I am rather a fan of Dr. Heaney, who has a new piece in The Public Discourse today. Money quote:
Those in favor of such an expansive version of liberty, and thus an expansive version of marriage and sexuality, seem to recognize this fact and use it to their advantage over those who think that civil law and ordered liberty are grounded in some truth about human beings and moral law. This latter group continues to believe that there are such things as human rights that preexist the civil law, including rights to freedom of conscience and worship. Thus, they tend to respect these rights in those with whom they disagree—that is, they tend to a certain level of tolerance.
The former group, while ostensibly extolling tolerance, cannot tolerate that which threatens their own practices of liberty, including points of view that oppose their own. Such thoughts become the crime of hate speech. Many across the globe, and an increasing number in this country, are facing the wrath of these lovers of pure liberty (for themselves).
Remainder here.
I wonder, though, whether Dr. Heaney is not a little too hard on the personally-opposed-buts (henceforth “POBs”). I’ll give the full context, but the emphasized section is the bit to which I take minor exception—a quibble, really:
…an accusation [of insincerity] rankles the fervent “personally opposed” devotee, because he sincerely believes that his is the proper course of action. His argument about marriage, for example, tends to look something like this: Civil marriage is completely different from religious marriage. If a religion thinks it is proper to keep marriage between one man and one woman, that is no concern of civil authorities. Similarly, religion has no authority to say what civil marriage is. Since it is a purely civil affair, it must be ruled by purely civil laws, especially the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. The push for same-sex unions and polygamy, then, is just a case of providing equal rights.
Let us leave aside the question of whether these statements accurately reflect the faith tradition in which our “personally opposed” friend claims membership. (Catholic teaching, for example, holds quite the opposite: that as a natural institution, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.) If you are truly opposed, yet you truly believe that the Constitution will not permit your position to be enshrined in law, then your task is to change the law—including, if necessary, the Constitution—to reflect what you believe to be the truth for human beings and the best for society. At the very least, your duty is to not exacerbate the situation.
I will stay as close to his original language as possible. It appears that Dr. Heaney is imposing a positive moral duty on all citizens to change the law to reflect what each believes to be the truth for human beings and the best for society.
I’m sure all of us will agree with him—to a point. Heaney goes on to remind us all of the essentially moral nature of the crusade against slavery, despite the fact that Negroes had no legal claim whatsoever to equal protection under the law, and the further fact that slaveholders’ property rights were clearly protected by law and precedent, including the Constitution. This led William Lloyd Garrison, my favorite abolitionist, to publicly burn the Constitution in 1844. The nation ultimately recognized the natural rights of man which pre-existed, informed, and superseded even the Constitution, and established a legal order that reflected the natural order in that regard. Huzzah. There is much legitimate argument over the morality of the Civil War and its incidentals, including even the particular manner of abolition, but anyone who questions the abolition of slavery in itself has about the same moral legitimacy as a neo-Nazi.
But Heaney’s claim seems to be much broader than that. We are obliged, on his account, to create a society that encourages and reflects the truth for human beings. This would seem to embrace not only the truths of natural law, but the truths of religion. Here is where I see some difficulty. While Dr. Heaney’s Catholic Church embraces the universal right to freedom of religion and liberty of conscience, the Church has no problem with the civil establishment of religion. Indeed, the Church, largely pre-existing the modern European nation-state, has been either sole sovereign or formally established religion for much longer than it has been a merely spiritual power. It remains the established religion in a number of jurisdictions. The Catechism’s teaching on religious liberty fits neatly into this schema. If we are quite serious about the law reflecting the truth of the human condition, then should Catholics not aim to establish Catholicism as the taxpayer-supported, state religion from which conclusions about human nature in light of Revelation might be drawn? Should not Protestants aim to establish Protestantism, and Muslims to establish sharia?
