Glenden BrownMarriage as a runaway trolley
In the last week, I’ve started and deleted about a dozen posts on a wide array of topics. The problem isn’t a paucity of topics but a wealth of them. There is simply so much to be addressed.
In Marc Hauser’s book Moral Minds he explores a series of moral dilemnas around the concept of the “runaway trolley.”
The basic situation is thus: A bystander sees a runaway trolley barreling down the street. He/she can potentially stop the trolley and save the lives of the five people on board.
In the first case, the bystander can throw the switch, diverting the trolley onto a track with a large object on it which will stop the trolley. Almost every person when faced with this dilemna says it is moral to do so.
In the second instance, the bystander can throw the switch and divert the trolley, but in doing so, the trolley will go down the track and strike a man who happens to be crossing the tracks, before stopping. Is it moral to do so? A huge majority agree that while the man’s death is regrettable, it it coincidental - to use a term “collateral damage” - but since his death saves five people, it is acceptable to throw the switch.
In the third scenario, the bystander can stop the trolley by shoving a passerby into its path, thereby killing the passerby but saving the five people on the trolley. An overwhelming majority agree this solution is morally unacceptable.
To cultural conservatives, marriage has become a runaway trolley which must be saved and saving it requires pushing gay and lesbian couples in front of the trolley to stop it. It’s a morally repugnant argument.
The conservative argument says that marriage has been mistreated by heterosexuals who have demanded divorces and who have engaged in infidelity, but saving marraige requires that gays and lesbians be denied equal treatment before the law to save marriage. Conservatives are fond of arguing that “same sex marriage” is counterfeit marriage, it is not real marriage and that a counterfeit weakens the real thing (as in counterfeit dollars and real dollars). The runaway trolley of marriage must be stopped, and stopping it requires pushing gays and lesbians in front of the trolley.
This argument is related to the equally odious argument that gay and lesbian persons have the same right as straight people to marry a person of the other gender. This argument is so intellectually dishonest its difficult to believe people make it with a straight face but they do. The argument’s dishonesty rests in the way it elides the reasons people marry. You don’t marry someone just because they are the other gender - in our society at least we marry (or claim to marry) for love. As a culture, we tell people that you fall in love and you get married. In her book Marriage: A History, Stephanie Coontz argues that the logic of asking for same sex marriage flows naturally from the changes in marriage traditions demanded by heterosexuals - beginning with the ideals of the “help-meet” marriage as well as the right to divorce. Coontz argues that the evolving history of marriage and values around marriage have in some sense made the arguments for same sex marriage inevitable. As heterosexual marriage has evolved from the arranged political marriage to ensure succession or to control property rights into a social institution built on the concept of love and companionship, with offspring in fact optional, arguments against same sex marriage have little cultural weight beyond appeals to tradition.
Equally, the “marriage is for procreation” argument is not supported by our current traditions. If marriage exists primarily for procreation, then infertile couples should be not be allowed to marry; we would require fertility tests before marraige. Post-menopausal women would not be allowed to marry. Infertile couples would be forced to dissolve their marriages. In this framework, the act of procreation is primary and the quality of the parenting is secondary. As Terrance at RepublicofT points out, in this formulation toxic heterosexual parents are preferable to excellent gay parents.
Social conservatives engage the “marriage in danger” frame in their public pronouncements. For the average person, they think of an epidemic of divorce and see the danger in highly individual terms - their own fears that their marriage may founder. Social conservatives however invoke the “marriage in danger” frame as a societal, social level: the changes made to marriage have set it on a runaway course and it must be halted and if halting that runaway trolley requires the sacrifice of the happiness of glbt persons, the price is worth it.
By contrast, social progressives see marriage as a relationship between equals rather than a union of complementary parts. In true Lakoffian fashion, progressives use the “nurturant parent model” of family - in which the necessary acts of parenting are not determined by gender and instead are geared toward the developmental needs of the child. In the same way, the progressive view holds that both men and women need and thrive best when in a relationship characterized by commitment, mutual trust, caring, support and love. Those are traits which are not gender specific, which can be found between committed partners whether they are gay or straight. This competing vision of marriage as a relationship founded on love and shared commitment is the often unspoken model of marraige most Americans carry in their heads and it is one that most American agree can characterize same sex relationships. This model of relationship is open to same sex couples.
Polling consistently finds that 2/3 to 3/4 of Americans favor some form of legal recognition of same sex relationships (it depends how the question is worded). Although a minority favor same sex marriage, support for legal recognition of same sex relationships continues to grow. At this time, I’d guess about 20 to 25% of Americans are opposed to giving same sex couples any legal recognition and protections. These Americans include the hardcore antigay whackadoodles like Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps and the late unlamented Jerry Falwell but also a large swath of people who are just uncomfortable with with the idea of homosexuality in general. For the time being, the general movement in American culture is toward acceptance of same sex couples.
For cultural conservatives, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing. The low hanging fruit of the anti-gay marriage crusade - places like Utah - has been plucked. Cultural attitudes are shifting rapidly. There’s a good chance that the attempt to amend California’s state constitution will fail. If that happens, it will be a sign that times have truly changed for the better.
