Compromise is the Way to Go

I have posted quite a bit more on this topic than I ever intended, but such are the exigencies of blogging. Really, there are two threads to this same-sex marriage issue, the political angle and the substantive policy/philosophical angle. Here is a somewhat lengthy take on the latter.

One issue that I have only made a glancing reference to, and that has been ignored in much of the conversation over the last couple of days is this: whether the proponents of gay marriage wish to accept this fact or not, the idea of gay marriage flies in the face of the deeply held religious and philosophical beliefs of a large number of Americans, and also contradicts the established definition of an ages-old institution. Regardless of one’s belief on this topic, one has to admit that those two facts do explain why there is a great deal of contentiousness on this subject. And no, one isn’t a homophobe if one holds these positions. One can have a true tolerance for the choices of others and still object to such ideas as changing the definition of marriage.

Look, as I have stated, I cannot construct an argument against allowing homosexual partners to have a legal union that provides them basic legal protections and that acknowledges their union before the state. For that matter, I don’t think that I can construct one that would forbid polyamory-based relationships or for non-reproductive partnerships between adult siblings, at least not in the sense that I can say why the state ought to dictate such things. I can make moral and religiously-based arguments, but not secularly derived ones that should dictate public policy.

I would note that I do not make the above statements to engage in a ludicrous slippery-slope argument to discredit gay unions. I simply cannot see what logical distinction that can be made on this subject between legal homosexual unions and three people entering into a legal union. And this is doubly true if what we are going to do is redefine marriage to mean the union of people who are deeply committed to one another. If that is the definition, then what is the logical argument for limited such a union to only two persons? Indeed, aside from strictures concerning consent and adulthood, what limiting principle could be applied if we are going to so broadly define “marriage”? The advantage of the classic definition o marriage is that it is clear. Once it is re-defined, it is rather difficult to contain that re-definition.

And I am not making that “what if a guy wants to marry his dog?” argument—I find that line of attack distasteful and a straw man of the worst sort. Nor am I arguing that gay marriage damages my marriage.

The bottom line is that “marriage” has had a very specific meaning historically and certainly within American public policy and society. If the goal is simply to provide a means for homosexual partners to achieve legal equality, then let’s go the civil union route and stop the culture war routine. Polls suggest that a large swath of the public would support that position, including some evangelical Christians such as myself, and it would avoid the marriage issue.

Yes, the debate is, to some degree, over semantics. However, words do matter and the word “marriage” matters to a lot of people and it is undemocratic, and unrealistic, for those persons to be ignored. We aren’t taking about Jim Crow, or second class citizen status, we are talking about trying to find a public policy compromise between a very small minority of persons and what is a large plurality, if not a majority, of the population. God Bless America, if I may be so bold as to use that phrase in this context, that despite the rancorous nature of the debate that a small minority could receive this much attention and not be trampled. Further, count it a blessing that there is a possible compromise position here—and, as I point out to my students, compromise is the essence of democracy.

Posted by Steven Taylor at February 26, 2024 01:37 PM | TrackBack