Same-Sex Marriage and the Just War
These are a few random thoughts on the fly and another blog post within which I raise questions and ultimately answer nothing.
Although the sources I pick up on in this post are US focused, I think they have relevance here in the UK.
Timothy Dalrymple highlights a piece in The Weekly Standard written by Fred Barnes, which explores the reasons underlying the success of the US pro-life movement, and in doing so he cites this interesting quote:
Foes of gay rights are now seen by the press as fighting the bad war, roughly analogous to Vietnam. Pro-lifers are waging the good war, like World War II. “You get much less grief fighting against abortion than you do fighting to preserve traditional marriage,” says Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.
Timothy Dalrymple picks up on this article and continues the ‘good war / bad war analogy’ (which was his idea originally) and says:
In World War 2, “the good war,” the allies fought on behalf of innocents and on behalf of civilization. The urgency and import of our intervention was clear. In Vietnam, we fought to arrest the expansion of communism into Southeast Asia, and it proved increasingly difficult to establish a clear connection between our actions and saved lives. Wherever communism went, it brought hardships, systematic suppression of human rights, and often mass slaughter of counter-revolutionaries. A strong case could be made for our actions there, but that case lacked the moral clarity of World War 2.
[....]
The idealism of the movement is striking. At one point in the video David French, a Patheos blogger, tells the students at a massive pro-life gathering: “You are a defender of the defenseless. You want the unwanted. This is who you are. This is what you do.” That’s a tremendously powerful — and appealing — message. There’s no assault upon the motives of the abortive mother. There’s no denigration of women and their freedom. There’s a crystal-clear focus on the protection of the innocent and the vulnerable, along with a belief that protecting innocent life trumps all other concerns. Moreover, a powerful pro-life argument can be made with no reference whatsoever to the Judeo-Christian scriptures. With reference to genetics, biology and ethics, the case is just as lucid for the unbeliever as for the believer.
Contrast that with the gay marriage debate. It’s tough to construct an argument against gay marriage without appealing for justification to scripture. It’s not impossible. One can appeal to natural law, but few who are not already committed to natural law will find this persuasive. And one can make the argument that the legal sanctioning of same-sex marriage (1) further deteriorates the institution of marriage and (2) harms the children whom marriage protects, but the first part is abstract and theoretical and the second part is difficult to demonstrate conclusively. Both sides can cite studies. So gay marriage appears to be “victimless.” To be clear, I’m not saying these arguments fail from a logical point of view. I think these arguments are correct. I’m saying instead that they fail to persuade the majority, since the case is complex, the water is muddied, and there are strong countervailing cultural winds. Unless you are convinced on religious grounds that same-sex relationships are sinful and therefore inherently destructive — for the gay couple, for children they might raise, and for a society build on the marital unit — you’re unlikely to oppose same-sex marriage.
From these comments – which I’m sure articulate things of which we are all more than familiar with – it’s not hard to see how easily ‘anti-gay marriage’ proponents can be cast as waging a ‘bad war’.
Timothy Dalrymple goes on to say how much more socially acceptable it is to question the morality of abortion; than question the morality of same-sex marriage. In fact, it would seem that in the US, if one publicly criticises same-sex marriage, it is entirely possible to jeopardise your academic career in the process. He notes the difficulty in getting folk to write critically on the subject of same-sex marriage, due to the risks involved.
It is certainly true that if you wish to raise ire and controversy on your blog, then you simply have to articulate criticism of same-sex marriage. Although I follow many more traditional / conservative / orthodox Christian blogs than liberal, it strikes me that the vast majority of blogging on same-sex marriage is done by those sympathetic with the cause. I’m left wondering if the traditional / conservative / orthodox bloggers are fearful of the response should they write critically of same-sex marriage.
I would like to conclude by stretching the ‘good war / bad war’ analogy to breaking point and incorporate the theme of the ‘Just War’. If we are to view the battle between pro-traditional-marriage and pro-gay marriage as a war, then I wonder how Cathechism 2309 applies:
there must be serious prospects of success
Is there a prospect of success in thwarting the legitimisation and legalisation of ‘gay marriage’. I’ll admit I’m pessimistic.
If you Wiki ‘Just War’, within the criteria is Proportionality:
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality.
If a war is to be waged against same-sex marriage then the ‘evils or harms’ of such must be clearly articulated.
I was quite interested to note this comment also:
In modern terms, just war is waged in terms of self-defense, or in defense of another (with sufficient evidence).
As Timothy Dalrymple noted, same-sex marriage can be pushed as victimless and so those that oppose this, are basically told that as this harms nobody; keep your nose out.
Hat-tip: Joe Carter
Tags: Christianity, Law Moral Ethical