Lack of Intellectualism is Losing the Marriage Debate

By Selwyn Duke

Judge Vaughn Walker's legal ruling striking down California's Proposition 8 certainly was no triumph of intellectualism. But while it's easy to thus dismiss it, what's usually forgotten is that reasoning such as his flies only in a certain cultural milieu -- a milieu that, in part, has been shaped by conservatives. Let's examine the matter. 

Walker's lack of intellectualism is profound. Among other things, he said that opposition to faux marriage was ultimately based on "moral disapproval." While this is a rhetorically compelling argument in an age where "morality" has become a dirty word, it is also nonsense. This is not because he is wrong in his understanding of marriage's more cerebral defenders; it is because he is wrong in his understanding of law. For the fact is that all credible legal proscriptions and prescriptions are a matter of "moral disapproval." Don't believe me? I'll explain.

A law is by definition the imposition of a value (and a valid law is the imposition of a moral principle). This is because a law states that there is something you must or must not do, ostensibly because the action is a moral imperative, is morally wrong, or is a corollary thereof. If this is not the case, with what credibility do you legislate in the given area? After all, why prohibit something if it doesn't prevent some wrong? Why force citizens to do something if it doesn't effect some good? You'll never see a powerful movement lobbying to criminalize chocolate ice cream or broccoli.

To provide a concrete example, what is the possible justification for speed laws? It isn't simply "me no like speedy." Rather, there is the idea that it is wrong to endanger others or yourself, and, in the latter case, it could be based on the idea that it's wrong to engage in reckless actions that could cause you to become a burden on society. Of course, some or all of these arguments may be valid or not, but the point is this: If a law is not underpinned by a valid moral principle, it is not a just law. Without morality, laws can be based on nothing but air.

This brings me to a problem with a certain conservative argument. We have heard many, while bristling at Walker's ruling, complain that "one judge has wiped away the votes of seven million people with the stroke of the pen." Like Judge Walker's "moral disapproval" nonsense, such talk certainly is rhetorically effective. And if it is used simply for the purposes of rhetoric, it may be fine. But the reality is that if the Proposition 8 vote had been swung a few percentage points the other way, the measure wouldn't have passed, and the left could be citing the will of the people to buttress its cause.

But right and wrong aren't determined by popular will. Nor should the latter have a bearing on judges' rulings, as they are supposed to be governed by the Constitution. Thus, the problem with Walker's ruling is not that it is anti-majoritarian; it's that it is unconstitutional and dumb.

Since the constitutional factor is obvious, let's delve into the dumb part. Harking back to the foundation of law, if "moral disapproval" is off the table, on what legitimate basis can we refuse to recognize any conception of "marriage"? If right and wrong cannot be a guide -- or if we live in a relativistic universe in which there is no wrong -- then how can you, with credibility, prohibit polygamy or Billy from marrying his billy goat? 

So while many people today believe, in grand relativist fashion, that morality is some arbitrary thing, they have it exactly backwards. Morality is "The Rules," and, just as with a football referee who ignores his game's rules and makes calls based on what feels right, it is when you ignore The Rules that you become arbitrary. Your rationale, boiled down, is then nothing more than "me no likey," nothing more than might makes right. For, to state the obvious, the recognition of morality is the only thing that moors us to reality -- moral reality.

And this is where the 7,000,000-vote argument finds common ground with Judge Walker's judicial activism. Both perspectives ignore morality and reduce the debate to one of who will wield the might that makes right, of who will be that renegade football referee. It is either the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of a black-robed minority, and who advocates which depends on how each group lines up on a given issue.

(Note: This isn't to say that 7,000,000-vote-argument advocates aren't more morality-oriented than Judge Walker's set. After all, many conservatives would point out that they  cite the majority only because it supported a constitutional and moral position. Nevertheless, when taken at face value, the majoritarian argument is not logically sound.)

So what should be the logical basis for an argument against faux marriage?

Simply that it doesn't exist.

And you cannot have a right to that which doesn't exist.

This is not slick-lawyer sleight-of-hand -- this is what exposes it. For this issue is about changing definitions, not changing rights. After all, like all people, those experiencing same-sex attraction have always had a right to marry and have done so since time immemorial. It's just that marriage was always understood -- correctly -- to be the union of a man and woman. Thus, whoever did get married tied the knot with a member of the opposite sex.

But when we accept that a same-sex union can be marriage -- a standard with no credible basis whatsoever in history (which renders the votes of the ultimate majority) or morality -- the discussion about rights naturally follows. After all, if such a union is marriage and people have a right to marry, how can they be denied recourse to it?

