Historically marriage has been a dynamic institution, evolving from little more than polygamous chattel slavery to its current form as monogamous equal partnership. Yet throughout its evolution there has remained one constant – procreation. Though there have always been couples who could not procreate and though there are today still couples who can not and those whom choose not to, the primary purpose for marriage has always been to facilitate and create family.
In all of Western history, societies such as the Greeks and to a lesser extant the Romans, which took no umbrage with homosexuality, never thought to skew the focus of marriage. That lovers of the same sex did exist was not an issue. In fact it was a point that was at times both celebrated and taken advantage of. The Theban Sacred Band, an elite Greek military unit, was composed entirely of older men and their younger male lovers – the rational being that couples would fight more effectively if their lovers’ life were also at stake.
Today the gay community argues that marriage should evolve not merely its form but its focus. That two same sex members of the species can and do have relations is perfectly normal. The canard that homosexuality is unnatural is false. Many animal species, including hyenas, dolphins, and bonobos (a relation of the chimp) engage in homosexuality and in none are the homosexual pairings life long family raising units. This is not to say that homosexuality has no utility, but in pairing animals, for the purpose of procreation and family it does not exist.
Directly related to the nature argument is the legal-philosophical one. The American legal system is rooted in the natural law tradition. Unlike the positive law tradition, which holds that rights are privileges doled out to certain groups and or individuals by the state, our tradition holds that laws are moral constants that through reason and observation can be elicited from the natural world.
Natural law theory led our founding fathers to “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Our liberties are unalienable – meaning they can not be removed and inherently individually based. In the past it was asserted that African-Americans and women were inferior, that they didn’t desire political enfranchisement, and that as a group they could not handle it properly. These assertions were obviously incorrect and based on a group understanding of rights. The Civil Rights and women’s suffrage movements were firmly rooted in the natural law tradition arguing that the natural and inherent rights of the individual, be they an African-American or a woman, were being unjustly deprived based on positive law styled group assumptions. Their arguments were posited on an understanding of rights as relating to the individual. The case for gay marriage is against not only the natural law underpinning of our legal system but the very notion of individual rights. Whereas the Civil Rights and Women’s Suffrage movements argued against a communitarian view – a view which posited that these groups of citizens were different and should be seen as members of a separate class and not individuals, thus having a different relationship with the state – the case for gay marriage is the inverse.
Rather than have the state relate to a citizen as an individual, with the corresponding obligations and responsibilities, the gay lobby would have the state relate to certain citizens as members of a group accorded something the state has never accorded any other – collective rights. Whereas the African-Americans and women were seeking recognition of their inherent individual liberties the crusade for gay marriage is an attempt to create recognition of a collective “right”.
The current push to redefine marriage is both out of synch with its historical purpose and a danger to our freedoms and liberties. Marriage has evolved in form throughout the centuries but not in function. Whilst many children are born outside of it, as an institution it has always been about reproduction, a function impossible in a gay relationship. Moreover and more importantly, redefining marriage will erode the notion of individual liberties by enfranchising a group intermediary between the state and the individual. This creates an anti-democratic filter between the citizen and government and is antithetical to the natural law tradition which is the foundation for our individual liberties.
You can rationalize all you want, but its still a matter for two individuals, regardless of gender, as to who they would like to marry. Since it doesn't involve you, it should not involve the state either. Is that not a tennant of conservatism? To leave the state out of your business? Only when its convenient, I guess.
So marriage between any two individual is acceptable? What about polygamous marriages? Why should the state be involved in telling people how many people they can marry when it doesn't involve me or the state?
The argument that government shouldn't be in the business of legislating or legitimizing morality is a strong one. But it's undone when you posit a system where you then regulate too only two people the very institution you are arguing should be deregulated.
There are many types of conservativism, I may not subscribe even in part to some of them but that doesn't mean I want to chase them out of our big tent. You, however would seem to be positing that its better to be pure and in minority than multifaceted and in the majority – a loosing electoral strategy if ever there was one.
Either get the government out of marriage entirely or pass a federal constitutional amendment. Anything else is only going to make matters worse.
