On April 17, 2013, New Zealand’s
parliament passed, by a wide margin, a bill legalizing gay marriage. After the
vote, observers in the public gallery along with some of the legis-lators sang
a traditional Maori love song, and then followed several speeches praising the
bill’s passage, each ending in a standing ovation. In one of them, the bill’s sponsor, Louisa Wall, summed up in a
single sentence the emerging contemporary understanding of marriage: "In
our society, the meaning of marriage is universal—it's a declaration of love
and commitment to a special person."
Trends in public opinion show that such a scene will inevitably be
repeated in the U.S.
and very likely the rest of the Western World , driven precisely by sentiments
like Ms. Wall’s.
There is a simple logic behind
the surge in support for gay marriage. First, there is the meaning that has
come to be widely attributed to the word marriage: “a declaration of love and
commitment to a special person” with the state’s acknowledgement. And the state
not only recognizes the union, but bestows on it a number of privileges like
tax breaks, the right of inheritance, the extension of health insurance
coverage, and so on. So, on one side, you have heterosexuals, who have the
right to enter into this publicly-recognized relationship that brings with it
all sorts of benefits. Then you have this other group, homosexuals, who are
denied that right. And on what basis? Simply because they’re gay. That seems
like naked injustice, not to mention a straightforward violation of the Equal
Protection Clause. All that’s left to make the case is to assimilate the whole
thing to the Civil Rights Movement, the parallels to which seem obvious. After
all, wouldn’t a ban on same-sex marriage be the same as a ban on interracial
marriage? With the argument framed in these terms, how could supporters of
traditional marriage not appear to be “on the wrong side of history” or even
outright bigots?
There has been a lot written in
defense of traditional marriage, some of it very good, but it has not entered
the public consciousness as an effective counterweight to the brilliant public
relations campaign of the gay rights movement. The result is that the average
thoughtful citizen does not have at the forefront of his mind a simple,
straightforward argument for traditional marriage like the one sketched above
and, as a result, the other side is virtually guaranteed to win the debate.
Popular arguments against gay
marriage are a hodge-podge (having no common spring such as fairness or
equality) and frankly not terribly convincing. To consider a few of them: Many
simply appeal to scripture. But obviously in a democracy founded on the
separation of church and state, this won’t fly. “Marriage is for
procreation”—well, says who? And what about elderly couples or the infertile?
True, heterosexual marriage is the traditional norm, but so were the subjugation
of women and the institution of slavery. Sociological studies of the effects
of same-sex parenting on children? Well, to take just one example, a 2010 study
in the journal Pediatrics found that the
children of lesbians “were rated significantly higher in social,
school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social
problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than
their age-matched counterparts” in heterosexual households —so forget that. It
may be that there are studies showing the opposite. But then there are still
other studies that cast doubt on those studies, and…et cetera, infinitum. And
does anyone really think this issue will be settled by studies? Next, there’s
the slippery slope argument that predicts the eventual legalization of every
conceivable form of conjugal relationship, and social conservatives let their
imaginations run wild here. But each type of relationship would surely be
considered one by one, with some eventually being accepted (probably certain
polygamist arrangements) and others rejected (such as, perhaps, near
relatives). That’s not an automatic ride down the slippery slope. It is also
sometimes argued that legalizing gay marriage will undermine traditional
marriage, but there is no evidence of the deterioration of heterosexual unions
in countries or in U.S.
states where it is legal.
There are other arguments, but
these are among the most popular, and they haven’t had much of an impact. Far
more forceful and even decisive, I think, is the perspective of the world’s
great wisdom traditions which universally regard gay marriage as an
impossibility and homosexuality itself as an aberration. Such traditions
represent the very best of humanity’s moral teachings, those which have endured
through the ages, and it would surely be unwise to reject them in favor of the
novel and faddish without very good reason. Anyone who thinks deeply about
spiritual and ethical matters finds in our wisdom traditions a reliable source
of insight and truth.