I want to offer a final thought. Today’s cultural conservatives are the children and grandchildren (sometimes literally) of people who fought passionately against school integration and busing orders. Progressives were on the right side of history in that battle, but waged in a way that guaranteed that huge swaths of people were alienated. That alienation, in turn, led to the creation of a full fledged Christian sub-culture - one in which “values” is code for heterosexual, nuclear family, and in which “faith” always means fundamentalist/evangelical/pentecostal religion. It is a subculture that loathes and fears mainstream American culture while mimicking it. It is a culture that distrusts science and universities and Hollywood, that is forever on the look-out for dangerous ideas dressed in the clothing of a smartly animated Disney movie. It is a sub-culture that values religious experience over scientific learning precisely because religious experience is open to anyone and science requires tedious hours of learning. It is a relentlessly practical sub-culture that distrusts art because it can so effectively undermine certainties. As the divide between the culturally conservative Christian subculture and America’s mainstream culture widens - and it will continue to widen - the challenge will be to move forward without leaving 25% of Americans behind.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I find it interesting that “faith” as characterized in the extended post is seen as “fundamentalist/Evangelical/Pentecostal religion,” which further is characterized in a very negative fashion. On the contrary, I have found some of the most thoughtful analyses defending marriage as it has historically been understood come from the Catholic tradition. I have less experience with the Jewish tradition, but here is an Orthodox Jewish link.
Catholics and Jews were often in the forefront of the civil rights movement, as were, of course, historically black churches, which were often theologically conservative, Evangelical, or Pentecostal. Black churches have traditionally stressed a conservative interpretation of scripture on marriage and sexuality. This view is not limited to American blacks, but is widely shared in Christian Africa, which is causing considerable stress inside the world-wide Anglican community with African leaders upholding the traditional view of marriage. There is also the large and venerable Eastern Orthodox community, which favors traditional marriage. Gay marriage is not recognized in India or China, showing that traditional marriage is not solely linked to Judaism and Christianity or necessarily with religion at all.
I wouldn’t want to stereotype any religion, and certainly there are divergent views within almost all religious communities, but to characterize support for heterosexual marriage as solely or even primarily as the product of one religious tradition flies in the face of the facts. To further characterize one religious tradition so negatively (“fears,” “loathes,” “sub-culture,” “code,” “distrusts,”) and so stereotypically (vaguely uneducated and racist) puts me on guard against a too-easy anti-religious bias.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Gay marriage is legal now in California but crossing the state line is an instant divorce.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
It could be that crossing the state line means you can’t get divorced. See this link
Whether this is good or bad I leave to the reader. It does indicate a certain amount of confusion and litigation will follow.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Leo - your delicate sensitivity to the religious right is sweet. I refer you to Coral Ridge Ministries recent survey of the biggest threats to America (h/t to Thoughts from Kansas):
How dangerous are the following to the spiritual health of America?
Very Somewhat Not very
The ACLU and similar groups 96 3 1
Pro-homosexual indoctrination 95 4 1
Abortion 93 6 1
Islamic terrorism 91 8 1
Hollywood 89 10 1
News Media 87 12 1
Darwinism/evolution 85 14 1
Cults and false religion 82 16 2
Atheism 82 16 2
Courts 81 18 1
Apathetic/uninformed Christians 79 20 1
Colleges and Universities 78 21 1
Public education (K-12) 69 29 2
Congress 63 35 2
Notice that Colleges and Universities are #12, Hollywood, the news media and evolution numbers 5 6 and 7. I think it is fair to characterize social conservative response as distrustful of those organizations. The Coral Ridge survey participants listed the ACLU as the greatest threat to America.
In the US opposition to same sex comes from the religious right. Saying that isn’t anti-religious bias.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Glen,
I don’t think I said much one way or the other about the “religious right,” which seems to be your target of choice. Rather I wished to make the point that by implicitly characterizing opposition to same sex marriage as limited to the religious right you are factually wrong and showing a bias against religious opinion in general and against the long held religious consensus gentium based on your views of some religious people with whom you disagree. I think you will agree that the Catholic Church represents a larger number of people than Coral Ridge Ministries (both at the present moment and over time) and hence is more representative of Christian thinking on the subject. Moreover, I would defend the right of religious groups I don’t belong to (large and small ones and popular and unpopular ones) to express all sorts of religious opinions on the spiritual health of America and what might or might not be a threat to it. I often disagree with them, but I would not in general wish to drive them from the public square or automatically dismiss their opinions or try to guess why they might hold them. Is there an officially correct ranking of these “threats” that all properly educated people would agree on? Or are none of them a threat to anyone?
Going back to your original post, the moral dilemmas are rather interesting to contemplate. The arbiter of the correct answer appears to be what the majority or overwhelming majority of those asked say is right. I think one reason the throwing of a bystander in front of the trolley is considered repugnant is the notion that if one man’s life is required to save five, what is called for is self-sacrifice not the sacrifice of a stranger, and self-sacrifice has historically been an important religious concept.
