Around the middle of the nineteenth century, Nathaniel Hawthorne, then living in Concord, MA, wrote a short essay entitled “The Old Manse”, in which these words are found: “Were I to adopt a pet idea, as so many people do…it would be, that the great want which mankind labors under at this present period is sleep. The world should recline its vast head on the first convenient pillow and take an age-long nap. It has gone distracted through a morbid activity, and, while preternaturally wide awake, is nevertheless tormented by visions that seem real to it now, but would resume their true aspect and character were all things once set right by an interval of sound repose.”
The Supreme Court of the United States will soon address the fundamental issue of same-sex marriage and will probably rule that marriage between two persons of the same sex is a Constitutional Right. Whether this decision will be in the long term to the benefit or to the detriment of our country is a question that nobody can answer. For over 2,500 years, Western civilizations have considered heterosexual marriage to be the norm, and this tradition was not simply the result of Christian influence. In both the Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic, same-sex marriages were not accepted. Perhaps in our technological wisdom, we understand human nature and the world around us better than Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and many others did. Perhaps they were wrong, and we are right. But let’s remember that it has only been 46 years since the Stonewall Riots in Greenwich Village, and I personally am not satisfied that we have considered the matter seriously enough.
To be perfectly clear on my position, let me say this: At the present, I do not support a Constitutional ruling on either side of the issue. I consider it premature to rule same-sex marriage to be a Constitutional Right, and I am certainly opposed to the idea of a Constitutional ban on it. What I do wholeheartedly support is a period of calm repose, followed by rational dialogue on the issue. Looking back on the last 20 years, I can honestly say that I have engaged in only one rational discussion on the issue. The occasion was a conference of professors in Germany. For three days, attendees from Germany, Switzerland, Austria and France tried to formulate arguments for and against same-sex marriage, but to no avail. Since then, I have heard mostly ranting and raving about the issue, but in depth discussions have been conspicuously lacking. In the following, I will mention only three of the many issues that concern me.
The primary argument for same-sex marriage involves the concept of human rights and the self-evidence of non-discrimination. First of all, I am skeptical of anything that is presented as self-evident. That usually means that everyone has stopped thinking about it. But even more problematic is the concept of human rights. We are just beginning to recognize that this concept, which dates back to the seventeenth century, is inadequate for making serious moral and political decisions. Human rights as a guide for decision-making will eventually be altered in significant ways and supplemented by other considerations. What this will mean for our understanding of same-sex marriage is totally unknown. We are living in a period of moral/ethical disorientation– or transition, if you prefer–, and it is not an appropriate time for overturning 2,500 years of Western tradition.
Secondly, I find it disturbing that corporate America has been in the front line supporting same-sex marriage. With my socialist leanings, I am skeptical of anything that is so widely supported by capitalists. Corporations are not exactly well known for their sound moral and ethical judgment, but, of course, the corporate cheerleaders are not interested in the moral or political issue, but rather in market share. It is perhaps not generally recognized that corporate sponsors have poured huge sums of money into universities in order to promote LGBT studies; departments for these studies have been funded at almost all universities across the country, and grant programs have been established. Recently, Scott Walker was in the news again supporting a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage–something that I do not support. The irony in his position should be clear: He is opposing a movement that has been strongly supported by the same corporate elite who support him.
Thirdly, we know today that some of the “academic” research in support of same-sex marriage was falsified. In a recently published article (May 31, 2015), the “New York Times” reported on a U.C.L.A. study in which falsified data was used to demonstrate that public opinion on same-sex marriage could be easily shifted if heterosexual couples come into contact with same-sex couples. The main author of this study received a position at Princeton for his research, but later admitted that he had lied about the data. If such data is wrong, where do we really stand? If public opinion is not so easily shifted, will there be a backlash to a Constitutional ruling in favor of same-sex marriage? And are liberals prepared to invest the time and energy necessary to support these same-sex couples after they have helped expose these couples to a backlash? Frankly, I haven’t heard any discussion on this issue. We are on the verge of moving into uncharted territory, and we should at least have a plan.
At the conclusion of my diatribe, I really wonder why I wrote it. My liberal friends will think that I am being too conservative; my conservative friends will think that I am too liberal; and in the end, my words will influence nobody. Looking at my clock, I see that it is 1:30 p.m., I think I’ll go take a nap!
Jack E Brush is a Villager and author of “Citizens of the Broken Compass.” Learn more about his book at this link http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Broken-Compass-Disorientation-Technology/dp/1782799540/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431458395