Speaking of majoritarian folly, this brings us to another way most of us have undermined ourselves. While many say the Walker set has redefined marriage, this is nonsense that gives non-thinkers too much credit. They have not redefined it.

They have undefined it.

That is to say, they do not steadfastly, unabashedly, and definitively say, "Marriage is the union between any two adults and nothing else, and here is the moral basis for this conclusion." No, they would then be drawing a line just like the traditionalists, wouldn't they? They would be guilty of the kind of "bigotry," "exclusiveness," and "narrowness" of which they accuse their opponents. Relativists can't have that, so they offer no definition. All they do is imply that the traditional definition is incorrect.

And this is another hole in the Walker set's argument. After all, while they scoff at the claim that legalizing faux marriage paves the way for polygamy and everything else, an "undefinition" excludes nothing. Sure, they can oppose such things, but only as the renegade football referee saying "me no likey."

The reality is that if they cannot definitively say what marriage is, how can they be sure they know what it is not? And this is why their criticism of traditionalists deserves no respect: If they cannot say what defines a "right" marriage, they cannot credibly say the traditional definition is the wrong one. 

Yet they don't have to because, while they can reliably define nothing, we allow them to define the terms of the debate. Know this: Every time you use the term "gay marriage," "homosexual marriage," or even "traditional marriage" (the Lexicon of the Left), you undermine yourself. If one of the first two, it is because you are explicitly acknowledging an imaginary institution's existence. If the last one, you are implying it. For what is the other side of the coin of "traditional marriage"? And if the American psyche is imbued with the idea that "marriages" between same-sex individuals exist and that marriage is a right, well, you can forget the legal and political battles. If you lose the cultural one, everything else follows. It's just a matter of time.

This is why "conservatives" must stop being conservative and start being bold. They must start thinking outside the box. Otherwise, we may win some battles in courts and ballot boxes -- we may carry the approaching November day -- but we'll be sure to lose the war and the way. 

      This article first appeared at American Thinker 

       © 2010 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[yoyo]

Talk about sophistry and a lack of historical perspective. So the millenium of 2nd 3rd and 4th legal marriages never occured? So the weddings between slaves that were never accepted as legal dont count. What selwyn has done with his switch and bait is to ignore what marriage means and why we even bother. If marriage is to formalise a link between individuals, to announce that not just their heart but alos their finances are linked, there is no real reason to keep gay people from marrying. If marriage is only about the propogation of children and ensuring heritage, then barren people should not be allowed to marry. If marriage is a purely religous ceremony, for the parish and community, no cross religious marriages should be allowed but otherwise go for it.

Selwyn define your terms because the world is sweeping this crap away.

[Philip France]

Some more fallacies of this facile and specious argument are what answers are there to the following questions regarding faux marriage (?):

Who is the husband and who is the wife?

Who is the bride and who is the groom?

Who surrenders his or her last name to the other and on what basis is this determined? Who is the “pitcher” and who is the “catcher”?

How can one reconcile the Biblical allegory of Christ being the bridegroom of his church and his church being his bride?

This is a theater of absurdity. Selwyn is absolutely correct in his assertions in this article. I will go further. It is likely that the overturn of California’s Prop 8 will stand and that we will have what Selwyn accurately describes as “faux marriages”. After this point, such a marriage might be legally recognized, however this does not change the truth that the faux marriages are truthfully illegitimate. It is a fiction. As Selwyn Duke put it most poignantly and logically, it the undefinition of a term that describes a concept that is rooted in the potential for the propagation of a species in an environment that is wholesome to the advancement of the species. And NOT the EXACT opposite.

As is usual with the liberal/leftist vs. Conservative in the war of ideas and ideals, you may very well win every battle, but in the end you lose the war. Truth is Truth. Lies are lies. Fiction is fiction. Despite the setback, I will light up my victory cigar an patiently await the fullness of time.

[Robert Berger]

Selwyn,as usual,your arguments are specious to the nth degree. If conservatives don't like judge Walker's decision,tough noogies.
Judges make decisions some people don't like all the time. If every judge were impeached and removed from office,as many conservatives would like to see for Walker,it would be impossible to keep judges in office.
The fact remains that proposition 8 is not a moral or right thing at all. Its advocates claim that its pupose is to"protect" marriage,as if it needed to be protected at all.
What really need to be protected are the rights of gay people. Don't be misled by proposition 8. It's just a smokescreen for homophobia,and it must not stand.
If it passes,it will just open up the slippery slope to eroding the rights of homosexuals,which is the true agenda of so many conservatives,and ultimately to
their possible persecution.
And any one who says that there's no such thiong as homophobia is an idiot.It's very real. Denying the existence of homophobia is as stupid and reprehensible as denying the existence of anti-semitism. They're both equaly bad.
Judge Walker is a very honest jurist and has shown rare courage in a time when homophobia is rampant in America disguised as religious piety.We need more jurists with his rare integrity.

