Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Saturday, May 24, 2008

Marriage And The Secular Conscience

by tristero

My friend, philosopher Austin Dacey, is in the Times today. I've posted before about his book, The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life and it led to some lively discussions, with some of you strongly agreeing and others disagreeing with Dacey. (I hasten to add that I often disagree with Austin - and just as often agree with him. I value our friendship all the more for the opportunity to argue passionately with someone who is both intelligent and knowledgeable.) Here he has lost me, but probably because I don't quite grasp the fundamental level at which philosophers approach a question:
Mr. Dacey illuminated his notion of a fundamental conversation with his reaction to last week’s California Supreme Court decision that barring same-sex marriage violates the State Constitution. In a lengthy e-mail message, he noted that such court decisions had provoked “a powerful (and pretty permanent) backlash,” with more and more states adopting “pre-emptive state constitutional bans.”

Secular liberals, he proposed, should pursue “another, more gradual strategy,” emphasizing public debate and legislation rather than court cases. Currently, “conservatives resort to secular-sounding sociological research about child development and slippery slopes,” he wrote, while “liberals try to debunk this pseudoscience, and accuse their interlocutors of bigotry.”

But neither side, he said, is addressing the moral heart of the matter: a core conviction that “marriage is a sacred covenant” that homosexual unions would violate. “Who is talking about that?” he asked.

“This culture war will be lost if we cannot engage in public conversation about the religious significance of marriage and the moral value of same-sex relationships,” he concluded.
Please note that Dacey's problem is with the practical effects of the California Supreme Court ruling. He fears that by sidestepping, or short-circuiting a "fundamental conversation" on what exactly is meant by "the sacred covenant of marriage," a backlash is all but inevitable. It is that conversation Dacey seeks, because he is quite confident that the position stemming from a liberal conscience - essentially, any two people who love each other should have the right to marry - is the more reasonable one and will prevail.

My difficulty with Austin's position is that I can't see much to have a conversation about. Of course, the state's attitude towards any couple should be blind to the gender of the two people involved, including the right to be married. The only arguments in favor of discriminating the genders within a couple rest on interpretations of specific religious texts. Not merely do such arguments clearly violate the Establishment clause, they rest upon the fundamental fallacy of arguing from authority. If Austin wishes to have that argument, ie, challenging biblical authority, all well and good, but the proximate issue is marriage rights. And about that, there seems little to discuss.

Regarding the "sacredness of marriage," Austin is surely devil-advocating here. Of course, he knows that marriages are often a matter of registering down at the County Clerk's office and that there is nothing inherently "sacred" - ie, religiously special - about marriage at all. No one has shied away from discussing this. As no one has shied away from noting that marriages have often been pre-arranged, been entered into for financial reasons, political reasons, and even simply to assert citizenship in a new country.

As for the "morality of marriage," I fail once again to see what there is to discuss without getting specific. It's often a very good thing for two people to marry. And it's often a lousy thing. But without specific examples, I fail to grasp the meaning of phrases like "morality of marriage" - or "sacredness of marriage," for that matter.

Finally, I don't think that a "permanent" backlash is a necessary result. Perhaps he's unaware of this, but twice the California legislature passed gay marriage legislation and twice the piece of Hitler-loving garbage California has for a governor vetoed it. As Richard Kim points out in The Nation:
...gay marriage has become a thoroughly mainstream proposition [in California]. In 2005 and 2007 the California State Legislature passed bills granting gays and lesbians the right to marry; on both occasions, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills. But by directly expressing their support for gay marriage through the democratic process, the State Legislature undercut the right-wing claim that gay marriage is something "activist judges" foist onto an unwilling public. Indeed, the majority on the state's Supreme Court, comprising three Republicans and one Democrat, weren't "legislating from the bench"; they were reaffirming legislative will. And despite his vetoes, Schwarzenegger has said that he respects the court's opinion and opposes an amendment to the California Constitution, something he calls "a waste of time."

None of this will deter conservatives from pouring money, ground troops and vitriol into their campaign to get a marriage amendment passed, and they may well succeed this fall. But even that short-term victory won't change two fundamentals: in the presidential race, California will go to the Democratic candidate, and the idea of gay marriage--endorsed by the State Legislature, accepted by the Republican governor and supported by growing numbers of gay-friendly voters--has become for Californians as banal as a Hollywood divorce.

...The California gay marriage debate illustrates important national trends for Democrats. Growing numbers of Americans favor gay rights, including some form of partnership recognition for same-sex couples, especially when framed as economic and legal rights. This is particularly true of young voters; in California 55 percent of voters under 30 support gay marriage, and nationwide 63 percent of voters under 40 support civil unions or domestic partnerships. But this trend also holds true for voters of all ages; a 2007 Field poll reported that Californians young and old were four times more likely to say they are becoming more accepting of gay relationships than less accepting. Moreover, when the symbolic weight of marriage is removed from the equation, support for gay rights becomes overwhelming. Nationwide, a whopping 89 percent of voters favor protecting gays and lesbians from employment discrimination.
And that's about it. What more is there to discuss? "The symbolic weight of marriage?" I suppose so, but I don't see it being amenable to reason. If you truly believe that your own marriage is diminished because two men have the right to marry, no amount of conversation or reason is going to convince you otherwise.

In short, it is hard to have a national fundamental conversation about objections to gay marriage for the same reason it's hard to have a national conversation about the validity of "intelligent design" creationism: There is no there there. That is, there are no good rational arguments, period, for a gay marriage ban or for knowingly teaching lies as science. And given that lack of rational arguments, how is it possible to have a fundamental conversation?

In truth, marriage rights, like reproductive rights, are about the exercise of power. To control who may marry, or what a woman can do with her body, is to wield power. Therefore, as I see it, the only purpose a fundamental conversation has regarding these issues is as part of an effort to advance the progressive positions. But since the objections to the liberal positions are more emotional than rational, discussions of fundamentals are much less important to advancing marriage rights than discussions of specific legislative and legal strategies. I don't think this is true of all issues, of course. Surely, there are many issues over reasonable people disagree (within evolutionary biology, for example, there are many important and exciting controversies ). I just don't see marriage rights as that kind of an issue.

Again, I'm not a philosopher, so there may be some subtle nuance I'm missing. I simply fail to see the social controversy over gay marriage as one between two competing positions, honestly and reasonably held - I see it only as an attempt to exert power over people's lives by the right. But if I am missing something, I'm sure you'll tell me all about it (grin).