DREADLETTERS: Harnessing Andrew Norton's Beautiful Mind Or Why (Briefly) Marriage Is About More Than Classical Liberalism
[UPDATE] Back door 'gay marriages' in New Jersey, rejected by 99% of same sex couples. Much less aggressive 'domestic partnerships' proved more popular.
[UPDATE] Andrew concedes most of DREADNOUGHT's points about classical liberalism. He also explains why a strictly liberal approach would see marriage privatised, certainly wouldn't admit State-blessed 'gay marriage'.
:: Towards a More Perfect Union ::
DREADFRIEND Andrew Norton takes up some of my arguments about conservatism and marriage. Read his post. DREADNOUGHT responds here.
:: Hamstrung by Ideas ::
Andrew's conclusions, based on a classical liberal foundation, have a necessarily limited relevance to the wider debates about marriage. Speaking politically, this is because most people, and most voters, do not agree with the classical liberal/libertarian (or otherwise) claim that marriage is a merely 'social institution'. Indeed, legislators/governments do not follow classical liberal or libertarian ideas on marriage at all, otherwise we'd be back to private contracts and chastity belts. On a more philosophical level too, marriage, and the debate around it, exceeds narrow definitions.
:: A Wider Majesty, A Vast Joy ::
Why? Like national defense, another area where classical liberal ideas don't get much air-time, marriage is too important to leave to selfish interest. No one wants private militias with private tyrants rather than collective defense responsible to the Congress/Parliament/people and few people want marriage treated as just another contract.*
:: The Eyes Attain Him Not, but He Attains the eyes^ ::
Andrew is right, classical liberalism does not immediately supply a compelling reason to reject 'gay marriage', but nor can it speak against polygamy, bestiality or paedophilia (not to mention concentration camps, abortion or nuclear war) except in necessarily narrow and unconvincing terms. This is because it is a political theory, not a moral philosophy.
:: Marriage and 'Marriage' ::
Thus, while classical liberals can gesture toward love, as Andrew does, they cannot speak to what most couples, certainly all religious couples, and most societies know about marriage: the biological, emotional and sacramental realities merely secular critiques too often ignore. Classical liberals say 'marriage' but they mean something else. What they really describe is more precisely a registry office event - one where the witnesses, and indeed the law, are blind to the genitals, hearts and (too often) children (including in potentia) of the parties involved.
:: Procrustean Standards ::
Marriage is about more than classical liberalism then, because classical liberal ideas and definitions (and therefore the concomitant analyses/critiques of marriage) are too narrow. In the same manner, most Left-wing accounts cannot properly describe marriage and the family because Marxist categories also cut people short. They leave out the bits that don't fit neatly. Only an ideology cognisant of the facts of human nature can approach marriage and the family with a meaningful, coherent discourse worthy of widespread political, policy and common sense recognition/acceptance.
:: Novus Ordo Seclorum ::
Measured against this more appropriate standard then, Andrew's otherwise strongest point:
:: Credo ::
What makes DREADNOUGHT something other than a classical liberal then is this: I believe that where there is a deficit between simple fact and just vision, we must work to change laws and transform society, not merely describe things as they are. I am not content to simply hope for the best, I must build it, reach toward it. Classical liberals per se cannot even hope or reach because they cannot say what 'the best' might be, only what it probably isn't for most people. They have no 'just vision', just blind justice. That's why I call myself a natural lawyer.
:: Brothers Nonetheless ::
However, I will continue to take lunch with the classical liberals (especially Andrew). They don't need me to recite their remarkable achievments (one of the greatest forces for good in terms of lifting individuals, indeed whole nations, out of poverty), but they might need people like me to patch this gaping hole in their otherwise efficient facade. It is not an unusual idea. There is something unmistakeably mighty and enduring in a synthesis of classical liberalism (as techné/application) and natural law ideas (as episteme/explanation).
