“The Case for Traditional Marriage”
By David Preston,
Reluctant Conservative
—at least until the real thing arrives.
Argument 1: Tradition
Tradition is important to the integrity of any society. Naturally, sexual relations (and by extension, marriage) will be among the most tradition-bound institutions society has.
I doubt that anyone will dispute me so far.
OK then . . .
While any social tradition should be flexible enough to adapt to circumstances, those who would try to change a tradition too suddenly, or too drastically, may find that they have “sowed the whirlwind.” This is exactly what has happened, I think, with the gay marriage movement. In case you hadn’t noticed, there is currently a backlash going on, and the backlashers are not all Mormons, either.
Bear with me a moment now . . . I’m not necessarily trying to make a case against gay marriage. —Yet.
Until the past decade or so, marriage was considered by a large majority of Americans to be a union between a man and a woman exclusively. Until quite recently no one even raised the question of whether there was a “right”—under the Constitution or any other jurisprudence—for two people of the same sex to get married.
Following from this, I think it’s safe to say that for the past four hundred years or so, Americans have been getting married under the assumption that, whatever else marriage might be, it is, at the very minimum, a union between a man and a woman.
This was certainly my grandparents’ understanding of marriage.
This was my parents’ understanding of marriage.
This was my understanding of marriage.
Now, in the last few years, up comes a group of people (it may be a large group, it may be a small group, that’s not the issue) . . . but here come some people who say that no, my understanding, and my parents’ understanding, and my grandparents’ understanding of what marriage is was all wrong. Marriage is not just between a man and a woman, they tell me. It could be between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
Bear with me again for a moment please. I’m just telling you how I’m feeling . . .
Suddenly, someone is trying to change the meaning of something that’s very important to me. And yet, when I don’t just reflexively go along with the new worldview, I’m called a bigot and a homophobe.
Um . . . Excuse me?
—I’m a bigot for not allowing you to redefine this hugely important part of my culture and my life at the drop of a hat?
I don’t think so. But I’ll tell you what. If you say I’m a bigot, I say you’re a bully. If you say I’m forcing my religion down your throat, I say you’re forcing your agenda down mine.
And on and on it goes . . .
Sure, I suppose we could have a power struggle over this for the next twenty years. Guess how much enlightenment that’s going to engender.
So that’s the gist of the “tradition” argument:
Tradition exists.
It’s important.
Don’t mess with it.
(Or at least, don’t mess with it lightly.)
Granted that the “tradition” argument is a largely an emotional one. But then, so is the “tradition-be-damned” argument.
Gay marriage supporters can try to bluster their way through this by claiming that gay marriage is a Constitutional right, a human right, or whatever. But as far as I’m concerned, that is very much open to interpretation, and always will be, until there is specific language inserted into the Constitution that settles the matter one way or another. If you go on the basis of what the Framers intended, then I expect there would be no debate, because the Framers wouldn’t have even entertained the question.
For them, marriage was 1 man + 1 woman.
(Sorry Joseph Smith.)
To be fair, I must acknowledge that the “tradition” argument fails to address one very important question:
Is the value of a privilege or right that I once enjoyed exclusively somehow diminished if that same privilege or right is given to a (formerly) unprivileged group?
I’m not sure.
I used to think: yes, the value of my marriage would be diminished if same-sex couples could get married.
Now I think: no.
But the point is that, for me, it wasn’t just a black-and-white choice. And it still isn’t.
I try to put the question into the context of analogies:
Should the Boy Scouts be allowed to admit only boys to their ranks? Or is that discriminatory to girls?
Should the Catholic Church be allowed to require a vow of celibacy from priests and nuns? Or is that discriminatory to people who want to have sex?
Of course, you can say these other things are nothing like marriage, that marriage is a civil right.
—Which is true. But to whom, exactly, is this civil right accorded? Or must it be accorded to each and all without any restriction whatever?
That, my dear Blogsters, is the real question we are debating.
—And if your reaction is to blurt out No! Of course we know the answer to that one: Gay people have a self-evident right to marry then you, my friends, are engaging in the fallacy known as begging the question.
End of Argument 1
–D.P.
