« The Best Thing About Life Tenure Is You Don't Have To Pay Annual Dues. | Main | The Best Daily Show Moment Ever. »

October 20, 2005

Is There A "Culture" of, Say, Vegetarianism?

P
erhaps you've been following Maggie Gallagher's extensive guest-blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy (go here and scroll down), where she's trying to persuade people that legal recognition of same-sex marriage ("SSM") will destroy the institution of marriage as a male-female procreative enterprise.

This is the nub of her argument:

If the principle behind SSM is institutionalized in law, and the law is able (as it is really pretty good at) to impose its values on the American people, then people like me who think marriage is the union of husband and wife importantly related to the idea that children need moms and dads will be treated in society and at law like bigots
I don't have the faintest idea what she's talking about. American law protects all manner of liberties--some of them under the due process clause, and lots of them under other more directly worded texts--and that protection doesn't destroy other practices and institutions. American law forbids mistreatment of atheists, but this does not mean that atheism is the "value" of American law, or that legal protection of atheism "imposes" that value on religious people, or turns religious people into "bigots." American law guarantees people the freedom to engage in nudism, but that doesn't mean that nudism is a "value" of American law, or that the protection of nudism has "imposed" anything on people who wear clothes, or that the protection of nudism has turned those who think people ought to wear clothes into bigots.

What a ridiculous and frightened argument.

Posted by Eric at October 20, 2005 8:37 AM

Comments

It's a pretty cliched argument. In the short form, it runs like this:

1) My values are theocracy
2) Your values democracy
3) If we have democracy, YOU'RE IMPOSING YOUR VALUES ON ME! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!!

See also "Tolerating intolerance".

Ho-hum.

Posted by: Seth Finkelstein at October 20, 2005 10:39 AM

Yes, this is one of the least persuasive arguments I have ever seen on Volokh.

Posted by: Michael Benson at October 20, 2005 12:30 PM

And that's saying something, given the nutty ideas they float over there from time to time.

Posted by: Ahistoricality at October 20, 2005 3:21 PM

It's like banging your head against a post trying to follow any logical thread in Gallagher's rambling, nearly incoherent posts. But some of the discussions in the comments at Volokh have piqued my interest. Can anyone recommend any particularly persuasive articles either in favor of or opposed to SSM?

Posted by: Neal at October 20, 2005 3:35 PM

Agree with Seth.

If your values include the value of living in a place that doesn't recognize same sex marriage and then that place recognizes same sex marriage...

It's a well worn rapture right tactic these days to claim that limiting their right to limit your rights is a limitation of their rights.

And, you know... So it is.

Posted by: sixteenwords at October 21, 2005 11:35 AM

It's really very simple. She objects to being treated like a bigot just because she thinks certain people should not enjoy the same civil rights that certain other people enjoy. See, just because she's a bigot doesn't mean she should have to be treated like one.

Posted by: rose at October 21, 2005 11:55 PM

Well, I think we can back up. Adopting or refusing to adopt SSM doesn't have anything to do with the freedom of people to believe in SSM, or advocate for SSM, or even the freedom of people of the same sex to say they are married, or even to be "married" by any church or religious body they'd choose to have marry them.

The debate is over something much narrower: whether the state will grant the privileges and burdens of marriage to couples of the same sex.

Posted by: Thomas at October 22, 2005 5:32 PM

It matters not whether SSM is institutionalized in law, She is already a bigot..

As for marriage being for procreation/parenting.. there go marriages for octegenarians, uterine/penile cancer victims, etc.. (you will 'consumate' your marriage or it's anullment for you! ;-).. what next, does the 'church' give people a year to 'prove' it?)

& my favorite,
The fellow in (IIRC) Texas who was instrumental in passing their humorous statue "Marriage is a Lifelong Commitment Between a Man & a Woman" is a divorcee!!

Posted by: bobby at November 1, 2005 9:27 PM

Shouldn't the reply to Ms. Gallagher be, "If you don't like same sex marriage---don't date or marry someone of the SAME SEX!" Leave other people alone.

Posted by: Silverkris at November 16, 2005 5:45 PM