Consider that it would likely be considered moral if the stranger voluntarily threw himself in front of the trolley to save the five passengers. If you were unable to reach the trolley in time, but could call to the stranger who was closer and ask him to sacrifice himself, would that be moral? In real life, such decisions may have to be made in split seconds with no assurance that the passengers on the trolley would survive in any event. A very real scenario is the live grenade in a crowded room. In the army you get a posthumous medal for jumping on top of a grenade to save the squad, but you get a court martial for throwing your buddy on top of the grenade, even if it saves a whole platoon. The decisions people make in such situations often have deep religious roots.
This also reminds me of the story of a very pacific Buddhist who was given a hypothetical where if he killed someone he could save several innocent lives. His answer was that he hoped to conduct his life so that if such a situation ever arose he would make the correct decision. That would not be the typical position of the American religious right, but it is a profoundly religious position and one that I appreciate even though I am not a Buddhist.
In the case of marriage I am not sure how sacrificing traditional marriage will make everyone’s marriage better or even the majority of marriages better. Most importantly, and my central point, I am convinced that our moral reasoning (on any subject) is not improved by ruling out answers from all the world’s religions.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:29 am
But we must disqualify moral arguments rooted in doctrine and tradition.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:58 am
No one is asking that “traditional marriage” be sacrificed. Legalizing same sex marriages will have no effect on anyone other than same sex couples. Heterosexual couples can still go the chapel and dress up the bride like a virgin sacrifice and have daddy walk her down the aisle and throw rice. No one is asking for that to stop. It’s long established law in the US that churches don’t have to perform marriages that violate their theology - a catholic church doesn’t have to host a Jewish wedding, a Mormon temple is free to refuse to have a catholic couple get married inside, a Baptist church can refuse to perform an interfaith wedding in its sanctuary. (There is some gray area where church run facilities are concerned if they have been treated as public accommodations not as churches; so a church owned facility that is rented out for weddings, graduation parties, anniversary parties, proms etc. might be treated as a public accommodation rather than a church.)
It’s important here to be clear however - so called traditional marriage isn’t all that traditional. Stephanie Coontz explores the way that it evolved and points out that the model of “traditional marriage” most Americans hold is actually of relatively recent origin. The nuclear heterosexual family of the 50s mythology represents both an historical aberration and the outcome of two centuries of change and reform. “Traditional” marriage treated the wife as the property of her husband, children as the property of the parents. Even the forms of marriage are relatively recent. Until the 19th century, most couples simply moved in together, announced they were married and that was that; church ceremonies, if they happened at all, happened after the couple was established.
A person can choose to sacrifice him/herself to save others; that’s fine. But, the model opponents of same sex marriage use is the model of shoving someone under the trolley to stop it. Part of Hauser’ s point is that most people will tell you its wrong to deliberately sacrifice one life to save five, but probably can’t tell you why it’s wrong. It speaks to the idea of a “moral instinct.”
The Catholic church officially opposes same sex marriage (there are many Catholic priests however, who disagree!). American catholics are notorious for disagreeing with the official stance of the church on a wide array of issues, including same sex marriage. Again, a majority of Americans favor some form of legal recognition for same sex couples; that include American catholics. (American catholics are also broadly pro choice, as are Americans in general.) If a denomination chooses to not recognition same sex marriages as a religious issues, that’s fine. But from a legal standpoint, the US is not a theocracy. The word “God” appears no where in the US constitution. Most of the leading thinkers behind it were far from “traditional” Christians and were instead deists and freethinkers. Religious arguments are not exempt from critique and should not be given greater credence just because they are religious. I like the formulation of the sanctuary and public square; what we believe in the sanctuary doesn’t stay there when we step into the public square, but once we are in the public square, our arguments must be universalized; it’s a version of John Rawls blindness test for justice.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:37 am
But doesn’t everyone have traditions? And can’t atheists be doctrinaire? Can’t philosophers be doctrinaire? Isn’t this simply an argument designed to force religious opinions and religious people out of the public square? Why must ideas grounded in religion be disqualified in public discourse? Should ideas based on economic self interested be disqualified in public discourse? Or are utilitarian economic interests the only rational basis for public policy? Should ideas based on morality be disqualified from public discourse? And if not, how can society agree on what is moral if religious ideas and traditions are considered somehow considered out of bounds?
The notion that ideas informed by one’s religious tradition are ipso facto morally disqualified is simply anti-religious bias.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Leo - arguments from tradition are weak arguments (same goes for doctrine). In the simplest terms, we know things today that our ancestors did not; I’m not suggesting we throw tradition aside, but I think tradition should not be treated as unquestionable. We should also not be afraid to modify traditions as needed, based on our needs and our own experiences and knowledge. There is value in tradition, but blind obedience to tradition is deeply mistaken.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
When a tradition is so universal as to be a Consensus Gentium, I would say it is a strong argument, far stronger than unproven assertions by the supporters of change. Nevertheless, I agree that the value of some traditions can be overemphasized, but so can the value of novelty. I would agree that traditions can and often should change over time, but if something is nearly universal for a very long period of time, then overthrowing that tradition should not be taken lightly. Something that is new is not necessarily better. Change is not always progress. And the burden of proof should always lie with those who advocate change. I haven’t seen that burden met in the case of same sex marriage. Alternatives to same sex marriage include civil unions or until recently in the case of California, granting a number of rights separately so that the whole package is virtually equivalent to civil unions. It is quite possible that the current controversy will lead to government ending any official sanction of marriage, i.e. a totally libertarian solution. Family law in principle could be replaced by private contract law. If that were to come to pass, I suspect most marriage advocates would say that the idea of marriage as we have known it was sacrificed. Far fetched? So was the idea of same sex marriage until just a few years ago. Would the churches survive and church ceremonies survive? Almost certainly. They survived being driven into the catacombs. Would society as a whole be better? That remains to be seen.