Now, I said “universally,” and I
realize that there are instances of same-sex relationships one can point to
throughout history. The Greeks, of course, had a form of institutionalized
pederasty thought by some, at the time, to be a necessary part of the education
of young boys; and there was also acceptance of adult homosexuality to a
degree, although it was not always seen as normal throughout the Hellenistic
and Roman periods, as we would expect if it was a normal form of human
sexuality. We might point out, however, that one of the philosophers through
whose works we understand these practices, Plato, thought the physical
consummation of the relationship to be reprehensible. And the practice of pederasty did not
survive and was always surrounded by controversy, unlike the normal institution
of marriage.
And although it is not widely
known, the authentic religious traditions of the world really do view
homosexuality as immoral. The Dalai Lama recently said, "For a Buddhist,
the same sex, that is sexual misconduct."
The largest Islamic organization in the U.S.,
the Islamic Circle of North America, is staunchly opposed to gay marriage,
calling it “a violation of God’s laws as spelled out in the Quran and the
teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. God
Almighty states, ‘And among His signs is that He has created for you spouses
from among yourselves so that you may live in tranquility with them.’” And one is left with no doubt about the view
of the Orthodox Jewish community: “The position of traditional Judaism on
homosexual behavior is clear and unambiguous, terse and absolute. Homosexual
behavior between males or between females is absolutely forbidden by Jewish
law, beginning with the biblical imperative, alluded to numerous times in the
Talmud and codified in the Shulchan Aruch. The position of Judaism on marriage
is equally clear. Judaism recognizes marriage as a fundamental human
institution, and affirms marriage only between a man and woman.” The Hare Krishna movement is no less
unambiguous, holding to the traditional teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. The
spiritual head of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness,
Hridayananda Dasa Goswami, clarified the Society’s position in a 2009 letter
after some controversy: “I am writing to reaffirm that I uphold the Krishna
conscious principle that sexual union is for procreation within marriage and
that no spiritual leader should encourage or endorse any other form of sexual
relation.” We tend to associate Hare
Krishnas with hippies, but they represent a genuine survival of an ancient
creed, one which is strikingly similar to Catholicism. We will look in vain for
a living religion that has constantly endorsed gay marriage as a norm.
Exceptions are just that: temporary anomalies in an enduring tradition.
Let us turn, then, to a detailed
look at the teachings of one such wisdom tradition. According to the Western
Natural Law tradition, conscience is a source of genuine moral knowledge. That
knowledge is “written on the heart” (Romans 2:15)
in the sense that it is simply part of the endowment of human nature. That this
is so is shown by the striking agreement among all peoples in all times on the
moral basics. As John M. Cooper puts it:
“The peoples of the world,
however much they differ as to details of morality, hold universally, or with
practical universality, to at the least the following basic precepts. Respect
the Supreme Being or the benevolent beings who take his place. Do not
‘blaspheme.’ Care for your children. Malicious murder or maiming, stealing,
deliberate slander or ‘black’ lying, when committed against friend or
unoffending fellow clansman or tribesman, are reprehensible. Adultery proper is
wrong, even though there be exceptional circumstances that permit or enjoin it
and even though sexual relations among the unmarried may be viewed leniently.
Incest is a heinous offense. This moral code agrees rather closely with our own
Decalogue taken in a strictly literal sense.”
We all agree (or at least did all
agree until relatively recent times) about the character of the moral law
because it is part of who we are as human beings. Beginning with Plato and
Aristotle and continuing through Thomas Aquinas and into modern times, the
ground of the moral law was located in nature itself, understood as the given
natures of all things (not just physical things) and their order. Just as,
given the nature of a plant, certain things are good for it—like adequate water
and sunlight—so too are certain things bad for it. Human beings, though far
more complicated creatures, are in principle no different. It’s just that what
is good for us is not merely physical but extends to the moral because we are
constituted by rationality, a faculty that allows us to self-consciously
discern the authentic good and choose either to pursue it or reject it. What is
good for us in a moral sense has necessary reference to the natures of things
in a straightforward way. Morality concerns the regulation of our desires and
actions according to norms. Those norms are discerned by a consideration of the
natural ends of our desires. The desire for food, for instance, has a clear
purpose: to drive us to satisfy the nutritional needs of the body. We all
recognize that habitually eating in an intemperate way is not purely a matter
of morally-neutral physiology but has a moral dimension: If someone’s eating
is out of control, and there is no totally overwhelming biological cause, then
we say that such a person is a glutton. Gluttony has deleterious effects not
only on the body but also on the soul. The same thing goes for the desire for
drink. A glass or two of wine is good for us; more than that is damaging to us
not only health-wise but spiritually, on a scale that stretches from minor incontinence
all the way to the depths of human degradation. These are simple examples, but
the point I want to drive home through them is that what is right or wrong here
has clear reference to the natural end of the desire.
