The Mayor across the river has signed onto a brief supporting same-sex marriage. Mayor Beyond River (R, not D) says:
It’s not only how my community feels, but it’s also how I feel personally … A lot of our population has shown that they’re supportive of marriage rights and believe in the age old doctrine of love being love.
This is approximately the intellectual depth one expects from a Mayor on whose new Batman ankle tattoo (I’m not making this up) the local press ran a fawning “aw, the Mayor’s a regular guy like us” piece recently. (Be it noted that he cannot even make the train run on time.)
Okay, enough mockery of Mayor Airhead.
For the record, love is not love and that
brain dead même is not “age old doctrine.”
idiocy reasoning, we could as well argue that “Daddy loves Sissy, so why shouldn’t they do coitus?” as argue for same-sex marriage. (“OMG! He just compared gay love to child molesting!” No, he just showed where lying platitudes lead.)
Loves are different and the appropriate expressions of those loves differ:
- Love of husband and wife
- Love of parent and child
- Love of brother and sister (family)
- Love of co-religionist
- Love of country
- Love of community
- Love of neighbor
- Love of mankind generally
- The love of Mayor Beyond River for the Supreme Court
If you’re still seething that “OMG! He just compared gay love to child molesting!” read that list again. Is coitus the appropriate expression of each of those loves? Then in what sense is it true that “love is love”?
Socrates understood … that a reform cannot be achieved by a well-intentioned leader who recruits his followers from the very people whose moral confusion is the cause of the disorder.
(Eric Voegelin, Plato and Aristotle) It also can’t be achieve by a confused people electing equally confused leaders. But where are the leaders who can think halfway clearly? Where are the voters?
The heirs of the civilization of the West who now run our major institutions have rejected residual Christianity and traditional elite culture, and their emphasis on cultural diversity negates the importance of shared history. Nonetheless, they want to maintain public life, and extend its principles to more and more settings, while at the same time depriving it of substantive cultural content and making it ever more completely technological and utilitarian. The project is to be based on a common faith in science and human rights, common acceptance of institutions like the European Union and the United Nations, ever greater reliance on market and bureaucracy in place of traditional arrangements such as family and religion, and a common historical narrative having to do with the progressive global advance of freedom, equality, and enlightenment.
The project can’t be successful. A diverse inclusive multicultural society can’t have free, active, and intelligent public life, because the principles, habits, and loyalties people are expected to have in common are too few and too abstract. They don’t take enough into account or speak to enough aspects of human life to permit free and intelligent discussion of public affairs. Current discussions of public issues related to the family provide an obvious example. It is now criminal in some Western countries to assert that some ways of organizing sexual life are better than others. If that is so, how can family life be discussed intelligently?
If I were inclined to instrumentalize religion (I’m not – instrumentalizing religion is one of my biggest bugaboos), Roman Catholicism’s natural law emphasis would be make it attractive.
But they’ve never claimed exclusive rights to natural law. They’ve explicitly put it in the public domain. And for that great gift, I’m grateful.
* * * * *
“In learning as in traveling and, of course, in lovemaking, all the charm lies in not coming too quickly to the point, but in meandering around for a while.” (Eva Brann)