Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Ross Douthat of the New York Times wrote a very mild column today suggesting that "lifelong heterosexual monogamy [is] a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve." He goes on:
And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit.
But based on Judge Walker’s logic — which suggests that any such distinction is bigoted and un-American — I don’t think a society that declares gay marriage to be a fundamental right will be capable of even entertaining this idea.
To which Adam Serwer of The American Prospect responds that Douthat's views were formed without knowledge, thought, or reason (i.e. that they're "prejudiced"). He links to a piece where law professor Nelson Lund makes a case against treating views in favor of traditional marriage as nothing more than bigotry. Lund uses, among other things, past Supreme Court handlings of same-sex marriage, California's progressive laws regarding same-sex relationships, and logic:
The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage biological parents, especially fathers, to take responsibility for their children. Because this institution responds to a phenomenon uniquely created by heterosexual intercourse, the meaning of marriage has always been inseparable from the problem it addresses.
Serwer unfairly suggests Lund's argument is simply that if a lot of people hold views in favor of traditional marriage, then it can't be bigoted. Julian "epistemic closure" Sanchez reiterated this characterization. Sanchez went on to say that there are no legitimate arguments against gay marriage. That they're all stupid or bigoted.
Bigotry is, of course, the "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." I'll leave it to others to decide who best matches that description.
Perhaps proponents of same-sex marriage, emboldened by Judge Walker's assertions, might think that they no longer need to persuade those with whom they disagree. Voters have routinely shunned arguments in favor of same-sex marriage while judges have forced it on some states. But it is telling that so many proponents of same-sex marriage are unable or unwilling to respond fairly to the arguments in favor of traditional marriage law.
- Comment (46)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Bigotry is, of course, the "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." I'll leave it to others to decide who best matches that description.
That's an easy one, as you imply. Perhaps the larger lesson (of the whole "marriage debate) is that to a particular political movement words will mean whatever they need them to mean.
Is this just the post-modern trend away from objective truths? Seems like any attempt to apply, or hold on to, a fixed definition or meaning is attacked as cultural hegemony. If you can toss away the meaning of "marriage" what cannot be redefined? (or perhaps the better term is "undefined"?)
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Two question for married people who oppose gay marriage:
1. Does being married to your spouse further your pursuit of happiness?
2. Were you to list by importance the things in your life that allow you to pursue happiness, does your marriage rate in the top 3?
Jul '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
1. Absolutely
2. Definitely
Now then, what's your point?
May '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Justified Right:
1. Does being married to your spouse further your pursuit of happiness?
2. Were you to list by importance the things in your life that allow you to pursue happiness, does your marriage rate in the top 3? · Aug 9 at 11:00am
If you are refering to the life I share with my wife, including our experiences in parenting, the answer is very clearly "yes" to both. But if we are asking about the way that the state of CA chooses to recognise our relationship, the answer would be "no." The state's classification has an impact on how we own property and pay taxes, and how various laws relate to us as a couple, but none of those is directly integral to "pursuit of hapiness".
That gay people can and should form lasting relationships and live as long-term, life-sharing couples, is not in dispute. The dispute concerns the terminology the state uses in classifying those relationships. I feel comfortable including same-sex relationships within the term, "marriage", but I recognize that others have different, and valid, opinions and I'm very unhappy with the way this issue has been litigated.
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
The issue here is almost painfully straightforward. Here is the once-typical understanding:
(1) governments do not get to define marriage;
(2) that is not one of the legitimate powers of governments;
(3) governments lack the authority to do it. Yet,
(4) governments do have the legitimate authority to recognize definitions of marriage.
Fans of Judge Walker might say that his ruling merely recognizes the definition of marriage that's same-sex inclusive. But this is not at all how the ruling proceeds in its logic. Judge Walker defines marriage -- in such a way as to deny or strip away any official recognition of the hugely prevailing definition of marriage that's same-sex exclusive. One hardly has to be a bigot to think of this as a serious legal and political malfunction.
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Bigot!
Oh sorry. It's just reflexive sometimes.
Jun '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
While Ross may be correct that most Americans (mis)understand the term “natural” to mean “congruent with our biological instincts,” the argument that marriage is “natural” is in fact an appeal to natural law theory. In this context “nature” is a philosophical term, as Aristotle would have defined it, and encompasses the entirety of human nature: biological, rational, and teleological. It is also the sense Jefferson intended when he wrote “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.” I hardly think he meant to justify independence on purely biological grounds.
May '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
I don't know Mollie -- I feel like that's all I'm doing on Ricochet these days. And for the record, this is one of the most frustrating features of the site - that the conversation dodges depending on which Contributor wishes to weigh in.
I like Douthat and I'm unwilling to call him a bigot. But the state has no interest in promoting heterosexual marriage that it does not also have in promoting homosexual marriage. Stability, safe environments for the rearing of children, economic productivity and prosperity all apply to both versions. Anyone that actually knows a gay couple with children can see this clearly. Anything else is a moral (generally religious) perspective that is valid, except in the dispensation of benefits and rights by the State.
Granted it is remarkable/shocking development, but at some point it is unjust for one group to deny benefits to another group out of sheer disapproval. Again, religious sensibilities notwithstanding, there is really no difference from anti-miscegenation laws.
Individuals are perfectly free to damn gay couples to hell, but for the government to judge them differently without a compelling reason, is discriminatory -- regardless of how many vote for it.
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Trace,
Would you mind defining what you believe marriage is? I have some other questions for you but that seems like a helpful starting point.
May '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
I don't feel strongly about the use of the word. I speak for no one but myself, but for my part I would readily cede the word. (Though I hardly view my heterosexual marriage or parenting superior to those of homosexual families that I know.)
