Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Secular Conservatism, Libertarians, Progressives, and Marriage
I take conservatism to be an appreciation and defense of what has been proven to work, and which benefits society and the individual in a balance.
If that seems overly-broad, let me provide an example. Morality is effective in curbing largely destructive impulses and reactions, therefore morality is worth defending in principle, with some room for debate on many fronts. Not all morality is the same, and it is not always helpful in the particulars. But to hold that morality is not a necessary part of society is anti-conservative in my view, as morality is the most tested method for a society to control its own behavior with respect for the society and the individual in balance.
Libertarianism is a radical extreme that places no value on society as a body, and progressivism is a radical extreme that places no value on the individual. Conservatism is the compromise position arrived at through experience, and stored in our cultural traditions as the wisdom of the ages. To a secular conservative, the Bible is one of many instruments to this end. Just because there is a religious proscription against adultery doesn’t mean that only religious people can defend a belief that adultery is harmful to individuals and society. Likewise with other religious proscriptions.
Religion is, of course, a large component of the conservative movement, but philosophically it is not a necessary component of a thoroughly conservative position. Not even for marriage. I view the partnership between religion and conservatism as a co-development from a common origin. Shared predicates yield shared conclusions, and therefore common interest. Where religion ascribes things to God, secular conservatism agrees to the extent that it is destructive of society and the individual for mankind to mess with certain things. Progressivism on the other hand is the confidence that a small group of people in the present know better than (on the one hand) everybody else across time, and better than (on the Other hand) God in His infinite wisdom. Secular conservatism and religion get along just fine as defenders of our culture.
I see value in describing much of libertarianism as allied with progressivism, because conservatism is where the middle is, and to pull us off that mark either this way or that is just as destructive. If a movement seeks to abolish our traditions as proven over time, it is not conservatism. Progressivism and libertarianism get along just fine as disruptors of our culture.
There is already a philosophical position consistent with conservatism which enshrines human rights and the liberty of the individual: it is called conservatism.
Now, not every tradition is valuable, and a slavish devotion to traditions which are not good is not conservatism; that’s mechanism, on the process level. Radical opposition to a flawed and failing government is not anti-conservative, but radical opposition to the institutions of our culture, most definitely is.
For example, you could argue that big spending by government is now a tradition and that it is therefore conservative to defend it and radical to oppose it, but this is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it may be a tradition, but empirically it has not been proven to be a useful one. Some spending is necessary, some spending is excessive — making judgements is important, and at any rate, even if all projects were equally worthy, the sheer sum of spending which displaces other worthy but non-government projects must be taken into account and weighed for relative merit. Big spending is anti-conservative because it is destructive.
Second, the dependencies come to play in that objects and policies are not the only subjects to be appreciated and defended. The decision to spend less is no less valuable than the process by which we arrive at that decision, and its implications. If we feel that the accumulated wisdom vouchsafed in our culture is probably more valuable as a guide for society (in the aggregate) than the intellect spawned in a few brilliant fellows, then a process which lends itself to operation gently over time by many rather than abruptly, once, by the few is an inherently conservative method of arriving at conclusions. Big spending is anti-conservative because it operates through an anti-conservative process.
As the free market is operated gently by many, and government spending is operated forcefully by few, any problem not specifically recommended for government remedy is probably better handled outside of government. So no matter how “traditional” big spending may have become, it is not conservative in itself, and it is not conservative to defend it merely because it is the status quo.
Marriage pre-dates any law. It simply is, and it is between one man and one woman. This may sound circular, or like a “no true Scot” defense, but I assert it as a foundational fact. Marriage is not produced by law any more than our rights are. Marriage is enshrined and defended by law in our culture, and if the law should fall, marriage would remain, just as our rights do. The law does not trump marriage.
This should not be too alarming; conservatism is a platform, a set of positions. Some planks rest upon others and not all must be as heavily pedigreed. I hold that marriage is a foundational plank in the conservative platform. I hold that marriage is an emergent cultural defense against various destructive impulses and reactions, including those of jealous males, engineering females, and hostile out-group sentiment. Good manners are a defense against some offenses which can become lethal, and marriage is a defense against outrage.
Humans are sexual beings (as our grade-schoolers are reminded every minute by government busybodies), and many of our impulses and reactions are not rational in the way we would like, no matter how logical they may be from a chromosome’s point of view. As manners are typically maintained by society itself, morality is often maintained by religion as a specific example of a philosophy operating in context.
As the male-female pairing is not up for debate in conservatism (I challenge you to convince me that it is not what has been proven to work), so the societal adaptation which defends it is a necessary component of conservatism. I realize that many “conservatives” disagree with this, but they are mistaken about either their conservatism or their conclusions.
Published in General
Tradition is accumulated experience, so there is that. And there’s some reason to suspect that the moral traditions this country was founded on are particularly good for human flourishing.
Therefore Ed’s assertion that society probably won’t come crashing down, but would become less optimal if SSM is accepted, is not such a crazy assertion. BDB’s apparent assertions – that if other conservatives don’t agree with him 100%, they should expect society to come crashing down about their ears (and it will be all their fault) – are somewhat more crazy, though.
