On Legalizing Homosexual Marriage: A Philosophical Defense from Liberalism
Some time ago I weighed in on why homosexual marriage should not be legalized. On re-reading my post I’m not sure how cogent the logic is–I think I oversimplified the idea of a socially recognized institution. Marriage as Archetype would still form a foundation in my argument against Homo-Marriage, but perhaps I’ll come from that perspective on another day. The following is the text for a debate I just concluded in one of my classes having to do with Applied Christian Ethics. Remember that Author doesn’t necessarily equal Persona…I’m not completely sure what my views are on the matter. However, this is my best articulated argument for why Homo-Marriage should be instituted. Please fill free to express your own views or to critique the philosophy.
—-
Homosexual Marriage Debate // PRO: T. M. P.
I will argue from Liberalism in favor of legalizing Homosexual marriage.
Sometimes values collide with each other–of course, oft times the fact that the collision is between values goes unmarked; it is easy to mistake a specific end of a value as something in its own right, which may actually go against another held value. In fact, the specific end could even be seen as contradictory to another specific end of the same original value. The paradox of a Good God creating a world full of evil is a perfect example in this regard. Of course, God didn’t create the evil, but the value (freewill) that enabled people to truly LOVE also enabled people to commit horrific acts of evil. The same fundamental value is responsible for both sides of the spectrum. While acts of evil are perhaps in their own right immoral, the arche or foundational value of freewill remains necessary and untarnished by possible outcomes. To do away with evil all together, in this world at least, would be immorally wrong–it would also do away with our humanity. In this regard the underlying positive value of freewill trumps any specific immoral ends that spring from it.
So it is with liberalism. Liberalism accords “liberty primacy as a political value” (Stanford). John Stuart Mill tells us, “The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom. “(Mill, 472). This has been termed the Fundamental Liberal Principle. Of course this principle works itself out politically in a variety of ways, many of which inform the extent of governmental power, but the specific application of this principle that we are concerned with is in regard to the chief aim of government: “the basic task of government is to protect the equal liberty of citizens. Thus John Rawls’s first principle of justice: ‘Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system for all’” (Rawls, 302).
This political ideal is important for Christians because it protects them (and nearly all religions) from tyrannical oppression. Similarly, marriage as a political and legal institution is necessarily informed by liberal ideology.
“One need only consider the decision in Lawrence et al. v. Texas 537 U.S. 1044 (2002) affirming the right to engage in private, consensual sex with a member of the same gender, to see that the right of homosexuals to marry is similarly protected under the Constitution.
This right is established through two avenues: one declares that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty that must be afforded to all consenting adults; the second asserts that, as long as heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, the denial of that right to homosexuals (including the establishment of ‘civil unions’ as a separate legal institution, regardless of whether the rights conferred are identical to those conferred in ‘marriage’) infringes their right to equal protection under the law” (Burnham).
In a related decision, cited in Lawrence, the court wrote:
“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Homosexual identity is clearly protected from a legal standpoint; and in addition to this, by way of the Equal Protection Clause (requires states to treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances) Marriage rights should be extended. Liberalism demands that the legal status of Marriage should be accessible by homosexual couples.
The same fundamental value that allows you to worship without fear of prosecution allows homosexual relationships–even up to marriage. Liberalism, as a positive value which extends protection to Christians, etc., is a primary value that should be upheld though it brings potential for activities and institutions that are contrary to Christian morality. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry for the same reason you are allowed to go to church.
—-
Information from Mello’s book used in my debate, but not in the main body:
Chief Justice Marchall (Mass. Supreme Court: Goodridge, 2003) in her lead opinion, “reformulated the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean ‘the voluntary union of two people as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.’ ‘Marriage is a vital social institution,’ wrote the chief justice. ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society.’ For those people ‘who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits.’” Indeed, the argument is that homosexual marriage is actually good for the children…
Sources:
- Burnham, Ted. “The Right to Homosexual Marriage, Based on Lawrence et al. V. Texas,” Accessed 17 April, 2005 http://abacus.bates.edu/eclectic/vol2iss2/textversions/tburnham-legal-paper-4-04.htm>
- Gaus, Gerald, Courtland, Shane D., “Liberalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of
- Philosophy (Winter 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Accessed 17 April, 2005 http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2003/entries/liberalism>.
- Mello, Michael. “Legalizing Gay Marriage.” Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004
- Mill, John Stuart (1991 [1859]). On Liberty and Other Essays, John Gray, ed. New York: Oxford University Press: 471-582.
- Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry for the same reason you are allowed to go to church.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
This isn’t a question of “free will” and the right to do something that may not be popular or in tune with social more. This isn’t flag burning or the right to publish inflammatory anti-government leaflets—this is a fundamental restructuring of what defines a natural relationship. I don’t think that “homosexuality” should be outlawed (which it still technically is in many states). But isn’t there a place between condoning a certain activity and recognizing, encouraging and even rewarding it at the federal level?
