grappling a rainbow leviathan
One of the “hot” topics of late has been the issue of homosexual marriage. Everyone has a view on this, and different groups of people have made arguments in both directions for a variety of different reasons. I’ve engaged in spirited interactions regarding this with a number of very thoughtful people. Until recently my thinking was quite ambivalent. I wasn’t sure where I stood, or what I thought, or why a stance on either side made me feel uncomfortable in some manner.
Yet my thinking has slowly ossified as of late. Different people I have encountered have made arguments in regard to the “legislation of morality” and that prosecution of things outside of the Christian ethical code is a ridiculous projection of legitimate views into an arena that must be changed from the inside out rather than from political activism. Of course, the universal projection and enforcement of the Christian ethical code is not something I support–the last thing we need is a Judeo-Christian Shariah.
However, there are things that must be legislated, and these things do exist within the Christian ethical code.
The distinction of what must be legislated is at times difficult to discern, but I will offer what I feel is one characteristic.
The reason why we do not (or perhaps would be advised not to) press for legislation against such “sins†as adultery, lust, idolatry, and other such things, and why we do press for legislation in regard to homosexual marriage is found in the distinctively different communal classifications these vices have from one another (in regard to the “sins,” see Aquinas for his theory of law and why such things shouldn’t be legislated).
All of the “sins†mentioned are particular things regulated to individual circumstances and are not in and of themselves related to any universal institution. The things mentioned are contrary to the Christian ethical code, but they needn’t be legislated because they have nothing to do with a socially recognized institution.
Marriage, on the other hand, IS a distinctive archetypal institution that spans all culture and time. It is a fundamental communal institution and as such has a inherently genuine ethical place within society as a whole. Because of its institutional place of privilege within all communities, it is necessarily legislated and defined by government.
This of course entails a moral responsibility upon the community and government to ensure the moral and legal safety of its proper institutional definition.
Of course, total ossification hasn’t yet occured, so if you have a good argument to the contrary please present it.
Nov 4th 2004
Interestingly the reasoning that you offered here i agree with entirely however, i tihnk that it would serve to convince me further that while i agree that there is a place for marriage to be legislated, i still don’t think that a religiously motivated (which the current attempts definitely are) ban on homosexual marriage fits within the confines of what you are saying here…
but that’s just my $0.02.
Nov 5th 2004
“Legislating morality”, eh? I get a kick out of that.
That’s exactly what a law is!
Any given law is legistation of somebody’s moral code, be it Judeo-Christian or otherwise.
Nov 5th 2004
“Anonymous” made a point I like to make as well, namely that every decision, political or otherwise, is made from within a moral framework. Labeling your framework “non-religious” doesn’t make it any less personal.
I think you make a valid point, Tim. Useful distinction as to why some areas of “Christian” ethics must be legislated. Anyone want to tear down the “Christian” statutes against murder?
Nov 5th 2004
apparently my thoughts were presented somewhat ambiguously. When “Anonymous” posted, I thought his or her thoughts were a non sequitur (doesn’t follow), but Ariel’s confirmation leads me to think I should clarify my thought.
Different people I have encountered have made arguments in regard to the “legislation of morality” and that prosecution of things outside of the Christian ethical code is a ridiculous projection of legitimate views into an arena that must be changed from the inside out rather than from political activism.Of course every law comes from some sort of ethical code. Those who are against “legislating morality” are arguing against the universal application of the Christian ethical code, and they go too far sometimes in implying that we should never “force” our moral beliefs on society. They is not Me.
I was merely pointing out a view that holds some sway in evangelical thought and positing its shortcomings, as well as remarking about clarifications and genuine responsibilities that Christians (as dual citizens) have.
Obviously (unless you embrace an amoral Social contract) ethical jurisprudence is informed by an element of transcendence, I don’t mean to challenge this at all.
Nov 5th 2004
My post was not written in disagreement, nor was it non sequitur. I was merely trying to higlight the errant belief that one can’t “legislate morality.”
I believe that it is impossible to not have a moral code of some sort. Even if one rejects traditional notions of a deity, humans are still designed and inclined to worship something. In the case of those that call upon restraint in “legislating morality” it tends to be themelves (humanistic-relativism), and there is certainly, like any belief system a moral code that flows out from that worldview.
Nov 6th 2004
Actually, Tim, I wasn’t disagreeing with you either. I was just “amplifying.” That all ethics have roots in “transcendance” is a good way to put it.