Tolerance and Graciousness in the Gay Marriage Debate

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print

A blogger named Dennis Sanders has written about the recent controversy in Arizona from the perspective of a gay man (“married” and “a man of the cloth”, he says). There are two main ideas in his piece, one that is the centerpiece and another that is peripheral but also important. The centerpiece is that “marriage equality” advocates (I will call them same-sex marriage, or SSM advocates) ought to recognize that the refusal of orthodox Christians to participate in gay weddings is not necessarily or even often attributable to hatred and bigotry. Though SSM advocates may not understand or condone the religious and philosophical arguments we put forward, it would be better for society if people on both sides could stop assuming the absolute worst of one another. The peripheral argument is that this proposed change of tone and behavior on the part of gay marriage activists is necessary if they are to be gracious winners in the culture war. It is Sanders’ belief, shared by many on his side of the argument, that they have won this war even if we on the other side have not surrendered yet. His language is civil and conciliatory, though one still cannot help but feel that the main point here is “let the babies have their bottles.”

As far as the first argument goes, I am all for it. Though I am sure that Mr. Sanders would be deeply offended or perhaps just annoyed at my refusal to recognize his relationship with another man as a marriage, I have always been a proponent of true and authentic tolerance. Sanders quotes another writer on tolerance, and both he and this writer agree with me: tolerance is only possible in relation to something or someone we dislike. I dislike the “marriage equality” movement immensely, not simply because of some passages from the Bible, but because of its concentrated philosophical and political attack on the natural law foundations of Western civilization. Its incessant self-comparison to black civil rights struggles is as fallacious as it is nauseating; its core assumptions, taken to their fullest implications, are anarchistic and nihilistic. It is precisely because the vast majority of ordinary people rarely take their stated beliefs to their logical conclusions that I am able and willing to tolerate most of those beliefs. I believe we can have a pluralistic society, governed by the 10th amendment of the US Constitution, in which different people in different polities can establish different laws and customs by which they live. Furthermore, they can and should peacefully co-exist within the same American nation. Such was, I believe, the vision of our founding fathers.

Though we may agree on the issue of tolerance, I must challenge Mr. Sander’s view, shared by writers such as Andrew Sullivan whom he quotes, that the SSM advocates have won the culture war. I do not expect the following considerations to change the somewhat patronizing tone that even tolerant SSM advocates such as Sanders adopt, but they ought to be enough for us to have second thoughts about waving the white flag of surrender – and for Sanders, Sullivan and others who hope to see it in the near future.

It is true that SSM advocates have won major battles, not only here in the United States but in other countries such as Canada, the UK, and other European countries. In the brief span of little over a decade, public opinion has undergone a massive shift. The average American, and indeed, the average professed Christian, often finds it impossible to withstand the arguments of SSM advocates – many of which, in all honesty, make persuasive appeals to basic American values. It takes more than just a general belief in the inerrancy of the Bible to make a persuasive case against SSM, though that argument is very present in Scripture (and no, it is not in Leviticus – those passages, as I have often argued to the point of exasperation, should never be used by proponents of traditional marriage). It takes a firm grounding in the basics of natural law, a grounding that few Christians receive in any sort of formal and systematized way. Not only must one understand the basics, but one must also understand the sociological implications of adherence to the natural law as well as deviance form it. Natural law sociology barely exists as an independent category of social scientific thought, though it permeates the arguments of social conservatives and even classical liberals.

Because the reasonably-informed Christian public, to say nothing of the general public, is far behind in these vital areas of understanding, we must fall back on the 1st amendment religious liberty position. It is inherently defensive, which means that it effuses an odor of despair and defeat. It also does nothing to help the rational foundations of our arguments, since the 1st amendment as interpreted by the courts essentially states that your beliefs can be as absurd and irrational as any belief can be provided that no vital interest is harmed in their exercise. All we have to do is prove to nine men and women in black robes that our religious nuttery doesn’t really harm anyone in a really important way and we will be left peacefully to it – and peacefully to die the slow and miserable death that some think we deserve.

Such is my view of the short-run. I think the picture changes quite significantly when we consider both time and space, time being represented in demographic realities and space being represented in global realities. Religious conservatives are winning and will win the demographic battle for the future, simply because we breed and our opponents do not. Though birthrates all over the globe will slow down and/or decline by mid-century, there can be no question that orthodox believers of all faiths, particularly Islam and Christianity, will decline at slower rates than liberals and secularists. Mormon Utah, which, incidentally, spearheaded the Prop. 8 campaign in California, has the highest birthrate in the United States. On the whole, red-state America outperforms blue-state American in the fertility race. The future does not belong to the sterile liberalism of the American coastlines or the social democracies of Canada and Europe. This is precisely the moment of history when the total societal influence of both groups has entered a steady and irreversible decline.

Whether or not our higher birthrates will be enough to offset the defection of Westerners from Christianity to secularism remains to be seen, of course, but even that trend will reach its natural limit; I see no reason to assume that it will continue at the same or increasing rates indefinitely. 70 years of atheistic communism did not erase Orthodox Christianity from Russia; 70 years of moral relativism and nihilism in Western culture will not erase our Catholic and Protestant heritage.

Globally, several large nations including China, India, and Russia are ruled by governments and inhabited by large majorities that are quite hostile to the global gay rights movement. In a world dominated by Western media and culture, it is inevitable that SSM advocates would make gains almost everywhere and anywhere. To predict sweeping changes in public opinion or law in the near future within these countries would be excessively optimistic. And yet these are the countries that will play a much larger role in 21st century politics, or in Russia’s case, as large a role. A sympathetic media enables SSM advocates to project an image of permanence and vitality that is extremely disproportionate to its actual strength.

