Gay Marriage Ban Indefensible
Should we constitutionally ban gay marriage? Obama says no, McCain says no, Biden says no. But Palin says yes, revealed in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent David Brody published Monday. While CBN applauded, all conceivable secular arguments supporting the ban fail, so McCain might reconsider the wisdom of his running mate.
“I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.”
Though religious prohibitions abound, mounting a successful secular argument against homosexuality is notoriously difficult. Some say it spreads disease, but so does unprotected heterosexual sex. Some say it doesn’t lead to reproduction, but neither does contraceptive aided heterosexual sex, sex between infertile heterosexual partners, or even kissing between heterosexuals. Some attack the “homosexual lifestyle,” but what’s really at issue is the supposed lifestyle itself—promiscuous sex with random partners, drug use, etc—not the sexual orientation of those involved. And some insist that being gay is a choice, not biological (though I can’t imagine why anyone would choose to frustrate their natural heterosexuality and seek out persecution), but this is a moot point if there are no other strikes against it.
So it’s completely consistent to personally denounce homosexual marriage—based on religion or whatever—but at the same time oppose a legal ban.
But here Palin doesn’t want to outlaw, or even denounce it as immoral. Instead she’s pushing the “sanctity of marriage” argument—that such a fundamental institution can’t afford to be compromised. Indeed, homosexuals usually don’t reproduce, and a state that doesn’t repopulate isn’t a state for very long.
The obvious reply is that heterosexuals have done a pretty shoddy job of taking marriage seriously themselves, so what we need are more committed partners, regardless of their orientation. Maybe pre-licensing interviews and mandatory relationship counseling would do the trick. Plus, gays aren’t going to reproduce regardless of whether they’re married, so population issues don’t apply. (Actually, lesbian couples might be more likely to visit the sperm bank if they were legally married…) So those are the best secular arguments against it, and they all fall short.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m not flippantly ignoring the religious arguments. Religious reasoning is certainly appropriate in our personal lives, and can even predispose our policy positions. Following the doctrine of divine command theory, whatever God says goes, so a personal aversion to homosexuality is completely acceptable, if that’s what your religion teaches.
But religious arguments can’t work in the public forum, even in a state founded on Christian values. America is a nation of many faiths, so if we truly respect one another as free equals, we must reach beyond our personal intuitions and offer arguments that anyone can accept—base our laws on reasons that anyone can affirm, not just believers.
Just as the Hindu’s demand that I support a ban on eating beef falls on deaf ears, so too would my demand that he support banning gay marriage (Hinduism doesn’t explicitly address homosexuality). If we truly respect one another as fellow citizens in any serious way, in both cases, well-reasoned secular arguments must be supplied and discussed. And in both cases, such arguments are lacking.
So it’s completely consistent to personally denounce homosexual marriage—based on religion or whatever—but at the same time oppose a legal ban. The secular arguments just don’t hold water, and they’re all that’s admissible in the public forum.
It’s unnatural, against God’s will, indicative of an immoral lifestyle—I imagine similar arguments were used against interracial marriage a few short decades ago. Someone probably quibbled over the historical definition of “marriage” and argued that it had exclusively applied to intraracial couples. Maybe someone proposed we grant such couples “civil union” status? But over time the taboo lifted and the practice became first legally, then popularly sanctioned. Some religious denominations resisted, and that’s fine, but the state followed where reason led. Many churches will no doubt refuse to sanctify gay marriage, regardless of legality, and I’m by no means challenging their prerogative. But I’m confident public reason will prevail in the legal realm, and our officials will resist the call for a constitutional ban. Most already have—Palin should join them.
—Matt Deaton—