:: A History of Enlightenment ::
Certainly, there is historical precedent. The tax-hating American Patriots borrowed natural law ideas and formulations to justify their more narrow, otherwise dry complaints - ideas and formulations that make the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution such remarkably practical and revolutionary/inspirational documents. Echoing Michael Novak and others, DREADNOUGHT has no doubt that classical liberals, once more supplied with the just vision that their philosophy cannot produce inter se, will furnish the finest tools, techniques and analyses to get the just job on - inter alia - marriage done.
:: The Upshot ::
In the meantime, however, we must treat classical liberal arguments about marriage for what they are: useful data-pictures that approximate, but never replace, the human reality. This last demands our best and increasingly combined effort, not least for the flourishing of peoples and the edification of marriage and the family.
NB I have, for the most part, addressed myself to marriage in this post because I consider the political battle over 'gay marriage' to have been conclusively decided. The great democracies have almost unanimously rejected the idea and States otherwise organised never looked likely to consider the legislation. Thus, articles/posts on that topic that once attracted widespread interest are now more likely to elicit yawns. 'Gay marriage' as an interesting option exists then mainly in the minds of homoactivists, quixotic think tankers and activist judges. Judging from the IPA affair, it will not long hold their interest either.
:: Resources ::
[UPDATE] Andrew concedes most of DREADNOUGHT's points about classical liberalism. He also explains why a strictly liberal approach would see marriage privatised, certainly wouldn't admit State-blessed 'gay marriage'.
:: Towards a More Perfect Union ::
DREADFRIEND Andrew Norton takes up some of my arguments about conservatism and marriage. Read his post. DREADNOUGHT responds here.
:: Hamstrung by Ideas ::
Andrew's conclusions, based on a classical liberal foundation, have a necessarily limited relevance to the wider debates about marriage. Speaking politically, this is because most people, and most voters, do not agree with the classical liberal/libertarian (or otherwise) claim that marriage is a merely 'social institution'. Indeed, legislators/governments do not follow classical liberal or libertarian ideas on marriage at all, otherwise we'd be back to private contracts and chastity belts. On a more philosophical level too, marriage, and the debate around it, exceeds narrow definitions.
:: A Wider Majesty, A Vast Joy ::
Why? Like national defense, another area where classical liberal ideas don't get much air-time, marriage is too important to leave to selfish interest. No one wants private militias with private tyrants rather than collective defense responsible to the Congress/Parliament/people and few people want marriage treated as just another contract.*
:: The Eyes Attain Him Not, but He Attains the eyes^ ::
Andrew is right, classical liberalism does not immediately supply a compelling reason to reject 'gay marriage', but nor can it speak against polygamy, bestiality or paedophilia (not to mention concentration camps, abortion or nuclear war) except in necessarily narrow and unconvincing terms. This is because it is a political theory, not a moral philosophy.
:: Marriage and 'Marriage' ::
Thus, while classical liberals can gesture toward love, as Andrew does, they cannot speak to what most couples, certainly all religious couples, and most societies know about marriage: the biological, emotional and sacramental realities merely secular critiques too often ignore. Classical liberals say 'marriage' but they mean something else. What they really describe is more precisely a registry office event - one where the witnesses, and indeed the law, are blind to the genitals, hearts and (too often) children (including in potentia) of the parties involved.
:: Procrustean Standards ::
Marriage is about more than classical liberalism then, because classical liberal ideas and definitions (and therefore the concomitant analyses/critiques of marriage) are too narrow. In the same manner, most Left-wing accounts cannot properly describe marriage and the family because Marxist categories also cut people short. They leave out the bits that don't fit neatly. Only an ideology cognisant of the facts of human nature can approach marriage and the family with a meaningful, coherent discourse worthy of widespread political, policy and common sense recognition/acceptance.
