-
Touré’s God and Mine
January 28, 2013 | 20 comments
-
Louie, Louie, Oh No
January 18, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Have you ever felt like you were having one conversation while the person you were talking to is having a different one? If you’re married, the answer is probably yes. So it is with the debate in America over the meaning and purpose of marriage. Conservatives think they are in a boxing match; liberals understand that marriage policy is a beauty pageant.
In their new book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George expand on the argument that first appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy in 2011. The book is a smart move, signaling an important recognition: most of us don’t read the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. The argument is too important to merely pinball around the Ivy League, and the book expands the argument while making it easier to understand and more accessible to average readers. What is Marriage is required reading for serious thinkers in public policy, philosophy, ethics, ministry and the law.
What is Marriage is what’s called a “natural law” argument. It makes no claim about the morality of homosexuality. It doesn’t have to. The authors explain that marriage is something and that something simply can’t be changed without fundamentally altering the nature of things. It’s like this: We all remember the atomic structure of water (H2O). If ones adds a third hydrogen atom, it ceases to be water. That reality requires no judgment about the morality of Hydronium (H3O). It’s the way things are. Marriage too has an innate, natural essence; hence, the relevance of “natural law.”
George is one of America’s most formidable conservative thinkers. You may not know it, but if you’re a conservative in America today you have been influenced by and benefitted from his work, which ranges from legal theory to bioethics and foreign policy. George holds a prestigious chair at Princeton University, with academic posts at Stanford and Harvard along with innumerable positions on boards and commissions, including the American Enterprise Institute. Not convinced? How about this: Ted Cruz, the newest senator from Texas, studied under Robby George.
His co-authors are two of his students, and they aren’t exactly slouches either, unless you consider winning a Rhodes Scholarship and then simultaneously pursuing a Ph.D from Princeton and J.D. from Yale lazy. That’s Girgis. Ryan Anderson is the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and Free Society at the Heritage Foundation, the editor of the online journal Public Discourse, and a Ph.D candidate at Notre Dame. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because he has written for everyone, including First Things, National Review, the Weekly Standard and Christianity Today.
It is difficult to estimate the importance of a book like What is Marriage. It takes time for ideas to take root and flower. Someday, it is my hope that we will look back at the history of marriage in America and see that What is Marriage provided the intellectual foundation for a generation of policymakers, pastors and parents who kept America’s family policy on course when it was in deep danger of running into the ditch. Girgis, Anderson, and George filed an amicus brief based on the book in the upcoming Supreme Court cases on Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. If just five members of the Court are persuaded, that’s a mighty contribution.
One thing does seem clear at this point: What is Marriage has had little influence in the populist movement for gay marriage. While their natural law argument has been taken on by a handful of academic elites and been debated on the college circuit, a survey of gay rights blogs shows little engagement with the ideas. Girgis, Anderson, and George are ignored by the gay rights movement – not because the arguments deserve to be ignored – but because the gay marriage movement will brook no real discussion of this issue. These authors challenge the narrative of traditional marriage supporters as bigots and idiots. Why should the activists enter a debate with three formidable intellectuals when they seem to be winning by simply invoking words like “justice” and “equality?”
Proponents of traditional marriage must realize that we are not engaged in an honest intellectual debate aimed at the discovery of truth. Politics has always been downstream from culture, but long gone are the days of Lincoln v. Douglas, Keynes v. Hayek, and Buckley v. Everybody. We are no longer a nation engaged in a rigorous debate about ideas; we are a country of cast members whose leaders vie for top billing. It’s not an intellectual boxing match, it’s a beauty contest. What is Marriage is essential for those engaged in the earnest pursuit of truth and the common good, but much more is needed in a culture in which Lady Gaga is a cultural icon.
Jesus was a smart man. He once commanded his followers to be “innocent as doves, and shrewd as serpents.” In the marriage debate, this means being more attractive than the other contestant.
Recently, I heard a pastor say, “argumentation is not persuasion.” Making your case does not mean you win over the judges. Politicians, pastors, and other culture leaders who expect to win solely on the basis of data, philosophy, and fidelity to scripture are shadowboxing. We will defeat gay rights activists on paper every time, but lose the issue. Philosophers need to do good philosophy, and theologians good theology, but you and I need to perform well at our tasks: as artists, and musicians, and public speakers, and all the rest. The answer isn’t less academics, it’s more of everything.
