- Image via Wikipedia
Those who argue against same-sex marriage often contend that allowing it will do harm to society. This is, of course, a critical argument. After all, if same-sex marriage caused no harm to others, then it would be all the more difficult to argue that it should not be allowed or even explicitly banned by law.
One of the ablest (and calmest) opponents of same-sex marriage is Rian Brown. I recently read an article in Newsweek about him. The article presented his case for the claim that same-sex marriage will harm others:
“Marriage is a public good. If you change the definition of marriage, you don’t just change it for the gay married couple down the street, you change it for everyone,” he says. If gay marriage is allowed, “then the state is essentially saying that my views on marriage, and the majority of Americans’ views on marriage, are equivalent to discrimination…It profoundly affects me if my children are taught in the schools that my views on marriage are bigoted. It profoundly affects me if the church that I’m part of is treated in the law as bigoted. And, ultimately, same-sex marriage is not true.”*
Brown’s argument seems to be the following. He begins by claiming that if the state legalize same sex marriage, then this would be tantamount to the state condemning opposition to same sex marriage as discrimination. This, he claims, would harm him in two ways. First, it would harm him if his kids are taught that opposition to same sex marriage is bigoted. Second, it would harm him if his church was regarded as bigoted by the law.
His overall reasoning would thus seem to be as follows: If I am regarded as being a bigot, then this would hurt me. This sort of law would make me appear to be a bigot. Thus, this sort of law would hurt me. If a law would hurt me, then it should not be based. Since this law would harm me, it should not be passed.
One stock counter to this sort of argument is to apply this same sort of reasoning in other situations that seem to be relevantly similar. One common approach is to use mixed race marriages. Here is Brown’s argument, with “mixed race in place” of “gay”:
Marriage is a public good. If you change the definition of marriage, you don’t just change it for the mixed race married couple down the street, you change it for everyone,” he says. If mixed marriage is allowed, “then the state is essentially saying that my views on marriage, and the majority of Americans’ views on marriage, are equivalent to discrimination…It profoundly affects me if my children are taught in the schools that my views on marriage are bigoted. It profoundly affects me if the church that I’m part of is treated in the law as bigoted. And, ultimately, mixed race marriage is not true.
This, obviously enough, exactly matches Brown’s logic. However, this would seem to reduce his argument to absurdity. After all, it would have to be concluded that mixed race marriage should be outlawed because those who oppose it would be hurt by being accused of being bigots.
Naturally, some folks might reply by saying that mixed-race marriage is not like same-sex marriage and thus question my argument. However, let us consider the general principle that Brown’s argument rests upon.
The general principle underlying Brown’s argument seems to be that passing a law against something regarded as discrimination makes people who endorse that alleged discrimination appear as bigots, so the law should not be passed. If this principle were correct, then it could be employed against any law against discrimination. For example, it could be argued that the laws against discrimination in hiring should be removed because the people who oppose equal hiring would be hurt on the grounds that they would be regarded as bigots because, for example, they only wanted to hire white men and not women or Mexicans. This, obviously enough, seems to be absurd. As such, Brown’s argument seems to rest on a flawed principle and hence is itself flawed.
As a final point, suppose that his argument were granted for the sake of the discussion. That is, that he would be harmed if a law passed that would seem to imply that his views on marriage are bigoted. One obvious concern is the extent of that harm relative to the harm that same sex couples suffer from not being permitted to marry. After all, if this is a matter of harms, then one obvious way to decide the matter is by considering which parties are harmed the most.
On the face of it, the same sex couples would seem to be harmed more. After all, they are denied all the rights of marriage. In contrast, it would seem that all Brown would have to endure is the pain that the law allows something he opposes. Nothing is taken away from him (his marriage remains as it was) nor would he be forced to do anything (like get married to a man). He could keep opposing same sex marriage and could work to change the law. This hardly seems like it would be much hurt at all.
I think the sticking point is that marriage has a religious dimension. Perhaps the solution is to completely separate church and state, so that the civil rights could be provided by the state with a civil union, but the marriage provided by the church. The exact same laws would apply to straight and gay marriage. The only difference would be how the various churches view these marriages, which would not have any force of law.
Interesting suggestion. But what about atheists who still want to get married? Or would we have marriage as a union sanctified by religious entities and a civil union as a union granted by the state?