Even in the shorter term, it is far from clear that once marriage is redefined by law or even by societal pressure that heterosexuals will not be affected. (Keep in mind that heterosexual households already have lower incomes than homosexual households.) The consequences that might legally follow from redefining marriage in all aspects of family law, in education, in acceptable public discourse (hate speech laws), in public accommodation of dissenting religion opinion (will Catholic charities be forced to place adoptions in homosexual households?), etc., remain to be explored, and there is every reason to suppose that there will be a lot of litigation. If tradition is too quickly thrown aside, what is now unthinkable (“the courts would never do that”) can become commonplace tomorrow.
Part of the question before California is whether the definition of marriage is a matter of popular sovereignty or not. I would argue that Californians have been asked, nay required, to give up popular sovereignty by a court that did not believe in judicial restraint, though the citizenry has an opportunity to restore it this fall.
Even now advocates of same sex marriage are trying to prevent the issue from being addressed by popular sovereignty. That is to say they are trying to prevent a vote this fall by again resorting to the courts. Is this out of devotion to the law or to pursue a doctrinaire agenda at the expense of democracy? It looks to me that we are being asked to throw democracy under the trolley to save same sex marriage. Moreover, it is not hard to imagine that same sex marriage in California will be used to overthrow the popular sovereignty of other states by means of the courts.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I agree that the value tradition a can be overemphasized, but so can the value of novelty. I would agree that traditions can and often should change over time, but if something is nearly universal for a very long period of time, then overthrowing that tradition should not be taken lightly. Something that is new is not necessarily better. And the burden of proof should always lie with those who advocate change. I haven’t seen that burden met in the case of same sex marriage. Alternatives to same sex marriage include civil unions or until recently in the case of California, granting a number of rights separately so that the whole package is virtually equivalent to civil unions. It is quite possible that the current controversy will lead to government ending any official sanction of marriage, i.e. a totally libertarian solution. Family law in principle could be replaced by private contract law. If that were to come to pass, I suspect most marriage advocates would say that the idea of marriage as we have known it was sacrificed. Far fetched? So was the idea of same sex marriage until just a few years ago. Would the churches survive and church ceremonies survive? Almost certainly. They survived being driven into the catacombs. Would society as a whole be better? That remains to be seen.
Even in the shorter term, it is far from clear that once marriage is redefined by law or even by societal pressure that heterosexuals will not be affected. (Keep in mind the heterosexual households already have lower incomes than homosexual households.) The consequences that might legally follow from redefining marriage in all aspects of family law, in education, in acceptable public discourse (hate speech laws), in accommodation of dissenting religion opinion (will Catholic charities be forced to place adoptions in homosexual households?), etc., remain to be explored, and there is every reason to suppose that there will be a lot of litigation. If tradition is too quickly thrown aside, what is now unthinkable (“the courts would never do that”) can become commonplace tomorrow.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
The argument I hear you making is “Tradition is in place for a reason, we should not abandon it without considering the effects.” I think that sees same sex marriage in the wrong light. Same sex marriage isn’t about abandoning or overthrowing tradition so much as expanding it. Abandoning tradition would be doing away with marriage - adopting the libertarian solution.
Advocates of “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” argue that these would separate but equal institutions. I think history has proven that separate is not equal. Ultimately, if civil unions provide the same rights, protections and responsibilities as marriage what logic is there in not calling it marriage? And if civil unions don’t provide the same rights, protections and responsibilities as marriage, by what logic should glbt people be asked to settle for unequal treatment by the law? If the answer is procreation, then all childless couples should by law only be allowed civil unions. If we’re going to create an unequal system, we might as well be honest about it.
Granting marriage rights to same sex couples rests on the concept of equal treatment by the law. If my straight brother can marry the person he loves equal treatment demands I be able to marry the person I love. The threat that social acceptance of same sex couples means it will be harder for people to discriminate against them in housing and employment could be made for ending racism.
June 26th, 2008 at 8:03 am
The case for same sex marriage seems to rest largely on an analogy to racial issues. I don’t accept the analogy. Biologically, sex is not the same as race. Economically, homosexual households are already more prosperous than heterosexual households, hardly the case with blacks at the time of the civil rights revolution or even now. Indeed, the integration analogy suggests an integrated couple in terms of sexual orientation would be homosexual married to a heterosexual. In terms of employment and housing discrimination, that has already been addressed by law in California, the case at hand, with no proof that that remedy hasn’t succeeded.
The argument for same sex marriage is often framed such that marriage is about love, but nothing in the California case requires that the couples love each other. Is there anything in the California case that even says marriage is about sexual activity? Marriage is, however, at the center of a whole complex of issues of which the natural complementarity of the sexes has traditionally (and nearly universally across time and world cultures) been an important part. If, for example, marriage is based in part on the civilizing effect of women upon men, that is lost if marriage is redefined.