My issue is with the disparate benefits at the Federal level (tax status, criminal law, recognition across state borders -- maybe there are more?). I think it's wrong for those to be uneven and California's domestic partner law does not adequately address those differences.
That's really the basis for my objection. Make the legal status truly equal and call it whatever you want. And because of that fundamental inequality, I have no issue with the matter being decided by the courts. That is not to defend any of the language or logic of Judge Walker; but on substance, I believe the ruling is right.
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Trace Urdan:
That's really the basis for my objection. Make the legal status truly equal and call it whatever you want. And because of that fundamental inequality, I have no issue with the matter being decided by the courts. That is not to defend any of the language or logic of Judge Walker; but on substance, I believe the ruling is right. · Aug 9 at 2:20pm
My own views on marriage law are pretty anarchistic, so I hope you don't mind that I'm asking you these questions, but when you say "make the legal status truly equal" what precisely are you saying should be made equal? Can you define that thing you want made equal?
May '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
I believe that from the perspective of the State the contract between members of the opposite sex and members of the same sex should be treated equally. It's a contract and should be recognized as such without prejudice. If there are tax benefits for joint filers, rights against incrimination in court, rights for hospital access or of recognition of joint adoption across state lines, those should be respected equally.
I don't believe there is any logical basis for the State to prefer one form over the other. All of the societal benefits that derive from traditional marriage apply equally to homosexual marriage in my view. In fact, one might even make the case that encouraging domesticity for homosexual citizens benefits society.
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Trace,
But you're talking about only one particular type of contract between such members, right? It's not like you think two friends/roommates should be able to joint file, right? Or do you? How do you define what type of contract we're talking about?
Jun '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
This touches on a question I've wrestled with, relative to this topic. Can a case be made for the government to have such authority apart from issues of property, taxes and entitlements? That the government currently has this authority to recognize "marriage," we can all agree. But should they have such authority? What should be the proper role of government here?
May '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Oh see now, that's why your a Contributor and I'm only a contributor. the inconsistencies in my logic are going to leave me with no choice but to say that voters should decide.... but I'll play along...
I would say that there are some societal benefits attached to a union of two people who agree to share their lives through a rigorous contract that is difficult to break and helps create an environment conducive to child-rearing and a stable and civil society.
Of course then the next question is what about plural marriage and I don't really have a great answer there. As far as I know, I don't know any plural spouse families. I suppose I would have to retreat into kooky Libertarian land and say the government should get out of this social engineering exercise altogether. That way the government treats everyone the same and each community determines what the social norms should be.
But I don't really want to be that guy on Ricochet...
May '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
you're
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Jim Chase
This touches on a question I've wrestled with, relative to this topic. Can a case be made for the government to have such authority apart from issues of property, taxes and entitlements? That the government currently has this authority to recognize "marriage," we can all agree. But should they have such authority? What should be the proper role of government here? · Aug 9 at 2:39pm
A tough question, Jim. It's only commonsensical that governments shouldn't pretend that powerful, ubiquitous social conventions and cultural institutions don't exist. But I find it hard to escape the conclusion that governments really have no legitimate authority to use, say, their power of taxation to reward people who adopt a favored marital status.
Jun '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Trace Urdan: the inconsistencies in my logic are going to leave me with no choice but to say that voters should decide....
Of course then the next question is what about plural marriage · Aug 9 at 2:51pm
Bingo.
This isn't a hypothetical "slippery slope" arguement, rather it's part of the lived experience of our nation. Early Mormons were forced to flee the then-boundaries of the U.S. in order to practice plural marriage, and Utah was not admitted as a state until after the LDS Church reversed its position on polygamy.
I can understand the libertarian position that the state should treat marriage as a private contract between consenting adults and permit any and all forms of marriage. I can also understand the position that a democratic majority has the right to define marriage and promote a favored marital status over others. But I can't for the life of me see a tenable, consistent middle ground between these two poles.
Jun '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
James Poulos, Ed.
A tough question, Jim. It's only commonsensical that governments shouldn't pretend that powerful, ubiquitous social conventions and cultural institutions don't exist. But I find it hard to escape the conclusion that governments really have no legitimate authority to use, say, their power of taxation to reward people who adopt a favored marital status.
James, this is my sense as well. And while I firmly come down in the camp that marriage is a holy institution, given by God, I shudder at the use of government's use of power to create artificial favorites (which goes beyond just this topic). For me, I suppose this is but another example of the tension between say, a Christian worldview and the American ideals of liberty and freedom. There is overlap, most certainly, but that overlap is not a perfect one. Thus, tension.
David Harsanyi suggested a few days ago that the government should get out of the business. That will be easier said than done, to be sure. But I find it hard to disagree with the idea, even though it produces mixed feelings. I guess I'll wrestle some more.
Jul '10
Re: Epistemic closure, bigotry and same-sex marriage
Trace has touched on the problem with all of these sorts of utilitarian arguments. Ultimately, they all fail because they all can be used to defend arrangements that almost no-one wants to countenance. If I can demonstrate to your satisfaction that, say, marrying my sister will result in a stable, propsperous, safe environment for the raising of our children, the arguments made here so far would allow, nay oblige, you to defend my right to marry my sister.
The question we must ask ourselves is a moral one: what sort of society are we trying to build? Shouldn't we be prepared to defend the traditional family as the basic unit of a healthy, moral society, even if we recognize that many, many families will fall far short of the ideal?
Contractual arrangements are another matter, and the state must always treat equally all lawful contracts among consenting parties. But decisions like Walker's are an attempt to redefine a fundamental aspect of our culture. No government entity should have the power to do that.