Marriage and Abortion Share a Slippery Slope. Apparently.

JJ

I'm 'pro life', but I hate that word - because what would the opposite be, 'pro-death'!?
I prefer, 'anti-abortion'.

I would've thought being 'pro marriage' would mean being in favour of gay marriage? Surely encouraging people to marry is more of a 'conservative' ideal, than keeping people separate?

There is a huge problem in the American Conservative movement - in that there's really nothing you can conserve in a liberal society. So they attempt to 'save' marriage or 'judeo-christian values'. So apparently supporting gay marriage means that you're not a conservative. But in reality NOT supporting it is philosophically the un-conservative position.

IDIOTS!

Athanasius

I assume the idea is that if your view of marriage is that it is a sacred union between man and woman; and that the purpose of sex is a reproductive act within such a union; then you will also subscribe to the notion that allowing gay 'marriage' will lead to a further erosion of the sex act towards a contraceptive mentality. And once this happens, we are indeed on a slippery slope towards a pro-abortion ideology.
.
The reasoning is to my mind entirely correct, but I agree there are quite a few steps left out of King's comments and quite a few premises that people will find it hard to accept.
.
For a Catholic, btw, our pro-life stance is entirely linked with the doctrine on birth-control.
.
[Dons tin-hat and waits for the abuse...]

Michael Dooley

The "pro-life" movement addresses a number of issues apart from abortion: fetal stem cell research, euthanasia, and the humane treatment for those at the margins of human life. As you may see, there is a thread going through these issues; but to label it merely as "anti-abortion" is misleading.

The "slippery slope" which mystifies you has to do with the realities of American politics and culture. The unborn, it is said, do not qualify as "human beings" according to minimalist/arbitrary criterion. The so-called "gay marriage" is conceptually possible only by a similar minimalist/arbitrary criterion. It is only by gutting out the rather complex meanings of human life and marriage according to abstract qualities that abortion and gay marriage can go forth.

This is a long way to say that if "gay marriage" is established by the courts without regard to the judgment of the public, then the similarly court established "right to abortion" will be put farther away from public debate.

Gay marriage and abortion are matters a free and self-governing people should be able to debate, compromise and strike an agreement. As it is, with the decisions decreed from the courts, the public can issue sound and fury; but debate is meaningless because we can't change.

Paul Whicker, the Tall Vicar

@Mr Massie: Your post seems to be intended only to imply that 'pro-life' and 'pro-marriage' crowd are simpletons, to be marvelled at for their susceptibility to 'dog-whistle' politics. If you are genuinely, as opposed to rhetorically, curious, might I suggest you ask Mr King, rather than inviting others to marvel at your identification of an apparent non sequitar?

JJ: It depends how you define marriage, and also depends on whether you conflate 'conservative' with 'Christian' - after all, conservatives do not have a monopoly on opposing civil unions between homosexuals. This, like the euphemism 'pro-choice', is an illustration of the infantilisation of politics, both in the US and the UK.

If you view marriage as a reflection of the mystical union between Christ and his church, and for procreation and education of the offspring, it is impossible to view a civil union between two homosexuals as a marriage. It is perfectly possible to be in favour of such civil unions, recognising the merit of a lifelong commitment, and conferring the property rights without which destructive arguments would arise, while opposing the idea of it being equivalent to Christian marriage. Civil unions are a mere legal contract, to be conferred or withdrawn according to the whims of a lazy and self-obsessed populace. It is not a sacrament of the church, which cannot be undone except by God himself. So it is also much easier to see marriage on purely selfish terms, to forget your commitment, whether you like it not, to your ancestors and your custodianship of society they passed on to you, held in trust temporarily for your brief candle.

In that sense, the ease with which such unions can be entered into, and dissolved, with the merest flick of a pen, mirrors society's attitude to abortion. Once you forget the sacred purpose of marriage, and see it purely in selfish terms, with little if any understanding of it in terms of its relation to society, only on how you yourself feel, it is much easier to ignore the rights of the unborn and the responsibilities towards it.

As with abortions, it will be obvious in a few decades or so how 'gay marriage' works out in societal terms; but do you remember the Shakers, who forbade the spread of their faith except by conversion? If you do, it will be in the context of simple and briefly-fashionable kitchen furniture, not as a vibrant and confident society.

And there are many things you can conserve in a liberal society - not least by personal example, if not through the more assertive medium of the courts.

Martin Coxall

Wait...

Are you trying to ascribe rational thought to the GOP's evangelical loon wing?