The issue at hand, however, is also about politics and the questions of who gets to define what are acceptable principles of natural law. In the case of California, advocates of same sex marriage are currently trying to prevent the issue from being addressed by popular sovereignty. That is to say, they are not only trying to win the vote, they are trying to prevent a vote by once again resorting to the courts. Is this out of devotion to the law or to the pursuit of a particular agenda at the expense of democracy? Who is throwing what under the trolley?
June 26th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Arguments for same sex marriage are rooted in the desire for equality - one that is analagous to previous struggles for equality. In fact, the analogy to anti-miscegenation laws strikes me as very apt; people who love each other were denied the right to marry based on other people’s prejudices.
The law does not require you love the person you marry (so marriages of convenience are perfectly legal), at the same time, you cannot legally be forced to marry someone. One of our core cultural values about relationships is that you marry the person you love. That the law permits heterosexual couples to marry for love, convenience, the hell of it, but denies the same right to same gender couples is injustice. The claim that men need women’s civilizing influence is incredibly sexist and inaccurate. Andrew Sullivan once argued that it was marriage, not women, that civilizes men. Arguments about the complementary nature of the genders are a holdover from the bad old days when men believed women were so delicate that they must be helped into carriages and protected from hearing dirty words and shielded from the public square. But as Sojo Truth pointed out, women aren’t delicate fading flowers and they are tough enough to be treated like men’s equals. Both genders are required for procreation, but procreation is not a condition of marriage. For heterosexuals, out culture treats marriage as completely optional but wholly desirable. Is it any wonder that same sex couples want the same options?
Arguing that it’s wrong to turn to the courts for redress of injustice seems the exact opposite of how our system works. It also begs the question: Why should civil rights be up for a vote? At the time of the Loving decision, a majority of people would have voted against legalizing interracial marriage. Should we have put that to a vote? Jim Crow and school segregation were put in place by elected officials and would have been supported by a majority of voters - should those issues have been put to a vote?
For many Americans, the stumbling block seems literally to be the word “marriage.” Not the associated rights, not the relationships but the simple fact of calling the relationship marriage. I think that’s truly a matter of time for people to grow comfortable with the legal reality.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Time does not permit a full reply at this time. One quick note:
It was Andrew Sullivan who suggested gay couples had a thing or two to teach opposite-sex couples about our rigid insistence on sexual fidelity. That doesn’t strike me as “progress.” It may “expand” marriage, but not in a good way. It is not a reality society should grow comfortable with.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“Since St. John the Baptist laid down his life to defend the marriage bond, I really thought that for Catholics this would be an obvious thing to do, to defend the marriage bond. And in defending the marriage bond, I never meant to be against anyone, and I still don’t. But in certain places in the United States … if you seek to defend marriage, you are almost immediately portrayed as being against somebody, and I’m not against anyone. But marriage is one of the most basic truths of reason and of faith and I can’t in any way back away from its defense because without authentic marriage, our society is really on a downhill plummet that could be of major proportion, because everything regarding the formation and education of children depends on authentic marriage. If children are not authentically formed and educated, then what are we letting ourselves in for with regard to the future.”
- Bishop Robert Morlino, Madison, Wisconsin
I would argue that what Bishop Morlino calls authentic marriage is as fundamental as, nay even more fundamental than, an absolutist gender equality, something the country rejected with the Equal Rights Amendment.
Once tradition, religion, popular sovereignty, a thousand years of natural philosophy, and a consensus gentium spanning time and the globe are overthrown or ruled inadmissible, then it is very difficult to convince me that one value (a view of gender equality that gives no role to biological differences) should trump all others.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Leo:
An interesting comment, for certain. But I question one express assertion in Bishop Morlino’s statement:
Says who?!?!?!?!? And just what is authentic marriage???
June 26th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Nephi,
Good questions. You will have to ask Bishop Morlino what he meant and why he said it.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Leo, I’m declaring a discussion board foul on you. You approvingly quoted the Bishop; you may not agree with everything he says and that’s fair, but since you quoted him, I think you should at a minimum offer your interpretation of what he said.
As to Andrew Sullivan - he’s not the only person who has argued that same gender couples can bring a unique experiences, perspectives and insights to marriage. Same sex couples aren’t that differnt than heterosexual couples - many same gender couples are resolutely monogamous, many are not - just like straight couples. In terms of open relationships and non-monogamy, I find it ironic that somehow gay couples are bad for considering exactly what straight couples do.
I believe same gender couples can offer insights into marriage that allow us to see beyond gender roles, to see that the ability to nurture children isn’t gender determined, that the ability to nurture and care for a relationship rests with both genders. (BTW, did you notice that you quoted Maggie Gallagher characterizing Andrew Sullivan, and did not quote Andrew himself?)
I keep seeing comments (here and elsewhere) that seem to suggest that same sex marraige is some sort of vast change - but that view seems wrong to me. Same sex marriage is really a relatively minor change to existing law and practice. It’s a simple expansion of what we already do and how we already view marriage. It’s not some earth shaking alteration.
