Jonathan Chait in the New Republic does a terrific job of showing why arguments against gay marriage are nonsense: They aren’t arguments.
When asked why they oppose gay marriage, conservatives usually repeat the platitude expressed so well by that paragon of marital virtue Rudy Guiliani:
“Marriage, I believe, both traditionally and legally, has always been between a man and a woman and should remain between a man and woman.”
But of course that is just a long-winded way of stating his opposition—it doesn’t explain why his is opposed. When asked why marriage “should remain between a man and a women” they offer up gibberish and Chait’s article is worth a read because he quickly exposes the hollow question-begging nature of the responses.
Most opponents of gay marriage can’t offer anything like a philosophical defense of their position. But there is a long-standing conservative argument available to them—they can argue that traditional beliefs have withstood the test of time and thus ought to have absolute authority.
This is an argument that I discuss in some detail in Reviving the Left.
I will not go into the details of that argument here but suffice it to say that if tradition has absolute authority, then women would not be allowed to own property or vote, blacks would still be enslaved, and we would still be ruled by the King of England.
The history of the United States and the democratic, liberal state in general arose precisely in opposition to the idea that tradition has absolute authority—part of what it means to be an American is to reject that idea.
As I explain in the book, much of the agenda of conservatives is anti-American screed.
Perhaps that is why Americans seem increasingly able to accept the idea (unless you preside as a Justice of the Supreme Court of California.) The opposing arguments simply do not withstand even generous scrutiny.
