by Patrick Appel
A reader writes:
I've been enjoying your debate with Rod and others, and noticed Rod making the following mistake about the perspective of secular liberalism in regards to these sorts of rights:
"The thing I want to point out in this post is that secular liberalism thinks of itself as values-neutral, but in fact it is as much its own orthodoxy as anything else. As the philosopher A. MacIntyre has long been saying, it is increasingly impossible for us even to talk to each other because our orthodoxies are so divergent."
I think Rod makes a common conservative mistake about the liberal-secular approach to values. Liberal secularism isn't "value neutral" as Rod suggests, but is "value-relative". In fact, one of the most basic criticisms of secular liberalism by conservatives is that it has no fundamental and eternal values, but only relative ones. Which is true. Conservatives make this a huge criticism of liberals, but then tend to forget about it when they see liberals talking about "rights", as if rights are something liberals see as absolute and unbending truths (as conservatives tend to). They don't. They see even rights as relative matters, things that can grow and change and adapt to various cultural circumstances and forces.
This isn't universally true, of course. Some liberals certainly do get absolutist about rights now and then. But the basic liberal-secular movement tends to avoid that kind of absolutism, in favor of a progressive and relativistic approach to rights. In other words, gradually expanding and adapting our fundamental rights to a changing social structure which becomes more and more inclusive over time.
This is how liberalism ends up winning wars while losing arguments. Pitted head to head against the absolute notion of rights and authority that most conservatives promote, liberals don't have strong arguments on the theoretical level. But on the practical level they do, and they tend to win the culture wars where the evidence of ordinary life favors them. That's why they are winning on the SSM front.
It's not that the country is accepting some absolute right of gays to marry, that isn't really all that convincing an argument (as is sometimes pointed out, we don't have an absolute right to polygamy, or to marry fourteen year olds). But the life-level evidence of gay relationships, not even so much scientifically as just at the human level of contact, has convinced more and more people that this is a good thing, a reasonable and safe thing, and not some terrible catastrophe God or nature is going to punish us for. So liberals win on this issue without actually getting everyone to agree on the absolutism of the right to SSM.
It turns out that because our culture is more and more a secular liberal one of moral and political relativism, rather than one of absolute principles, these kinds of issues end up being decided based on relative and human practicality rather than first principles. This frustrates conservatives, who think that first principles should be the deciding factor in all such debates, but that's not the world we live in anymore (if it ever was).
I think if you examine the other controversial issues that tend to get argued about on first principles and rights, such as abortion, you find the same pattern. Conservatives can make strong arguments about what is a fundamental right, and what isn't, but on a practical level, people want to be able to choose for themselves how to live and have children. Which is why abortion is still legal.
Rod is right that liberals and conservatives tend to talk over each other, but it's not because they have a different set of fundamental beliefs they won't compromise on or admit contrary evidence about, it's that they have very different approaches to the very notion of whether anything is "fundamental" at all, or whether we live in a world of ever-shifting moral relativism that, as MLK famously said "bends towards justice" in the long run.
Another reader goes in a different direction:
Isn't the real issue, and why Dreher and other opponents fight so hard regarding same-sex marriage, not really marriage at all but the continued societal normalization of homosexuality and the resistance on their part to accept the evidence supporting the normalization of homosexuality?
Because, distilled in it's basic form (at least in my opinion) the right to marry was extended to those that were perceived as "normal" members of society partaking in a normal societal right–getting married. Before the victories of the civil rights movement, multiracial marriages were illegal in places, primarily because one part of that union (the non-white part) was perceived as a less normal (and thereby more threatening) part of society. When this idea was debunked, multiracial marriage was universally legalized, and therefore normalized.
That same situation holds true for same-sex marriage now. 50 years ago, homosexuality was viewed as a deviant perversion by society at large, and the medical community specifically. Then research and the evidence showed this wasn't the case, that homosexuality was essentially a perfectly normal. So, no reason to restrict gays and lesbians from partaking in a normal right of society. At least according to the evidence.
But to those on the right who oppose same-sex marriage, they do not accept this normalization. They do not accept that homosexuality is not a deviant perversion. They do not accept the evidence. So they continue to oppose allowing gays to enter into this normal societal right. Until the right is convinced of the truth of the normality of homosexuality, this will continue to be an issue for them.
Another reader:
Rod Dreher completely misunderstands the "rights" analysis under our Constitution. The Supreme Court does balancing tests ALL THE TIME weighing evidence of competing harms and benefits. And this isn't some new fangled "librul" aspect to the Court. For example, it has been well established (going back a century) that one does not have an absolute right to free speech. One does not have an untrammeled right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, as the famous mantra goes.
Would Dreher argue that the fundamental right of speech "not be up for negotiation?" That, even if the evidence shows that falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater will cause great physical harm and panic, the "right" to free speech trumps concerns regarding a crowd's welfare? The "rights" analysis under the Constitution has always been about careful balancing. A person's right can always be limited if evidence shows a compelling reason for restricting that right. War/invasion/rebellion are good examples for when normal rights get curtailed.
The Constitution even allows for the discrimination on the basis of race if a compelling reason can be shown (i.e., by evidence) — see Affirmative Action cases. Discrimination on the basis of gender is allowed if an "important" reason can be shown (again, by evidence) to justify the discrimination (see gender roles in combat). Your "right" to bear arms does not extend to grenade launchers or chemcial /biological/nuclear weapons. The list goes on and on. No "right" is beyond negotiation.
A final reader:
The fact that support for marriage equality has grown so substantially over the past ten or twenty years proves that minds can change on the matter. I’m in my middle forties. Even into early adulthood, the idea of same-sex marriage seemed absurd to me. It was simply contrary to a hardwired worldview. But over time, the logic of equality has been shown so forcefully that I’ve completely changed my mind. And the problem for people like Dreher is the all the mind-changing is moving in the same direction. Is there anyone who used to be for marriage equality and who now opposes it? There are people on both sides of the issue whose position in rooted in feelings, and they’ll never change. But those whose positions are rooted in facts are all migrating to the same side.
The Dish 