Sat, May. 05, 2012 Posted:
10:28 AM EDT
Many of the nation's leading newspapers serve
as advocacy agents for the normalization of
homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex
marriage. Leading this charge for some time,
The New York Times regularly promotes same-sex
marriage in its editorials and news coverage.
Even so, the paper's latest editorial serves
as a display of how the argument for
homosexual marriage is often pressed with what
can only be described as undisguised
intellectual dishonesty.
In "Bigotry on the Ballot," the paper
editorialized against Amendment One, the
effort to amend the constitution of North
Carolina in order to preclude the legal
recognition of same-sex marriage. That
question will be put before the voters of
North Carolina on May 8, and the result will
be an important signal of where the nation now
stands on the question. No similar effort has
yet failed when put before the voters of a
state, but polls indicate that the vote in
North Carolina may be close.
The editorial begins:
"North Carolina already has a law barring
same-sex marriage, but the state's
Republican-controlled Legislature is not
satisfied. It devised a measure to enshrine
this obvious discrimination in the State
Constitution and placed it on the ballot of
the state's May 8 primary election - a test of
tolerance versus bigotry that ought to be
watched closely nationwide."
The paper has every right to editorialize as
it chooses, and an editorial against Amendment
One is no surprise to any informed reader of
that paper. But look closely at the language
used. The effort to limit marriage to the
union of a man and a woman is described as
"obvious discrimination."
That is meant to insinuate that the effort is
therefore wrong, and even immoral. But that is
just not intellectually honest. Discrimination
- even "obvious discrimination" - is not
necessarily wrong at all. Indeed, any sane
society discriminates at virtually every turn,
as do individuals. The law is itself an
instrument of comprehensive discrimination. We
classify some crimes as misdemeanors and
others as felonies. We allow some persons to
teach in our schools, but not others. We
recognize certain persons as citizens, but not
others.
Often, we discriminate on moral terms. No
sane person would ask a convicted child
molester to be a baby sitter. No sane society
would elect a known embezzler as state
treasurer. These acts of discrimination are
necessary and morally right.
The real question is whether discrimination
is right or wrong, justified or without
justification. Calling any law "obvious
discrimination" is not yet an argument. What
the editors mean, we can presume, is that the
proper line of discrimination should be drawn
elsewhere, but this is not what the editorial
states. In order to make this argument, the
editors would have to summon the courage to
define how the law should properly
discriminate in defining marriage. No such
courage is apparent.
As a matter of fact, when the editors do
acknowledge that the law must define marriage
in some way, they offer an even more egregious
example of intellectual dishonesty.
Consider this sentence:
"Opponents of marriage equality have never
been able to show any evidence that any harm
is caused to heterosexual marriages by
granting all American adults the right to
marry as they choose - because there is no
such evidence."
The editors demand "evidence" that
heterosexual marriages will be harmed by the
legalization of same-sex marriage, but this is
an evasion. Legalizing same-sex marriage
redefines marriage as an institution, leading
to a fundamental redefinition of society.
Opponents of same-sex marriage believe that
such a redefinition, in itself, is a harm to
the entire society.
The larger problem with this sentence from
the editors is the argument that the nation
should grant "all American adults the right to
marry as they choose."
Really?
I do not believe for a moment that the
editors of The New York Times mean what they
said - at least I hope not. The editorial is
aiming for a conclusive argument, but the
editors have made an argument I doubt they can
own or sustain.
All American adults should have the right to
marry as they choose? All? This means the
legalization of polygamy and incest.
Proponents of same-sex marriage respond to
such assertions with anger and vitriol, but
they cannot deny that polygamy is a very real
issue and that at least some American adults
have demanded a right to marry their closest
relations.
Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public
Interest Law at George Washington University
Law School, has argued that laws against
polygamy are evidence of hypocrisy, and should
be repealed.
Stanley Kurtz of The Weekly Standard stated
the matter plainly:
"Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A
network of grass-roots organizations seeking
legal recognition for group marriage already
exists. The cause of legalized group marriage
is championed by a powerful faction of family
law specialists. Influential legal bodies in
both the United States and Canada have
presented radical programs of marital reform.
Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go
so far as to suggest the abolition of
marriage."
We are living in an age marked by what
philosopher John Haldane calls "erotic
entitlements." Those promoting these
entitlements now demand marriage as the
ultimate recognition and normalization of
their relationships.
The New York Times has the right to press the
case for same-sex marriage, but it does bear
the responsibility to make its arguments with
intellectual honesty. Just where would the
paper draw the lines of rightful
discrimination in marriage law, and for how
long will it be willing to hold those lines?
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
