Thursday, November 20, 2008

Andrew Sullivan, originalist?

Gay marriage as original intent:
Accept civil equality not as a defeat but as an opportunity: to persuade and evangelize for something beyond the civil that still respects the integrity of the civil. That's what America's founders intended. It is part of their genius that today's fundamentalists simply do not understand.
Just to make sure, I thumbed through my copy of the Federalist and saw not a single reference to the sort of "civil equality" asserted by Sullivan. Indeed, as I pointed out earlier this week, homosexual behavior never had any standing in the American legal tradition other than being proscribed as "a crime against nature." The same founders who authored the Declaration and the Constitution -- indeed, the same men who fought the war to win our independence -- also enacted or enforced laws in their states prohibiting sodomy. No once did any of the founders suggest that the prohibition of sodomy was unjust or ought to be repealed. So who is Sullivan -- a damned Brit -- to come over here and try to tell us "what America's founders intended"?

Sullivan was reacting to Rod Dreher's column:
Bigots are by definition people whose prejudices are irrational. Bigots are moral cretins who can’t be talked to, only coerced. One is under no obligation to compromise with a bigot, only to smash him. . . . .
That’s what we’re seeing now in California. How are defenders of traditional marriage supposed to have reasoned discourse with people who insist that there is nothing to talk about except the terms of our surrender?
One problem with conservatives is their insistence on arguing only in terms of universal, abstract values, whereas liberals do not hesitate to assert the politics of self-interest or the politics of identity.

The burden of proof in policy disputes ought always to rest with the advocates of innovation. The Burkean insight is that established law and social custom are presumed legitimate, and that revolutionaries who would overthrow the established order must first demonstrate (a) the necessity of the change to remedy existing evil and (b) some reasonable assurance that the new order would be a genuine improvement on that order which is to be destroyed. (Or, to quote Lord Acton: "Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.")

The argument for same-sex marriage can't clear this hurdle, no matter how much its advocates outspend their opposition, no matter how they rewrite ballot questions in an effort to prejudice the electorate. Gay radicals argue their case in terms of direct, narrow self-interest -- "We want this, therefore society must grant it" -- and became enraged when society answers, "We don't want it, and won't grant it."

What I've never understood is the insistence that the 2% gay tail must wag the 98% straight dog. Whatever the grievances of homosexuals, how do they claim authority to dictate law to the rest of society? And why do so many people react instinctively to placate the aggrieved minority? "Yes, of course -- give them whatever they want!"

Why do people react like that? Because the alternative is to be called names. Fine. Call me names. Call me a bigot, a homophobe, an ignorant, right-wing holy-roller. Cowards are common enough without my joining their ranks.

9 comments:

  1. And why do so many people react instinctively to placate the aggrieved minority? "Yes, of course -- give them whatever they want!"

    Because that's how they raise their kids. To react any other way would be to admit to themselves they're not being good parents.

    Well, they're not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ask Christine Cloud how the narrow interest worked out for her. This intellectual (and now physical) terrorism must stop or the velvet mafia will find itself in an indefensible position. At some point even live and let live types will say enough of this crap, you can't have your way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, you are kind of a bigot.
    Be that as it may, you question why 2% of the tail wags the 98% of the dog.
    But your side has never cleared up what exactly same-sex marriage imposes upon you?
    Acceptance of an alternative life-style?
    Is anyone asking you to marry your neighbor Steve if same-sex marriage is legalized?
    I imagine there were alot of your types who didn't want to accept African-Americans as equals....

    ReplyDelete
  4. 4 Eyes:
    Here's one consequence I hadn't thought of but a friend that is becoming a priest told me. The Church is getting out of the adoption business in places where gay marriage is legal. As far as the 2% wagging the 98%, it's that the 2% is now wagging the 98% against a wall. The violence against people that are against gay marriage is beyond the pale. Jefferson said that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." This lesson has been lost on the velvet mafia.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The Church is getting out of the adoption business in places where gay marriage is legal."

    The Church is also getting out of the Church business where there is no money. Here in NYC, the Churches and its subsidiary institutions are leaving for the suburbs because that's where the money is going.
    My point is that Church policy is flawed and based on agendas that go beyond the moral fiber of society. Perhaps the Church should get out of the adoption "business" altogether.
    Besides, what the Church does still doesn't address why anti-gay rights folks feel same-sex marriage is a threat. If you follow this line of thought to the end, wouldn't divorce pose more of a threat to marriage?
    I maintain that same-sex marriage fear is born from an ignorance and intolerance of individual rights. Can you really justify imposing your personal belief on others?

    ReplyDelete
  6. 4 eyes:
    My beliefs are that the license obtained for "marriage" from the government should be a civil document for anyone (it shouldn't be called a marriage license, but a civil union license). Further, I believe that churches can marry anyone they choose to marry or not. That way both sides get what they want, a document that protects anyone's legal rights, and religious institutions can practice freely without interference. Put it this way, the government shouldn't be in the marriage or religion business and religions shouldn't be in the law business. How does that work for you?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Right Guy:
    That's pretty sound.
    I think some gays might object to the exclusivity of the word "marriage". I personally don't feel it's a big deal. Semantics and hair splitting as far as I'm concerned.
    Do you think the rest of your buds on the Right will go along?

    ReplyDelete
  8. 4 eyes:
    I am a paleo-libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism), or classical liberal. while technically on the right, I am not a fundamentalist christian, per se. I don't know about anyone going along, but I'd like to think my idea allows everyone to walk away from the table satisfied. The question from me is, would gays be satisfied with that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I don't know about anyone going along, but I'd like to think my idea allows everyone to walk away from the table satisfied. The question from me is, would gays be satisfied with that? "

    You'd have to ask them. I said before that I imagine some gays might want to argue for the "marriage" terminology.

    I take a Jeffersonian approach.I think a future generation should resolve the semantic squabble.

    ReplyDelete