Tom Gilson

SSM Advocates’ Unprincipled Position on Marriage

No one today is carrying on the same-sex “marriage” (SSM) debate more thoughtfully than Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, on the one side, and Kenji Yoshino on the other. The latest in their exchange of articles is here at Public Discourse.

And here is one brief take on it. Girgis, George, and Anderson (GG&A) say that it’s possible to put forth a principle-based answer to the question, “what is marriage?” Yoshino attacks their proposed principles, but in the process does much more than that. In the end he undermines all principles undergirding any concept of marriage whatsoever.

In his articles he has been poking around the edges of GG&A’s position, pointing out apparent difficulties in it, and, because it’s not syllogistically perfect in practice, proclaiming the whole attempt a failure. (GG&A answer his challenges, satisfactorily to my way of thinking, but that’s not my main interest in writing this blog post.)

Meanwhile Yoshino proposes definitional principles of his own, but as GG&A demonstrate, in practice they’re much weaker than the ones he attacks. If perfection in social practice is necessary, then Yoshino has nothing to offer. He has no principled position on marriage.

GG&A point out his own public waffling:

All of this is clear from Yoshino’s only positive statement of what he thinks marriage does require: though he expects future demands for the recognition of multiple-partner unions, Yoshino would “currently . . . distinguish polygamous marriage primarily on the intuitive ground that one can give one’s full self to only one other person.” So Yoshino thinks that marriage requires a comprehensive union, and that this requires monogamy. We agree, as our article says explicitly. But history (in which monogamy is both observed and flouted) could not have yielded that conclusion. Only reasoning about what the human good requires of our natural and public institutions—moral and political philosophy—could. We have offered our reasons, according to which truly comprehensive union involves bodily union—and thus coitus, and thus sexual complementarity. Yoshino, who disagrees, refuses to make a counterproposal.

If all of this undermines even the one criterion for legal recognition (monogamy) that Yoshino embraces here, perhaps that is because he already rejected it elsewhere. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” some 300 self-described “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender… and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers” and others declared their support for “legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families,” including (among others) “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” Kenji Yoshino was one of the signers.

At least three conclusions flow from this. First, if SSM advocates hold that there is no principled basis upon which marriage is defined, then even from within their own position they have no basis to support the way they have treated SSM opponents: condemning us as hateful, homophobic, and so on. On their view, there is no principle-based correct answer to “what is marriage?” Based on that, even their own view cannot be the right one, so all we really have is a difference of opinion. Since when is a difference of opinion equivalent to hate?

Second, if there is no principled way by which to reach a right answer to “what is marriage?” then we must reach agreement some other way. Social consensus might be a reasonable alternative (if one is necessary), but we had that for centuries, and gay-rights advocates have obviously cast that to the winds. The other way is through the use of power, and SSM advocates have certainly followed that route: principally the power of rhetoric, including propaganda, crass manipulation of images, irrational appeals to emotion (especially playing the hate card), and outright deceit. It’s all spelled out right here.

Third, if there is no principled basis for a definition of marriage, then the slippery slope argument applies with perfect validity. People like Yoshino will sign documents urging that we go beyond same-sex “marriage.” How far? What form of “marriage” could possibly be too far beyond? Who could say? Who would have the right to say? An unprincipled open door into SSM is an open door into unbridled perversions of marriage, family, and society.

I criticize SSM advocates for their manipulative use of rhetoric, and I want to be careful not to be guilty of the same. “Unprincipled” has strong negative connotations: “immoral, unethical, unscrupulous.” I think a case can be made that SSM advocacy exhibits all of these, especially in their use of rhetorical power, but rather than going that direction, I want to draw particular attention to the parts of the word: unprincipled, or lacking in guiding principles. It is that very lack which makes unprincipled virtually equivalent to unethical; for experience shows that there are no ethics in practice without principles behind them. I want to make it clear, too, that I am not referring to persons but to positions in this debate.

With those clarifications in mind, it seems clear to me that there is no defensible principle underlying SSM advocates’ position on marriage, so in that sense it is an unprincipled position. Whether you think there is a direct line from unprincipled (in the sense I have specified) to unethical is up to you, but if you think not, then you are ignoring the greater part of human experience.

Footnote, and a preview of future blog posting: It is likely that a principled position is impossible to attain based on secular materialistic presuppositions, which provide little foundation for any social entity at all having a secure, stable, principle-based definition. I’m reading Benjamin Wiker’s Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists, an extended philosophical discussion of the ancient roots and contemporary fruits of philosophical materialism. The divide separating theists and materialists is even wider than I had thought, and this dispute over the essence of marriage—whether there could even be such a thing as an essence of marriage—is just one aspect of it.

Commenting Restored

The comment function here has been out of service, possibly causing frustration, for which I apologize. You can comment again now, and it will save and post as it should do. First-time commenters' comments will not appear, however, until approved in moderation.

2 thoughts on “SSM Advocates’ Unprincipled Position on Marriage

  1. In dealing with the juridical aspects of marriage, the great French jurist and author of the leading commentary on the Code Civil, le doyen Jean Carbonnier did raise the question: “What is the state’s interest in marriage? Why does marriage exist, as a legal institution? What is the unique legal rôle of marriage?”

    Carbonnier’s analysis had to address the differences between the two legal régimes of marriage on the one hand and civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples on the other (as well as unregulated cohabitation) and to extract a principle from them.

    His conclusion: « le cœur du mariage, ce n’est pas le couple, c’est la présomption de paternité » [“The heart of marriage is not the couple, but the presumption of paternity.”] This is based on Article 312 of the Code Civil: « L’enfant conçu ou né pendant le mariage a pour père le mari.» (“The child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for father”)

    To summarise his conclusions: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation..

    In other words, the institution of marriage entails consequences with respect to filiation that the other forms of union do not. Moreover, this leading jurist could find no other significant difference at all, in the laws governing cohabitation and civil unions on the one hand and marriage on the other, that does not logically derive from this presumption and no-one, to my knowledge, has been able to suggest an alternative reading of the legal texts themselves. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.

    In 2005, Carbonnier’s views were cited with approval by the French Senate: “Preserving the presumption ” is est pater quem nuptiae demonstrant “, adopted in all European legislation as Ms. Frédérique Granet-Lambrechts, professor at the Robert Schuman University of Strasbourg, told your reporter, Article 312 of Civil Code provides that a child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for its father.

    The presumption of paternity of the husband rests on the obligation of fidelity between spouses and reflects the commitment made by the husband during the celebration of marriage, to raise the couple’s children. The report presenting the order to the President of the Republic rightly points out that ” it is, in the words of Dean Carbonnier, the ‘heart of marriage,’ and cannot be questioned without losing for this institution its meaning and value.””

    It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that Carbonnier’s views, or those of the Senate, are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.

Comments are closed.


Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

Purchase Here!

More on the book...

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

%d bloggers like this: