The Great Dilemma

For those who slavishly adhere to a single good and completely disregard other goods, the world is a simple place with few dilemmas. But, for those who acknowledge that life involves a painful compromise between competing values, clear cut answers are few and tough dilemmas are many. For me, no other issue poses such a great dilemma as gay marriage.

I have some very wonderful gay friends who are involved in loving, long-term monogamous relationships, so I am sympathetic towards gay marriage. These sentiments are strengthened by the tremendous value I place on individual freedom.

The right of self governance is an essential good in a democratic society. In other words, even when we do not necessarily agree with the positions of a community, we should respect their right to govern themselves according to their values and visions and resolve their own internal disputes. And in a democracy having a federal government or a court system that is too quick to impose its will on local communities is not healthy. Although we may be happy when the federal government imposes our values on others, we surely will not be happy when the values of others are imposed on our community, hence the need for a government that treads cautiously when intervening in local affairs.

My well informed critics will correctly point out that the rights of self governance stop when a community usurps the constitutionally guaranteed rights of an individual. The best example being the illegitimate suppression of voting rights of African-Americans in many southern communities.

So, the question we must ask is if not allowing gay marriage is a violating of constitutional rights? I would start by making a careful distinction between individual sphere and the communal sphere. That which lies in the private, individual sphere and does not infringe on the rights of other members of the community, constitute inalienable personal rights. For example, any law that limited the rights of gays to pursue their relationship would be grossly unjust and unconstitutional. And in my opinion, it would also be unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to have the same tax, insurance and inheritance benefits that straight couples enjoy. Although this would be abhorrent to religious communities, it would in no way infringe on their rights.

On the other hand, marriage goes beyond the private realm. When a community or state permits a certain form of marriage, it implies that it officially sanctions and supports it. It implies that the relationship is in accordance with the fundamental values and beliefs of that community. For example, I have never met anyone would consider it a crime for a man to share the same house with and engage in a polygamous relationship with 3 women. But, few if any "progressives"or conservatives would legalize polygamous marriage. Why? Because although they can permit behavior that they find pathological or immoral, they will not sanction or support that relationship by enshrining it in marriage. To do so would negate the existence of the shared values and visions that bind that community.

The most reasonably position is to allow each community decide. A federal government that prevents communities from exercising their right to accept or to decline gay marriage will surely result in greater social tension and a further erosion of civic and community involvement. If the majority of a community is not permitted to form laws and institutions that reflect their values and beliefs, that community will either become passive and withdrawn or highly defiant. Some will complain that this will divide the nation. I say that for good or for bad, we are already seeing the accelerated growth of two social spheres in America: the secular-relativist and the religious-traditionalist. Allowing for local communities to determine their policies on gay marriage is far from a perfect solution, but it is one that will ensure a peaceful co-existence between the two Americas. Rather than call on courts to impose values that go against the beliefs and values of the majority of their fellow community members, "intolerant rednecks" and "G-dless liberals" can move to communities that better reflect their values. This may sound radical, but it is already happening. I have met many secular liberals have moved from traditional regions of the south and Midwest to large, liberal cities like Chicago and LA. And equally, I have met many traditional families that have moved from large cities to suburbs or ever exurbs where their values predominate.

Closing thoughts: One important underlying element in the debate on gay marriage is that its acceptance would be a cause or perhaps more accurately, a symptom of the final divorce of western values and laws from their Judeo-Christian foundation. Regardless of your opinion of Judaism or Christianity, it is a fact that they have been a core element of western civilization for nearly 2,000 years. And more importantly, for all the flaws that they may have, I do not see any viable alternatives.

I am extremely skeptical about the chances for success of a society with no shared, transcendental values other than tolerance, relativism and radical individualism. I am skeptical of the power of reason and individual philosophy to fill the moral and spiritual vacuum that "enlightened" individuals experience when shared religion and traditions disappear. Prosperous, educated individuals and communities may be able to use reason to forge a semblance of peace in this vacuum. But, the destination for the most individuals and communities who have left St. Peter (tradition), but do not have the means or desire to find Plato (reason) is disaster.