The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
Although it's about a week old, this Shepard Smith clip from FNC still caught my eye.
The notion of being on the "right" or "wrong" side of history is one of the most pervasive and most profoundly silly historiographical fallacies thrown around by a Progressives, not to mention a good many old-timey Liberals and some Conservatives. To many, History is a stern governess who passes judgment on the unenlightened tykes who linger too long in her gaze, and who graciously bestows adoration on those wise enough to predict her course. I have found such intellectual smugness particularly common with regards to the same sex marriage issue. Doesn't everyone want to be on the "right side of history?"
The problem with passing such broad judgments through the historical narrative is that history is invariably written by those in a position to observe it. It has never been the case that history's course, if such a thing can be said to exist, has been readily apparent to everyone at the time events were taking place.
Take, for example, eugenics. It was once possible in this country to be a eugenicist and be taken seriously. It was, in fact, at one point fashionable. To many, the "course of history" suggested that the historical narrative was in favor of Social Darwinism and those who wanted to forge and protect a society of "fit" citizens. Birth control and eugenic practices were supposed to help us make the great leap forward down the shining path. In 1924, the Virginia General Assembly passed two laws in furtherance of these goals, the Racial Integrity Act and the Sterilization Act.
Three years later, the US Supreme Court heard the case of Carrie Buck, a woman who had been ruled feeble-minded and had been scheduled to be sterilized under Virginia's policy. The resulting case of Buck v. Bell, in the eyes of eugenicists, vindicated their cause. An eight justice majority that included Louis Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and Chief Justice William Howard Taft voted to uphold the law; the lone dissenter, Pierce Butler, was Roman Catholic. Eugenics was taken so seriously and was so well respected that a Supreme Court decision actually included the words "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Eugenicists probably thought they were on "the right side of history."
And then, of course, World War II happened. Forcibly sterilizing people became something people in the western world were not okay with, and eugenics has, for the most part, been rightly consigned to the junkyard of bad ideas. Time has passed, and now eugenicists are widely perceived as having been on "the wrong side of history." I'm not saying that what is ethically right or wrong is fundamentally relative. What I am saying is that the Whig Theory, the idea that things are basically always getting better, is wrong.
The point here is not that same sex marriage, or traditional marriage, is in any way like forced sterilization or genocide. The point is that regardless of the merits to the arguments on either side of the marriage issue, history itself shows us that it is silly to suppose that it is making a judgment in a particular direction. I don't think that advocates or opponents of same sex marriage are any more or less on the right side history than were John Adams or Thomas Jefferson in 1800. History just happens, and whatever future historians make of it is quite up to them, and will probably bear little relationship to where we think it is headed today.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
Agreed - how remarkable to say the right or wrong side of history over such a significant institution of society. You remind me of the Ricochet podcast this week where James Lileks riffs that the Democrats have spent the past fifty years trying to rip apart marriage and now they want it.
Mar '11
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
Stand athwart history yelling "stop!" or get out of the way for those that will. Either we do that or we surrender to every twisted node of "progress" that comes down the road.
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
"Progress" is yet another one of those historiographical buzzwords that gets tossed around and yet has little actual meaning relative to historical reality.
May '12
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
The right side of history could have been a chapter in Jonah Goldberg's newest book. Its a meaningless way of saying I'm right and you're wrong, and as always, saying it doesn't make it so.
Jun '12
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
Eric Ames:
I don't think that advocates or opponents of same sex marriage are any more or less on the right side history than were John Adams or Thomas Jefferson in 1800. History just happens, and whatever future historians make of it is quite up to them, and will probably bear little relationship to where we think it is headed today. · · May 18 at 12:34pm
So history has nothing to reach us? In regards to Same Sex Marriage we have 5-6 thousand years of recorded history to look at, and no where do I find a society/culture/civilization that endorses it. So a question could be asked, Why...Why is this? Religious beliefs aside, I believe history does have something to tell us.
