I read, with great interest, Bret Stephens’ recent article “A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.” With all due respect to Mr. Stephens, I think this represents the laziest, sloppiest thinking today that somehow passes for journalism, particularly “conservative” journalism. In truth, there is no “conservative” case for gay marriage. A conservative might make a case for gay marriage, but it isn’t in keeping with conservative principles. The argument would be a personal or emotional one that just happens to be argued by a conservative who should know better. Now that I have made such a charge, allow me to explain. In Russell Kirk’s far-reaching classic, The Conservative Mind, he outlines six definitive canons of conservative thought. The first is the belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. The second is a conviction that ultimate equality is in the judgment of God and before courts of law, but not equality of condition because there will be natural orders and classes in any society (i.e. equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome). Stephens violates both of these convictions handily.
Natural law tells us that marriage, which is pre-political, is wholly based in human nature and is ordained by God. Man and woman are designed in a specific, complementary way with a special connection for the bearing and raising of children. This is a key distinctive of marriage, and as long as this is a key distinction, it doesn’t matter whether a couple actually can or can’t have children. It is their unique ability to make children and also provide the proper and healthiest environment for raising children. Cultures have recognized this over millennia, but suddenly cultural elites working with activist groups in both Europe and America are falling all over themselves to redefine a simple, ages-old institution by calling it inherently discriminatory because others feel “left out.” Well if the traditional definition of marriage is inherently discriminatory, then please tell me what definition is not? If marriage is determined to be discriminatory, then it will open the floodgates to challenge virtually any other definition that a vocal enough group of people don’t like. Even Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor recognized that simple fact. What Stephens demonstrates is that he and other cultural elites have little respect for the unique qualities of the institution. And that is the real shame. One does not have to devalue the institution of marriage in order to provide civil recognition to another who feels slighted.
Stephens mistakenly argues that those who are against same-sex marriage (or more accurately, for traditional marriage) are worried about a slippery slope. He couldn’t be more wrong. There is no slippery slope. It is logically inconsistent to say that traditional marriage is discriminatory but to extend marriage only to same-sex couples is not discriminatory. If marriage is going to be extended to one form of loving committed relationships, then it needs to be extended to all forms of loving committed relationships, and that would include polygamous or incestuous relationships amongst consenting adults. And this notion of saying that the call for same-sex marriage is about “marriage equality” is the most disingenuous of the entire debate. To have equality, you need to have two things that are similarly situated. Same-sex couples are not the same as opposite sex couples, cannot have children naturally, and do not provide the optimal environment for raising children as all comprehensive studies have indicated. The intact biological family has always been and still is the optimal environment for children. So removing children from the equation and then attaching the “equality” label by using “loving and committed” as the only criteria for marriage sets the bar for “equality” dangerously low.
A reasonable conservative argument would be to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, but in the interest of maximum liberty, argue for consenting adults of any number and/or sex to create arrangements under contract law that allow for civil equivalents such as right to survivorship, joint tenancy, and power of attorney. There is no reason the definition of marriage must be changed, unless the express purpose is to put a final nail in the coffin of Judeo-Christian values, which is the true victim in this debate. In Denmark, the church is now forced to conduct same-sex marriages even if that church objects to such unions, and the state of Colorado passed a gay civil union bill that intentionally left out a religious exemption for faith groups that object to recognizing gay unions, arguing that there is no room in the public square for those who hold religious beliefs that object to same-sex marriage. So much for tolerance, as we can see that we’re heading towards it running only one way, where those who are simply following their Christian faith will no longer be seen as citizens. I don’t understand how conservatives could throw in for that, but as I stated in the outset, there is far too much sloppy thinking attempting to pass itself off as conservative thought these days.
Comments on this entry are closed.