I riffled through my file box the other day and came across an essay I wrote called, "Are there limits to the Enlightenment?" It's a good essay, I think. It explains a lot about who I am. Surprisingly, it also gave me an answer to something I've been mulling over for some time.
For anyone who hasn't been reading my posts: Although I'm very liberal about international politics I'm socially conservative when it comes to domestic issues. Though, if you read my posts, you'll also know this incongruity is difficult for me and I've wrestled with it...unsure of how I should feel. For example.
The reason I use homosexual marriage as an example is because it perfectly illustrates my dilemma: I believe people should have the right to choose, even if they don't make the same choice I would make--and yet still don't feel homosexuals should have the right to marry. So how do I justify my opposing viewpoints?...
I found my answer in this essay. Or rather, two answers. The first is this: Consequentialism, the philosophical belief that those actions should be allowed which bring about the most good overall. As applied to the topic at hand, the reason homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed is because of the impact it would have on society. It has nothing to do with individual rights.
And the second reason I found was this: America's government--the first government to arise from the Enlightenment movement--was never designed to give all rights to its citizens. On the contrary, it only names three self-evident rights: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". I don't bring this up to bicker about the definition of "the pursuit of happiness". I only mean it to say that the Founding Fathers differentiated "self-evident rights" (as defined in The Declaration of Independence) from government-dictated rights (as defined in The Constitution). The Founders differentiated between individual rights and societal rights.
Or, as I said in my essay, "the issue is [not] one of an individual enjoying all rights which do not infringe on the dictates of another individual, so much as an individual enjoying all rights which do not infringe upon the dictates of society."
I couldn't put it any better.
8 years ago
13 comments:
There is no escaping the reality that all "rights, privileges," and so-called "liberties" are socially constructed. They exist because society as a collectivity has necessitated them, without such social contractual creation none of us would be "guaranteed" anything. Such a creation bears inherent limitation, and justly so. For this reason society (e.g. legislatures) have at their fingertips the power to dictate to us our "inalienable rights". I for one am glad for the compromise! Without it I would look to my sword to sort out where my right to swing my arm ended. The real concern relates to Dan's current frustration: is legislation occurring without representation?!?
I enjoyed your post, J. I enjoy how frequently you update (even if I have a hard time doing so myself) and also the variety of thoughts you share.
I also recently dug out an old paper of mine. Unfortunately, there weren't any quotable, thought-provoking segments in it. A pile, really. Ah, well.
Yes and no. As you know, our democratic ideals are based on the theory of a "social contract," wherein we give up our natural rights in exchange for security AND with the understanding that we will be productive members of that society. If we break that contract then we lose those freedoms previously afforded to us: be they property (fines), liberty (jail time) or life (capital punishment). (NOTE: John Locke's natural laws were life, liberty, and property--not life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)
So, yes, we do have natural rights independent of society. However, we don't have rights independent of society so long as we wish to live in society.
Thanks, Marci, I appreciate that!
I enjoy posting, if nothing else just to put my thoughts in order on one subject or another. But, of course, my favorite part is the after stuff...discussing stuff in the comment streams.
It's also where I get counter-points. You guys always keep me on my toes!
"As applied to the topic at hand, the reason homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed is because of the impact it would have on society."
I don't see why homosexual marriage would have a bad impact on society.
Right now, the law recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman (explicitely in some states--implicitely in others). When family-related law cases go before court, such as divorce, it gives the judge a basis by which to reward custody of the children, decide alimony payments, etc.
Furthermore, the law's recognition of heterosexual marriage underscores decisions in adoption proceedings and in foster care placement, child welfare, etc.
In altering the law's understanding of what the "ideal" family living situation is, you alter all other legal decisions that are dependent upon that basis.
Shasta, can you honestly say you think the recognition of homosexual marriage will not lead to an altering of court decisions, adoptions, etc., changing them from being in "the best interest of the children" to one that is more individual based?
Do you think that the ACLU and other homosexual-interest organizations don't realize the full implication of changing the definition of marriage?
your stance is based on the premise that a traditional couple are best suited to adopt children, that such a couple are in a child's best interest. i don't know if i agree. i know two lesbian couples here in slc raising children and doing a great job.
and yeah, court decisions and such will be affected, but that's what comes with a paradigm change....
I have a problem with the judicial branch of the government creating law...how to avoid this is difficult, and I don't have a solution at present. Again: legislation occurring without representation.
Shasta. What is the ideal environment to raise a child in?
The Court has set precedent through law for a long time, ever since John Marshall.
I do agree that we've lost a lot of our representation to big business and special interest groups...Not to mention a Congress too scared to speak out and a public too apathetic or divided to do anything.
a loving home...
I believe that love is an important thing...but it's not stand-alone...
When I was in college, living in Utah, I saw a lot of people get married (usually straight off their missions) because they were in love. A lot of these couples ONLY had love...no money, no plans, no common sense, no job. Some of them were married within 3 months of having met one another--even though their families thought it was a terrible idea.
A few of them got divorced.
Love is only one aspect of what makes a good marriage and only one aspect of what makes a good home. Stability and security are immensely important for a child (and there is some evidence to suggest that homosexuals don't stay with a single partner as long) and so is identity. You are putting a child in a situation prone to peer ridicule and confusion, unfortunately.
When the law dictates what it recognizes as a legal marriage it does so for a reason: because it feels that heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society and to the welfare of children. Multiple sociology studies have shown the benefits of having a father and mother figure in the home...and the negative effects of not having both role models.
So when the law decides to sanction marriage by giving married couples tax breaks, awarding them custody of children, etc., it is doing so because it feels this is the best way--not single parents and not homosexual couples. This sanctioning is what rankles people. Homosexual couples have the freedom to live together and often even find ways to raise or adopt children...but they don't want to just live that way--they want everyone else to change their definition of what is sanctioned and proper.
The law is not a decision-making entity in and of itself. It does not think and feel. We think and feel for it. We create the law. And laws change with the times.
Is heterosexual marriage really beneficial to society, or rather, is homosexual marriage really harmful to society and childrearing? I don't think so. There is no evidence to this end whatsoever.
And of course when I said "a loving home" I was not referring to a simple romance, but a home prepared to support and plan for children. If anything, homosexuals have to do that much more planning for children. They can't exactly have accidents, like some young couples rushing into marriage (as you mentioned).
In 2004, the American Anthropological Association released this statement:[26]
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies."
Justice C.J. Marshall agreed with the majority who were in favor of legalizing SSM, and wrote, in part:
"No one disputes that the plaintiff couples are families, that many are parents, and that the children they are raising, like all children, need and should have the fullest opportunity to grow up in a secure, protected family unit. Similarly, no one disputes that, under the rubric of marriage, the State provides a cornucopia of substantial benefits to married parents and their children. The preferential treatment of civil marriage reflects the Legislature's conclusion that marriage 'is the foremost setting for the education and socialization of children' precisely because it 'encourages parents to remain committed to each other and to their children as they grow'...."
"In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation."
Post a Comment