On the Gay Marriage Debate
— Muslim fanatics who wish to destroy us are correct in their diagnosis of our moral rot: loss of a fear of God, immodesty, especially among women, materialism and much more. While their solution — Sharia law — is wrong, they are not wrong about what ails us.
— The decision by a single, openly gay federal judge to strike down the will of 7 million Californians, tradition dating back millennia (not to mention biblical commands, which the judge decided, in his capacity as a false god, to also invalidate) is judicial vigilantism equal to Roe v. Wade… Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III tells me, “There was absolutely no knowledge, rumor or suspicion” of Vaughn Walker being a homosexual at the time of his nomination by President Reagan. But if it had not been Walker, it would have been another judge, because America’s problem is not entirely at the top; rather it is mostly at the bottom.
— A preacher might develop a good sermon on how nations fare when they mock God. No less a theological thinker than Abraham Lincoln concluded that our Civil War might have been God’s judgment for America’s tolerance of slavery. If that were so, why should “the Almighty,” as Lincoln frequently referred to God, stay His hand in the face of our celebration of same-sex marriage?
— Cal Thomas, The Washington Examiner
The column that excerpt is taken from is headlined, “Advocating morality doesn’t make people bigoted.” That’s true. Ross Douthat recently wrote a New York Times column against gay marriage utterly lacking in bigotry. Dozens of others have done the same. As PEG wrote, “Supporters of gay marriage are increasingly candid about their belief that there can be no legitimate, non-bigoted argument against gay marriage, a view which I believe to be false.” As a staunch supporter of gay marriage, I concur, and it upsets me every time I see assumptions to the contrary and their effect on people like Mr. Douthat, Rod Dreher, and other same sex marriage opponents whose good-heartedness, grappling with contrary views, and tolerance are evident.
What does make you bigoted — that is to say, “blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others” — isn’t always easy to identify, but you’ve definitely crossed the line when your reaction to a court ruling on gay marriage is a) to observe that Islamist radicals are correct in their judgment of our morality; b) to imply that a judge ought to be bound by what you claim are the biblical commands of your religion; c) to make a special point to highlight that the judge in question was gay; d) to note that his homosexuality wasn’t even rumored or suspected at the time of his appointment (meaning what, pray tell?); e) to insist that those who disagree with you are mocking God; f) and to compare gay marriage to slavery in positing that tolerance for it is going to cause God to wreak vengeance upon us.
I am not suggesting the average anti-gay marriage take is as bad as that, any more than I’m suggesting most same sex marriage opponents are as eloquent as Mr. Douthat was in his recent column. The case I want to make is that “your arguments are bigoted” shouldn’t be a reflex or an assumption, but neither should it be a verboten claim in reaction to rhetoric that fits the bill. I understand why anti-gay marriage folks are sensitive to this charge, just as I understand why we advocates of same sex marriage are sensitive to being called moral degenerates risking the wrath of God and the health of society. Beyond distinguishing among different kinds of arguments, and articulating why they’re bigoted when that charge is levied, I don’t really see any solution, so it’s probably best that folks on both sides just get less sensitive.
UPDATE:
Two additional thoughts.
1) In that NY Times column and subsequent posts at his blog, most recently here, Ross Douthat is manifesting the ideal of how writers should argue their positions and engage with critics. Especially since he’s expressed reluctance to weigh in on this subject before, and because so many writers with whom he interacts take contrary positions, I am enormously impressed by the effort. Its also instructive when you think back to the folks who complained that Mr. Douthat wasn’t a good representative of conservatives on the op-ed page. I’m hardly under the illusion that a substantial portion of the NY Times readership will be won over to the anti-gay marriage cause by his columns, but they’re certainly a more persuasive effort than anything mustered elsewhere, and are certainly sufficient to show thoughtful readers that there is a non-bigoted case that reaches different conclusions than they do.
2) There is a distinction between saying that an argument is bigoted, and that a person is bigoted. Insofar as public arguments focus on the former, they’re likely to be more productive. That doesn’t mean pointing out the latter is never appropriate, but I tend to think benefits of the doubt should be given when charges that strong are at play.