Where do we stop with this then? At what point is it no longer just a different “value” or “viewpoint” that we should protect even if as a society we don’t agree with it? Man and boy? Man and horse? You argument could be, and probably already is used for those in favor of much more “unnatural” lifestyles. Advocates of gay marriage say it will never go that far. But will those “lifestyles” still be considered unnatural in 25 years?
if only i had the energy…or the time.
so we’re going to look to our government to stand upon moral relativism and let whoever happens to be in office at the time pass laws based upon how they feel the culture is emerging? I’m all for being accepting, but as Christians isn’t our purpose to bring God glory in all we do?, I strongly believe we should love and accept anyone no matter where they are coming from, but passing laws that enable them into a life of sin, I’m not sure that’s what Christ is about… didn’t Christ come so that, according to John 10:10, “we’d have life and have it to the full”, & I guess I just don’t see making gay marriage legal helping that. Jesus came, and he loved everyone, but he wasn’t pushing the government to legalize any kind of sin just because the people he loved were immersed in sin. I think we take this “tolerant” attitude so far that we begin to side with the sinners rather than stand up for the Lord’s purity and holiness.
We go from being completely closed minded, to open to others ideas, to tolerant, to loving, to accepting, to condoning, then to being close minded on the other side.
especially on Issues like this I think Brian Mclaren’s idea of “getting off this level of discourse” is right where I’m headed, This isn’t about I’m right and you’re wrong, It’s about Loving God and being inline with Christ’s example.
We all have our opinions, but Why do we feel that it’s so important to push our agenda on to others as almost a sales pitch?
Where do we stop acting upon Moral Relativism and start standing upon the simple basic truths we have to hold onto?
(this comment is open to and inviting arguement and alterior thoughts and opinions)
(btw, i came across this from Noel’s blog)
I kind of thought this post would stir up a bit more controversy, but I suppose it is the sort of thing that requires a certain amount of engagement; perhaps more than a blog is justified in demanding. Anyhow I’m not exactly sure how detailed I want to get in defense of this argument.
Understanding that Liberalist political philosophy is an integral part of the reasoning is important for those who want to actually interact with the argument on its own plane.
The issue at stake here has nothing to do with “cultural/moral relativism” (a term sneakingly reminscent of dear Anonymous the Philistine). The issue is Liberalism versus Reconstructionism (theonomy). Some would argue that a different (and better) sort of political system could be devised that eschews liberalism (while still avoiding the autocratic terrors of objective Utopias) and brings Christian basic values to bear in greater intensity. Granted this may be the case.
Of course a significant objection to this sort of “tolerant/compassionate” reconstruction is found by merely shifting one’s gaze to reality itself. Our system simply is Liberalist. Any major systemic overhaul would create far reaching chaos (and potentially long lasting, before stasis came about). While it looks nice hanging on the theoretical wall, the reconstructionist vision is naivete.
Granted Liberalism, the possibility and perhaps the necessity of the outworkings of my argument follow.
Reconstruction
I mangled the link. Here it is again:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html
Reconstructionism
i agree, reconstructionism by itself is full of loop holes filled with ignorance and contradiction, and I also have no arguement against that fact that our system is Liberalist. My point leans more where we stand with our moral contributions and standards we represent as follower’s of Christ to our world. There’s the sweeping generalization made by much of conservative christianity that says “Gay=Bad, end of story” which assumedly comes from poor english translations of the bible (i.e. the NLT).
In the book of Corinthians Paul speaks against homosexuality, but the context in which he was speaking actually had nothing to do with the “gay=bad” idea people act out against. He was speaking more towards the NAMBLA like actions committed in the town of Corinth. Maybe a call to even stand up for those kids (which if we keep going down the path we are, this is a possibility of becoming the norm)
The Arrogance of the “emergent/PoMo” church is really taking away from the Reformation we are in the midst of within our culture. We as Christians have an amazing opportunity to wake up this generation from it’s coma like state into understanding the reality that no matter who you are we are (1 Cor 6:19-20) bought at a price and there for, in a sexual context, according to Paul, we should glorify God in our body.
As i said before, I am more about loving eachother as Christ has loved us than I am pushing my values and morals onto everyone in a demeaning matter, but if we’re going to not only condone but encourage sin, no matter how big or small, what’s different from what the world offers?
Our Liberalist Society, and misconstruing of Christ’s love for us and others, let’s us create a cheap masque for us to hide behind in order to not have to live out fully for Christ and yet naively believe we’ve “arrived”. Especially the youth that is in this emergent reformation of american christianity, we have a lot of intelligence, but we lack wisdom in how we act on this intelligence.
before we (as in Christ followers) go and begin condoning and encouraging what has been taught as undeniable sin for generation upon generation, we need to step back and ask ourselves “just because generations before us ‘missed the point’ in many areas what makes us, especially those of us in our early twenties, think we have this figured out enough to jump to life altering conclusions on life we’ve only had a handful of years to experience and learn about?”
keep the conversation going…
Just as an example, a woman used legalized gay marriage in one country to marry a dolphin.