More on Gay Marriage
Adrian left a thoughtful comment on this post:
Legislating that marriage is not only between one man and one woman may not be like affirmative action or welfare, but it is like counterfeiting currency. A counterfeiter doesn’t steal from any one person, he steals from every person…because the value of the dollar declines when the counterfeit is treated like the real.
Rights aren’t simply whatever anyone says they are, as long as somebody isn’t directly getting hurt. There is a truth about the human person that is constant and immutable. Whether or not somebody appears to get hurt isn’t the measuring stick for what is true or not true. We may not agree on what that truth is, but let’s not assume it is/isn’t there simply because we can’t see a harm.
(As a side note, freedom of speech can and does deprive individuals of things. That’s why slander, libel, and shouting “fire” in a theater are against the law.)
I think that the counterfeiting analogy is wrong. Yes, counterfeiting is stealing from everyone. When someone prints and uses fake money, it deflates the value of existing money. If there are more dollars floating around, naturally each will be worth less. This is rational. We value our money based upon its scarcity. But marriage is not like this, or at least it shouldn’t be. My feelings for my wife are not the least bit dependent upon whether other people get married or not. If 200 million people got married tomorrow, it wouldn’t devalue what my marriage means to me. If 200 million married people died tomorrow, it wouldn’t inflate what my marriage means to me. The value of my marriage isn’t set in a market. It’s established between my wife and me. Or, if you are religious, between you and your wife and God.
Adrian says that rights ought to transcend our concerns about people hurting others, and that rights should somehow encapsulate what is true. I think it’s dangerous for us to let the majority decide what is true. The majority may decide that evolution is true, or, one day, that atheism is true. Do we want the state to ban intelligent design, to outlaw churches? The Holocaust, slavery, the oppression of women … these were all carried out by people who (1) thought they knew the truth and (2) thought the role of government was to enforce the truth.
Or there is this: What is the point of virtue if the virtuous action is always compelled? If you ban all forms of sin, don’t you devalue sainthood? Or more severely—what’s the point of life if every choice is made for you?
As for slander, libel, and shouting fire in a theater … notably, these are all instances where words hurt others. These aren’t actionable because they are false … these are actionable because they cause harm to others. If I say “the moon is made of cheese,” I’m lying, but I haven’t broken the law. Speech itself is not illegal. But if I induce you to take an action to your detriment based upon my lie, I’ve gone beyond speech.