:: Novus Ordo Seclorum ::
Measured against this more appropriate standard then, Andrew's otherwise strongest point:
"Looked at in terms of total income and expenditure, marriage has only a few financial advantages that can’t also be had simply by setting up house together."actually demonstrates why, rather than weakening marriage further, we must re-arrange society so as to ensure marriage is protected. It is a festering injustice, a sorry result of the so-called 'sexual liberation', that it is often easier to remain unmarried and infertile, than to form the solid unions and happy families that are the literal lifeblood of flourishing civilization.#
:: Credo ::
What makes DREADNOUGHT something other than a classical liberal then is this: I believe that where there is a deficit between simple fact and just vision, we must work to change laws and transform society, not merely describe things as they are. I am not content to simply hope for the best, I must build it, reach toward it. Classical liberals per se cannot even hope or reach because they cannot say what 'the best' might be, only what it probably isn't for most people. They have no 'just vision', just blind justice. That's why I call myself a natural lawyer.
:: Brothers Nonetheless ::
However, I will continue to take lunch with the classical liberals (especially Andrew). They don't need me to recite their remarkable achievments (one of the greatest forces for good in terms of lifting individuals, indeed whole nations, out of poverty), but they might need people like me to patch this gaping hole in their otherwise efficient facade. It is not an unusual idea. There is something unmistakeably mighty and enduring in a synthesis of classical liberalism (as techné/application) and natural law ideas (as episteme/explanation).
:: A History of Enlightenment ::
Certainly, there is historical precedent. The tax-hating American Patriots borrowed natural law ideas and formulations to justify their more narrow, otherwise dry complaints - ideas and formulations that make the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution such remarkably practical and revolutionary/inspirational documents. Echoing Michael Novak and others, DREADNOUGHT has no doubt that classical liberals, once more supplied with the just vision that their philosophy cannot produce inter se, will furnish the finest tools, techniques and analyses to get the just job on - inter alia - marriage done.
:: The Upshot ::
In the meantime, however, we must treat classical liberal arguments about marriage for what they are: useful data-pictures that approximate, but never replace, the human reality. This last demands our best and increasingly combined effort, not least for the flourishing of peoples and the edification of marriage and the family.
NB I have, for the most part, addressed myself to marriage in this post because I consider the political battle over 'gay marriage' to have been conclusively decided. The great democracies have almost unanimously rejected the idea and States otherwise organised never looked likely to consider the legislation. Thus, articles/posts on that topic that once attracted widespread interest are now more likely to elicit yawns. 'Gay marriage' as an interesting option exists then mainly in the minds of homoactivists, quixotic think tankers and activist judges. Judging from the IPA affair, it will not long hold their interest either.
:: Resources ::
- Conservatives at the American Enterprise Institute (including Michael Novak and Charles Murray) debate Jonathan Rauch and his book in 2004. Rauch's ideas/book have never proved as compelling or authoritative as Andrew appears to claim;
- Stanley Kurtz, The Conservative Case for 'Gay Marriage' Collapses (insights from Scandinavia);
- The National Review's advice to US conservatives who faced similar questions, and mulled a Constitutional Amendment, before easily defeating 'gay marriage' arguments from commonsense;
- Institute for Marriage and Public Policy;
- 'Gay marriage' is always State expansion and 'thinly disguised totalitarianism';
- Robert H. Bork (sans irony) on judicial activism and 'gay marriage';
- Hadley Arkes on how 'gay marriage' reveals the wider disease of culture;
- The USCCB on 'same-sex unions'; and
- The Vatican on 'same sex unions'.
* (Those few who do, homoactivists and some libertarians, certainly find common ground, even as they blink at the realisation. As soon as they trip forward together, however - homoactivists talking about 'belonging', liberals concerned with more purely quantifiable outcomes - they realise the ground is narrow indeed).
^ (Qur'an, 6 : 103).
# (When this situation arose in Augustan Rome the relevant authorities introduced the leges Iuliae 18-17BC, particularly the lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus /lex_Iulia_et_Papia_Poppaea).
by DREADNOUGHT at 1:56:00 AM
<< Home