Marriage is for Everyone
Aristotle defined ‘Justice’ as the concept of giving people what they deserve. Good or bad, the ancient Greek philosopher whose ideas and interpretations have endured through the centuries clearly understood the value of simplicity, and the vicissitudes of human nature.
So what do people deserve? That’s the primary question, and the answer is rarely as simple as it appears. In the case of legal applications, when laws are broken and society demands redress, what justice do we serve the offender? Using Aristotle’s definition, we would give the lawbreaker what they deserve. A murderer should be killed, a thief should have something stolen from him, an arsonist should lose his home to fire. But as we consider each of those punishments, those applications of justice, we see quickly that they lack one essential element; they disregard the consequences to the rest of society of what we’ve come to refer to as unintended consequences. If we kill convicted murderers does that increase the acceptance and facility of killing in society? Possibly, so we hesitate to codify capital punishment. Likewise, if the thief suffers an equivalent loss of property through thievery, does that validate the practice of stealing, by enhancing its status as a state-endorsed practice? If we burn down the home of the arsonist, does his or her family then go without a home, and become entitled to shelter from the state? These are not simple questions, and this brings us to another point about simplicity and our current public debate.
All the above questions have one thing in common: they all ignore the essential purpose of the law’s application and intervention in each crime. In other words, what are we trying to accomplish? It is this way as well with any application of justice; we must discern the essential purpose of the exercise we are trying to judge. Recently, a professional golfer named Casey Martin sued the PGA for the right to use a golf cart in competition. Mr. Martin cited his need to ride in a cart instead of walking the links due to a medical condition. The PGA disallowed golf cart use, deeming that variation a detriment to the essential nature of the game. The case was driven all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Martin. The ruling was based, as mentioned above, on the essential nature of the activity. In other words, as Justice Antonin Scalia said, the court had first to decide “What Is Golf”? And is walking a golf course ‘essential’ to playing the game? Their ruling said, in short, that walking is not essential to golf, therefore Martin must be allowed to use a cart.
The interesting part of the discussion was mention of the moral and ethical ingredients which found their way into the argument. Big name professional golfers argued that Martin’s cart would undermine their integrity as athletes, something that they were apparently sensitive to already. Thus, the ethics and morality of the individual points overshadowed an otherwise simple, elegant solution of allowing anyone who wanted to use a cart to do so.
What does this have to do with the current controversy over so-called same-sex marriage? Once again, the argument hinges on how to adjudicate a case in which the essential nature of the institution, marriage in this case, has yet to be determined. Why do we marry? What is the purpose of marriage? In other words, what is the essential nature of an institution that has an influence in all of our lives, but which has never been adequately discerned as to its essence. If we’re to determine that marriage is for procreation, then a lot of heterosexual couples who have no children, cannot have them, choose not to or are too old to have them must not be allowed the status of marriage. If marriage is for loving, committed companionship and life-long care and nurturing, then it makes no sense to restrict it to heterosexuals. If the argument centers on Biblical concepts proscribing certain sexual activities, then marriage must be further restricted to only those people who remain sexually faithful for life, and un-divorced. Second marriages would automatically be invalid.
After hearing all the arguments, presentations, warnings and dire predictions from opponents of civil marriage equality, I have managed to discern one thing: that the opposition to marriage equality, based on their definition of the essence of marriage, will eventually be overruled. They’re running out arguments, simply because the essence of marriage, as religious and other faith-based groups well know, is the latter. Marriage is based on the simple requirement and necessity that we love and care for another human being in such a way that we wish to devote our lives to them. That is the essence of marriage, and the reason courts will eventually rule in favor of civil marriage equality.
There is also the minor detail of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but that is for another discussion.
So what do people deserve? That’s the primary question, and the answer is rarely as simple as it appears. In the case of legal applications, when laws are broken and society demands redress, what justice do we serve the offender? Using Aristotle’s definition, we would give the lawbreaker what they deserve. A murderer should be killed, a thief should have something stolen from him, an arsonist should lose his home to fire. But as we consider each of those punishments, those applications of justice, we see quickly that they lack one essential element; they disregard the consequences to the rest of society of what we’ve come to refer to as unintended consequences. If we kill convicted murderers does that increase the acceptance and facility of killing in society? Possibly, so we hesitate to codify capital punishment. Likewise, if the thief suffers an equivalent loss of property through thievery, does that validate the practice of stealing, by enhancing its status as a state-endorsed practice? If we burn down the home of the arsonist, does his or her family then go without a home, and become entitled to shelter from the state? These are not simple questions, and this brings us to another point about simplicity and our current public debate.
All the above questions have one thing in common: they all ignore the essential purpose of the law’s application and intervention in each crime. In other words, what are we trying to accomplish? It is this way as well with any application of justice; we must discern the essential purpose of the exercise we are trying to judge. Recently, a professional golfer named Casey Martin sued the PGA for the right to use a golf cart in competition. Mr. Martin cited his need to ride in a cart instead of walking the links due to a medical condition. The PGA disallowed golf cart use, deeming that variation a detriment to the essential nature of the game. The case was driven all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Martin. The ruling was based, as mentioned above, on the essential nature of the activity. In other words, as Justice Antonin Scalia said, the court had first to decide “What Is Golf”? And is walking a golf course ‘essential’ to playing the game? Their ruling said, in short, that walking is not essential to golf, therefore Martin must be allowed to use a cart.
The interesting part of the discussion was mention of the moral and ethical ingredients which found their way into the argument. Big name professional golfers argued that Martin’s cart would undermine their integrity as athletes, something that they were apparently sensitive to already. Thus, the ethics and morality of the individual points overshadowed an otherwise simple, elegant solution of allowing anyone who wanted to use a cart to do so.
What does this have to do with the current controversy over so-called same-sex marriage? Once again, the argument hinges on how to adjudicate a case in which the essential nature of the institution, marriage in this case, has yet to be determined. Why do we marry? What is the purpose of marriage? In other words, what is the essential nature of an institution that has an influence in all of our lives, but which has never been adequately discerned as to its essence. If we’re to determine that marriage is for procreation, then a lot of heterosexual couples who have no children, cannot have them, choose not to or are too old to have them must not be allowed the status of marriage. If marriage is for loving, committed companionship and life-long care and nurturing, then it makes no sense to restrict it to heterosexuals. If the argument centers on Biblical concepts proscribing certain sexual activities, then marriage must be further restricted to only those people who remain sexually faithful for life, and un-divorced. Second marriages would automatically be invalid.
After hearing all the arguments, presentations, warnings and dire predictions from opponents of civil marriage equality, I have managed to discern one thing: that the opposition to marriage equality, based on their definition of the essence of marriage, will eventually be overruled. They’re running out arguments, simply because the essence of marriage, as religious and other faith-based groups well know, is the latter. Marriage is based on the simple requirement and necessity that we love and care for another human being in such a way that we wish to devote our lives to them. That is the essence of marriage, and the reason courts will eventually rule in favor of civil marriage equality.
There is also the minor detail of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but that is for another discussion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment