In Monday's paper, Torivio Fodder '05 and Bruce Gago '05 bemoan The D's "intolerance for socially conservative positions." I believe I will be making an obvious editorial correction by amending their statement to read "[The Dartmouth's] intolerance for morally and logically indefensible positions." The guilelessness exuded by the remark "these conclusions seem so strangely intolerant" is a good preface to the willful naivete of the arguments to follow.
Fodder and Gago first argue that marriage between one man and one woman is one of the "fundamentals of human society, found, since times long past, in societies from ancient Mongolia to West Africa. They argue this as if heterosexual marriage has been a monolithic and unchanging institution since Adam and Eve got hitched. I wonder if they will keep this in mind if they are ever asked to pay according to the dowry of virgins. Or, if history is the only factor necessary to confer legitimacy upon the institution of marriage, if Fodder and Gago will respect polygamous marriages, which certainly had the blessings of the ancients. The obvious fact of the matter -- blissfully ignored in the opinion to which I am responding -- is that marriage is not, and has never been, an institution set in stone. Gago and Fodder are nostalgic for that which never existed.
Some, defenders of marriage say, will argue that slavery is an abhorrent human institution about which we've since "learned better." Likewise, we will eventually "learn better" as regards discriminating against homosexuals in societal institutions. Fodder and Gago claim this analogy is spurious. Why? Slavery, according to those two authors, has always been "inherently evil," and the product of only "corrupt human minds and actions." Marriage, on the other hand "is the antithesis of an evil."
That notorious scoundrel Aristotle wrote of slavery: "That one should command and another obey is both necessary and expedient." Aristotle, however corrupt the two may think him, could at least muster an argument that did not depend on "that's how it's always been" to advocate slave ownership. I do not mention this piece of history to tar traditional marriage as justified only by sophistry. Rather, I mention it to point out that it requires much more to call an institution "inherently" anything than has been mustered here.
Out of the abstract and into the more political, Gago and Fodder next bring up the old canard of "judicial activism." Perhaps my high school government text had an overwhelming liberal bias (tongue buried in cheek), but allow me to mention a helpful glyph that was contained therein. If I recall correctly, it very simply depicted: "legislative branch makes laws -- executive branch enforces laws -- judiciary branch interprets laws." Obviously there is some interpretation involved between Congress and the agencies charged with enforcing the laws, but the point here is that the judiciary, given a dispute, is charged with determining on whose side the law falls by issuing an interpretation of the law. Liberals and conservatives alike (recently, overwhelmingly the latter) are fond of finding fault with judges if they issue an interpretation out of step with "mainstream America" (read: our party). Keep shouting, conservative friends -- just because a court's opinion is unpopular does not mean it's wrong. See Brown v. Board of Education. The current party-in-power is overly fond of mob rule when it is beneficial to their cause, but a cursory knowledge of the history of American government is sufficient to reveal that "majority rule" is not the diktat by which the country has been run -- ever. "Activists" using the courts are not bypassing the rule of law; they are working within it. The courts are doing what they are supposed to do. It is time to let go of this silly trope and find a real argument. A true limited-government conservative would realize that one of the roles afforded to even the most severely curtailed government is the enforcement of contracts between individuals. In this case, it is arbitrary to limit these contracts to male-female couples, and consequently, doing so is in violation of the Constitution as it stands now (due process). There is no new amendment necessary to show that.
Given this simple fact of life, there are only two viable solutions. One is that the government gets out of the business of "upholding sanctity" of any sort. If the President wishes to uphold sanctity, he should lobby the College of Cardinals to elect him pope, not Congress to pass a ridiculous amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, the government should consider all hetero and homosexual "marriages" to be civil unions, conferring upon them the same domestic partnership rights under the law. The term "marriage" must be reserved for the private sphere. For those that feel this cheapens their own marriages, there is a lot to be said about the quality of their relationships. After all, they claim to be upholding their quality of life by disrupting someone else's. What mature adult finds justification in that?
I had nearly forgotten that I'd said there were two solutions. The other is simple. Grant homosexuals the right to the term "marriage," as far as the government is concerned. That, or stand up and say, "I believe in separate equality."