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
Valin
So history has nothing to reach us? In regards to Same Sex Marriage we have 5-6 thousand years of recorded history to look at, and no where do I find a society/culture/civilization that endorses it. So a question could be asked, Why...Why is this? Religious beliefs aside, I believe history does have something to tell us. · 5 hours ago
Perhaps I have not chosen the best example here. Of course I am not saying history has nothing to teach us. Otherwise, there would be no point in paying it any attention at all. The point is that based on present conditions, it is a bad idea to proclaim oneself on "the right side of history." Certainly we can look back at Adams and Jefferson in 1800 and make judgments based on what ramifications their decisions had for the nation, but it would have been hasty at that time to make a judgment as to a "right side." It's one thing to analyze the past; it is quite another to proclaim yourself on a hypothetical right side at a particular moment with little or no foresight.
Jun '12
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
Eric Ames
Perhaps I have not chosen the best example here. Of course I am not saying history has nothing to teach us. Otherwise, there would be no point in paying it any attention at all. The point is that based on present conditions, it is a bad idea to proclaim oneself on "the right side of history." Certainly we can look back at Adams and Jefferson in 1800 and make judgments based on what ramifications their decisions had for the nation, but it would have been hasty at that timeto make a judgment as to a "right side." It's one thing to analyze the past; it is quite another to proclaim yourself on a hypothetical right side at a particular moment with little or no foresight. · 7 minutes ago
So what tools do we use to judge, what is the correct stand on an issue?
Jun '12
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
You obviously don't have the time to look very hard.
"The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[142] These same-sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages.[143]"
Valin
Eric Ames:
I don't think that advocates or opponents of same sex marriage are any more or less on the right side history than were John Adams or Thomas Jefferson in 1800. History just happens, and whatever future historians make of it is quite up to them, and will probably bear little relationship to where we think it is headed today. · · May 18 at 12:34pm
So history has nothing to reach us? In regards to Same Sex Marriage we have 5-6 thousand years of recorded history to look at, and no where do I find a society/culture/civilization that endorses it. So a question could be asked, Why...Why is this? Religious beliefs aside, I believe history does have something to tell us. · Jun 2 at 9:45am
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
Der Mulestein: You obviously don't have the time to look very hard.
"The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[142] These same-sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages.[143]"
Does this mean you actually believe this or are you joking?
Jun '12
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
Are you asking if I believe that history happened? Or whether or not I think that the government has any business getting in the middle of people's personal affairs?
Yes, I believe that history happened. And I don't think government should be involved in marriage to begin with, but given that it is, it should grant that right to all.
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Der Mulestein: You obviously don't have the time to look very hard.
"The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[142] These same-sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages.[143]"
Does this mean you actually believe this or are you joking? · 2 hours ago
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
Valin
So what tools do we use to judge, what is the correct stand on an issue? · Jun 2 at 6:06pm
The point I'm making is more of a historiographical one and less an ethical one. Certainly you can appeal to historical precedent in determining a correct stand, otherwise the common law legal system would cease to function. The idea at issue in using the term "right side of history" is that very often it really means whoever was "right" in the view of an observer looking from centuries ahead with an inadequate sense of context. A French writer in the 1690s might very well have thought absolute monarchy to be the pinnacle of human political development, a position in which he would have thought himself justified based on France's place in the world. A similar Frenchman in the 1790s could have repudiated those values and instead extolled the virtues of the revolutionary republic. This doesn't mean that the correct stand on an issue is inherently relative. It just means it's hard to be on the "right side" without knowing what will unfold.
Jun '12
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
Der Mulestein: You obviously don't have the time to look very hard.
"The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[142] These same-sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages.[143]"
23 hours ago
A. I'll take a look at John Boswell's book, Thanks.
B. The example of Nero marrying a eunuch is not exactly the same as Roman society accepting same sex marriage, as acceptible.
"While Nero had Sporus, the eunuch, as a wife, one of his associates in Rome, who had made a study of philosophy, on being asked whether the marriage and cohabitation in question met with his approval, replied: "You do well, Caesar, to seek the company of such wives. Would that your father had had the same ambition and had lived with a similar consort!" — indicating that if this had been the case, Nero would not have been born, and the state would now be free of great evils. "
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html
Jun '12
Re: The Marriage Debate and 'The Right Side of History'
The definition of marriage wasn't even firm in the Bible.
e.g. http://spydersden.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/original.jpg
Not that I believe that any of that stuff actually happened. But for the religious conservatives who seem most opposed to changing the "definition of marriage" there you go.