February 24, 2007

Marriage & Family

Sympathy for the Opposition, Respect for Its Rights

Justin Katz

Reacting to a comment of mine (in the conversation appended to a previous post) concerning the inevitable collision of the gay rights movement with certain fundamental freedoms, such as that of religion, Matt, of Unlikely Words, posting as MRH, writes:

Two very interesting cases. I'm going to have to think about my response a bit. I think your hypothetical invitation company ought to be free to refuse any customer they want, and I'll have to think a bit more about the Christian adoption agency.

In my view, these are two examples of groups that are indefensibly discriminating against homosexuals. From my own personal moral point of view, I have no sympathy for them if, in a hypothetical world where two men can get married, they are barred from such discrimination. In general, my sympathies attach more strongly to the victims of discrimination than to agents of discrimination. As a matter of law and policy, however, it's a bit more complicated, and I need to mull it over a bit.

My first response — said, given my appreciation for Matt's cordiality, with no intended slight — is: What a strange thing for the ostensible champion of liberty and tolerance in this exchange to say! I certainly have sympathy for those who desire same-sex marriage. I think they're wrong, and I think the factors that lead them to their conclusions are ultimately detrimental to them and to society, but I can assure readers that you would find me neither gloating nor joining any spontaneous parades were the traditional definition of marriage to be affirmed with the maximum solidity available in law. Above most issues, matters of love and family affect people very personally — and are bound up with their visions for the future — and for me to have a lack of sympathy for those whose conclusions I oppose would require me to believe that they are all lying about their motives and are, in fact, consciously striving for the downfall of our society. It is disheartening to think that the courteous and discoursive MRH might believe something equivalent from the other side.

My response to the expression of sympathy for "the victims of discrimination," rather than "agents of discrimination," is to wonder whether Matt's sympathies are applied on the basis of individual cases or he's speaking of victims and agents as class distinctions. If the former, one would expect his sympathies to cycle: The Catholics who are rebuffed for discriminating against homosexuals for purposes of adoption (to keep with the prior example) are, in turn, being discriminated against by the government in relation to the their ability to take private initiative in keeping with their beliefs about the most beneficial homes for children. If the latter, the application of sympathy — presumptuous in its assignment of roles — amounts to declaring a moral preference for homosexuals versus traditional Christians.

Either way, it oughtn't take but so much intellectual distance to realize that the struggle isn't between religious dogma and objective civil rights, but between two competing ideological worldviews with different understandings of what marriage, in its essence, is:

  • On one side is the romantic vision of two people drawn together by love and a desire for each other's intimate, usually sexual, company. (I've felt there to be evidence of this ethereal romanticism in the incredulity with which some proponents of same-sex marriage react to suggestions that polygamy could follow in the redefinition of allowable "soul mates.") Clearly, if this is the vision of marriage that one holds, and if one believes that homosexuals really do have these feelings in equal capacity to heterosexuals, then it is nothing other than invidious discrimination to deny them equal rights.
  • The other side incorporates a healthy dose of this romantic vision, but it is sublimated to the utility of marriage to bind the genders in biologically affirmed union and to tie generations in an historical thread of ancestry and progeny, often with religious underpinnings. If this is the vision of marriage that one holds, then homosexual relationships, whether they inspire approval or disapprobation, are simply not marriage, and to redefine marriage to include them would inevitably erode the institution's utility.

Understanding that a critical component of our argument is our claim to a right — through the democratic process — to help to determine marriage law, many who oppose same-sex marriage have striven to express our views in ways that discard diversions and murkiness. That our position remains inexplicable to many on the other side strikes me as an indication that they lack either the sympathy and tolerance to think through foreign arguments or the respect to make the effort.

6:00 AM
Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Ok, that's a lot of words. I'll respond in kind over at my place.

Thanks!

Posted by: mrh at February 24, 2007 10:39 AM

My view is that those who criticize the religious right for "imposing morality" seem to possess an imposing morality of their own. Further, I would submit that the mere fact that there seems to be opposing moralities raises the higher question: where does morality come from, and if from a Source, is there a true and universal Morality? If so, what does it say to this issue? If morality is NOT universal, then my right to mistreat innocence is equal to some else's mannerly behavior, which is absurd. I.e., morality must be rooted an a Universal truth.

C. S. Lewis said the thief is a hippocrate who says there is no moral law against thievery, yet he abides by the universal value in the diamond jewelry he steals.

If it is moral to treat people with respect, that same morality must require an order in the universe. That order may not justify homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage. And to those who say it may, I ask, then, where does the average so and so conjure up his or her morality? Is it ones own or is it a universal one established over ages? If it is ones own, morality is a free for all, and we fall into chaos. But if there is a universal right and wrong, then we will discover wrong behaviors and disorders, which others will opine are not wrong - just like on this issue.

Posted by: Chuck at February 24, 2007 10:50 AM

Chuck, you seem to be taking a very black-and-white position on this by saying that morality is determined either by the individual or by a divine Source.

Isn't it possible that morality is a set of values shaped by individuals working as actors within society?

Individuals may base their morals on those of a divine Source they believe in, and thus influence society with their divinely-inspired values. But it is people, not divinity, that determines what a society believes.

If morality is set by the society, then it is entirely possible for it to change over time without falling into chaos. See: slavery, women, gays, and abortion. Also note that society's moral drift is not always left-leaning...the Victorian era is an excellent example.

Posted by: Jack at February 25, 2007 4:03 AM

Justin,

My response is (at last) available here.

(The site's been a bit slow today; hopefully that will work itself out.)

Posted by: mrh at February 25, 2007 6:01 PM

The SSM advocates need to explain why marriage is best merged with their idealization of the homosexual relationship. Such a merger demotes marriage from a preferential status to one that is merely protected along with other nonmarital arrangements. In fact, given the SSM rhetoric, the unin of husband and wife (i.e. the conjugal relationship) is mocked and scorned and treated with grudging tolerance.

I don't think they actually comprehend that they seek to replace marriage recognition with something else produced by such a merger. They call for protection of the single sex relationship but reject that the new relationship status be "extended" to nonsexualized relationships. They presume that it is the homosexualized relationship that should dictate the status. This reduces the utility even before it is enacted.

Treating all conjugal relationships as if they were homosexual relationships would indeed diminish the utility of marital status in public policy. Treating all single-sex relationships the same would have greater utility than giving special status to the homosexualized relationship only.

On the other hand, the merger of nonmarriage and marriage would relocate the preferential status away from the core of marriage to the sidelines. It would no longer bound marriage recognition by what marriage is, but rather by what the single sex relationship is. And that, according to the SSM advocates, is a sexualized relationship - presumptively - but is essential a mutual caring arrangement. It remains unclear how they would draw the line anew to bar most other nonmarital arrangements currently prohibited from marital status.

SSM advocates usually say that their opinion is superior because it is based on the core of marriage, according to their own idealization, not of marriage, but of same-sex sexual union. They seek not to redefine marriage, per se, but to impose their own template for adult relationships.

Yet, there is no good reason for the merger that has been put forth by those advocates. Rather, they depend entirely on enshrining their axiomatic declaration that to disagree with them is to be bigotted. All of of their false claims of equivalency flow from that.

There is no human right to marry or to marital status. A legal right within marriage recognition, yes, based on what marriage actually is. But there is no right that one's nonmarrital relationship be treated as if it was a conjugal relationship.

When someone chooses to form a nonmarital alternative relationship, that is a liberty exercised and not a right denied.

Posted by: F. Rottles at March 5, 2007 10:52 AM