In the case of more complex desires,
the same is true, of course. The desire for financial gain, for example, has a
clear end that serves as a standard by which we judge character. Given the
kinds of beings that we are, a certain amount of material wealth meets our
legitimate needs—for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, education,
leisure pursuits, financial security, and so on. If the desire grows
inordinate, we have a name for this: greed. An old maxim says, “Nature is
satisfied with little, but greed knows no bounds.” We easily recognize when
individuals or even entire cultures have transgressed the bounds of what nature
requires, and that recognition is grounded in the discernment of what
constitutes “enough.” Whether simple or complex, sensual or spiritual, desire
finds a principle of regulation in their natural ends as determined by the
inner nature of the human being.
Morality, of course, is more than
expediency. We all understand at some level not only that it’s a necessary
condition for authentic happiness, but also that the moral law is binding in a
way that goes beyond practical consequences. We find a clue about the reason
for this in the great religious and philosophical traditions of the world,
which hold that our true or ultimate good is not physical but ethical and
spiritual, basically a matter of bringing our lives into harmony with the
divine order. Indeed, the recognition that the natures of things are in some
sense designed and have purposes is crucial as a grounding for objective moral
truths, for their binding quality. As natural law theorist J. Budziszewski
points out, the deliverances of conscience do not strike us as binding unless
we see con-science itself as “designed to tell us truth by someone wise enough
to do so” for “unless deep conscience is designed to tell us truth, there is no
particular reason why it should.” The
same goes of course for the given natures of all things that figure into our
under-standing the moral law. Unless we understand them as designed according
to the intentions of the Divine Will, they will not carry any moral import
beyond the merely expedient. What else could serve as the basis of the moral
law as absolute, objective, universal, and binding? Certainly not sentiment, as
some naturalists suggest, since sentiment is inconstant. Not even pure
reason—divorced from the notion of a divine order—will do since it lacks the
power to bind. I might make the rational judgments that stealing undermines
the social order and that the consequences of getting caught are undesirable; but
unless I understand the precept “Thou shalt not steal” as issuing from an
omnipotent and absolutely righteous will, I am not justified in seeing it as
anything but a prudential calculation of self-interest. And this is not the
same as morality.
All of this bears heavily on the
question of gay marriage, which is of course a moral question. For if
homosexual relationships have the same moral status as heterosexual
relationships, there is no good reason to forbid them. In fact, it would then
be unjust to do so.
But let us consider the morality
of homosexuality from the natural law perspective characterized above. As I
pointed out, it is universally condemned by the world’s ethical and religious
traditions, a fact that ought to give us pause. The basis of the condemnation
in the tradition I am most familiar with, Catholicism, is a deep understanding
of the nature and purposes of human sexuality. Even from the standpoint of
simple biology, the function of sexuality is procreation, and if we take the functions
of things to reflect real intention, then we will be concerned not to use
sexuality in a way that violates that function. As I said above, this will make
no sense unless we take the notion of intention seriously, meaning as
reflective of the Divine Will. Of course, sexuality is more than procreation;
the other purpose of it according to Catholic sexual ethics is union. But even
union has a fundamental orientation to the giving of life. For the sexual act
has the effect of binding two people together in love and affection; this bond
then becomes a basis of the stable, enduring relationship that all children
need for their successful upbringing. Human sexuality, then, understood as
oriented essentially to procreation, is inseparably tied to the nature of
marriage. One can discern an order here: Sex has the end of procreation.
Children, the end of procreation, need a loving, life-long relationship between
their parents for their healthy upbringing. That relationship is marriage.
Marriage, therefore, arises from the nature of the human person, and if we are
willing to grant the religious perspective any validity, then we will think
that in discerning the nature of marriage, we are discerning a true reflection
of the Divine Will.
