Opposition to Same Sex Marriage Has Nothing to Do with Race
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BACKGROUNDER No. 2894 | APRIL 4, 2014 Marriage, Reason, and Religious Liberty: Much Ado About Sex, Nothing to Do with Race Ryan T. Anderson Abstract Whatever one’s views of marriage and however the state defines it, Key Points there is no compelling state interest in forcing all citizens to facilitate, participate in, or celebrate a same-sex relationship as a marriage. Be- n Whatever one believes about lieving that marriage is the union of man and woman is a reasonable marriage and however govern- position held by many. Bans on interracial marriage, by contrast, were ment defines it, there is no com- pelling state interest in forcing grossly unreasonable. Protecting religious liberty and the rights of every citizen to treat a same-sex conscience does not restrict anyone’s freedom to enter into whatever relationship as a marriage when romantic partnerships he or she wishes. Americans should remain free this would violate their religious to speak and act in the public square based on their belief that mar- or other conscientious beliefs. riage is the union of a man and woman without fear of government n It is reasonable for citizens to penalty. No one should demand that government coerce others into believe that marriage is the union celebrating their relationships. of a man and woman. When citi- zens lead their lives and run their s opposition to same-sex marriage at all like opposition to inter- businesses in accord with this Iracial marriage? One refrain in debates over marriage policy is belief, they deny no one equality that laws designating marriage as exclusively the union of male before the law. and female are today’s equivalent of bans on interracial marriage. n Bans on interracial marriage and Some further argue that protecting the freedom to speak and act Jim Crow laws denied the funda- publicly on the basis of a religious belief that marriage is the union mental equality and dignity of all human beings, forcibly segre- of a man and woman amounts to the kind of laws that enforced gated citizens, and were based race-based segregation. not on reason, but on prejudiced These claims are wrong on several counts. ideas about race. Whatever one believes about marriage and however government n Protecting religious liberty does defines it, there is no compelling state interest in forcing every citi- not restrict anyone’s freedom zen to treat a same-sex relationship as a marriage when this would to enter into whatever romantic violate their religious or other conscientious beliefs. It is reasonable partnerships he or she wishes, but no one should demand that This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg2894 government coerce others into Produced by the Richard and Helen DeVos celebrating their relationships. Center for Religion and Civil Society The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2894 APRIL 4, 2014 for citizens to believe that marriage is the union of a period and that refused to regard all human beings man and woman. When citizens lead their lives and as equal. This led to revisionist, unreasonable con- run their businesses in accord with this belief, they clusions about marriage policy. Thinking that mar- deny no one equality before the law. As a result, such riage has anything at all to do with race is unreason- beliefs and actions deserve protection against gov- able, and as a historical matter, few great thinkers ernment coercion. ever suggested that it did. Great thinkers throughout human history—and Protecting religious liberty and the rights of con- from every political community up until the year science does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. 2000—thought it reasonable to view marriage as Those who believe that marriage is a male–female the union of male and female, husband and wife, relationship and want to lead their lives accordingly mother and father. Indeed, support for marriage deny no one equal protection of the law. While Amer- as the union of man and woman has been a near icans are free to live as they choose, no one should human universal. The argument over redefining demand that government coerce others into celebrat- marriage to include same-sex relationships is one ing their relationships. All Americans should remain over the nature of marriage. Same-sex marriage free to believe and act in the public square based on is the result of revisionism in historical reasoning their belief that marriage is the union of a man and about marriage. woman without fear of government penalty. Thinking of Marriage as the Union Indeed, belief that marriage is a male– of Man and Woman Is Reasonable female union is shared by the Jewish, It is reasonable for individuals and policy to affirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.2 Christian, and Muslim traditions; by Belief that marriage is a male–female union is shared ancient Greek and Roman thinkers by the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions; by untouched by these religions; and by ancient Greek and Roman thinkers untouched by various Enlightenment philosophers. these religions; and by various Enlightenment phi- losophers.3 It is affirmed by canon, common, and civil law and by ancient Greek and Roman law. Bans on interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws, The conclusion that marriage is the union of man by contrast, were aspects of a much larger insidious and woman follows from a proper understanding movement that denied the fundamental equality and of human nature. Rightly understood, marriage is dignity of all human beings and forcibly segregated a comprehensive union. It unites spouses at all lev- citizens. When these interracial marriage bans first els of their being: hearts, minds, and bodies, where arose in the American colonies, they were inconsis- man and woman form a two-in-one-flesh union. It tent not only with the common law inherited from is based on the anthropological truth that men and England, but also with the customs of prior world women are distinct and complementary, on the bio- history, which had not banned interracial marriage.1 logical fact that reproduction requires a man and a These bans were based not on reason, but on preju- woman, and on the sociological reality that children diced ideas about race that emerged in the modern benefit from having a mother and a father.4 1. See Fay Botham, Almighty God Created the Races: Christianity, Interracial Marriage, and American Law (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009), Kindle edition, locations 730–740, and Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), Kindle edition, location 483. 2. This has the additional virtue of being true, as Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and I show in our book, What Is Marriage? but demonstrating this is not necessary for purposes of my argument here. See Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York: Encounter Books, 2012), http://whatismarriagebook.com/ (accessed March 12, 2014). 3. John Finnis, Human Rights and Common Good: Collected Essays, Vol. 3 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 315–388; John Witte Jr., From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition, 2nd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012); and Scott Yenor, Family Politics: The Idea of Marriage in Modern Political Thought (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011). 4. See Ryan T. Anderson, “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2775, March 11, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/marriage-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-of-redefining-it. 2 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2894 APRIL 4, 2014 Marriage is not just a personal relationship. It reflections on marriage but that considerations of also serves a public purpose. Indeed, from the law’s race with respect to marriage never appear.7 Only perspective, marriage exists to unite a man and a late in human history does one see political commu- woman as husband and wife to be equipped to be nities prohibiting intermarriage on the basis of race. mother and father to any children that their union Bans on interracial marriage had nothing to do with produces. As the act that unites spouses can also the nature of marriage and everything to do with create new life, marriage is especially apt for pro- denying dignity and equality before the law. creation and family life. Uniting spouses in these all- Colonial America stands out for its bans on inter- encompassing ways, marriage, calls for all-encom- racial marriage. Commenting on these prohibitions, passing commitment: permanent and exclusive.5 Harvard University history professor Nancy Cott Government recognizes marriage because this argues: institution benefits society in a way that no other rela- tionship does. Marriage is the institution that differ- It is important to retrieve the singularity of the ent cultures and societies across time and place devel- racial basis for these laws. Ever since ancient oped to maximize the likelihood that a man would Rome, class-stratified and estate-based societ- commit to a woman and that the two of them would ies had instituted laws against intermarriage then take responsibility for protecting, nurturing, between individuals of unequal social or civil and educating any children that they may create.