Again, I come back to Stephanie Coontz’s amazing book - Marriage: A History. Coontz traces the evolution of marriage, pointing out that marriage as a legal and religious right was often reserved for the wealthy and powerful.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Glenden,
I am reluctant to put my words in the Bishop’s mouth, particularly since the link to the original interview from which the quote came is no longer on line for me to read.
Part of my reluctance is that while not one man in ten can explain is own religion, not one man in a thousand can explain his neighbor’s religion, and I am not a Catholic.
Nevertheless, when I have time this week end, I will endeavor to explain Catholic teachings on marriage. I can imagine some message board where someone quotes approvingly an LDS statement, but doesn’t claim to understand LDS theology.
My real and point, however, is that Catholics and others have a good argument that preserving marriage as they see it is a fundamental value per se that is worthy martyrdom, which puts it way up there are a scale of values. That point does not require a discussion of Catholic theology.
I think you are on to something about wealth and power. Marriage conveys economic rights. From a purely utilitarian view point, it’s about money, not love. Marrying for money is an old story. Note that homosexual households, who already are more economically prosperous than heterosexual household, are demanding more economic benefits. This hardly fits the analogy with the civil rights revolution, where the blacks were manifestly economically disadvantaged.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Thoughts on marriage, wealth, and power.
In English law, you are correct that marriage was strongly influenced by concepts of wealth and power. That does not mean that in the eyes of the people or the Church, it wasn’t sacred. It did mean that government had a strong and valid interest in restraining conflicts over marriage among the wealthy and powerful. Government was less concerned about the peasants. Once religion is banished from the public square, however, then everything might be reduced to utilitarian economics. That would be, in my view, a bad idea.
The idea that the nobility should embody society’s highest ideals is highly integrated into Western thought. The nobility of the nobles may be partly an historical myth, but it is a powerful one, and has some very positive aspects.
Now if I was a Confucian, I would argue from a different direction.
What it interesting is that whatever world civilization you are coming from, whether you are talking about the rich or the poor, East or West, the idea of marriage as between and man and woman has been constant, at least until recently.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
It is a subculture that loathes and fears mainstream American culture while mimicking it. It is a culture that distrusts science and universities and Hollywood, that is forever on the look-out for dangerous ideas dressed in the clothing of a smartly animated Disney movie. It is a sub-culture that values religious experience over scientific learning precisely because religious experience is open to anyone and science requires tedious hours of learning. It is a relentlessly practical sub-culture that distrusts art because it can so effectively undermine certainties. As the divide between the culturally conservative Christian subculture and America’s mainstream culture widens - and it will continue to widen - the challenge will be to move forward without leaving 25% of Americans behind.
When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, being part of a “sub-culture” was cool, being counter-cultural was “where it’s at!” Now that the counter-culture claims to be the mainstream culture, it appears to that dissent has lost much of its cachet.
As for “moving forward” without leaving 25% of the pouplation behind, I frankly fail to see how you’re going to entice us to come along down your road, given your open and evident contempt of us, our values and our beliefs.
You cannot assail my religious beliefs from outside my faith, and I have yet to have anyone answer my secular objections to gay “marriage”, which is simply this: Society recognizes marriage because marriage is and has always been the best way to engender and raise the next generation of children. Homosexual relationships cannot engender children, and are not a preferred environment for raising children (an assertion validated by all the research on the question). Society gains no benefit from recognizing, rewarding, or encouraging homosexual behavior, committed or otherwise, but it does gain great benefit from recognizing and encouraging committed heterosexual relationships.
This is why homosexual relationships are not and cannot be marriages. What you are trying to do is redefine marriage into something it is not and cannot be. You call my opposition to your effort “bigotry,” “homophobia,” and “discrimination.” But discrimination is only bad when it’s unjust, when treating equal things unequally. But when two things are fundamentally different, it’s appropriate to discriminate between them.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Paul - your religious beliefs can be assailed from outside your faith. The fact that they’re religious beliefs does not in any way exempt them from critical thinking and analysis. If someone believes in denying their children medical treatment on the basis of religion and their child dies, other people have every right to point out how their faith makes no sense and is actively harming their children. I’m a nice Catholic school boy. I loved Catholic school, I loved the priests and the nuns, and I got a great education. But there are aspects of Catholic theology I think are incredibly wrong headed - denying ordination to women, insisting on celibacy among clergy, spring to mind, while I agree with Catholic opposition to the death penalty and war, I think opposing contraception defies logic and common sense. That doesn’t mean I hold Catholic moral theology in contempt, it means I take it seriously enough to think actually think about it. Such criticisms don’t mean I have contempt for catholic beliefs - it means I disagree with some aspects of Catholic theology. I was taught that moral theology (Catholic or not) is often based on scripture, on tradition, and on human knowledge and we don’t abandon one, but we have to be honest that we know things today our ancestors did not know and there’s no rational reason to limit ourselves to what they knew. For example, if you go to the doctor, you expect the doctor to use today’s technology and methods, not the methods of the 18th century - i.e. bleeding and trying to balance the humors in your body. We know things today about human sexuality our ancestors did not know. Moral theology needs to consider those things.