[Philip France]

Robert,

You are an insane lunatic. I can only imagine what drugs you are taking, the least of which must be medical marijuana but I fear that your delsuions are induced by far more serious psychotropic drugs such as lithium.

Judge Vaughn Walker is a radical homosexual who should have recused himself from hearing this case, if he were honest. Liberals and leftists are NEVER honest. They merchandise in lies, mis-truths and half-truths.

He did not interpret law, as is his role. He legislated. This is gross legal malfeasance and he should be impeached. PERIOD.

A knothead like you does not realize that every atrocity that Hitler and his Nazis accomplished was technically legal under German law. He got away with so much infliction of torture and horror because he appointed judges who did the same as what what Judge Vaughn Walker has done. This is the direction toward which your worldview points. This worldview will also have idiots like you to be the first to be executed.

You are a hopeless and despicable moron. You are in grave need of psychological counseling. You are the exact subject of the book that I am presently reading: The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. PhD.

May God have mercy on your tormented and tortured soul.

[yoyo]

Philip, that was an absurd non-response to Robert. Haven't you learnt that any poor fool that uses the Nazis to buttress a poor argument on the net has already lost? It's called godwins law.

By your poor grasp of logic any heterosexual judge should also have recused themselves because the ruling touches on heterosexual issues,therefore fertile people should not be judges on abortion law etc.

I know you get all moist reading selwyns latest but this one is weaker than most. At no point does he address the major points, where is the benefit for proceding with a discrimination, what is the negative impact of allowing gay people to marry.

Even rabid catholics accept that non-childbearing people are allowed to marry, the majority of the american community accepts divorce, even the deep south accept inter racial marriage so why the hell is it a big deal to bigots if two loving adults want the same legal status as two other adults. Hell britany Spears managed the whole 30 hour marriage in los vegas, do you really feel that the committed relationship of two women who have raised children together nursed each others aging parents etc is worth less than that?

I'm sorry about the snarky tone philip but sometimes your blind alleigance to selwyn is more cultish than cute.

[Philip France]

Dearest Yoyo,

You are demonstrating yet again that you are living proof that the are more horse’s asses in the world than there are horses. As evidence, I shall deconstruct your most recent insane post. Here goes:

You say, “Haven't you learnt that any poor fool that uses the Nazis to buttress a poor argument on the net has already lost? It's called godwins law.”

I say: Oh, is that history understood? Under godwin’s law? Sounds to me like you favor cutting out your own tongue than violate an unwritten law of Internet dialog. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the famous quote that those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it, Perhaps you enjoy misery or take pleasure in the suffering of others. What a fool you are. You pray to your godwin, I’ll pray to mine.