This would allow marriage to be “defended” (churches that oppose same sex marriage could simply refuse to conduct such marriages) while allowing same sex couples to get all the legal benefits.
While a business would probably be subject to a lawsuit for making such exclusions (“sorry, no gays can eat here”), a case could probably be made for churches (etc.) having a special status that would allow them to discriminate in this manner.
One way to resolve the above would be to grant marriages in government/state institutions, while weddings are held in churches/temples/etc. It goes and grants marriage equality for all couples, while at the same time no one will be required to perform a wedding to a couple they disapprove of.
We wouldn’t want to require someone to provide service to someone he disapproves of. Why, soon he’d have to serve nigras in his restaurant. . .
“Or would we have marriage as a union sanctified by religious entities and a civil union as a union granted by the state?”
Exactly. Atheists would have a civil union with exactly the same rights as any other married couple, but no religious dimension.
As the marriage rate continues to decline and the divorce rate continues steady, this whole issue will (or may already have) become moot.
true–40% of Americans think that marriage is obsolete. If postmodern ethics hold true, they’re right.
Do 60% think it is not?
I don’t know. But 40% seems a large number, and I’m sure it’s more than our grand parents time. But people just can’t seem to stay together anymore. Too many distractions. So they make their ethics and beliefs fit the scenario. “I have a hard time being married, so I don’t believe in marriage.” In other words, it’s marriage’s fault, not people’s fault. But people have changed significantly since I was a youngster.
People have changed significantly since I was a youngster!Was there ever a generation that didn’t reach that conclusion? To echo what I was writing about in reply to the Terrorist piece: Are we changing too drastically ? Too quickly? Do you perceive that change differently than I do? Is either one of us correct?
Every generation has probably said this. Sometimes the change was for the better, sometimes for the worse. I think that for the most part America has consistently changed for the better over the last 100 years. The exception I would make is the family. I believe that it is now a weaker structure and we are reaping what we’ve sown with the current generations of kids. That’s why I believe that being a grade school teacher is tougher than being a soldier. I also know that most generations think the younger generation is “worse”. Sometimes they’re right.
I think the recently released study by the dept. of education which revealed that only 26% of high school seniors can read at an adequate level is as much a reflection on families as it is the educational system. It’s scary to me, more than any terrorist plot, and by far.
We’re “reaping what we sow”, but how did we sow it? With progress? The catastrophic explosion of the nuclear family? My neighbor’s kids both live on the other side of the country. Their grandkids get to feel their grandparents’ touch about once a year. My grandma lived about two miles away. Three generations lived in my wife’s house. Yet in one generation our parents have died and our son lives two states away. And more parents than we know both work just to make a decent living. Progress brings us the ability to see our son via videocam. But that doesn’t recreate the kind of family core that’s been lost.
” We’re “reaping what we sow”, but how did we sow it? With progress? The catastrophic explosion of the nuclear family? My neighbor’s kids both live on the other side of the country. Their grandkids get to feel their grandparents’ touch about once a year. My grandma lived about two miles away. Three generations lived in my wife’s house. Yet in one generation our parents have died and our son lives two states away. And more parents than we know both work just to make a decent living. Progress brings us the ability to see our son via videocam. But that doesn’t recreate the kind of family core that’s been lost. ”
I think your post would make a very good discussion topic on this blog. The disintigration of the extended family being a nuclear unit. Also, the part of both parents working is interesting but true. It sounds so cliche to say’ We both have to work to make ends meat.’ , but it seems very true for our middle class now.
Here is an interesting talk by Elizabeth Warren. This talk is about an hour but worth the watch. She is spot on here.
I agree with Brown that legalizing same-sex marriage would constitute a social harm by (x) implying that those opposing such legalization are bigots to do so–provided that we replace (x) with “unjustly”.
I think that Brown skirts dangerously close to a petitio principii by omitting that qualifier–perhaps more than merely ‘skirts’.
If we accept that bigotry is a social harm itself, then one has no justification to object at being called a bigot if one is in fact being a bigot–otherwise, in the same vein, we could claim that no crime should ever be punished since such punishment constitutes a harm to the criminal…which is surely absurd.
whoops, looks like I omitted a premise of my own…’provided that we replace (x) with “unjustly”‘
…and that such replacement is warranted.
An excellent point. Brown would probably assert that same sex marriage is “not true” and hence he is not actually being bigoted but making a correct moral judgment.