As far as same sex marriage, you have a good recitation of opinion, but it is only opinion. There is a growing body of research that demonstrates that children raised by same sex parents are as well adjusted, emotionally healthy and successful as those raised in heterosexual households - some researchers have gone so far as to suggest that same sex couples are more successful as parents precisely because they have to work so hard to become parents and are thus usually more mature, more financially stable and more emotionally healthy than the average straight parent. By your logic, society recognizes no benefit from marriages that are infertile, or for post menopausal women or that are childless by choice - so such marriages should be dissolved (and don’t say miracles can happen - by definition a miracle can happen to anyone). If the argument for marriages rests solely on procreation, then apply that logic across the board. Require couples to prove they can procreate before issuing their marriage license. Legal marriage in the US is NOT dependent on the ability of the partners to procreate.
You say society should not recognize reward or encourage homosexual behavior - but marriage isn’t just sex. A marriage is the day to day commitment of two people to one another’s well being. Society benefits by encouraging people to form commited, long term relationships - such relationships result in healthier people. That benefits society - and if the avenue by which that goal is realized is same sex marriage, then how is that harmful?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Leo I don’t necessarily expect you to explain Catholic theology. I think you should be able explain at least how that quote reflects your values - i.e. why did you choose that quote?
June 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Not even a credible attempt to refute my points. I’m not persuaded.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Paul:
And you likely will not be persuaded no matter how one refutes the points you make; unless, of course, one of the those four fine children of yours comes home and announces that he or she is gay!
June 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Still no attempt at persuasion, nor indeed anything but contempt. No wonder you need courts to give you what you want, because there will be no converts.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Contempt?? Where do you find contempt??
June 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
You asked:
Contempt?? Where do you find contempt??
I answer:
And you likely will not be persuaded no matter how one refutes the points you make; unless, of course, one of the those four fine children of yours comes home and announces that he or she is gay!
I could make a list, but this is sufficient. Your disinterest in my “bigoted,” “homophobic,” “discriminatory” viewpoint is evident. I won’t waste either of our time any longer.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Paul:
You appear somewhat presumptuous about me and my stance toward the subject seeings how we have never engaged in conversation prior to now. So again, I ask, what in my above comment leads you to conclude that I hold you in contempt?
June 27th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
A number of things impressed me about the quotation from Bishop Morlino. (1) Defending the sanctity of marriage is considered a cause worthy of martyrdom. (2) Defending traditional marriage is not designed as an attack on anyone, nor does the Bishop seem to harbor any animosity towards his opponents in the marriage debate. (3) There are certain definable elements that distinguish an authentic marriage in his view from what one might call a marriage-like institution. (4) That marriage as an institution is very much about how society reproduces itself and raises its children.
Michael Pollen in his book “In Defense of Food” argues that there is a difference between food (and he means traditional foods that have withstood the test of time and which may differ in some ways across cultures, but which are still food) and modern food-like substances, which in his view have unknown and sometimes deleterious health effects.
I am not qualified by experience, theological education, or official position to define the Catholic concept of marriage. However, there are numerous recourses on the web. I think, however, that all would agree that in the Catholic view an authentic marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. That is not the only required element, but it is one of the essential elements. In this view it might be argued that only heterosexual couples can perform the marriage act.
Other elements in Catholic teaching would include charity, fidelity, exclusivity, monogamy, and permanency while the parties live. Historically, other religions have differed on the elements of monogamy and the conditions under which the union might be dissolved. Generally the governments in Catholic countries have adhered more strictly to Catholic principles in their laws, while countries with different religious traditions have modified these elements. My view of popular sovereignty would argue that in a democracy the people have the legal right to define marriage and its parameters, so I would expect and respect this. The people also have a right to sanction other relationships (such a civil unions), however those may be defined, if they so choose, or to grant certain rights short of civil unions in employment law, housing law, etc.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Leo:
I am still troubled by your use of the term “authentic marriage.” It just seems all too conclusory to me. Indeed, given your apparent use of the term, I wonder if a convert to the Catholic church could ever be considered an authentic Catholic, or whether a heterosexual couple who adopt a child can be considered authentic parents.
At any rate, the following is an interesting definition for the word authentic, which would appear to permit same sex marriage to be considered an authentic marriage:
true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character
What do you think?
June 28th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Catholicism could be defined such that conversions are not recognized as producing authentic Catholics, but that has never been the case as far as I know. The Jewish tradition, however, is much more limiting regarding the recognition of conversions. Each tradition has the right to its own terms and definitions of membership.
In mathematics everything follows from the definition of terms. If parent means biological parent then certain conclusions follow. If parent means custodial parent then other conclusions follow. Something is authentic if it conforms to the definition. If marriage is defined as only between persons of the opposite sex, than a marriage without that characteristic is not an authentic marriage. Questions then remain about who gets to set the definition and how. Many words have multiple definitions. The law is partly about determining which meaning applies, even which definition(s) must apply. My view is that in a democracy ultimately the people set the definitions. America is at a watershed moment about the definition of marriage. To put in it neutral terms, some advocate change, some oppose change.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:11 am
More thoughts on the subject:
There is also the difference between legal definitions are popular usage of the term. A marriage of convenience could be legal but an “inauthentic marriage” in the popular mind. The campaign for same sex marriage has rested partly on popularizing the term same sex marriage. If a term is repeated often enough it will gain acceptance. The Bishop may be pushing back against putting same sex and marriage in the same phrase because it changes the definition of marriage and thus is in itself conclusory.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Leo - More later, but my immediate response is similar to what I said to Paul - if it marriage is really about procreation, then shouldn’t we demand proof a couple can procreate before we allow them to marry? And shouldn’t we deny marriage rights to any couple incapable of procreating - which would include infertile couples, couples in which the woman is post menopausal?