Dr. Heaney’s position, if extended without limitation, as his language implies, would seem to justify his friend’s complaint that his position is incompatible with multi-faith democracy and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It suggests, moreover, that religious believers ought to seek to bind all citizens to all their beliefs, including those grounded in unanswerable revelatory claims, not just those ultimately rooted in natural law reasoning. This would make reasonable a law supported by Jehovah’s Witness voters outlawing blood transfusions, or a Jewish neighborhood prohibiting local grocers from selling pork products. Such laws may be entirely Constitutional, but they are antithetical to the sort of pluralistic society America has carefully constructed. To coin a phrase, revelatory claims end at the other guy’s nose.
Now, Dr. Heaney friend’s complaint is nonsense with respect to marriage law. The argument against same-sex marriage finds good grounding on the same natural law tradition that abolished slavery and gave women the vote. Nevertheless, in the marriage debate, where same-sex marriage opponents are frequently and loudly accused of imposing theocracy and undermining the Constitution, it is critically important that we avoid giving any appearance of doing precisely that.
My other quibble with this piece is that it did not include a single reference to Captain Louis Renault, the POB’s POB.
[copied from the Facebook reaction thread]
T.M.: “The push for same-sex unions and polygamy, then, is just a case of providing equal rights.” lulz
L.A.K.: I’m sorry, you would put yourself in the same tradition as abolitionists and feminists in your efforts to deny marriage rights to homosexual couples? Or am I not understanding?
B.T.:As I recall, Jefferson bought into the whole “all men are created equal” bit and freed his own slaves before signing.Our founding fathers probably should have freed the slaves first, or clarified the language to read “all white, land/business owning males, are created equal.” Hmmm there’s an idea… the declaration and constitution, in plain language, as it was actually practiced.
Moving on.
I have to agree with Dr. H. If you don’t want same-sex marriages in your church, that’s between you, your congregational brethren, and your church elders.
You can’t go forcing your religious views on people, or you have to let the followers of the Magical Invisible Pink Unicorn (may her hooves ever shine,) push their beliefs on you, and I for one don’t want people wearing MIPU-pelt pants around in public. Do you? IMO WalMartians dress badly enough now.
BCSWowbagger @L.A.T.: Obviously, the abolition of slavery was a considerably more serious and urgent human good, correcting a far more serious violation of human rights than *any* marriage regime could hope to accomplish. I referred to it simply because it is the only clear example I could think of where the American people asserted a natural right over a Constitutional right, made it stick, and nobody argues anymore that they were wrong to do so.
All three arguments belong to the same tradition of natural-law reasoning. That does not put the argument against same-sex marriage on equal moral or philosophical footing with the argument against slavery, but, to answer your question: Yes, they are rooted in the same basic tradition, draw from the same fundamental principles, and are driven (not exclusively, but in many ways) by the same coalition of evangelical pro-human (and largely pro-natalist) Christians.
And I’d be a goof if I didn’t expect some pushback from you on that final claim, given your interest in U.S. history.
@B.T.: I think you missed his point, a bit. Dr. Heaney argues that traditional marriage laws are *not* rooted in religion, and therefore arguments against traditional civil marriage based on pluralism or the Establishment Clause fail. I pushed back a little bit because, if anything, I think he goes a few inches too far with this.
Other than that, I do agree with you that (1) liberty of conscience and the free exercise of religion are basic, natural human rights which all states are obliged to respect (within the usual ‘”FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre” limits), and (2) a state-established religion which *encourages* particular purely religious practices (such as wearing MIPU-pelt pants) is not innately immoral, but makes for unwise public policy as well as being explicitly unconstitutional. I believe Dr. H would, too.
However, one caveat: I would totally dig it if Catholicism required all followers to wear bright pink pants at all times.
[more from Facebook]
S.G.: The only gripe I have with the post is that the people who are pro choice/ pro gay marriage are doing it for themselves.
The reason I am pro choice is because people sometimes are in situations where a child would destroy their lives. Be it financially, no time, or emotionally distressing (having a child who has down’s syndrome, still birth, or a rare genetic condition). I don’t think anyone should have to endure a life altering change like that because of a mistake they made in the moment.
The reason I am pro gay marriage is because of the statement: “You can tell how free a country is by the happiness of the minorities in that country.” I would rather change the meaning of a single word than create a situation where the constitution restricting the freedom of a group of people.
