In the wake of the
Supreme Courts recent decision in Obergefell v. Hodges which essential mandated the legal recognition
of same-sex marriage in all fifty States, Justin
Raimondo writes of his recanting of his original Libertarian case against gay marriage.
Raimondo
explains himself in a long rambling piece in the American Conservative too
difficult to summarize here; but the real meat of his article come toward the
very end:
Ironically, my pro-gay marriage epiphany had its origins
in the course of reading an article [3] in
National Review opposing gay marriage by C.C. Pecknold, an associate
professor of theological, social, and political thought at the Catholic
University of America in Washington, and author of Christianity and
Politics: A Brief Guide to the History. Pecknold writes:
One reason why marriage
is not mentioned in the Constitution is that the Founders recognized that the
institution of marriage was a common good of the society and prior to
politics. Put differently: Constitutional silence on marriage indicates a
commitment to limited government that has so far eluded our debates about
marriage in this country….
The fundamental
distinction on which a commitment to limited government rests is developed in
conversation with ancient classical thought. Augustine was probably the first
great theorist of ‘society’ as something that is ‘pre-political’ and
that finds its most basic unit in the family. But as Thomas Aquinas notes,
Aristotle also recognized this. The Philosopher says in the Nichomachean Ethics
that man is more inclined to conjugal union than political union. Human
beings are ‘social animals’ before they are “political animals.’ [Emphases
added]
Pecknold goes to argue
that this justifies the State’s interest in recognizing and defending marriage
as an institution, but he doesn’t realize that his premise—“The political
union,” he writes, “is subsequent to the prior reality”—undermines his case.
For in looking at my own
life, and the lives of my gay friends, I saw that this also applied to us.
That is, I looked at my own 19-year relationship with the same person, and
thought: Well, yes, “the political union is subsequent to the prior
reality”—but that doesn’t mean the political union is invalid (although it may
not be necessary, given the preferences of the individuals involved).
While Pecknold goes on
to give an ontological-mystical spin to his case against gay marriage, arguing
that “this provides the West with an anthropology for understanding that future
citizens come into the world through the union of a man and a woman,” this is
easily separable from the rest of his line of thought, which is contained in
these very powerful sentences:
When the state
recognizes the nature of marriage as something prior to itself, it secures its
own limits. When we acknowledge and recognize that by nature we are both social
and political, we suddenly change the nature of politics. Our government no
longer is tempted to define the whole of reality.
The irony here is that Pecknold’s piece tried to show that gay marriage is
incompatible with the principle of limited government: ironic because he’s
arguing for extending the State’s authority to prohibit a practice that existed
“prior to itself.”
That homosexuality
existed prior to the founding of the American Republic is beyond dispute: ever
hear of Damon and Pythias, or Zeus and Ganymede? The scholar John Boswell
documented the existence of homosexual unions throughout ancient and medieval times, and shows that they were given some
form of legal recognition during the Roman era.
To Raimondo,
the case boils down to that the principle of limited government means that the
State should have no role in defining marriage.
Thus, in a free society, gay men and women should have the same right as
heterosexuals to marry. This is essentially
his case for "marriage equally".
Raimondo's citing of John Boswell is curious in that
other scholar's have heavily criticized his work in that he had taken his
evidence and made much more out of them than they really were. Still, to many, Boswell is regarded by many
as the last word in the historical existence and legal recognition of gay
marriage. Not being a historian myself,
I have no expertise which qualifies me to render a fair judgment of Boswell's
conclusions. Nevertheless, given
controversy surrounding his contentions, it seems clear to me that Boswell hardly rates
being the "final word" on the matter.
Of course, Raimondo's argument is libertarian one--not a
conservative. Libertarians by nature
deem that societal norms should be given little to no power or authority. The idea that marriage is a pre-existing
institution, that is a foundation which came before the creation the State,
cuts no ice with him. The conservative outlook
is that government should weak (limited) and society strong. Custom and tradition have an authority
separate from the laws of government. But
Libertarians regard any social norm and sanction which interferes which their
choices and desires as illegitimate. In
the typical conservation theory that the formation of any society requires
justice, order, and liberty, the only element Libertarians are interested in is
liberty: justice and order are only subservient
to liberty. The State's major function is to protect their liberty against all
interlopers.
The problem which such a State is that it must be
powerful to protect all the freedoms Libertarians would like to claim for
themselves. In how we organize our lives
together, the State reaches into all aspects of public and private affairs and
sets their meanings and conventions. It
sets what can be expected and required
in human relationships. The
personal does become political. The
private and societal spheres increasingly shrink as the State extends
itself beyond its original authority.
As Raimondo now sees it, limited government means that it
does not place any boundaries around marriage.
Gays should be able to marry whomever they choose and be able to expect
all its benefits. But the reality is, in
order to establish the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, the Supreme
Court uses the power of the State to command the acknowledgment of
"marriage equality" in all times and places beyond the debates and democratic
deliberations of America's citizens.
By tradition, marriage's central concern for both society
and the State was for the children. That
children would have the strong bonds of two biological parents to raise,
protect, and care for them. What the Supreme
Court had done was establish the modern notion that marriage was about two
loving people for which children were only an incidental and optional matter
which had no direct bearing on the relationship itself. Thus, the State is the one that tells us what
marriage is.
Raimondo ends his article stating that the expectation
of fidelity in heterosexual marriages would be unlikely to be an observed
feature in same-sex ones. One wonders
how well the expectation of fidelity actually survives today among heterosexual
couples.. This points to a real point
same-sex advocates have made that truly elicits some sympathy from me. We heterosexuals, since the middle of the twentieth
century, have allowed ourselves all sorts of leeway from the ideal of chastity
and faithful marriage. Traditional norms
are often flaunted with the expectation that no ostracism would follow. As some
would have it, sex between a man and a woman has no more significance that a
handshake. In the face of all this, why
shouldn't there be a little room for gay marriage?
But to orthodox Christians, this should highlight the
disaster that followed the acceptance of the "new morality" of the
1960's. Much suffering and misery
(especially for children) came in its wake.
The "new morality's" incursion into the lives of the flock has
only invited agony and misfortune. Of
course, some wouldn't have had it any other way as long as they got what they
wanted. But it is a scandal on the Church. As much as we may deplore same-sex marriage,
in a real sense, we only brought it on ourselves.