The ends of marriage, therefore,
the goods at which it aims by its nature, are procreation and the raising of
children. To make marriage about something other than these ends (which are,
again, inseparable) would be to defile it. But gay marriage can be about
neither of these things, necessarily. It is by definition an unnatural
arrangement. Indeed, the homosexual state itself is oriented toward an
intrinsic evil if the nature of sexuality is any guide to the sexual ethics,
which it surely is. This is the case even if homosexual acts themselves are
what are evil in fact and not the state all by itself.
There are other ways to make the case. A common way is by appeal to the complementarity of the sexes. At one level, it is just obvious that men and women were meant for each other and that men and men or women and women were not. But it is possible to say much more. If sexuality is fundamentally oriented toward procreation (and I feel compelled to belabor the point: even just biologically speaking, it is), then since procreation is possible only between members of the opposite sex, sexuality necessarily involves complementarity. At least, this is true of sexuality in its natural state. Since we are beings of reason, we can turn things to perverse ends. But all that’s needed to make the case is the recognition that there is such a thing as a normal, natural expression of sexuality—just as there is in the case of other desires. And we can go further and point out that the biological reality of complementary has psychological and spiritual correlates. As human beings, we have deep-seated aspirations to create life beyond ourselves; because of this, we are drawn to our sexual opposites and find satisfaction for these aspirations only through our opposites and in partnership with them. Sexuality, then, is given healthy expression in the attainment of its true ends, becoming “two in one flesh” in the creation of new life. Without this transcendent purpose, requiring husband and wife to give themselves completely to one another and to the product of their union, sexuality turns in on itself and becomes a senseless compulsion that can and often does take over one’s life. This is a consequence of severing sexuality from its proper ends (and applies equally well to heterosexuality outside the bounds of the natural law), and it is often through the consequences of our actions that we come to know moral truths.
If the natural ends of the
desires for food, drink, or material gain serve as a basis for moral
self-regulation in these areas, then surely it is no less the case for sexual
morality. To stray outside the bounds established by nature (understood in a
broad sense) is what Christianity calls sin, literally “missing the mark.” To
bring our lives into harmony with the moral order is the good life and virtue;
to live out of tune with it is misery and vice. The trouble is that seeing this
in the case homosexuality and gay marriage requires the capacity for
discernment. As I said above, the other side’s argument is simple and easily
communicable, even if it doesn’t stand up to deep moral reflection. In a way,
the natural law view is akin to spiritual teachings from other traditions, like
the Buddhist doctrines of suffering or impermanence. A little reflection might
show them to be true, but to the man or woman of today frenetically dashing
about, hoping to somehow find true happiness in the things of this world,
ancient wisdom might seem frivolous and irrelevant. But how to communicate the
natural law view is another matter, though a crucially important one to the
national debate over marriage.
The most important consequence
for the question at hand is that same-sex marriage becomes a violation both of
the nature of marriage and of human sexuality, a moral evil. And we cannot
codify into law what is an objective moral evil. We might tolerate evil in
certain circumstances (e.g., when the consequences of enforcing a law are worse
than permitting the evil itself—think of prostitution or marijuana use), but we
can under no circumstances institutionalize it. When we understand that
marriage has a given essence rooted in the reality of human nature, and that
this reality holds moral import, the terms of the debate change radically. This
is why we cannot begin from definitions like Ms. Wall’s, for “a small error in
the beginning will lead to a huge error in the end,” as Aristotle observed,
and definitions are the beginning of all reasoning, including moral reasoning.
It is because we are failing to understand the definition of marriage, grounded
in the nature of human sexuality, that America,
and an increasing number of the nations of the world, are falling into huge
moral errors about gay marriage.
If we reject nature (and nature’s
God) as the basis of morality, what are we left with as an alternative?
Calculation of self-interest? The greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest
number? Sentiment? Might? Accepting same-sex marriage would require jettisoning
our religious traditions and the foundation of their moral teachings. More
likely, though, morality will come to be understood as lacking a foundation,
and there will follow dire consequences not only for marriage and family but
for the very bond that holds society together. If so, it becomes all the more
imperative to find a way to communicate the wisdom of our traditions in way
that is as simple and convincing as that of the other side.
— Doran G. Hunter
Doran is a National Committee member of the American Solidarity Party
Donations to Christian Democracy are gratefully accepted.
Donations to Christian Democracy are gratefully accepted.