At the invitation of
Greensboro Guardian editor Charles Davenport, Jr., I engaged in a writing pro/con with him over Amendment One, a proposed amendment to North Carolina's constitution. This is his piece in favor, my piece in opposition
is here.
________________________________________
The debate concerning North Carolina’s proposed Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) could be perceived as a clash between the accumulated wisdom of centuries (traditional marriage), and the accumulated “wisdom” of, relatively speaking, the past 15 minutes (gay marriage).
Champions of gay marriage are quick to condemn the “religious zealotry” of those who defend traditional marriage, presumably because traditionalists are imposing their morality on innocent bystanders. (The harm inflicted by such imposition remains unclear.) But of course, gay marriage enthusiasts (who are the minority) are imposing upon the rest of us (the majority) a vision of their own: a secularist, “non-judgmental” worldview, the disciples of which are instantly recognizable because of their flamboyant self-righteousness and sense of moral superiority.
Still, a concession is in order: overtly religious arguments are indeed promptly tuned out and ignored by a significant percentage of citizens, including some conservatives. Fortunately, there are other, equally persuasive arguments in favor of traditional marriage.
Let us consider three: recognition of and obedience to norms; respect for natural law, and reverence of tradition. Supporters of the MPA may not use these precise terms, but they are familiar with the concepts innately, or intuitively.
The late Russell Kirk, a founder of the modern conservative movement, was a prolific and profoundly influential writer. Norms, natural law, and tradition are recurring themes in his work. Kirk defined a norm as “an enduring standard” of public and private conduct, and “a law of nature which we ignore at our peril.” Norms exist in all places and at all times, regardless of whether the individual approves of or abides by them: “A norm endures in its own right, whether or not it gives pleasure to particular individuals.” Homosexual relations—and by extension, gay marriage—are abnormal, in the sense that they are a violation of established norms.
In his acclaimed volume, The Conservative Mind, Kirk identified natural law as a tenet of conservatism: “Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.” Natural law, then, is “a loosely knit body of rules of action prescribed by an authority higher than the state. These rules…are derived from divine commandment; from the nature of mankind; from abstract reason; or from long experience of mankind in community.” Aristotle, Cicero, St. Thomas Aquinas, Edmund Burke, and C.S. Lewis would concur.
Kirk delivered a warning pertinent to this debate: “When many persons ignore or flout the natural law for human beings, the consequences presently are ruinous—as with the unnatural vices that result in the disease of AIDS….” Note that there is a distinction between natural law as it pertains to man, and the laws of nature; animal behavior is irrelevant to the behavior of human beings. As Kirk wrote in Enemies of the Permanent Things, “There is law for man, and law for thing; the late Alfred Kinsey notwithstanding, the norm for the wasp and the snake is not the norm for man.”
Tradition is the means by which ancestral wisdom is transmitted to the present generation, and the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is long-established. The hubris--the arrogance and conceit--of those willing to abandon centuries of human knowledge and experience in order to conduct a radical social experiment is astonishing.
Opponents of the MPA argue that it would institutionalize “discrimination” against gays and lesbians. Here is a fine example from Mayor Robbie Perkins, as quoted in today’s News & Record: “Greensboro wants to be looked at, in my view, as a place that is progressive and accepts all people and doesn’t tolerate discrimination.” We anticipate childish platitudes from liberals, who cater to intellectual peasants; such language from an elected official with an “R” after his name is mortifying.
Must we abandon North Carolina’s existing marriage law, which discriminates against youth, polygamy, and bigamy? Must we also repeal laws that discriminate against pedophilia, theft, and worse? “Discrimination,” an emotional term with a negative connotation, is utilized as a club to bludgeon into silence those who might otherwise dare to differ with enlightened progressives. Do not be silenced.
A couple of centuries ago, Edmund Burke, the celebrated British statesman, observed that “the individual is foolish. The multitude is foolish; but the species is wise.” Traditional marriage is among the pillars of civilization, and our disposition must be to preserve institutions centuries in the making. The burden of proof is on the radical social engineer, and the case for gay marriage has not been convincingly made.
______
Charles Davenport Jr. is the editor of The Greensboro Guardian. He applauds Mr. Smith for accepting his invitation to debate the marriage amendment. “Pro-Con” is likely to become a regular feature—a forum for serious contemplation of the issues.