Trying to draw a parallel between polygamy and Same-Sex marriage is going to get you as far as Santorum in New Hampshire. What freedoms and liberties exactly are at danger other then the freedom to legislate persecution of the gays?
Josh, I must respectfully disagree. The purpose of marriage historically has not been procreation. The purpose is promoting stability. These two concepts are no doubt interlinked, however they are ultimately separate. Marriage, when love is it's root, is a societal good. The tying of fortunes between too people who genuinely want to care for one another helps mitigates the risk of society in a decided conservative manner. Marriage is one of the strongest cultural forces keeping people off welfare roles. If a married individual gets loses their job or otherwise becomes ill, there spouse is there to support them and aid their recovery. No need for the state to get involved. While I don't have the numbers on me now, a child with a two PARENT household is very very less likely to need state support. This is not the result of mystical heterosexual abilities, but rather the result of either two income earners or one income earner with and a parent dedicated to child rearing. Frankly gay adoption could be one of the most profound societal goods of the next century. Two people in a loving relationship with the proper indicators to raise a family(its adoption so their vetted competent) taking children from a costly, inefficient, and broken state system can do a world of good no government grant can. We conservatives need remember that the family is the social good, not its makeup.
Quite possibly some of the most convoluted logic I've ever read. So in other words, we shouldn't allow something because past societies and governments didn't? Interracial marriage was illegal for over 300 years dating back to colonial times when the first ban was passed in Maryland in 1664 until it was finally deemed unconstitutional in 1967 by the US Supreme Court. Do you disagree with that decision?
Furthermore, how is allowing gays to marry a threat to our freedom, liberty or way of life? Whenever I hear this argument made, I never hear a rational explanation for it. Nobody ever cites statistics to back this claim up. Only that, "It makes god really, really angry.
So I ask you, Joshua, what is your proof that gay marriage is such a threat to freedom and liberty?
The danger isn't gay marriage itself but rather the legal-philosophical approach the gay lobby is using to achieve its ends. Were the gay lobby to take up the small government track I would take no umbrage with it. Marriage is a religious institution and as such the state should have no role regulating whether a marriage officiated in/by a liberal shul or church is legit. However, the legal tactic the gay lobby is one of expanding government and begins a path where the state has relations with groups not individuals.
You are wrong again…marriage is not just a religious institution, it is also a civil institution, and you can be married, legally, by a justice of the peace, a Mayor and even a captain on a ship. It should have nothing to do with religion. Face it, you are reading right out of the republican playbook that all of the others read from. You're scared for who know's why that gays will be accorded the same rights as heterosexuals. Your arguments are wrong and its just that you don't like it. You can admit it without trying to justify your position with twisted logic.
I have no problem with any group of people sanctifying their relationship in any way they want. I take no umbrage with gay marriage or adoption. You are either playing the part of the pedantic plebeian exceptionally well or aren't playing. As a point of fact, you were responding to a post in which I stated "the state should have no role regulating whether a marriage officiated in/by a liberal shul or church is legit." This clearly means if a liberal church or shul wants to do a marriage of gays I have no problem with it. As secularist I am confronted with the world as it is, not as I would will it to be. Historically marriage is a religious institution, it wasn't until recently, a historical blink of the eye, that non-religious ceremonies were used as weddings. "It should have nothing to do with religion" but it has, its does, and it is better to acquaint oneself with the world as it is than live in fantasy.
However, since you seem rather set on being abrasively petulant in what, one can only surmise, you deem a pithy critique, I am obligated to point out that my gay friends and acquaintances are immeasurable more rational than the straight liberal defenders of the current high ended effort to redefine marriage. Perhaps its living in a marginalized community which has made them understand intellectualism, vocabulary, and nuance. Nonetheless I very much suggest reading the piece and the subsequent posts again, looking up natural law, positive law, staying abreast of the efforts to legally redefine marriage and the counter attempts to do the inverse, and small government. There are great listings on wikipedia that would be a good start and it might elevate your "argument" from one of j'accuse and cat calls to something substantive (however unlikely.
Wonderful discussion, thanks so much!
Good write-up. I definitely appreciate this site.
Stick with it!
Spot on with this write-up, I truly believe this website needs a lot more attention. I’ll
probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the advice!