We libertarians sometimes ought to remind ourselves that, while tradition isn’t proof, it is evidence.
Likewise, SoCons would do well to remind themselves that, while tradition is evidence, it isn’t proof.
Agreed, MFR, to a point. But I would say that it is experience, rather than tradition, that is evidence. And we have no experience with SSM. None at all. A blind adherence to tradition – or its corollary, a blind aversion to innovation – is simply Ludditism. The fear that if we try something new, Skynet is going to become self-aware and mankind will be scrabbling for existence in the ruins of civilization.
Besides, we don’t write laws simply for the purpose of requiring people to adhere to tradition. It is traditional to give gifts at a wedding, and that’s a fine tradition. But we would not refuse to recognize a marriage where no gifts are given. It is tradition that the bride wear white, but she can wear a clown suit if she wants. There’s no law against it, and there shouldn’t be.
Yes, Larry, the conservative impulse to resist change can be paralyzing. That’s why conservatives need libertarian friends, to persuade them to experiment, eh?
I guess that must be sarcasm that I don’t get, but yes – it takes all kinds.
Well I guess you’ve chosen your hill to die on, facts or no.
And that’s why Libertarianism not conservative. That is kind of the point.
To me, this is about not having to pay lip service. If you pretend to accept an imposition, you have accepted an imposition.
Keeping marriage as it is does not prevent same sex couples from making their own decisions in peace.
I’m not trying to engineer society, but I do believe, as I said in #232 that: “government has little interest in personal relationships. Except, there is one type of relationshiop that has unique potential results. The results of this one type of relationship are one of the necessary conditions to general flourishing, but only under certain circumstances and can be detrimental to general flourishing in other circumstances. Some societies react to this fact with rigid and obligatory rules while others take a more variable and voluntary approach. They all take an approach, though, because both the potential benefits are vital and the potential detriment is great, and the nature of the relationship and its draw to individuals means that it will be widespread rather than stumbled upon from time to time.”
I think that tradition, experience, and results bear this out.
That’s part of it: marriage does have a fundamental essence underlying all of those variations. Without that fundamental essence, what are we even talking about? Is marriage an identifiable thing or not? If so, then how do we identify it?
There was some question earlier as to why this post was promoted: the simplest answer is that I thought it a well-written post about a perennially fascinating and important set of subjects. I had some heavy disagreements with it, but thought it well worth promoting, both on its own merits and — more importantly, to my mind — for the discussion it would engender.
For all the contention and near misses in terms of tempers, I’m pleased to see that I was right: anyone looking over this thread will find a discussion that moves toward greater clarity (on both sides) and that covers some very interesting and thoughtful arguments.
Because this is the one that finally makes civil marriage meaningless rather than simply crippled. As I reiterated in #492, I believe civil marriage is vitally important for society to flourish. As I also said in some earlier comment, marriage has been crippled for many decades by NFD and other cultural trends. By making the term meaningless (by allowing it to mean anything) we close out the opportunity to restore civil marriage to health. I think that will lead to trouble, but eventually (decades, hopefully not centuries) it will also lead to a new institution centered around heterosexual coupling because it is such a unique and impactful coupling type that it merits such interest.
I have not missed your point. I believe you continue to miss mine, though. Before we can talk about what is the harm of x and y marrying, we must first establish what marrying means. In the context of this thread, we’re specifically discussing what civil marriage is, rather than sacramental or individual outlooks on what marriage is.
Aside from that, I already explained in #477 and 479 that I think civil marriage arose and developed around coupling categories rather than specific people and their specific cases, and I think that remains the best approach for various reasons I laid out in #480 and 481. You want to depart from consideration of category to consideration of specific cases? Ok, but don’t you think that will have consequences beyond the one result of SSM? Yes, yes, I know: people should mind their own business. But that option isn’t on the table and that is not what you are supporting when you support SSM now: civil marriage will continue to exist and operate as if it has a valid purpose. Aren’t you at least curious about what your SSM allies think that purpose should be?
To sum up: I don’t argue that allowing same sex couples to marry will cause harm, I argue that what they do isn’t marriage and that by changing marriage to include such couplings will render marriage meaningless and so unsalvageable.
I’m a Burkean conservative. I’m not opposed to change, I just want evidence that the change is salutary. All the SSM supporters just assert without evidence that the SSM will cause no harm to the family. They are shifting the burden of proof. They want to radically redefine the basic institution in all of human society with NO evidence that the change will not have negative repercussions and they want to force that change on the entire country at once rather than allow different states to experiment with various iterations of change.
There is nothing libertarian in the SSM movement. It is statism, pure and simple.
I’m for letting states decide for themselves if they want to allow SSM without the newly-discovered Constitution rights accusing anyone that disagrees of being homophobic.
If the SSM supporters are correct that there will be no harm to children, they should not be afraid of allowing experimentation.
One size fits all solutions rarely work.
It’s funny in a way. Both you and the gay community being so invested in the word “marriage.” They aren’t satisfied with civil unions, because it denies them the word. You refuse to grant them the word because you want to defend it’s “true meaning.”