In sum, it may well be SSM advocates who require tolerance from a global population that views their project with hostility and alarm. Natural law moralists such as myself are quite willing to extend it in the name of peace and liberty, though others may not be so willing. There will have to be a meeting halfway, though. And it may mean accepting a society in which two people of the same sex can enter into any sort of contractual arrangements they choose, can stage any sort of public ceremony they like, can even refer to themselves with whatever words they like – but in which the state does not recognize them as properly married, reserving that title and privilege for those of us who choose to conform to the requirements of the natural law (something any homosexual can do by their own free will, by the way – only the same-sex attraction is involuntary). At the very least, homosexuals who choose to live in polities that are dominated by natural law adherents will have to accept such terms.


More to explorer

Dear Crazy Leader

  News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a scathing Twitter thread, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took Fox


  1. I agree with every word in your essay, Bonchamps. Now, if we can only prevent the Supreme Court from rewriting natural law, our constitutional posterity will be spared much harm.

  2. I agree with you in the long view Bonchamps. Those today treating believing Christians as pariahs will face the children, and grandchildren of those people, with ever waning ranks as ours wax. Philosophies at war with reproduction are doomed to be ephemeral.

  3. I do not see the Russian government ever kowtowing to the homosexualist movement. Russia has a long distrust of the West – with some good reason, seeing how often Russia has been attacked through its history – Napoleon, World War I, and Hitler are just three of these events. Homosexualism is seen as a Western threat against Mother Russia and its Orthodox Church.

    I don’t see Hinduism and homosexualism ever getting along. Radical Hindus often attach Indian Catholics. They won’t put up with homosexuals demanding marriage.

    Islam will NEVER officially tolerate homosexualism. The stronger the movement grows in the West, the angrier the Muslim on the street will become, riled up by Muslim clergy who hate the US to begin with.

    The West seems to be hell bent on destroying itself. It will be the Church, the Remnant, that picks up the pieces and starts over again – just what happened when the Roman Empire collapsed.

  4. So his idea is that they should recognize that we are not haters, and that they should be gracious winners.

    The law of nature says that eventually the tide will go out. People can only deny the truth for so long. I think people long for, reach for, aspire to Goodness and Truth and Beauty even if as individuals and communally we take long circuitous routes. Because I love some of those SSAttracted people I hope that when the tide goes out on them that we will truly be gracious.

  5. I don’t think Hindus or Muslims or Russians or anybody else is immune to the type of emotional manipulation and thoroughly integrated and institutionalized propaganda we have been soaked in since the time of Kinsey if not before. Read “After the Ball..”

  6. “[A]nd no, it is not in Leviticus – those passages, as I have often argued to the point of exasperation, should never be used by proponents of traditional marriage”

    Bravo, Bonchamps!

    I have always contended that it was a dreadful mistake to conflate arguments over the morality of sodomy with the analysis of the legal and social rôle of marriage.

    The enormous opposition to SSM in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France can be accounted for by this exclusive focus. There, the Code of 1804 contains no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father,” which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, “pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” [Marriage points out the father] (Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1). In other words, marriage establishes the juridical bond between fathers and their children and ensures, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide.

    There, for opponents of SSM, the important moral question has been the defence of the ethical principle, enshrined in the law of France, that a child cannot be the subject or source of a transaction. They can see that every jurisdiction that has introduced same-sex marriage has also permitted human gametes to be treated as articles of commerce or tolerated a market in babies, bespoke or prêt-à-porter, through surrogate gestation, assisted reproduction and joint adoption by same-sex couples. I would add that those Americans who have viewed with equanimity the development of this form of human trafficking by opposite-sex couples have cut the ground for a principled opposition to SSM from under their feet. Instead, they have allowed their opposition to appear both sectarian and homophobic.

  7. Well said Bonchamps! I, too, am exasperated when I hear people fall back on back on “the bible says so.” Natural law arguments are accessible to every mind. Even the obstinately closed minded people don’t find good reasoning against natural law, so they are forced to dismiss what they know to be obvious. The obvious fact that man and woman, for example, are designed for each other.
    It is also irritates me when somebody says they believe it because they are Catholic. No, we believe what is true and Catholics are called to pursue truth aided by natural law. The radio host, SH, frequently makes statements that weaken the clarity of our case for the truth.

  8. Kevin: “the clarity of our case for the truth”
    The truth of SSM is that no man can become a wife and no woman can become a husband by wanting to. The reality of SSM is that “We, the people”, who are all created equal, and therefore, ought to be treated equal and equal treatment is only possible in the truth, are being subjected to falsehood, perjury in a court of law, and being forced by the law to discriminate against the truth and allow the social lie that same sex orientation, an act of God and creation, legitimatizes and allows the free will act of sodomy and or masturbation and other self abuse. Sodomy is assault and battery of another person. One cannot consent to commit crime and remain in the truth. Sodomy is a crime, an assault and battery of the human body, and a violation of the truth of another person’s immortal soul.
    The truth of another person’s immortal soul is our truth, as truth belongs to all people, for all time.

  9. Penguins Fan
    I do not see the Russian government ever kowtowing to the homosexualist movement.

    Russia is desperate for more people– especially young ones. Quoth a good doctor, Russia needs Russians.

    Similar mindset, different point of the process.

  10. The problem with natural law arguments is that, as far as I know, they can’t really be argued. They are presented, and the person hearing them accepts them to the extent of his capacity. They can remind people of what they already know, or make them realize what they intuitively know, but they can’t touch those who dismiss them either out of lack of understanding or obstinance.

Comments are closed.