ANOTHER UPDATE: David Boaz unpacks what exactly is wrong with Cal Thomas’ column.
Re: a)
If you have an even moderately socially conservative outlook, I don’t think it’s at all controversial to say that American culture (and Western culture generally) is extremely unhealthy right now now.
1) loss of a fear of God – Europe is “post-Christian,” Mainline Protestantism is dissolving, most U.S. Catholics are “cafeteria” at best, 80-90% of American Jews are essentially secular and huge swaths of Evangelical Christianity is nothing but a sugarcoated, feel-good, heavily marketed, self-help movement that’s all about “what God can do for YOU.”
2) immodesty, especially among women – Jersey Shore
3) materialism – We’re so materialistic in our culture that we can hardly even conceive of any other outlook. I think this one is pretty self-evident, but if anyone wants me to elaborate, feel free to take shots at this assertion in the comments. By the way, I would define “materialistic” as seeing the world, our goals and our values in purely physical terms, not necessarily as a synonym for “greedy.”
— Yosh · Aug 12, 08:46 PM · #
How can you fear a God who’s so clearly incompetent?
— KVS · Aug 13, 12:22 AM · #
There’s a problem here. If we have to call Douthat’s argument non-bigoted, then there is a very simple non-bigoted argument for, well, everything. All institutions are “thickly” connected, changing any one of them could destabilize society in unpredictable ways. Everything from desegregation to assembly-line automation introduces unpredictable change in our working habits, our families, our neighborhoods, our education systems, our political systems—yeah, pretty much everything.
But most of the time, Americans—especially conservative Americans—worship this dynamism and freedom. The creative destruction of the marketplace is the only way we as a country can grow. But it’s kind of ridiculous to think that gay marriage is more disruptive than, say, mass unemployment in the Rust Belt.
If you only start worrying about the “thickness” of our institutions when it’s a minority group that wants to change them—well, maybe that’s not bigotry, but it’s still disingenuous. When the state needs a purpose to justify unequal treatment or curtailment of liberty, it ought to find a better reason than “thickness”. Unless, that is, we wish to revert to an agrarian economy with a hereditary caste system and autarky to prevent economic change from disrupting our thick culture.
— Consumatopia · Aug 13, 01:50 AM · #
How can you fear a God who’s so clearly incompetent?
He might get mixed up and make me into someone like you.
Now do you see why we live in fear?
— The Reticulator · Aug 13, 05:00 AM · #
After thinking about it, here’s the best way I can summarize the misunderstanding. (It must be a misunderstanding since everyone is taking part in this debate in good faith, right?)
The gay marriage question can actually be broken down into two questions:
a) Are homosexual and heterosexual relationships, on the whole, substantially different?
b) Does this difference warrant a difference in legal treatment?
I and many others answer “yes” to A but “no” to B. Many people answer “yes” to A and view “yes” to B as the logical consequence.
But I would wager that many gay marriage advocates (certainly most of the most vocal ones) not only answer “no” to A but see it as fantastical and even — ta-daa — bigoted to entertain a different answer. And I think there lies the rub.
I think you can make plenty of reasonable arguments that the answer to A is no. I would agree to many of them, even though in the end I agree that, as Ross put it in his latest blog post, “The interplay of fertility, reproductive impulses and gender differences in heterosexual relationships is, for want of a better word, ‘thick.’ All straight relationships are intimately affected by this interplay in ways that gay relationships are not.” (As an aside, I think many gay people would say that it’s a good thing that their relationships are different!)
But people who are unable to seriously grapple with the reasons why someone might not answer “No” on A will naturally default to bigotry as a convenient explanatory framework — especially, we must acknowledge, in a world where many people who answer “Yes” on A do do so for bigoted reasons.
— PEG · Aug 13, 09:18 AM · #
Zing!
Anyway, what’s with all the old testament fire and brimstone stuff about fearing the retribution of a jealous vengeful priggish sky daddy? Didn’t the old man mellow out, like, two thousand years ago and become agape or something?