You vomited the following: “By your poor grasp of logic any heterosexual judge should also have recused themselves because the ruling touches on heterosexual issues,therefore fertile people should not be judges on abortion law etc. “
I say: “My poor grasp of logic”? Oh really? I will take you on and debate with you on any intellectual subject and allow the group to decide on whose logic is backed by substance and fact and whose is backed merely by whim, whimsy and infantile emotion and every day of the week. Logic me this, O Ye of Little Logic: If homosexual couples are considered normal and on the par with the rest of the earth and ALL of history, how long would our species have survived? It is clearly YOU that have a poor grasp of logic.
You say: “At no point does he address the major points, where is the benefit for proceding with a discrimination, what is the negative impact of allowing gay people to marry.”
I say: How are homosexuals being discriminated against? They are not. California’s law recognizes only a marriage between a man and a woman. Any homosexual can legally enter into such a union. They have this right that is shared by all citizens. What they seek is an abnormal and inhuman right to call something that it is clearly not what something else is. It is a violation of DEFINITION. I have no problem with David Fitzpatrick sodomizing Patrick Fitzdavid per se. It is their private business. Wouldn’t you love to launder their bedsheets? But when they want to ascribe the principle that for centuries stood as the vehicle for the propagation of the human species, well that is calling something that which it is clearly and abundantly not.
You say: “Even rabid catholics accept that non-childbearing people are allowed to marry, the majority of the american community accepts divorce, even the deep south accept inter racial marriage”
I say: Where do you get this crap from? What sources can you cite to legitimize this claim? Or are you just another Robert Berger who writes his/her own history and then declares it as fact?
You say: “so why the hell is it a big deal to bigots if two loving adults want the same legal status as two other adults”
I say: How DARE you infer that I am a bigot. It is more likely that you are a filthy slut and whore than I am a bigot. I love all of humanity, homosexuals included. You are too childish and infantile to understand the answer to your own question. The answer lies in definition and the meaning of words and the respect of foundations. The word “marriage” implicitly implies that one man and one woman agree to become one personally, politically and economically. Certain benefits apply for the promotion of such behavior because such behavior results in the propagation of our species. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplishment this within the resources of that relationship. That is the error. That is the lie to which you have bitten the lure. A homosexual relationship CANNOT, in and of itself, have the potential for procreation and the propagation of the species. As such, any union of homosexuals cannot, repeat CANNOT be considered “married”. It is plain and simple logic, oh Silly One.
To put this more plainly, a black homosexual man has the legal right to marry a white lesbian woman. He/she has the same right as anybody and everybody. The faux marriage of a homosexual couple is not a marriage at all. It CANNOT be, ipso facto. Tell me please, would you rather believe a lie because believing so makes you socially acceptable or do you have more faith in eternal truths and the facts and realities you see with your very own eyes?
Lastly, you opine (and oh so egregiously): “I'm sorry about the snarky tone philip but sometimes your blind alleigance to selwyn is more cultish than cute.
I say: despite your fantasies, I have no need to present myself as “cute”. In fact, far from it. I happen to live a prosperous and comfortable life. My disdain is toward those who intend to usurp my comfortable existence, which I have earned through the sweat of my body and my brow, and give a portion of my own industry to unknown beings who do not earn. That is political malfeasance at its core. Lastly, it is utterly illogical to confer equal status to same-sex/homosexual unions on legal, moral and logical grounds to that of men and women by mere virtue that such a union radically defies the laws of nature and of nature’s God. To this, you have no rational argument, whatsoever.

[Gary]

The issue at stake in this matter of words is leaving the weight IN. When the weight is IN the original word has its original meaning. Gays should get their own word. Oh! I almost forgot! They have their own word. It's homosexual. But they would rather remove the weight from the word marriage so that they can destroy its meaning and destroy a whole society. Truth bears weight, but truth has no meaning if homosexuals have their way. Truth is also a penis and a vagina and if that is not truth, pray tell, what is?

[yoyo]

Wow, we did get some outright hatred from you here Philbaby. I wont stoop to the slut/whore remarks - your attitude to women can stand on your own words. Let's take it back a notch and just check the inconsistancies in your logic.

Your Quote"The word “marriage” implicitly implies that one man and one woman agree to become one personally, politically and economically. Certain benefits apply for the promotion of such behavior because such behavior results in the propagation of our species. Homosexual relationships cannot accomplishment(sic) this within the resources of that relationship. That is the error.

Therefore as I clearly pointed out under YOUR definition, barren people should not marry.

Again we have this little gem from you You vomited the following: “By your poor grasp of logic any heterosexual judge should also have recused themselves because the ruling touches on heterosexual issues,therefore fertile people should not be judges on abortion law etc.
So clearly you (and your mentor)think
the judge cannot be impartial in a matter involving gay marriage because he is gay, yet a heterosexual judge can be involved in denying nonheterosexual people marriage even tho he is heterosexual. If you can find anyway of parsing that to make it logical, you should also be able to argue that the sun rises in the west.

Next delightful argument from you questions a few basic facts You say(me): “Even rabid catholics accept that non-childbearing people are allowed to marry, the majority of the american community accepts divorce, even the deep south accept inter racial marriage”
I say: Where do you get this crap from? What sources can you cite to legitimize this claim?
Of course, I can give you chapter and verse on this, PEW studies etc but what amazes and distresses me is that you think the opposite...
So YOU are stating that: catholics DONT want barren people to marry, that the majority of americans DONT believe in divorce and that southern american DONT believe in inter racial marriage.

PLEASE find me even the smallest study that accepts even one of your arguments above.

Americans are NOT as rascist as YOU are stating or anti divorce or bigoted.

Finally, I'll leave your last quote to stand alone... I have no problem with David Fitzpatrick sodomizing Patrick Fitzdavid per se. It is their private business. Wouldn’t you love to launder their bedsheets?

MMM, can't possibly think why anyone would think you have a major problem with gay men???