Good luck with that.

David

"If you view marriage as a reflection of the mystical union between Christ and his church, and for procreation and education of the offspring, it is impossible to view a civil union between two homosexuals as a marriage."

Or indeed, anybody not a Christian, by that nutty logic.

dp damato

I think he is referring to the family values ideal. That once every alternative living arrangement is endorsed by the state, what is the point of valueing the nuclear family. When having children becomes just another lifestyle choice, it takes some of the steam out of the idea that children are a joy and precious. It is not well thought out. Liberal America is feeling very confident and conservative America is exhausted. Quite naturally there is a fatalistic, apocalyptic mood among conservatives. Conservatives simply do not have an answer to our overbearing, tyrannical judiciary. The major flaw in our constitution is that there is not a useful, convenient check on the judiciary. Judges can basically find any law unconstitutional based on their political viewpoint couched in legal jargon. Liberals who claim to have been oppressed the last twenty eight years, feel like the spring has been sprung. Of course there are many smart conservatives who are working on different ways to counter the gay marriage issue that will begin to bring the religious liberty clause into a more prominent position. The left will get gay marriage in ten to twelve states. Pro life will prevail, it is inevitable that Roe will be overturned. Conservatives are just wailing about. The left will get confident, and then they will overreach and then the backlash will begin. The only question is how soon.

BobN

"If you view marriage as a reflection of the mystical union between Christ and his church"

Uh... isn't the reflection the other way 'round? It never made sense to me, since the only logical way to see it that way is that God, before creating man, knew that this "marriage" between Christ (Himself) and His church would come in time. In a sense, we're married to our Daddy, I guess.

BobN

"Young lady, you most certainly will NOT be having a baby without getting married! Even the gays get married!"

'Nuff said.

Tim Hulsey

I suspect it has something to do with the "culture of death" meme.

Richard

I'm pro-life, and--speaking of supporting the rights of the marginalized--I support gay marriage. I imagine there are plenty like me.

Jon H

"If you view marriage as a reflection of the mystical union between Christ and his church, and for procreation and education of the offspring, it is impossible to view a civil union between two homosexuals as a marriage"

So I take it you would also oppose hetero marriage for post-menopausal women, or other people incapable of bearing children?

John

I appreciate the discussion here. But as an American, it always makes me cringe to see our dumbest elected officials quoted in overseas press. It's like when your classy girlfriend finally meets the extended family you've tried to hide from her.

Don't judge us too harshly. We're not all like that.

Jeremy Noble

In response to the religious comments above, it's they are arbitrary. In the real world, where we all live and must coexist, there are people who are really homosexual and really want to partner up in a way that is time tested. Longstanding, though still arbitrary, doctrines of religion counsel against such behavior. To which the only possible modern, real response is: so what.

Ghando

The howls of outrage over a "tyrannical" judiciary would hold some water if the following things weren't true:
1. The Supreme Court of Iowa, appointed over years by both Democratic and Republican governors, voted unanimously to legalize gay marriage.
2. The role of the judiciary is to check the actions of the Executive and Legislative branches. The check on the judiciary is its appointment by those branches, and the fact that the judiciary cannot take action in a vacuum. The terms of debate are framed by the other branches.
3. If you reject the notion that a court can adjudicate questions of civil rights, you are asserting that civil rights ought to be determined by the whims of the populace. This means that you accept the notion that if 51% of the population agrees that the other 49% should be relegated to slavery, and that 51% goes through proper legislative/executive channels to make this a reality, that's okay.

The function of the courts in the American republic is to uphold civil rights. Those opposed to gay marriage aren't losing because the judiciary is somehow stacked against them--in fact, given the dominance of national politics by the Republican party for most of the last 30 years, the opposite is true. They're losing because, legally and constitutionally, they don't have a leg to stand on.

porkbelly

I take it, Alex, that you are also in favor of polygamy?

jaycbird

I'm sort of loving the Euro-view of things here, as it is going levels DEEPER than what is the actual struggle. That being, "gay marriage" is another crack in the control and power of the Christianist Movement (i.e. Christian Politics, where religion dictates public policy). The slippery slope is that as cracks and planks from the Movement's platform are taken away, one of the Movement's Banner Topics, "Pro-Life", may eventually, be politicized out of the moralistic argument and lost to the scientific and sociologic arguments which do not define life at the moment of conception.

Anyway, it's more about power and not necessarily theology... sigh...

