The legal definition of
marriage has been a hot topic in recent years (which is why it comes up so
often on this site). Faithful Catholics know that while traditional marriage
was created by God and raised to a Sacrament by Jesus Christ, there are very
good reasons in the natural order to preserve it as an institution, such as
that it provides the best environment by far for raising and forming children,
and it is an essential building block in any stable and prosperous society. Unfortunately, a “hot topic” is not the same
thing as a reasoned debate, and advocates of marriage redefinition generally do
not respond to arguments with counter-arguments, but rather with attempts to
silence and even destroy those who disagree with them (this is just the latest
example here).
Such activists,
however, are a minority, and there is still a mass of people in the middle who
are open to reason if they can be given solid reasons for supporting
traditional marriage, and a sense that they are not facing the brown-shirt
tactics of the left all alone if they profess the traditional view. Given that many, perhaps most, of the people
in the middle are more secular than religious (even if nominal Christians) we
need to be prepared with arguments rooted in the natural order. Moreover, there are certain constituencies that at
least ought to be natural allies for those of us fighting to preserve
marriage.
It is to one of these
constituencies that I am addressing this essay: namely, libertarians and others
for whom liberty is a primary concern.
Many such liberty-minded people have been drawn into the anti-marriage
camp because those who would redefine marriage often rely on an appeal to
freedom: one hears arguments such as "nobody has ever shown me how
two men or two women marrying each other is going to harm their own marriage.”
Another argument we all have heard is something like: “You
anti-gay marriage people are anti-freedom: you want to keep gay people from
marrying the partner of their choice.” I’ve even seen protestors
standing outside my church holding a sign that says “When did I get to vote
on your marriage?” So perhaps it’s no surprise
that many people, particularly those of a libertarian bent, have been convinced
that the pro-gay marriage advocates are on the side of liberty, and that
supporters of traditional marriage are the would-be tyrants; how can they be
wrong?
To begin with, all the arguments above proceed
from false premises. Virtually nobody today
is arguing for the return of anti-sodomy laws, or advocating the forcible
separation of co-habiting same-sex couples. Nor have I heard of anyone
promoting laws that would somehow prevent homosexuals from calling their
relationships “marriages”. Traditional marriage supporters are simply
working to preserve the legal definition of our most important social
institution (older than the state and older even than institutional religion)
against those who want to use the force of law to compel the rest of
us to agree to a new definition, a definition that nobody anywhere has
ever held (up until the last few years), and one which will change our
understanding of that most important institution in fundamental ways. By
any objective measure, the gay marriage advocates are trying to deprive the
rest of us of our liberty to hold and to express our beliefs. The incident from Notre Dame (a supposedly
Catholic institution) cited above is, again, just the most recent example. I
don’t have the space here to run through the list of businesses and individuals
attacked, smeared, harassed, sued, etc. by the redefinition advocates, but one
only needs to pay attention to the news for a couple of days to know that such
tactics are the rule, not the exception; and they all come from the side that
accuses us of opposing freedom.
Beyond the tactics used
by the opponents of traditional marriage, there is a much more profound issue,
one concerning the proper role of government. Laws concerning marriage have
always been descriptive, describing and recognizing an
institution that was not created by the state, and in fact existed long before
the state came into being. Even laws regulating certain aspects of
marriage (the ban on polygamy, for instance) are intended to protect marriage,
and conform it more closely to its traditional contours. A law that
re-defines it to mean something completely different, something it has never
been, is a prescriptive law, one that prescribes or
creates a new reality. This is a power that few governments, and
certainly not our constitutional republic, have ever claimed in regard to
marriage. It is to treat something that the state has always
recognized as pre-existent, above and beyond itself, as if it were a
creation of the state, to be manipulated, redefined, and at some point
(why not, after all?) even abolished at the whim of the ruling power. This is
truly totalitarian. I don’t believe that
lovers of liberty really wish to give the state such powers.
Giving the state total
control over the institution of marriage would have profound ramifications for
freedom in general. Families are, along with organized religion, the most
important “mediating institutions” between the individual and the state.
Mediating institutions are groups of people large and small that help
serve as a check on government power and provide individuals with a way of
influencing the state much more effectively than they could on their own.
These independent sources of authority are essential to the preservation
of liberty: without them the behemoth of the state would easily crush the
lone citizen. That’s why totalitarians of every stripe make the
subjugation, or even destruction, of these institutions (especially the family
and the Church) a top priority. Giving the state the power to manipulate,
redefine and hence to unmake such essential protectors of freedom must
necessarily lead to an ever more powerful state, and an ever smaller place for
individual liberty.
The desire of
libertarians to work to preserve personal freedom is quite understandable, but
the legal redefinition of marriage will do just the opposite: it will
necessarily mean the loss of freedom to express and to act according to our
most sacred beliefs, and it will grant to the state an enormous and unprecedented
power for remaking society according to its own designs. If you want to defend liberty, therefore, protect
the traditional family.
(See also, "Marriage and Liberty, Part 2" here)
Note: Today is the feast
of St. Athanasius, who stood almost alone (Athanasius contra mundum, "Athanasius against the World!") in defending the True Faith against the seemingly overwhelming
tide of Arianism. May St. Athanasius pray for us, and encourage us to show similar
courage in defense of the Truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment