Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Politics

Gay Marriage: Killing the Democracy of the Dead

Aug. 2, 2012 2:22pm

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and author of the book, […]

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and author of the book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" and "Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century."

[ x ]

visandvals@gcc.edu

Author's Website

President Obama’s position on gay marriage has won some converts, from (perhaps) the entirety of the Democratic Party to (especially) young people. As to the latter, one of them emailed me recently. A good-hearted, thoughtful young man, who this fall will be a freshman at a very liberal college in the Northeast, I’ll leave him unnamed. His story, however, is instructive, and sheds light on an ancient morality tale worth considering right now.

The young man comes from a conservative evangelical family. He has progressively edged in a liberal direction. He read an article I had written on President Obama’s gay-marriage advocacy. Though he disagreed with me, he was respectful. I appreciated that, and responded.

He objected to my point that legalizing gay marriage would represent a radical rupture not just of the definition of “marriage” but of “family.” “How would that happen?” he asked. “I support gay marriage and think that if two people are in love, then they should have the right to be together with full benefits under the title of being MARRIED.” He continued: “I really don’t want to hear any religious arguments. Marriage is a secular act that can also be religious.”

The young man was open to hearing my viewpoint. As he said, he didn’t want to merely yell at me, “Oh my god! You’re against gay marriage? Then you’re stupid!” That’s what he’s sure to hear at the liberal college where his parents will be sending their lifesavings.

Though there were many ways I could have replied to this young man’s email, my response focused not on his youth but rather the youth of all of us, of this entire generation, of the whole culture. Here was the thrust of my response:

Whether a society or people are religious or not, the most fundamental basis of society and peoples—literally since the dawn of humanity—has been marriage between a man and a woman. That bond is the cornerstone. To suddenly sever that bond is not only a radical rupture, but remarkably arrogant; it assumes that our current generation is wiser than the multiple millennia of civilizations heretofore.

Google the word “matrimony.” “Marriage” has always meant the marriage of a man and a woman.

We shouldn’t mess with these things. Once we begin redefining and reshaping these things in each of our own images, we’re in trouble. I ask progressives: Do you truly want the government to take unto itself the right to remold such ancient terms? (Answer: Yes, they do, but only when the government agrees with them.)

That question ought to give pause to libertarians who support gay marriage. Do they want to allow government this unprecedented, enormous moral power and authority, from which will flow all sorts of new, massive government redistributive power and authority? As Jennifer Roback Morse asks, do libertarians really want the federal government regulating (let alone defining) marriage? If they do, then they’re favoring not small government but big government—actually,huge government.

Even most liberal Democrats (prior to President Obama) had voted to preserve marriage between a man and a woman. Witness the Clintons and congressional Democrats passing the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s.

Those against gay marriage need to know that not only are they in the majority today, but over the course of centuries and millennia. Our position is based not on the latest societal/cultural whim at the ballot box but on the inherited wisdom of billions of ancestors and thinkers preceding us. It is rooted in what G. K. Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead.”

In his book, Orthodoxy, Chesterton wrote: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”

There is deep, accumulated wisdom in our long line of ancestors. To suddenly assume we know better, compliments of recent enlightened understanding, is self-righteous and short-sighted. Don’t our ancestors—our dead—have any say? There were a lot more of them than us. Are we to judge they were mere brutes lacking our magnificent reasoning abilities?

There’s something to be said about, oh, multiple millennia of consensus belief. It seems unwise to not give our ancestors any serious consideration, and to not at least consider whether we might be wrong on this particular issue.

Should the dead not have a vote, a say, in this?

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director ofThe Center for Vision & Values, and author of the book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.”

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (17)

collardgreen
Posted on August 18, 2012 at 6:16pm
Wrong.
“We shouldn’t mess with these things. Once we begin redefining and reshaping these things in each of our own images, we’re in trouble. I ask progressives: Do you truly want the government to take unto itself the right to remold such ancient terms? (Answer: Yes, they do, but only when the government agrees with them.)”
Arguing from antiquity. Do you eat bear bile while native americans chant and burn smoke to cure your lower back pain?

“That question ought to give pause to libertarians who support gay marriage. Do they want to allow government this unprecedented, enormous moral power and authority, from which will flow all sorts of new, massive government redistributive power and authority? As Jennifer Roback Morse asks, do libertarians really want the federal government regulating (let alone defining) marriage? If they do, then they’re favoring not small government but big government—actually,huge government.”
Actually this is about government getting out of the way of freedom. Moving from no you can’t to it’s none of our business.

And then the author goes to absurdly suggest that dead people should have more of a right to be heard than two living people who want to get married.

Possibly the dumbest article on same sex marriage I’ve ever read.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Third Archon
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 11:48pm
“Should the dead not have a vote, a say, in this?”
That’s funny–normally, conservatives seem to frown upon this sort of thing…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Third Archon
Posted on August 13, 2012 at 11:47pm
Nice argumentum ad antiquitatem there, author.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- collardgreen
  Posted on August 18, 2012 at 6:05pm
  Yeah. Arguing from antiquity. Fail.
  