— KVS · Aug 13, 01:56 PM · #
You’d be surprised how wrong this is. Subterranean impulses get grandfathered into every human relationship. A totally non-operational word for it is transference, i.e., redirection of the fuck/intimacy/nesting drives.
Plus, even at Ross’s level of analysis he’s wrong.
— KVS · Aug 13, 02:09 PM · #
You mean 2000 years ago he became a love god, or god of love, or god is love, or whatever?
Whatever changes in policy took place 2000 years ago, love and fear still go together. That’s why it’s not ridiculous for the Russian love song, Dark Eyes, to have this line:
Как люблю я вас, как боюсь я вас (Kak lyublyu ya vas, kak boyus’ ya vas) or as translated literally, “How I love you, How I fear you.”
(I put the original in to see if this blog’s software is Cyrillic-phobic.)
— The Reticulator · Aug 13, 02:20 PM · #
“The interplay of fertility, reproductive impulses and gender differences in heterosexual relationships is, for want of a better word, ‘thick.’”
When you have to create neologisms to explain your point, you point is most likely unexplainable becasue it doesn’t make sense (I’m trying to be polite). So, while I believe Ross is being pretty thick, I do not think hetro relationships are any more “thick” than those of homos. So again we are back to discriminating between types of relationships and have to explain why homo marriage is so harmfull to society tha we have to prevent it. And no one yet has been able to do that. I mean, isn’t that the whole reason for Ross’ flacid, abstract argument for the unique, and therefor supremely valuable, “thickness” of hetro marriage? All the more germane arguments have been invalidated.
I think in a few years all this rationalizing going to be very embarassing to Ross.
— cw · Aug 13, 05:18 PM · #
Re: KVS et all
The word for “fear” in the phrase “fear of God” in Hebrew is “yira” which is a word with no translation in English. It doesn’t mean fear like “oh no, a spider!” which Hebrew has another word for. It is a combination of fear and awe. As in the overwhelming sense of smallness you get in the presence of something far, far beyond you.
— Yosh · Aug 13, 05:35 PM · #
You know what would be a more honest argument from Ross?
“My church tells me gay relationships are wrong and as part of my faith I submit to the authority of my church.”
— cw · Aug 13, 05:40 PM · #
RE: “My church tells me gay relationships are wrong and as part of my faith I submit to the authority of my church.”
Ross:
“It’s a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the sexes.”
He doesn’t develop the argument all that much, but he does essentially say that. The thing is, you’re right. It’s hard to make a case against gay marriage from a purely material, non-spiritual point of view. If don’t acknowledge any spiritual importance of component to our actions in the world, then the arguments against gay marriage are going to fall flat to you.
— Yosh · Aug 13, 06:10 PM · #
“blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others”
Yes, blindly attached to some creed.
Do you think either Douthat or Dreher would be against same-sex marriage if they weren’t Christians? Just my opinion, of course, but I don’t think so.
— Socrates · Aug 13, 06:19 PM · #
“Do you think either Douthat or Dreher would be against same-sex marriage if they weren’t Christians? Just my opinion, of course, but I don’t think so.”
No, they probably wouldn’t be, but that’s no reason to call their arguments “bigoted.” The idea that there is a spiritual aspect to our existence has been virtually undisputed in human history until the very recent past – and most of the world still looks at our existence that way. Just dismissing that as “blind” and therefore “bigoted” is substituting name calling for argument. If you don’t like the assumptions of religious believers, argue against them. Or at least bother to learn some of them, you may be surprised to find out they make some sense even if you don’t agree yourself.
That said, the problem with Ross’ entire column is exactly what cw pointed out. The argument against gay marriage leans heavily on assumptions about God and the nature of existence. Once you knock away those pillars, the arguments against gay marriage are quite flat. Ross is essentially abandoning that ground to try and fight on a secularist intellectual playing field. He’d be better off being intellectually more open about it and say “life has inherent holiness, all western religious tradition condemns male same-sex sexual relations in the strongest terms…” and then get into why exactly it condemns them. The answer is not “because it’s icky” or some other nonsense.
