unnatural, but it is done with a person not suited for complementary sex acts of a licit kind at all. Thus, the law was right to proscribe it.
The fact that the law allows it today for practical and dignitary reasons does not nullify the rationale that existed for proscribing the act previously. Because 6 Justices say a reason isn't good enough does not alter the objective argument of reason; it only takes away the legal effect of the reason. The reason still exists, is valid, and will continue to be argued, no matter how many Justices or Bishops or even if the Pope himself were to take your side.
Because you cannot argue with the reason, you rely on the law, just as Ken Z is saying.
Your concern is the opposite of mine because your analysis is the opposite of mine. The history of the law shows you are wrong. By this wrongheaded analysis and other things you have written, you are evincing a persecution complex.
I take it you did not read the cases I cited? If not, I cannot take you seriously.
"That's actually the opposite of my concern. It is the demonization which is the basis for the outlawing, not the outlawing which leads to demonization."
That's not true either as a matter of history or as a matter of fact today. Previously, sodomy was outlawed for everyone, gay or straight. Homosexuals are not the sole members of the class of people that can commit sodomy.
Homosexuality is only aggravated sodomy. It is aggravated by the fact that not only is the act unnatural, but it is done with a person not suited for complementary sex acts of a licit kind at all. Thus, the law was right to proscribe it.
The fact that the law allows it today for practical and dignitary reasons does not nullify the rationale that existed for proscribing the act previously. Because 6 Justices say a reason isn't good enough does not alter the objective argument of reason; it only takes away the legal effect of the reason. The reason still exists, is valid, and will continue to be argued, no matter how many Justices or Bishops or even if the Pope himself were to take your side.
Because you cannot argue with the reason, you rely on the law, just as Ken Z is saying.
Your concern is the opposite of mine because your analysis is the opposite of mine. The history of the law shows you are wrong. By this wrongheaded analysis and other things you have written, you are evincing a persecution complex.
2.6.2013 | 7:28pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Boo,
The facts about complementarity must be refuted before we can objectively--without self-deception--conclude that homosexual sex is a good. I am convinced that no such refutation will be forthcoming.
And what majority are you referring to? Did the pollsters specifically say, "Do you believe homosexual sex is as morally valid as heterosexual sex?" Probably not. I imagine they posed some version of this anodyne question: "Should gays have rights equal to everyone else's?" Who knows what that means?
The facts about complementarity must be refuted before we can objectively--without self-deception--conclude that homosexual sex is a good. I am convinced that no such refutation will be forthcoming.
And what majority are you referring to? Did the pollsters specifically say, "Do you believe homosexual sex is as morally valid as heterosexual sex?" Probably not. I imagine they posed some version of this anodyne question: "Should gays have rights equal to everyone else's?" Who knows what that means?
2.7.2013 | 2:39pm
Boo says:
Ken- gay men find their complementarity in other men. Gay men find their complementarity in other women. Refutation provided.
"And what majority are you referring to? Did the pollsters specifically say, "Do you believe homosexual sex is as morally valid as heterosexual sex?" Probably not."
Actually, Gallup did indeed ask that question as far back as 2010, and found a majority saying yes. I am also referring to the polling which is now consistently showing support for equal marriage rights crossing the 50% threshold, which was reflected in 4 for 4 ballot wins in November (5 for 5 if you count the attempted recall in Iowa)
And we don't let brothers marry sisters because of genetics.
"And what majority are you referring to? Did the pollsters specifically say, "Do you believe homosexual sex is as morally valid as heterosexual sex?" Probably not."
Actually, Gallup did indeed ask that question as far back as 2010, and found a majority saying yes. I am also referring to the polling which is now consistently showing support for equal marriage rights crossing the 50% threshold, which was reflected in 4 for 4 ballot wins in November (5 for 5 if you count the attempted recall in Iowa)
And we don't let brothers marry sisters because of genetics.
2.7.2013 | 4:47pm
Ken Zaretzke says:
Boo,
Complementarity either includes physiological unity along with emotional unity, or it does not. If it does not, what is the "sign" of unitive sex between same-sex partners? There's no bodily unity there *unless* you define bodily unity as mere sexual contact, however emotionally meaningful. As such, isn't there a debased idea of sex at the heart of SSM?
Iowa so far is the only non-liberal state to accept SSM by a vote of the people--and that was only because the liberal-leaning Iowa Supreme Court basically mandated that outcome.
SSM causes per se harm to the institution of marriage. It reduces marriage to cohabitation by replacing commitment-in-light-of procreation with commitment-in-lieu-of-procreation. Incoherence and per se harm are the unfortunate consequences.
Complementarity either includes physiological unity along with emotional unity, or it does not. If it does not, what is the "sign" of unitive sex between same-sex partners? There's no bodily unity there *unless* you define bodily unity as mere sexual contact, however emotionally meaningful. As such, isn't there a debased idea of sex at the heart of SSM?
Iowa so far is the only non-liberal state to accept SSM by a vote of the people--and that was only because the liberal-leaning Iowa Supreme Court basically mandated that outcome.
SSM causes per se harm to the institution of marriage. It reduces marriage to cohabitation by replacing commitment-in-light-of procreation with commitment-in-lieu-of-procreation. Incoherence and per se harm are the unfortunate consequences.
2.8.2013 | 7:31am
Boo says:
Ken- what is "debased" about sex per se? You arecertainly free to have that opinion, but why should the law enforce your opinion?