AC

@ The Tall Vicar
Do you hold marriages of nonchristian faiths in as low regard as you do secular unions?

I am pleased to hear your admission that church doctrine, though disguised as a sacrament, is simply crass political aggrandizement. If there is some mechanism by which those not self-identified as pro-life will through lack of procreation select (in the Darwinian sense) themselves into oblivion, why fight it?

Could it be that gays might still become healthy, loving parents, and that many who support the right to abortion would never exercise that right?

Levonn

I have no idea what the debate is. Conservatives decry the government for impeding on their lives. If two males want to get married let them get married. They constantly scream less control, more self rights but an issue that is solely between two individuals can turn into this.

chowder

It occurs to me that much of the industry being built to combat the gaining acceptance of same-sex is initiated from the standpoint that once same-sex marriage is no longer the wedge issue is has been, there is not much else conservative leaders have to rally the conservative minions into the frenzy this issue induces. This is why they will fight tooth and nail in the effort to sabotage the loving unions of millions of Americans. This will further alienate them, as young people, by in large, rightly do not consider same-sex marriage to be the culture shattering issue conservatives are trying their hardest to imply.
What puzzles me is precisely what tangible harm does having two people committing their lives together inflict on those that are so against marriage for all? Do they really think that gays will go away if they try really hard to marginalize us by denying civil rights? Uh, isn't going to happen.
Love will win in the end, as much as the so-called christianists pray against it, (un-jesus like, by the way).

Conservative Cabbie

Ghando

"The function of the courts in the American republic is to uphold civil rights."

No, the functions of the court's in America is to uphold the constitution. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution,"

Now I see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits gay marriage and would suggest that the 10th amendment which reserves authority to the states on matters not covered in the constitution is most applicable. I think that states can either allow or prohibit same-sex marriage depending on laws passed or their constitution.

Personally, I think that conservatives should embrace same-sex marriage. In a society where marriage is becoming devalued, if couples, regardless of sexuality, are wanting to marry, that can only be a good thing. Conservatives should be encouraging commitment and personal responsibility and a commitment to marriage exemplifies those traits.

I should note that I haven't studied this issue too closely so my interpretation of the constitution is limited.

Paul Whicker, the Tall Vicar

@Jon H, AC: If you read my post attentively, you would see I make the point that it is perfectly possible to champion Christian marriage and still believe - as I do - that civil unions between homosexuals are a objectively good thing - because of the expression of a lifelong commitment and the contract it implies between the couple and society.

But that is not the same as seeing it as *the same as* Christian marriage. It is not a question of 'opposing' or 'fighting' civil unions, and it is a measure of the deterioration of the debate that such false choices are ascribed. To borrow imperfectly from Chesterton: you are using one word to talk about very different things, like comparing the Carlton Club with the club of Hercules.

So it is a matter of trying to clarify the point - often overlooked in the urge to describe anyone who holds a Christian view of marriage as a 'loony' - that the institution of Christian marriage functions in a very different way from that of civil unions. And, where the focus is removed from the context of wider society - enshrined in the express desire to bring up children in the faith - to that of individual contentment, it is indeed a dis-ordering of society, and our obligation to pass on a preserved society to the next generation. I'm sorry if that offends your impeccable non-judgemental credentials, but consider the impact of Gordon Brown's massive debt inthe context of the faltering UK birth rate, and how proportionally greater the burden will be on the shrinking future generation. That is what I mean about custodianship.

As to the Church's view being 'crass political aggrandizement', that might well be the case. But it is a sensible precaution for preservation. Compare it with the demographic decline in which secular Europe currently finds itself: it makes you wonder exactly how great are secular values if the citizens of the EU can't muster the enthusiasm to reproduce in order to sustain them.

THX1138

Cabbie- Great post, I totally agree I have never understood conservatives attitude on gay marriage I'm sure it's all wrapped in that old time religion.

Look how denial of sexuality ruins lives, Ted Haggard is a hollow man for denying what he really is a gay man.

I'm so with Andrew Sullivan on this gay rights are fundamental to a decent society, go and rent Milk over the weekend.

Steve

"If you view marriage as a reflection of the mystical union between Christ and his church, and for procreation and education of the offspring, it is impossible to view a civil union between two homosexuals as a marriage."

