The Convenience of Equality

The topic of marriage is no stranger to Americans in recent weeks. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 split decision, ruled that DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) was unconstitutional because it failed to offer homosexuals “equal protection under the law” and that the purpose of DOMA is to “humiliate” and “injure” homosexuals who seek marriage.

No doubt a number of individuals celebrated the ruling, happy, perhaps, to see the archaic edifice of ‘traditional’ marriage burn and establish a sleek and modern “marriage” in its place. Many rejoiced at the new building, but many of us looked on and asked to see the building plans.

Arguments for “marriage equality” are many times the product of convenient reasoning. The typical strain of equality reasoning usually goes along the lines of this: We can’t expect everyone to go by one definition of marriage, nor should the government force one view over the other. Moreover, they say that denying something to someone is wrong if someone else can get it. It’s wrong because it’s a right, i.e., something they’re owed or due. (You can see an example of such reasoning here)

How is it convenient? For starters, those who argue in this manner already have set in their mind that their definition of marriage is the correct one. If you assume their premises then you will come around to their conclusions. It’s really quite simple. Their reasoning makes sense if you accept that marriage is the consent of two adults with certain contractual obligations to each other. What if we don’t accept this definition? Then their reasoning isn’t so sound.

Perhaps some will argue that I’m the one who uses convenient arguments. If I claim to be right or if I claim “that’s how God made it” or “that’s how it’s been traditionally understood” and end it there then yes, I would be using convenient logic. Convenience in this instance means that we all just happen to have the right answer. Any serious thinker or believer would not end with “just because” in the public square. In other words, I don’t believe I—rather, the Church—is right about marriage “just because” but because after investigating their reasons and the reasons of others I found them to speak the most accurately and truly.

Yet this is where many people find themselves: at a frustrating crossroads where neither side will admit a thing to the other.

The language of equality, however, lends itself to more convenient reasoning than the Catholic position. In a language of equality no one is wrong, supposedly, which is another way of saying “I’m right.” If someone like you says marriage is between a man and a woman then that’s okay for you, but for me I say anyone who loves each other can get married, even a man and another man. It’s a nice way of saying, “You’re right only if I’m right.” Some could employ this reasoning maliciously, while others essentially say this and have no intention of injuring anyone who holds marriage as I do.

The language of equality is a language without values. There is no right or wrong, just equality.

The language of those who support marriage, properly so called, is a language of boundaries, values, and tradition. The fact that I am a man means I could be married. Does this mean according to my own principles I will get married? Of course not. Many assume, or so it seems to me, that if I defend marriage as being between a man and a woman I’m keeping a secret card, a fast track to happiness, all to myself.

By my own principles I should not get married unless I feel 1) I’m called to marriage, 2) I find someone I can give myself to in marriage, and 3) carefully consider alone and with them if we are truly meant for marriage. As it stands, I feel called to be a priest. Despite the natural allure of a relationship and all it entails I do not feel (1) and thus do not pursue marriage.

Marriage as “something we all decide for ourselves” is something I couldn’t take seriously. Marriage as a sacred covenant and a sacrament is much more compelling. It’s something that tells me I shouldn’t rush towards it nor seek it as a refuge from my state in life (e.g., loneliness, sexual desire, social benefits).

The whole topic remains complicated since the forum we all argue in is occupied with people, not just ideas. This forum is occupied by people we love, know, and associate with. While these individuals may claim various reasons for supporting gay “marriage” their argument stems from an argument of equality. They use such arguments for a variety of reasons, too. Some may not want to impose their beliefs on others, others because law should not discriminate between the desires of autonomous persons, and others still find restrictive definitions of anything small-minded.

Those who advocate marriage as the Church conceives it, on the other hand, do have a few advantages. The first is that we are willing, by our own principles, to be ‘excluded’ from marriage ourselves, not because of gender but because of calling. We believe that some men and some women are called to marriage, but not all.

Secondly, we hold that there is a natural, biological, and physical component to marriage. To say only a man and woman are fit for marriage is to acknowledge the product of such a union, namely a family, is a good of marriage. It’s simply not about “inequality” but a statement about what marriage is. Marriage is for the sake of the family.

Thirdly, we have a tradition that has taught us over time what marriage is. Tradition means that something was handed down to us. It means that something was protected, cared for, and preserved by those who came before us. It was given to us in hopes that we would care for it, understand it, and love it as our ancestors had. It’s not a matter of me assenting to what they said—that would be arbitrarily valuing the past by my own whims. We were given something and told it was good and right. Many have chosen to abandon the faith and traditions of our fathers because it’s old fashioned. At the very least wouldn’t that seem intellectually dishonest? Things, practices, and faiths survive because those before us thought they were important, and we who support marriage treat that definition of marriage as such.

We as Catholics can defend marriage without being discriminatory because, first of all, nothing in our definition is about “exclusion” in the pejorative sense. Rather, oddly enough, our definition of marriage acts as a definition. Definition is perhaps a form of exclusion, but to say that it’s a form of ‘humiliation’ is to introduce “convenient reasoning” to the argument. We delineate what marriage is, who may get married, and why they get married. We do so because it benefits the individual, the couple, the child, and their country. We do so because marriage for generations has been upheld for this purpose.

The most common objection against me is that I’m arguing from a religious perspective and not a civil one. A good response would perhaps be, “Am I not also a citizen? Should I not be invested in this debate, or should I adopt civil values different than the ones I had been given?” We are all responsible for the values we hold, public and private. No value we hold privately leaves us when we are a public person. We are responsible for understanding what we believe and communicating what we believe in a manner befitting a follower of Christ.

Claiming that religious values have no place in public is not only closed-minded, but convenient as well. Law, Aristotle says, is “reason without passion” (Politics III, 1287a.32). In a language of equality law is “passion made reason.” Here I don’t mean romantic passion, but Aristotle means “passion” as in my own personal desires and wants. Equality proposes that your desire is no better or worse than mine, and the law should treat each desire or notion equally (with respect to marriage). Reason proposes that each be weighed according to their merits and from there we decide if they are right or not.

For us Catholics it begins with understanding. It is not simply holding what the Church says to be true, but investigating her teachings with diligence and care. It is having the courage to be corrected and challenged by generations of reflection and wisdom. Finally, it is having the conviction to proclaim it as good.

James says, as we all know, “Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works” (Jas 2:18). In this instance we cannot proclaim marriage apart from a knowledge and love of our Tradition. In knowing, examining, and loving our Tradition of marriage we demonstrate to our country and to the world what marriage actually is.

Please follow me on my blog where I’ll continue to expand on this topic.