Same-sex marriage has been in the news, particularly in California where Proposition 8 unleashed a firestorm of emotions on both sides. Centrist writer Scott Payne steps back and looks at the issue in this Guest Voice post.
Marriage Equality: A Help, Not a Hindrance
by Scott Payne
For a month now the issue of same sex marriage has taken the spotlight in America’s culture wars. Whether it is fair to say or not, there seems to be the sense that with an African American in the White House a certain calming plateau has been achieved in racial relations. The passage of Proposition 8 in California has stirred a variety of emotions amongst Americans coast to coast with gay rights activists organizing a national day of rallies on November 15 in support of marriage equality and religiously based opponents, Mormons in particular, facing an unparalleled backlash for their support of traditional definition of marriage.
Arguments from opponents to marriage equality have varied in focus and quality, but perhaps one of the more sincere and thoughtful refrains has come from conservatives like Rod Dreher. Recently, Dreher penned an article for online magazine Culture 11 bemoaning the divisive nature of the Proposition 8 victory and alluding to the larger issue of moral decay, of which non-traditional definitions of marriage that include same-sex couples are a symptom. Dreher wrote,
“We no longer possess a belief that marriage has a purpose beyond itself, that it signifies something greater than the will of individuals wishing to be married. This is the result of a radically individualist culture that views ethical truths as little more than statements of preference. What we’ve lost is, to use a philosophical term, a teleology – that is, the belief that our actions are all geared toward a final goal, and must be judged by whether or not they lead toward, or away, from this goal. Absent a shared teleology, however general, our politics become even more fractious and combative, as rational argument – which democratic deliberation requires – becomes all but impossible.”
I do not disagree with Dreher that as the foundations of our traditional institutions erode in the face of complex social dynamics we are forced to grapple with increasingly hazy moral clarity. That such moral haziness represents an assault on the signifiers of meaning against which we pin our lives is, as well, not a controversial statement in my mind. However, contra Dreher I see the legalization of same sex marriage and the constitutionalization of marriage equality as an effective redress to our contemporary ethical dilemma.
My contention that we might use marriage equality as recourse to moral relativity does not stem from a simple “big tent” take on marriage, which is to say that we needn’t to take a monotonously expansionist view of marriage that decrees: the more people married the better. This is not numbers game.
To slow the slide of moral ambiguity we need to rest our strategies on a qualitative analysis of what role the institution of marriage plays in upholding a meaningful notion of life lived. While it may be true that for some same sex couples the institution of marriage is not imbued with a fundamentally religious meaning, as it is for Dreher, that does not mean that it is a simple expression of preference, either.
A deeply held significance to the union of two people in marriage can exist outside of the boundaries of specified organized religion. This is true of both heterosexual and homosexual couples from many walks of life. The intention to marry often times signifies two individuals’ intentions to build a life together, which often includes the creation of a family. In this regard, the social importance of marriage as the bedrock of cohesion remains intact.
What’s more, increasingly the desire to create and raise a family is an integral part element of the intentions of same sex coupes in seeking marriage. While the values that are ensconced in the raising of a family will vary from family to family, there is a common element of purposefulness and meaningfulness that is expressed in the commitment to riase a family. One does not wish to raise a family in the midst of moral chaos. Same sex couples, just like their hetero counterparts, seek the fulfillment of both growing old with a life partner, as well as the ability to pass on a legacy through children.
All of which is to say that there is a significant and coherent set of values that remain firmly ensconced in the institution of marriage that do not rely on specific religious convictions, but may provide a contemporized buttressing force against the disturbing creep of moral relativism. With a whole subset of individuals clamoring to access this set of values, it seems as though it would behoove those seeking to stem the tide of relativism to find ways accommodating those willing participants.
Of course, this proposition is not easy.
To allow for the inauguration of same sex couples into this contemporarily relevant set of values, religiously inclined individuals such as Dreher have to square the circle of their opposition to homosexuality itself. While no doubt difficult, such a reconciliation is no impossible and has already been achieved by surprising number of religious individuals, particularly amongst the younger generation of worshippers.
At core, I think the questions that faces people like Dreher is what they find more disturbing: the possibility of tolerating a different lifestyle or the social hazard of creeping moral relativity. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I think the two have a greater degree of mutual exclusivity than we might think.
Scott Payne is a part-time blogger and aspiring pundit hailing from the Canadian city of Calgary, Alberta. With an eight year history in political activism and the not-for-profit sector, Scott has come to the conclusion that political and social analysis that does not at least attempt to take into account a variety of perspectives is doomed to limited success and partial failure. As such, Scott is committed to the goal of fashioning a socio-political discourse that is as representative of the many views operating in society as possible. Yes, Scott is a dreamer; he blogs regularly at The Politics of Scrabble.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.