That begs the question of what was the purpose of marriage before Christ then? You know, for the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Byzantians, Assyrians, Summerians, Chinese cultures, Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, Hindus and Buddhist and so forth...perhaps, and I am going out on a limb here, the purpose of marriage is a stabilization of society, perhaps making a oath, vow, commitment to your partner and perhaps in the eyes of your deity of choice as a means of dampening rampant sexual desire in humans into something that could be controlled and allow for a civilized society. Obvious it doesn't work 100% of the time, I would wager it's a 50/50 shot, (considering rates of divorce and single parent households) but all the same imagine the chaos without the societal foundation of marriage.

So if marriage exists as a means to maintain a civil society would it not be desirable to have all members of society beneath its umbrella?

Daphne

Dear Tall Vicar,
your arguments are interesting, but call for a rebuttal.
Secular Europe is not failing to reproduce because people are not interested to sustain their values. One can also pass on values to other people than your own biological children, there are many strategies in place to do just that, as any Roman Catholic or Buddhist priest can tell you. The secular Europeans do not have as many children as the generations before them because they realize this planet simply can not sustain so many people with such a large ecological footprint. This place is simply getting too overcrowded, and one way to counter this is not to have so many children. Or procreate at all.

As for Christian marriage, well... in some European countries this problem is solved by having either one or two ceremonies. First, you have a civil marriage that will make you married for all legal purposes, and then, if you so desire, you get married religiously with a rabbi, imam, vicar or whomever officiating. The civil marriage is open to gays and straights alike, and can be as lavish as you want, the religious thing is open to whomever qualifies according to the religious institution. So two men/women can get married in some churches and some synagogues, and can't in some others. It just depends on who's at the door keeping people out. And a good time is had by all, and Church and State are separated, thanks to Mr. N. Bonaparte.

I do, however, deeply sympathize with you, and understand your bemusement that marriage as a religious institution is on the wane, and that the church has shrunk from the Ecclesia Triumphans to a life style choice. It is not necessarily a good thing, whole generations growing up without any spirituality or life-affirming ritual.

Tel

"The major flaw in our constitution is that there is not a useful, convenient check on the judiciary."

That's a feature, not a bug. It's supposed to be hard to change the Constitution. If there really is overwhelming public opinion on an issue, the Supreme Court can be overruled by Constitutional Amendment. And if people wanted more conservative (or more liberal) Justices to begin with, they should have voted in Senate and Presidential elections, so those Justices would have been nominated and approved.

jpeeps

Gosh this is rather a good comments thread (shame about Porkbelly).

I have one quibble with Michael Dooley at April 8th, 2009 5:09pm: I wonder how much confidence can be put in your thought that the "pro-life" movement aims to concern itself with the humane treatment for those at the margins of human life. In my albeit limited experience of this I would say that the tendency is in the other direction. Pro-lifers do not as a group demonstrate notable sympathy to 14-year old mothers, congenitally deformed children (or their parents), those suffering from conditions for which stem cell research offers hope, or indeed those drifting into a confused old age and their carers.

My suspicion is that "Pro-lifers" are happier with the abstract concept of a human being made up of a couple of cells than the concrete messiness and lack of easy clarity real life holds for those that live it. Sorry if this is off-topic.

Alex Massie

Commenters - thank you all for your, er, comments. This is one of the best threads I've seen lately and there's lots to chew on. Hopefully I'll have a new post incorporating some of the ideas here up some time over the weekend.

Thanks again.

Alex

Chuck

If the procreative aspects of marriage are at the forefront of the anti- gay marriage argument from a pro life stand point, where is the constitutional ammendment advocating keeping infertile couples or the elderly from getting married? Just a thought.

To me, it seems that Mr. King has come up with an arguement to galvanize the most ardent, unwavering position in all politics, the pro-life position, with that of the anti-gay marriage movement.

Those who are pro-life, members of my family included, supported a regime that allowed torture, arguably the most counter-Christian American policy of our lifetime. This leads me to think that the theocon right is combining these issues to strengthen the position of opposing gay rights.

serz

Tall Vicar,
Pardon me if this has been said above, but no one is asking the Church to do anything--at least not in this current debate (intra-church politics are something else). We are talking here about marriage as bestowed and recognized by the State. In the US at least, all heterosexual couples, even agnostics, atheists, and obscure religious minorities can receive state sanction for their unions without being answerable to anyone's religious standards. This is the "marriage" referred to in this debate, not "Christian Marriage," which (at least in the US) the government does not confer. Religious organizations can define marriage however they want.

