Yesterday I subscribed to a free iTunes podcast. It is a lecture series given by a Harvard philosophy professor. A discussion was held concerning same-sex marriage. This exercise was supposed to illustrate whether or not we are able to detach moral views from identifying justice.
The first comment to open the discussion was made by a Catholic man, who argued that there is a two-fold mission, if you will, for marriage: 1) procreation, and 2) unity between man and wife. A rebuttal came from a young woman who submitted that according to this definition, what real cause would there be for an infertile couple to have sex? She related this to a homosexual relationship.
Other comments focused on the “rights” of the government in recognizing or notarizing marriages and civil unions. As a Christian, and a Mormon Christian for that matter, it is hard for me to ponder this issue without my theological looking glass. I personally believe that though there is a separation of church and state, law should never be detached from Christian moral values. Yet, the following is a meager attempt to secularly support my view that homosexuals should not be allowed to lawfully enter into the social (and for me sacred) institution of marriage:
There are arguments debating the role of the constitution. Is it a “living document” that changes with the times and the situations that the United States of America faces? Or is it an anchor that is supposed to keep strong ties to fundamental ideals and doctrines, strong enough to help us keep our course as the storm of the world’s moral and philosophical flux rages?
I maintain that the Constitution, though imperfect and essentially the attempt of stubborn, old political scientists at compromise, serves the purpose of pointing the American people back to fundamental, elemental truths upon which this great nation was (I hesitate to say "is") founded. It is the best that brilliant men of various opinions could contrive.
This being said, let us speculate how the founding fathers would react to the idea of same-sex marriage. Undoubtedly they would be shocked at the notion that a man would want his union to another man to be recognized by the state. But let us look further, past the culture of the time (for that is the reason I believe that this discussion has even come up) towards the basic, even eternal truths that motivated Washington, Adams, and others to draft a whole new type of government that has been tested by the centuries and has prospered.
Would they eventually concede that man really is made to pursue his own happiness, and if your happiness comes from being gay, then so be it? I think no. However vehemently these men fought, whether on the battle field or in Congress, for freedom and liberty, they would never yield to allowing same-sex marriage. It would not be in their nature. This word of course would be a segway to other issues discussed in philosophy classes, but for now we will leave it be.
The fact is that we cannot detach the founding fathers from their moral ideals, which not coincidentally came from Christian backgrounds. Yes some, like Benjamin Franklin, claimed to be atheist, but the great inventor and statesmen from Pennsylvania did not object to opening the congressional sessions with prayer to God.
America has eaten the proverbial lotus offered by political correctness and neo-Constitutionalism. Many would disagree that America has forgotten her heritage. But the fact that we dismiss the founding fathers' beliefs, yet daily reap benefits from their political and philosophical prowess is like adding salt to food just for the granular texture, and not to unlock the flavor of the meal.
Does government have the right to tell a man how puruse happiness? No, but can government afford to allow its people to carry on in an exponential, downward digression from ideals once held by the men who now live on in our history books?
