Till Death Metal Do Us Part
A sharp wit and biting sarcasm are often effective covers for fundamental flaws in logic or holes in an argument. What can't be demonstrated through logic or argument can sometimes be more convincing simply by mocking the opposing viewpoint. I appreciate this fact, and rely on it daily.
Mr. Abernethy glibly mocks the argument that if gay marriage is ratified at either Federal or State levels, it will be laying the groundwork for future permutations of marriage that are either inconceivable today or just laughable. He jokes about marrying his electric guitar, for example. And yet his logic - or rather the logic that he is reporting on - leads directly to these very sorts of applications. Abernethy declares that "at it's heart, marriage is about the law". Actually, he has it reversed. The law is about marriage.
Law did not create the concept of marriage. But the law is intended to recognize this innate trend in human relationships, and set up some safeguards - both for the people in the marriage as well as those around them. Thus, the law exists to acknowledge what is, and to ensure that it is conducted in a responsible manner. The law does not create marriage - the law codifies particular aspects of marriage in terms of identity, finances, and legal issues. Law is in the service of marriage, not the other way around. However, if you want to argue that the law defines marriage, you've just pretty much destroyed the logic for any limitations on what is or is not allowable or definable as marriage.
The justification given by the Iowa Supreme Court is that the State must have a compelling issue to act in a situation, and that in the case of gay marriage, the State does not have a compelling reason to deny legal marriage to gays. So the traditional argument of it's not hurting anyone else so why should you care? seems to be at play here. However, if this is the standard by which the State determines how to limit the institution of marriage, there would seem to be little room at all for denying anyone marriage to literally anyone - or anything.
You want to marry your guitar? Fine, go ahead. You're not hurting anyone, and at least you know the guitar isn't going to cheat on you, right? Since the guitar isn't likely to want to exercise any of the legal rights available to it, there should be no problem. Marriage is reduced from a socially and biologically determined issue, to one of personal preference or choice. If I want to marry my guitar, or my hamster, or a tree - does the State have a compelling reason to stop me from doing so? Not that I can see. Not based on the criteria the State itself has provided.
The drive to treat homosexual marriages on the same basis as heterosexual ones has no basis in religion, obviously, but nor does it have a basis in evolution or natural selection (for those of you who feel those are good explanations of things), history, sociology, or pretty much any other aspect of human experience. It's not that homosexuality has never existed before, but rather that everybody - throughout history and across geographical and cultural boundaries - understood that it was something fundamentally different than heterosexual marriage. Even cultures that were permissive of homosexual relationships understood that it wasn't marriage. The law reflected this understanding.
But by turning the tables, so that law is now seen as determinative of what constitutes marriage, rather than the reverse, all manner of possibilities open up based on who wants to lobby for what and majority opinion. But now, marriage is just a matter of what I feel like. If I feel drawn to a woman, wonderful. If I feel drawn to another man, no problem. Heck, if I'm drawn to another man and four women, and they all feel that we ought to be married, what basis does the Iowa Supreme Court have for denying us this right? What basis has been left that would prevent six loving and caring people from marrying and becoming useful contributors to their community? LIkewise, there should be no issue with me being drawn to any random inanimate object in my possession. Who is the State to insist that marriage must involve people? Who is the State to determine at what age someone is ready for marriage? What compelling interest does the State have in limiting marriage on practically any criteria? Very little, it would seem.
You can laugh at the arguments against redefining the nature of legal marriage. But laughing doesn't ignore the fact that some very real and important legal precedents are being thrown out the window and replaced with completely different ones. And in the end, I suspect that fewer of us are going to be inclined to laugh about where these changes lead us.
Posted by Paul Nelson at 5/21/2009 12:08 PM 
Categories: Citizenship, Politics, Philosophy, Current Events
Categories: Citizenship, Politics, Philosophy, Current Events
This is a very intriguing post, Paul. It has implications in previous discussions as well, like the UDHR as an example. As you stated in that discussion, the instituted authorities do not uphold authority on their own authority or according to their own understandings, but rather their authority and their understanding has a source, the Law of God, and it is from this Law that all true law stems. Government laws, and other binding agreements like them, find their proper limit and their legitimacy when in conformity with God's Law.
Our laws do not define what is true and right and good and helpful. Rather, what is true and right and good and helpful define our laws.
Imagine the enormous impact it would have in our entire country if the government acknowledged that its power comes from another Source, and thus was not only in service to the people (of whom governments are made and thus just as fickle) but also to that Source.
But the tough part is how to implement this. Theocracy has not been very effective in the past. Where is the middle road?
Reply to this
The government * has * acknowledged that it's power comes from another Source. Review the Declaration of Independence. It's all right there:
Reply to this