Paul - reread what I wrote. I addressed your points.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Leo:
I can shorten your argument for you.
Something is authentic if it conforms to the definition; marriage, by definition, describes a union between a man and a woman; therefore, two persons of the opposite sex may not be considered married.
Your argument is conclusory - that is, is assumes the correctness of what it seeks to prove.
Even so, there is a flaw in your argument. Specifically, while your assumed definition of authentic marriage considers unions between a man and a woman, it doesn’t necessarily exclude other types of unions - e.g., those between two women. You improperly read such exclusion into your definition to make your argument appear complete.
Try remaking your argument w/o reading in the per se exclusion and I dare say you will produce a different conclusion.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The argument for changing marriage depends on declaring gender irrelevant and the redefinition of something that has been traditionally and universally (until very recently) been defined otherwise. It is as if advocates of polygamy declared number is irrelevant and popularized the term polygamous monogamy. If we popularize the terms “lesbian father” and “gay mother,” we will empty the terms father and mother of their meaning in the service of a genderless political agenda. The same holds for “same sex marriage.” Moreover the advocates are so insistent as to demand their definition at the expense of popular sovereignty.
We should not confuse gender with race. The history of race in America made it difficult to resolve by popular sovereignty, since blacks were systematically denied the vote, even in areas where they were the majority. Ultimately, the civil rights movement succeeded, because it represented the collective will of the American people. That collective will was in large part based on a religions tradition that God had made of one blood all nations of men (Acts 17:26).
Finally, I would note the surprising hostility that characterized the original post. The arguments in favor of traditional marriage were styled not as incorrect or wrong, but as “dishonest” and “morally repugnant.”
June 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Consanguinity laws recognized that marriage was about procreation. I would argue miscegenation laws were about procreation. Traditionally, a marriage where there was no attempt at procreation was considered not consummated and could be annulled. The issue of testing for fertility never arose historically because in the absence of the marriage act, there was no test for fertility. Even the elderly could be surprised. Googling the oldest case of childbirth yields a case at age 60. No couple is manifestly inherently and permanently infertile except same sex couples. It is reasonable that this is part of the historic definition of marriage. Europe argued over whether the king could legally divorce the queen over questions of fertility but never expected two kings or two queens to produce royal offspring.
Procreation is also inherently and biologically related to child rearing. Society has traditionally and logically favored children being raised by their biological parents whenever reasonably possible. There may be exceptions, but the law recognizes that those are exceptional cases. The pattern of the family determines how society perpetuates itself. I would argue that which patterns are given legal sanction and economic benefits should be determined by popular sovereignty.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I suggest you go back and reread. I was talking specifically about the argument that “saving” marriage required denying it to same sex couples. That is a morally repugnant argument - that is pushing gay and lesbians couples in front of the trolley.
I haven’t heard anyone talking about lesbian fathers or gay mothers. I have heard people talk about parents and parenting and pointing out that proper parenting isn’t gendered. Men and women both possess the ability to successfully nurture children. A child needs a stable home and parents who are able to parent. It is disingenuous to argue that blended families are “exceptional” cases. There are huge numbers of blended families in which non-biological parents are successfully raising children. Procreation however has been separated from marriage for a long time in our society - we have certainly not stopped non-procreative couples from marrying. The ability and willingness to procreate is hardly a requirement for heterosexuals to marry; the lack of procreative potential should hardly be an impediment for same sex couples.
Don’t get hung up on the “historic” definition of marriage. It’s a treacherous territory. The late John Boswell collected historical evidence that the Christian church blessed same sex unions in a ceremony almost identical to the one used for straight couples. Marriage as we know it is a relatively recent historical phenomenon. Traditionally, a couple could simply declare they were married, move in and that was it. Traditional forms of marriage long included polygamy. If one looks at the Bible, most marriages and families in it are polygamous families - especially in the Hebrew Bible; the Christian testament - where it portrays families- includes a great many nontraditional family arrangements (Mary Martha and their brother, for instance).
July 5th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Soren Kierkegaard warned against a revolutionary age that “leaves everything standing but cunningly empties it of significance.”
Jennifer Roback Morse makes the following prediction on where the trolley (or juggernaut) is going.
“Can we be confident that even same sex marriage is the ultimate goal? I think the honest answer is no. The freight train of same sex marriage will not stop at the station called simple “equality.” The legal equivalence of same sex couples with opposite sex couples means that marriage will no longer be society’s most reliable method of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to each other. Marriage will become a gender-neutral creation of the state, which actively detaches children from at least one of their parents. Parentage will not flow automatically from the marital union, but will have to be assigned by the state. The final stop on this train is the complete de-gendering of society, along with the continual incursion of the state into civil society.
The state must hold that mothers and fathers are completely interchangeable. Biological parents married to each other become officially equivalent to one parent plus their lover. The state will be indifferent as to whether children have any connection with their biological parents.”