The Metaphysics of Marriage
by Robert Tracinski
Editor's Note: In light of this week's ruling by a federal judge striking down an amendment to California's state constitution that banned "gay marriage," I thought it would be timely to republish an article I wrote on the subject in the March 2004 print issue of TIA, when there was a push for a federal constitutional amendment. Based on a preliminary look at the new decision, the judge seems to accept precisely the leftist premises I criticize in this article.
There are other things to object to in this decision, as well, including most strikingly the fact that he seems to rule that an amendment to California's constitution violates California's constitution—in effect, that the constitution is unconstitutional. As I make clear below, I do not regard "gay marriage" as an important issue. But judicial lawlessness is an important issue. So I'll be looking at this ruling in more detail.—RWT
The proposal and passage of a constitutional amendment is a momentous event, involving issues of grave national importance that affect the structure and fundamental powers of government—such issues as the separation of church and state, the abolition of slavery, and the balance of powers between the state and federal governments.
Why, then, is the latest crusade for a new constitutional amendment an attempt to enshrine, in the fundamental law of the land, one of the narrowest points of state and local law: the legal definition of marriage?
The Defense of Marriage Amendment is the religious conservatives' response to a nationwide campaign, championed by the left, for "gay marriage"—an expansion of the legal institution of marriage to include homosexual couples. As the latest salvo in this campaign, advocates have resorted to an unusual tactic: civil disobedience by government officials in San Francisco, New York, and Oregon who have begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples without legal authorization.
Why has this issue become such a grand-scale national controversy, to be fought with the weapons of constitutional amendments and civil disobedience? The reason is that this conflict—for most of the people who are fighting it—is about more than just the details of one particular legal institution: it is a clash between the two dominant false metaphysics of our era.
In a proper metaphysics, marriage is a social institution created by independent individuals for the pursuit of their own happiness here on earth. The source of marriage is spiritual, but not in a mystical sense; its source is the profound psychological value of a lifelong romantic relationship. The purpose of marriage is also social, but not in a collectivist sense; its purpose is to publicly declare a couple's romantic connection, so that others can recognize this union. The government's proper role is simply to recognize the existence of this social institution and codify its legal aspects: rules for joint ownership and inheritance of property, custody of children, the terms under which a spouse may authorize medical treatment in emergencies, and so on.
In the context of this metaphysics, the type of "gay marriage" being debated today is a relatively narrow issue. It is the creation of a social institution largely identical to marriage, but involving a different kind of romantic relationship. Individuals may decide for themselves how they evaluate the psychological and even the moral status of such homosexual relationships, but that is strictly a private issue. The government's only proper concerns are: is there a need for legal recognition of these relationships, and should such a legal institution be called by the same name as marriage?
On the first question, there is a compelling case. Homosexuals who commit to lifelong romantic relationships face many of the same legal issues as heterosexual couples—joint ownership of property, inheritance, authorization of medical treatment—and no other legal relationship can easily be adapted to address these issues. What is needed is more than a business partnership, incorporation, or contractual arrangement; it is a comprehensive legal union of two lives. In recognition of this—and in response to vigorous campaigning—several states have begun to experiment with some form of "civil union" or "domestic partnership."
Strangely, however, the central fight today is on the second question: the name of this legal union. Note that the issue is not whether private individuals choose to call their relationship a marriage, or whether others agree with the designation. The issue is what the government calls it. In a proper metaphysics, this is an issue of little importance, so long as the actual rights of homosexual couples are recognized.
But what if one accepts a different metaphysics?
Today's religious right rejects the metaphysical view of man as an independent entity pursuing his interests here on this earth. In their metaphysics, man is the creation of an all-powerful God who imposes on his creation certain moral imperatives that must be obeyed without question. Thus, the religious right does not view homosexuality as a private issue; the person who possesses this sexual preference has no right to decide for himself whether it harms or enhances his life. Instead, homosexuality is regarded as a metaphysical affront to God, a sin that undermines a society's relationship with its creator. Marriage, likewise, is not an institution created by private individuals; it is a sacrament—a relationship ordained by God, not man.
Hence the views of the most vocal opponents of "gay marriage." No argument is more thorough than this letter circulated last year by the Vatican:
>>> Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties, and purpose.... God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply." Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.... There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law....
Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. <<<
American Protestants merely present less-intellectual echoes of the same philosophy. The most watered down form is a vague statement by President Bush, in which he declared that "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."
But this is not the only metaphysics widely offered today. Those who reject the religious outlook usually turn to a viewpoint that is seemingly the diametric opposite, but which is, in fact, the secular successor to the religious metaphysics—a metaphysics in which society has replaced God.
In this outlook, the individual is the product of society and cannot survive without its support and approval, which is his most basic need in life. Thus, for an individual or a minority group to be "oppressed," they do not need to be subject to force and brutality; oppression consists, primarily, of being denied an equal share in the benefits bestowed by society. Racism, for example, does not just mean being lynched; it means having a higher statistical rate of unemployment. The government, in this view, is the primary agent responsible for ensuring an equal distribution of social benefits.
This is why, like other "civil rights" movements before it, the "gay rights" movement has long expanded its demands beyond the call for equality under the law and focused instead on securing special government favors. Thus, rather than limiting its goal to such causes as overturning the Biblically inspired "anti-sodomy" laws, which threaten individuals with imprisonment for private, consensual sexual activity, the movement has launched a crusade for "gay marriage."
Consider the views of the most vocal advocates of "gay marriage." Richard Goldstein, writing in The Village Voice, expresses the leftist consensus when he says that the controversy is really about a scramble for "social status," a Hobbesian war of all against all in which various factions ceaselessly struggle for control over the power wielded by the social collective.
Submissive women and downcast gays were once living proof of straight-male supremacy.... Straight men still hold the lion's share of wealth and power, but their prestige has definitely eroded. No wonder they have such strong feelings about gay marriage. It's not a question of faith or preservation of the family. The real issue here is the "acceptance" of homosexuals, which, for many straight guys, represents yet another blow to their already fragile status.
The recognition of gay marriages is needed, in this view, in order to ensure that downtrodden groups gain a more equal share of social status.
This outlook is echoed in an editorial in the more mainstream newsmagazine The Economist, which declares that "civil unions are not enough" because "marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract." The authors demand that homosexuals have equal access to "the symbolism that marriage brings," including "the social recognition." The goal: not just full legal equality, but "full social equality."
Note that the actual legal rights recognized by marriage are not the central concern of these advocates. That is why they demand "marriage," even when "civil unions" would be a far easier political goal. That is why thousands of couples flocked to the few cities whose officials decided to offer marriage licenses to homosexuals, even though the licenses have little chance of holding up in court. This also explains the peculiar character of many of these ceremonies, which often seem more like political protests than heartfelt romantic commitments.
Most important, this is why there is such intense fighting, not over the actual legal rights recognized by government, but over the name under which the government recognizes those rights. The only semi-plausible argument for this approach is the claim that any other name places a "stigma" on homosexual unions and makes it less likely that they will be taken seriously. But how will a government decree solve this problem? Will people automatically regard homosexual unions as the moral equal of heterosexual marriages simply because the government calls them by the same name? This argument, too, is a vestige of the idea that the state, by giving "gay marriage" society's imprimatur, can exercise its all-powerful influence over the mind of the individual.
The raging, unnecessary conflict over "gay marriage" is just a byproduct of the senseless conflict between the two sides of today's deepest philosophical false alternative: the clash between a social and a religious metaphysics. To resolve that conflict will require, not a constitutional amendment, but an amendment of our culture's deepest philosophical convictions. |