I will probably never have to face the decision of having an abortion, but if I do, I would like to know that my partner and I actually have a choice in the matter.
I am definitely sure I wont get gay married, haha; however, I don’t want to have a situation on our hands where the freedom of the country is questioned.
A.T.: this “natural-law reasoning” seems to overlook the eternal existence of homosexuality within and without the human race. maybe it would be better termed “empowered white christian male law rooted in platonic reasoning?”
seriously though, slavery was not staunchly condemned by the church until it was politically popular to do so, i’m not trying to fault them for this, but let’s not go with Dr. Heaney on his essentially reductive and i feel somewhat vain claim that there are two groups of people at work in this world, a claim i would also like to add, which is unbecoming of a philosopher. i think it is entirely incorrect to portray this “natural-law reasoning” as a successful template for equality, i could get into the nitty gritty, but the glaring issue is that “natural law” is apparently enacted only when the political climate is forced to a tipping point. it is not entirely natural. these are drastic reforms to a continuous system of power (yes to this day) rooted in these same reductive platonic binaries by which we find it oh so easy to rationalize our world, binaries which are often self serving (again, unbecoming of a philosopher) and binaries which are often propped up by those in power (and, sorry, of late, it’s white hetero christian males). homosexuality is written out of this, but you better believe it’s been there since the dawn of time, monkeys didn’t start it yesterday, and neither did we. so sure, i pick and choose what i want to prop up in the name of free speech, and yes i do certainly believe in hate speech and further believe it has a very real power. ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202 ) but Dr. Heaney does this too, so does everyone, we both believe we’ve got natural law on our side, we just read history and nature differently.
BCSWowbagger: Ah, the classic confusion between what the 21st-century educated classes understand by “nature” and what everyone from Parmenides through the end of the Enlightenment meant by “nature.” Nature, in the philosophical sense, is not taken to mean “that which occurs in the natural world,” which is what you mean by it, but rather, “that which is ordered to the flourishing of a being.” Thus, although (for example) blindness takes place in human populations, blindness is not natural to humans, in the philosophical sense, and is therefore treated as a disability to be tolerated or, if possible, cured. Philosophically separating what is natural to humans and what is not is, of course, the source of many disputes (like this one), because not every question is as simple as “Is cancer natural to humans?” or “Is slavery ordered to human fluorishing?” But so many of us are not even having the conversation anymore, because we’ve lost the vocabulary with which to have it.
There is nothing particularly white, Christian, or legal about it, since the basic understanding predates Christianity, was first reasoned out in Western texts by near-Easterners (and figured out independently by other thinkers in other hemispheres), and precedes law both chronologically and causally. I’m unaware of any females involved in this process early on, unless you count Xanthippe, which I don’t, so I’ll have to concede that formal theorizing on this originated with males. The same can be said of calculus, though, so I’m not sure how salient the point. At any rate, I hope that clarifies Dr. Heaney’s position somewhat. I’m afraid I simply don’t see the binaries you propose, A.T., since there are at least three positions gestured at in his piece (the opposition, the supporters, and the personally-opposed-buts), but I’m open to further clarification.
At any rate, I’m sure Dr. Heaney would be charmed and a shade embarrassed to hear that anyone has confused him with a Platonist!
It is interesting to notice, finally, that nobody who’s commented on this thread so far is actually the target of Dr. Heaney’s argument. His piece is directed at those who claim they personally oppose same-sex unions, but will support them under law despite that fact because they feel compelled to do so. So far as I am aware, TM, LAT, TG, AT, DA, SG, and BT *all* consider homosexual unions entirely equivalent to heterosexual unions and are in absolutely no sense “personally opposed” to them. So it is not surprising that none of you are persuaded by the piece; it addresses none of your (quite potent) arguments!
I should probably say something to defend the Church hierarchy’s historical record on chattel slavery — which is impeccable — but I’d rather agree with you that hate speech does exist, does do damage, and the Anoka “neutrality” policy is far too broad and vague to do anything but harm to anyone.