— Yosh · Aug 13, 07:12 PM · #
PEG, I think this view is insightful, but I don’t think it quite fits Douthat’s argument. It’s not enough for the relationships to be different “on the whole”. They have to be necessarily, italicized all, without exception, substantively different. It can’t just be a matter of the way a majority of homosexuals act, it has to be something about every single gay and lesbian pairing, without exception, that makes them ineligible for marriage, unless opposition to gay marriage is some form of collective punishment.
So a young straight couple failing to have a child more closely resembles a family with 10 kids, or a pair 89-year olds meeting in a nursing home, than a young pair of lesbians failing to have a child. I don’t think so.
In addition to KVS’s point about transference, it’s worth noting that homosexuals are usually born into a heterosexual family. They spend the first few years (or decades) of their life being treated as heterosexuals, thinking of themselves as heterosexuals, planning their future as heterosexuals, comparing themselves to heterosexual family members—family members they probably maintain relations with the rest of their lives. Homosexual and heterosexual relationships aren’t in separate universes—they’re, in fact, tangled up in the same extended families.
Are there substantive differences, on the whole, between straight, gay and lesbian relationships. Of course. But there’s a great deal of variance in these categories, and there’s probably a good bit of overlap—some gay/lesbian relationships are probably very similar to some straight relationships.
— Consumatopia · Aug 13, 10:02 PM · #
Connor you are far to forgiving of Douthat. As several other commentors (CW, Yuri) have pointed out, Douthat’s arguments are flawed at their heart because he is disingenuous. He does not reveal the real source of his POV, which is first and foremost rooted in his devotion to the teachings of his church.
His mission seems to be to find post hoc secular rationalizations for his preformed, religiously-based conclusions. He finally ended up on the vacauous “thick” (nicely dispensed with above) after the destruction and pillaging by his readers of his previous attempts to prove that heterosexual marriage is so particularly special that same sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
Just because he’s clever with words doesn’t mean he has anything to say.
— dfriedmn · Aug 14, 06:38 PM · #
I am in favor of denying fundamental legal rights to people based only on the fact that they are Catholic.
I am in favor of denying fundamental legal rights to people based only on the fact that they are black.
I am in favor of denying fundamental legal rights to people based only on the fact that they are Jewish.
I am in favor of denying fundamental legal rights to people based only on the fact that they are gay or lesbian.
No one is going to get a pass for the first three.
But “thoughtful” Christians get a pass for making “principled” arguments for the last of these statements.
Why?
— Socrates · Aug 14, 08:55 PM · #
I’m not always temperate and probably never eloquent. If you didn’t see it, here’s Ta-Nehisi Coates writing in “The Atlantic”:
I’ve been scrolling through Ross’s back and forth with Andrew and various other bloggers over marriage equality. Andrew has done yeoman’s work, and really engaged Ross on a level that I find, in some ways, admirable. In other ways, not so much. Increasingly, I have become aware of the commitment it takes to debate fairly and honestly. And yet even accepting that commitment, I’ve also come to believe that we often marshal all our apparent fairness and honesty to cover for what is, ultimately, politely spoken prejudice.
My problem is that I have come to view some questions—gay marriage among them—as beyond the realm of debate. In a world where Newt Gingrich is allowed to credibly position himself as a defender of “marriage,” there is something gut-wrenching about engaging people who think gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. I feel like I am watching Andrew very respectfully reply to a critic who demands that he prove his humanity. It is not my right to feel that way. Perhaps it isn’t even logical, And surely someone must do it. But increasingly—in all such matters, and in this way—I feel unwilling.
— Socrates · Aug 14, 11:28 PM · #
Re: “My church tells me gay relationships are wrong and as part of my faith I submit to the authority of my church.”
My church tells me that the Mormon Church (LDS) is heretical. I agree in fact. But that doesn’t mean I want to make laws discriminating against Mormons.
— JonF · Aug 15, 08:18 PM · #