We must condescend to our place on stage in the national beauty contest. The opinion of the majority is fickle, their understanding no deeper than an average episode of Glee. Trying to explain the intellectual architecture of the natural law case for marriage doesn’t work in line at the grocery store or in a Facebook comment. The few of us who read What is Marriage must take on the task of translation and presentation in compelling, accessible bits. Read the book to learn the arguments and then do your part to pass them along to friends and neighbors. Why does marriage matter? Because whatever your opinion of homosexuality, kids deserve both a mom and a dad. That’s What is Marriage distilled. It’s a point that resonates with human instinct. Heck, even President Obama acknowledges it.
Winning the pageant should involve many more such talking points, with a renewed commitment to storytelling through web films, infographics, and music. Scholars like Girgis, Anderson and George have given us some terrific tools. Now we must contribute, with a smile on our faces and love in our hearts, readily willing to move on when the other person is unwilling to engage. There are 300 million judges in this beauty contest, and we each have a part to play in reaching them.
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Eric Teetsel
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/02/27/beauty-pageant
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.27.13 @ 11:24AM
Just as being left-handed is a naturally occurring variation of manual dexterity, and being redheaded is a naturally occurring variation of hair color, so is being Gay a naturally occurring variation of human sexuality. It has always been so across ages and cultures. It is not OUTSIDE of natural law, it is a PART of natural law.
Whether we are permitted to marry or not, we will always be here. For US, marrying a compatible person of the same sex is much a part of "natural law" as marrying someone of the opposite sex would be to someone who is Straight. And for the majority of people who ARE Straight, absolutely nothing about marriage is changing or being "redefined." Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to change when Gay couples are allowed to do the same.
As Judge Vaughn Walker said in the decision on California's Prop. 8 Case: "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." It was a view shared by the courts in the Golinski case against DOMA, where a Bush appointee in the Northern District of California concurred: "The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages."
Mike G| 2.27.13 @ 11:40AM
I have no doubt that some people are born gay. It is, as you say, a part of nature. But what you're saying is that nature is perfect. Here is where we differ. Some people are born without hearing, sight, limbs, etc; some are born with Down Syndrome or other maladies. Is this natural? If so, why is government assisting these people, either monetarily or with accommodation laws?
By your own assertion, it is not the government's business and should butt out.
And if you should draw on morality in your response to by comments, please include and explanation of morality of gay marriage.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.27.13 @ 12:14PM
The morality of Gay marriage is similar to the morality of Straight marriage: It is morally and ethically preferable to encourage people toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and possibly promiscuity.
Studies have repeatedly shown that the benefits are substantial:
1: Married couples typically contribute more and take less from society.
2: Married couples support and care for each other financially, physically and emotionally and often contribute more to the economy and savings.
3: Individuals who are married are less likely to receive government entitlements.
4: Individuals who are married statistically consume less health care services, and often give more to churches and charities.
5: Married couples are better able to provide care and security for children.
So what sense does it make to exclude law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples from this place at the table? Why is it, for example, that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
mike 3/505| 2.27.13 @ 12:15PM
It is not OUTSIDE of natural law, it is a PART of natural law.
But it cannot be self replicating, ergo it's an aberration. let's not mince words. It's all well and fine for society to tolerate one man inserting his penis in the anus of another man for pleasure. If two consenting adultsa wish to do that in the privacy of their own home, fine. Demanding that society sanctify that aberrant behavior is foolish and provides no benefit to society.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.27.13 @ 12:22PM
DEAR MIKE:
"Replication" is irrelevant, since (1) couples do not need to marry to make babies, (2) the ability or even desire to make babies is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license, and (3) countless children are being raised into healthy, well-adjusted adulthood by Gay couples.
That you feel you must paint lurid portraits of sexual activity only illustrates your own fears and discomforts. When I look at all and Straight and Gay couples in my life, the last thing I think about is the mechanics of what they do in bed.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.27.13 @ 11:57AM
When you regard the issue of morality as irrelevant to the issue of "gay marriage" you have essentially lost the argument.
What "gay marriage" advocates want is not reason or tolerance, but moral approval of their perverse lifestyle. Gays were funny and even loveable when all they were concerned about was clothing, fashion, music, and artsy-crafty stuff, but when they became political and started pushing for "civil unions," "gays in the military," and "marriage equality" they became demonic.
Approval of the "gay" lifestyle is the sign of a dying culture.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.27.13 @ 12:16PM
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability of even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. It's not an "attack" on marriage, but rather an ENDORSEMENT. For you to dismiss it as "demonic" is rather sad.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.27.13 @ 3:15PM
And if a grown man and a little boy also decide to solemnly declare their commitment to one another's happiness?
Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.27.13 @ 4:20PM
DEAR C. VERNON:
If you think the courts should address age-of-consent laws and pederasty, have at it. They are completely unrelated to treating Gay and Straight couples equally under the law.
Bandido| 2.27.13 @ 12:28PM
Republicans will never be equal to the challenge of winning a philosophical beauty contest. It's because they have no belief system, and, hence, no self-confidence. They lurch from ad hoc policy to ad hoc policy, election to election, hoping for the best and usually obtaining the worst. The Left, on the other hand, is confident, overflowing with belief in its own righteousness, convinced of the superiority of its beliefs. It is impelled to make converts of us all, by suasion or force. That drive is why, in the long run, the Left will win out in the West, to the detriment of freedom.
ncatty| 2.27.13 @ 1:14PM
This question is directed to Chuck. You will admit that the historical definition of marriage is one male and one female. If we accept that marriage can be expanded to one male and one male, or one female and one female, do you have any objection to three or more, of any gender, getting married to each other? If you do object, then why? I am just testing the logic of your opinion.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.27.13 @ 2:03PM
DEAR NCATTY:
I get confronted with this a lot, and I find it very frustrating. People opposed to allowing Gay couples to marry insist that doing so, by extension, would necessitate legal acceptance of polygamy, bestiality, pederasty, and God only knows what else.
I do not subscribe to this logic. Otherwise I could just as easily say, "If you allow a man to marry one woman, it just logically follows that you HAVE to let him marry as many women as he wants!" If you want to consider the polygamy, bestiality, or age-of-consent laws on their own merits, feel free to do so. But they are unrelated to Gay marriage, since the only difference between a married Straight couple and a married Gay couple is the sexual orientation of the two people who have made the commitment.
(continued)
Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.27.13 @ 2:07PM
As for "the historical definition of marriage," that is not quite as cut-and-dried as you have made it out to be. Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage so as to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time. Historically the female in a marriage relationship was considered little more than property, and even today some cultures approve child brides for much older men. Polygamy has been approved in various degrees among many cultures throughout history.
The only thing that has been virtually ignored until very recently was the existence of Gay people, and the acknowledgment that Gay couples might seek the same kind of marital bonding that Straight couples do. The modern marriage equality movement is, at its core, a matter of treating Gay and Straight couples equally under the 14th Amendment. I can’t imagine how simply acknowledging the existence and rights of Gay couples is going to cause the civilization to collapse into a kind of sexual anarchy.
If you know any Gay couples personally, perhaps it would be helpful for you to address your concerns to them.
ncatty| 2.27.13 @ 2:27PM
Chuck. If you get confronted with this a lot, it is because once you change the definition of marriage there is no logical reason to limit it at all. If you object to polygamy, for example, it must be for a reason of morality, not logic. So I am interested in the moral basis for your objection.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 2.27.13 @ 2:49PM
DEAR NCATTY:
I don't know if I can separate the "practical" and "moral" arguments against polygamy into neat little boxes. The people in the United States who practice polygamy, notably members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), would probably describe themselves as some of the most moral and virtuous people in the world.
From a practical standpoint, however, polygamy creates a mess of things. When a woman doesn't get along with her husband, they don't have to 'work it out'. The man can just turn to his other wife and ignore her. She has no choice but to be submissive.
Polygamy produces excess men who have no place in society. For every man who marries 4 women, three guys can't find a wife. They will never have kids or buy a house or need to work hard and contribute to the economy. In countries where it is practiced, they tend to turn to gangs and rebellions.
Only the most wealthy men can afford it, but many others won't realize it and will take on too many wives and children and then expect the government to take care of them. The FLDS has taken in millions in government money to keep going; they call it "bleeding the beast."
Wives have to compete for affection, time, food, and stuff for their own children. Men have little interest in being the referee. They often turn the money over to one wife and all others have to beg for stuff. They all want the best for their own kids at the expense of the other kids.
ncatty| 2.27.13 @ 2:58PM
Chuck. By your own admission children don't matter in this argument, so lets leave that out of the equation. The rest of your statement deals with practical problems like "excess men." So you don't mind applying a practical test to the marriage question. I suppose on those grounds you are right. Homosexual monogamous marriage is practical.
legolasmarun| 3.2.13 @ 3:18PM
epic2.C0M