Thinking to Believe

When it comes to controversial subjects, it’s not often that those of one persuasion will cede the objections offered by those of a contrary persuasion.  The cogency of some objections is so strong, however, that those of one persuasion will cede the merits of their opponents’ objection even though they do not cede the merit of their opponents’ position.  I have found this to be the case with the debate over same-sex marriage.  Many opponents of same-sex marriage cede some of their opponents’ objections to prohibiting the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships as “marriage.”  While several come to mind, the one I want to discuss is what I call the irrelevancy objection: recognizing same-sex relationships as “marriage” will not affect your marriage or society-at-large, so why make a big deal about it?

Is the debate over same-sex marriage irrelevant?  What do we stand to gain or lose in this cultural/moral/political battle?  What would the fallout be if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land?  I think we would feel the effects in two main areas: (more…)

Same-sex marriage advocates—including the courts—often argue that marriage is a fundamental right, and therefore same-sex couples must be granted access to the institution even if that requires changing the definition of marriage itself.[1]

There are three problems with this argument.  First, it proves too much.  If marriage is a fundamental right, such that the qualifications for and definition of the institution must be revised to accommodate those who want access to the institution but do not qualify based on the traditional definition, then the institution will have to be revised to accommodate more than just same-sex couples.  It will need to be revised every time any one wishes to participate in the institution, but does not qualify based on the legal definition in use at the time.  Indeed, if the right to marriage is so fundamental that it requires society to change its definition of marriage to match the desires of hopeful participants, then society is left without a principled basis for declining anyone’s request to have their own idea of marriage recognized by the State.  The State must change the definition of marriage to match every new request, whether we approve of their concept of marriage or not.

(more…)

Whenever I make my case against same-sex marriage to a same-sex marriage proponent, invariably they will raise a particular objection to my argument.  The objection is so common that I want to devote a lengthy blog post to rebutting it.  But before I do, let me briefly summarize my argument against same-sex marriage:

The primary reason human governments across time and cultures have chosen to regulate, privilege, and encourage one particular kind of human relationship over all others is because they have a vested interest in what that kind of relationship can produce: socialized children to perpetuate society.  Apart from that, there is no reason for the government to meddle itself in personal, sexual relationships. They are not interested in promoting friendships or romantic love; they are interested in social self-preservation. They are interested in producing a new generation of responsible, socialized citizens to replace the existing generation. Optimal socialization involves both natural parents, so the state is interested in keeping the natural parents together as well. That is why marriage comes with legal responsibilities, and until recently, was difficult to dissolve.

(more…)

A judge in Dallas Texas has decided that two men who married in Massachusetts who now reside in Texas can get a divorce in Texas.  What’s interesting about this is that Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages.  In the eyes of the law of Texas, these men are not married, so how can that same state grant them a divorce?  What is the legal basis?  According to the judge, the basis is the fact that Texas’ law opposing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.  You see how this works?!  Many voices prophesied that this would happen: same-sex couples marry in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, and then successfully challenge that state’s marriage laws by filing for divorce. 

As I understand it, the judge’s decision does not, in fact, invalidate the law.  If I am understanding it correctly, it merely challenges the law, which, if pressed, could require a constitutional review by the Supreme Court of Texas, who could overturn it if they agree that it is unconstitutional.  If anyone knows more about the story, more about the judge’s decision, or more about the legal matters involved here, please step in and either correct me or fill in the blanks.

During the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage, it’s common to hear conservatives speak of the “definition of marriage,” but what exactly do we mean by the “definition” of marriage.  Are we talking about the purpose of marriage, its form, or both?  Most Americans (including conservatives) seem to be referring to marriage’s form: one man and one woman (for life).  I submit to you that this is the wrong place to begin the debate.  If we allow the discussion to center on marriage’s form, we are sure to lose.

I am persuaded that one of the main reasons we are facing the social and moral predicament we are is because we have reduced the “definition of marriage” to its form, losing sight of its purpose.  Without understanding the particular purpose of civil marriage in society, its traditional form is not necessary.  When we understand the purpose of civil marriage, however, the traditional form logically follows.

(more…)

J. Budziszewski noted that sometimes we deny what we know to be morally true by improperly pitting two moral principles against one another.  Consider marriage and fairness.  We recognize both to be moral goods.  Those who advocate for same-sex marriage, however, pit them against one another, arguing that if we are going to be fair we must permit same-sex couples to participate in the institution of marriage.

The problem is in their understanding of fairness.  They understand fairness to mean everyone must be treated exactly the same.  This definition is flawed, however.  Fairness requires that we do not arbitrarily treat people differently, or arbitrarily treat them the same.  In the case of same-sex marriage, we are not arbitrarily treating same-sex couples differently than heterosexual couples.  There is a principled reason for our discrimination: as a rule, heterosexual couples procreate while same-sex couples do not (and the principal reason government is involved in regulating marriage in the first place is because they are interested in the production and socialization of children).  To say it is unfair to preclude same-sex couples from marrying is like saying it’s unfair to allow one baseball team to beat another.  The purpose of baseball is competition, so it is fair to allow them to compete.  Likewise, the purpose of marriage is procreation, and it would be unfair to treat relationships that cannot procreate as equal to those that can.