"Iowa so far is the only non-liberal state to accept SSM by a vote of the people--and that was only because the liberal-leaning Iowa Supreme Court basically mandated that outcome."
You side won the earlier votes because you had a majority. However, equality has been on a fairly steady upward tic for several years now, and has actually accelerated. It is now the majority opinion, which means now we are winning the votes. Your position may be able to hold out longer in red states, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't simply invoke the 14th Amendment and settle it once and for all, but the trend to greater acceptance of equal rights for gay people shows no signs of abating. One barrier after another has fallen, and there is no reason to think the marriage fight will end any differently.
"SSM causes per se harm to the institution of marriage. It reduces marriage to cohabitation by replacing commitment-in-light-of procreation with commitment-in-lieu-of-procreation. Incoherence and per se harm are the unfortunate consequences."
Once again, this is also an argument against marriage for infertile heterosexuals. Binding couples together is good for society (and the couples themselves) whether or not they have children. Your assertion of harm is still merely that I'm afraid, ans assertion.
"Iowa so far is the only non-liberal state to accept SSM by a vote of the people--and that was only because the liberal-leaning Iowa Supreme Court basically mandated that outcome."
You side won the earlier votes because you had a majority. However, equality has been on a fairly steady upward tic for several years now, and has actually accelerated. It is now the majority opinion, which means now we are winning the votes. Your position may be able to hold out longer in red states, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't simply invoke the 14th Amendment and settle it once and for all, but the trend to greater acceptance of equal rights for gay people shows no signs of abating. One barrier after another has fallen, and there is no reason to think the marriage fight will end any differently.
"SSM causes per se harm to the institution of marriage. It reduces marriage to cohabitation by replacing commitment-in-light-of procreation with commitment-in-lieu-of-procreation. Incoherence and per se harm are the unfortunate consequences."
Once again, this is also an argument against marriage for infertile heterosexuals. Binding couples together is good for society (and the couples themselves) whether or not they have children. Your assertion of harm is still merely that I'm afraid, ans assertion.
4.21.2013 | 1:36pm
Margaret says:
This is not an argument about Equality.
This is an attack on traditional religion by Radical Secular Humanists by cleverly positioning traditional religion as the author of the definition of marriage.
That is a false argument from inductive reasoning.
All of man's laws, societal structures and principles of a civil society are reflective of self-evident truths and religions that reflect those truths share in what man recognizes as a rational reality. Our laws are based on experience, history, philosophy--all of which bring us to realize self-evident truth exists outside our opinion--like the laws of gravity.
Marriage existed before organized religion and government.
The judgment being made in the SSM argument is meant to pit traditional religion against secular humanism to make the case that Marriage is only defined by traditional religion and because the government supports that, it is supporting the establishment of those religious tenets against the religious tenets of secular humanism and that is how they set up the discrimination argument--it's all very deceptive. Pure Sophistry.
Secular humanism denies that self-evident truths exists and that is why its tenets are not reflected in our laws; not because of discrimination--but because they are irrational. Its ever "EVOLVING" tenets make it impossible to be included in law as it has no basis in reality for its belief system.
The answer to the argument is simple: Secular Humanism is excluded from the establishment of religion clause. It has run rampant because of that exclusion.
Harness it to the establishment clause; throw out the SSM straw man argument that religion defined Marriage; let the people's vote stand in California; DOMa stands as it too is not based on a religious definition, but on the efinitions of thousands of years and of civil society.
This is an attack on traditional religion by Radical Secular Humanists by cleverly positioning traditional religion as the author of the definition of marriage.
That is a false argument from inductive reasoning.
All of man's laws, societal structures and principles of a civil society are reflective of self-evident truths and religions that reflect those truths share in what man recognizes as a rational reality. Our laws are based on experience, history, philosophy--all of which bring us to realize self-evident truth exists outside our opinion--like the laws of gravity.
Marriage existed before organized religion and government.
The judgment being made in the SSM argument is meant to pit traditional religion against secular humanism to make the case that Marriage is only defined by traditional religion and because the government supports that, it is supporting the establishment of those religious tenets against the religious tenets of secular humanism and that is how they set up the discrimination argument--it's all very deceptive. Pure Sophistry.
Secular humanism denies that self-evident truths exists and that is why its tenets are not reflected in our laws; not because of discrimination--but because they are irrational. Its ever "EVOLVING" tenets make it impossible to be included in law as it has no basis in reality for its belief system.
The answer to the argument is simple: Secular Humanism is excluded from the establishment of religion clause. It has run rampant because of that exclusion.
Harness it to the establishment clause; throw out the SSM straw man argument that religion defined Marriage; let the people's vote stand in California; DOMa stands as it too is not based on a religious definition, but on the efinitions of thousands of years and of civil society.
I should add that Weigel goes on to discuss the Pope's outstanding questions about the nature of children and their role and protection in society. These are extremely important issues and should be vigorously discussed. However, we should not fall into the trap of hanging the 'blame' for societal challenges on one group, behavior, political philosophy or ethical tradition. There is no compelling proof that I am aware of that all social problems are clearly solved when one specific tradition is followed, or that they are all created or exacerbated when another tradition is followed. All traditions -- human and divine -- are subject to the strange, often cruel and undoubtedly confusing realities of actual life. What one day appears to be the 'silver bullet' solution to a social problem becomes next day's root cause of a different failure. I am not arguing this as a relativist (as I am not a relativist), but I am arguing it as a realist.