Who cares? If it pleases someone to call their relationship “marriage,” what do you care? If it pleases the majority of a democratic society to define marriage that way, so what? You say it won’t do any harm. So why do you get so bent out of shape about it? (Me? No, I’m not bent out of shape about it. I really don’t much care. I just hate the government pushing people around.)
Do you get enraged if a garbageman calls himself a “sanitation engineer” because it undermines the “true meaning” of the word “engineer”? Does that make a true engineering degree “meaningless”?
The libertarian position is the opposite of statism. Core libertarians would get the government out of marriage altogether. No licenses, no benefits, no penalties. The courts would still have to decide disputes upon dissolution, as with any contract (including civil unions), but nothing beyond that. How is that statism?
If the government must involve itself though, it should not pick winners and losers. It should not be in the business of deciding who can and can’t get married. Minimize government involvement. It is incredible to me that you call that position “statism.”
On your other two points (states, rather than judges should decide; and people who object should not be forced to involve themselves in SSM’s or weddings), I agree on both counts. In fact, I have never, ever seen even a single comment on Ricochet from anyone who disagrees. So I think you have dragged a couple of strawmen into the argument.
Something can cause harm and still be a net positive. The pill caused all kinds of harms, but I believe the world is a better place because of it. The harms of SSM are inherently hidden, but the benefits to a long maligned segment of society are obvious.
Right, there’s nothing libertarian about civil marriage. I think of libertarians as observers who aren’t deeply invested (despite our willingness to debate), but who like that good people are going to feel happy about sharing in part of mainstream culture. If the country suddenly turned against SSM, I wouldn’t lose any sleep.
Libertarians (on this site) agree.
I just wanted to point out that I think “SSM is an incremental increase is the state’s power,” is one of the best libertarian arguments against it. Credit where credit is due.
Perhaps, but I have not seen any strong proponent of the SSM movement argue for allowing gradual acceptance of SSM and allowing the states to experiment to see what happens. They all argue that no harm can possibly result so us homophobes need to stop our insistence that we wait to see if any negative consequences result come of hop on the SSM train immediately.
I’m sure some libertarian SSM supporters are not happy with newly-found constitutional rights, but I haven’t seen strong SSM supporters make the case that the Supreme Court is wrong.
Admittedly, I haven’t read every post in the 500 or so SSM threads in the year since I joined.
Um. I don’t know what to say. Possibly you haven’t been looking for them, then.
Government recognition and endorsement of SSM is not minimizing government involvement. SSM will necessarily use government power to force people to accept SS couples as equal in EVERY way as hetero couples.
If you don’t see that happening, then you haven’t been paying attention in our country for the last 80 years.
If you want to minimize government, get government completely out of the marriage recognition business. I would readily support that. Government recognition of SSM is the exact opposite.
This is an interesting comment. I would welcome a discussion about whether the costs of SSM outweigh the benefits, but it’s hard to do so with people that refuse to acknowledge there are any costs at all.
FWIW, it is discussing with otherwise thoughtful people who argue strongly that SSM is all benefit and no cost (as in this thread) that make me realize that these people haven’t actually thought through the issues and it makes me less inclined to support SSM.
I haven’t been looking for anything. I’ve just been involved in more of these discussions on this site than I care to. Still, in all those discussions, I still haven’t run across any SSM supporter that argued for experimentation and gradual implementation. Perhaps a few have said they wouldn’t oppose it, but no strong-SSM supporters have argued initially that it is the right way to move forward.
You haven’t? I have.
As well as supporters who aren’t much opposed to non-gradual implementation. I’ve run across the whole gamut.
Question: are you judging people’s strength of support for SSM by their opposition to allowing any pro-SSM changes to happen gradually?
(If so, then it’d be no wonder you hadn’t met any strong SSM supporters in favor of gradual change – you would have defined them out of existence.)
No, I usually judge people’s strength of support for SSM by how much they call me a homophobe for merely pointing out that there is the possibility of costs associated with government recognition of SSM (well to be fair, I usually judge their strength by how willing they are to call anyone that disagrees with them a homophobe).
Though, upon reflection, there might be a correlation. Anyone willing to call anyone who opposes SSM a homophobe is not going to sign up for gradual implementation since gradual implementation is clearly (in their minds) a homophobic plot to hurt gays.
Speaking for myself, my long-preferred policy has been to have SSM passed by state constitutional amendment. Passing it as legislation is acceptable to me, but only barely. I’m completely against forcing through judicial ruling; Prop 8 absolutely should be the law of California.
If a state wishes to define civil marriage as one-man-one-woman, I think they’re wrong, but wholly entitled to do so. I actually don’t think SMM is a particularly important issue: it’s neither the great civil rights cause of our time, nor the death knell of Western Civilization. As others have said in this thread, the (very serious) trouble marriage is in has almost nothing to do with SSM.
This is almost exactly my view on the subject (*). And I’m considered by many on there to be an opponent of SSM. To many supporters of SSM, they recognize that Constitutional amendments in most states will never happen, so they prefer the statist top-down federal mandate through the method of the “newly-discovered constitutional right.”
(*) I wouldn’t say states are “wrong” for preserving the traditional definition of marriage.
Has anyone done that on this thread?