dp damato

The claim that without the courts, people could vote for slavery is pure rubbish. Amendments to the Constitution (13th and 14th) were passed to abolish laws that were implemented solely to deny a race of people rights. Jim Crow laws had no other purpose but to deny blacks full citizenship. The laws regarding marriage had no discriminatory intent. They were passed to manage the marriage relationship. Homosexuality was not an issue. There is no constitutional right to marriage. If you want to change the marriage laws do it through the democratic process, not judicial fiat.
On the issue of checks and balances. Congress and the President have powers to check each other fairly easily. The President can veto legislation, Congress can override. The President can in essence ignore a law by not putting in resources to uphold the law. Congress can hold back funding for a Presidential initiative, if it does not like the way the President is conducting his affairs. A federal constitutional amendment needs congressional approval and approval of 38 state legislatures to override a judicial ruling. This is a huge obstacle. A thousand times more strenuous than the veto or congressional override. Judges know this and thus become drunk with power. Many are responsible and will be extremely reluctant to wield this power, many are not reluctant. The appointment process whereby a president nominates a judge and congress confirms the nomination is not a check or balance. The institutional power of the judiciary is what is determinative. A major flaw in the constitution.
The motivation of gay marriage proponents is to win a victory over the Republican Party. In Mass. which has had gay marriage since 03, less than 15% of gays had married. If gays want marriage (which I suspect the majority are indifferent about) then there has to be a marriage rate equal to heterosexuals. If not then this is just about scoring points against the Republicans and that is not a reason to change the definition of marriage.

David

That's utter rubbish. The keystone is that those that want to get married can. It matters not that "only 15%" take up that opportunity; there is no good reason why those people should not be able to get married.

Paul Whicker the Tall Vicar

@Daphne: Thank you for your rebuttal, which was interesting.

Indeed, one *can* pass on one's values to people other than your own biological children. One would hope that this were so, as that is how a society - indeed, the family - works. But those 'other children' are of necessity the offspring of other parents, who have - I dare to suggest - accepted that child-rearing is a vital part of their duty to both their society - and in crude terms, to the state - and their faith. I am aware that this point sounds somewhat childish, but I will make it anyway: the primary responsibility for child-rearing falls to those children's biologcal parents; and their influence should be proportionately greater. For what value is there in such influence if you deny the responsibility for implementing it?

And I do not accept your assumption that secular Europeans are failing to reproduce out of fear of 'overcrowding'. If that were true, how to explain the levels of migration necessary to sustain the structure and services of most western European countries? Indeed, much of that immigration is ambivalent about, where it is not wholly opposed to, the very idea of 'secular', 'liberal' values. The service industry in most of south-eastern England would collapse were the Poles, Philipinas etc to return en masse to their homes. (To say nothing of the economy of South Kensington were the French to relocate.)

I know that many childless couples cite fears of 'overcrowding' as justification for their failure to reproduce - my brother is a perfect example - but I see no evidence to suggest that this is anything but a retrojection, a post fact attempt to clothe what is essentially a self-ish decision in a modishly respectable garb.

You are quite correct about the separation of Church and state, and of course in may ways that is a good thing. The State exists to ensure the good order of society, and regulating the division of estates on objectively defensible principles is important. But once you start defining a marriage as a legal contract for the settlement of property rights, taxation etc, it becomes as easy to undo as any other form of contract. So you are left with something that in its *inessential* elements appears very similar to a Christian marriage, but which is bereft of the awe, the central purpose and the social sanction - 'for the sake of the children' - that requires that you suppress your own temporary interests for the interests of the 'society'.

And, to return to where we started - the link between marriage and abortion - once you lose that sense of obligation to others, it becomes much easier to view one's own whims and preferences as central. And that way lies civilisational suicide.

Steve: It would be grand indeed if everyone felt called to enter into civil unions. It would be better still if they managed to sustain the commitment necessary; and more joyous yet if that commitment were to result in offspring, whether that arose from a sense of wider obligation or even from a simple desire, explicable in purely hormonal terms, to procreate. Those in the latter group, Christian or secular, are those whose future generations will bear the burden for sustaining that society, in one form or another, and, as such, deserve a privilieged position within it. But that decision - particularly the latter - becomes much less likely in a society that by its moral and economic choices places more emphasis upon present contentment than upon past debts and future obligations.

There seems to me to be such - highly laudable - determination, evident on this thread, not to offend the few who are willing yet, tragically, unable to reproduce, that we obscure the simple truth that a marriage that results in offspring, and an offspring that is educated in such a way as to benefit - or at least not actively erode - the society of which they form a part, secular or religious, is in the best interests of that society.