  Report this comment
JohnLarson
Posted on August 5, 2012 at 3:28am
Slavery used to be a cornerstone of our ancient ancestors for millennia as well.

Who were we to say it was wrong?

Also, traditional marriage was just a property exchange. Cattle or money for the girl. Now we base it of romantic love, which gay marriage is in line with.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- txdave22
  Posted on August 5, 2012 at 10:20pm
  We’ve heard no CARDINALS, ARCHBISHOPS, PASTORS AND LEADERS OF THE MORMON CHURCH CONDEMN————-WHOREMONGERING AND BREAKING OF THE LAW AND THE COMMANDMENTS???————————–Bill O’Reilly: ‘I Don’t Think Vitter Should Be There. Absolutely Not’
  ————-By Judd Legum on Jun 17, 2011 at 11:10 am
  Yesterday, Anthony Weiner resigned a few days after admitting he sent lewd messages to women he made over the internet. ———————————-Weiner’s announcement came after pressure from Leader Nancy Pelosi, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and President Obama. Nevertheless, top Republicans criticized Democrats for “protecting” Weiner.
  ————————–1,432 days ago, Sen. David Vitter admitted to being a regular customer of a prostitution service. ——————–(An activity that is, incidentally, illegal).—————– Days after his admission he was welcomed back with open arms by the Republican party.
  ——————Thus far, the Republican leadership has not been pressed to explain the blatant hypocrisy of their divergent reactions to the two scandals. ———————-Last night, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly weighed in. His message was simple:———————————– “I don’t think Vitter should be there. Absolutely not.”
  ———————–Why are pubs such hypocrites? Your tax dollars paying salary of sitting US pub senator: adulterer, whoremonger, breaker of COMMANDMENTS? N
  
  Report this comment
BellaMia7
Posted on August 4, 2012 at 11:49pm
Why then can’t I marry my adopted sister? There are no blood ties. Why shouldn’t that be allowed too? Or a divorced father marrying his adult daughter? Anyone have a problem with that? We have a teacher EACH DAY being accused of sex with students. Our societal boundaries are collapsing right before our eyes. Classic values are classics for a functional reason. Form follows function.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
kbstreet1
Posted on August 4, 2012 at 8:57pm
Thomas Dewey “meager free education focusing on experience and feelings, over logic and argument” that makes children more susceptible to the propaganda machine of the socialists; America was founded on individualism not the collective of socialism. Progressive ideology is counter intuitive to children who naturally believe in a meritocracy.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
IdahoBlaze
Posted on August 4, 2012 at 12:46pm
Interesting article. That made me think. I’ve been supporting marriage (of ANY kind) for years…frankly, if two adults can provide a stable home for children (forget reproduction, how many children need adopted into good loving homes?) then great, regardless if the parents are both male, both female, or one of each. Some people are not cut out to be parents, but discrimination has many forms…the last thing we need to do is de-humanize others for any reason. Content of character, remember? I would LOVE the gov’t to simply get out of personal, private affairs. Get out of my bedroom, get out of my kitchen. Get out of the schools, get out of my life…do your job, no more, no less. I fear Romney isn’t much of a ‘lesser evil’ than Obama, but still, it’s a step, right? Small steps, baby steps? How do you eat an elephant?

TEA2012

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CATSUEY
  Posted on August 4, 2012 at 1:49pm
  Idaho, I agree with what you said about Romney, but if it at least sends a message to ALL politicians, that we are going to throw your azz out of office if we don’t think you are representing US, then we’ll just throw Romney out after four years. Problem solved.
  
  Report this comment
ToddH
Posted on August 4, 2012 at 12:44pm
I am a recent graduate myself.
Have you watched the History Channel lately?
If you’re ever interested in what a typical public school history class teaches, watch that channel because there are a lot of specials that are specifically tailored for teachers to show to their students.
The NEA has been pushing this kind of progressive education on students and they NEA has a lot of power.
You can’t convince a guilt-ridden kid who has to answer for slavery & Native American displacement among various other “Civil Rights Abuses” at the hands of their forefathers, usually with religion always labeled as the supposed justification for these conflicts, to turn a blind eye on what the media has painted as the new “Civil Rights Issue” of the day.
What the kid needs to know is that it was Christians who put an end to slavery (he sure won’t hear that in the classroom!) Give him a copy of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and let him see that for himself. He also should read After the Ball: How America will Conquer It’s Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s.
That book will be a real eye-opener, will probably leave him sympahtizing a lot with gays and lesbians for the lives they lead, but fortunately will also open his eyes very wide to their propaganda tactics so he can call them out when he sees them being used right in front of him.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ToddH
Posted on August 4, 2012 at 12:35pm
I appreciate TeresaJ’s answer, and I’ll bet it would make more sense to a young liberal who “does not want a religious answer” regarding gay marriage.
It is only the American traditionalist (naturally a conservative, usually a Republican) who would be persuaded to honor the wishes of the dead (our forefathers) because all kids have learned in the public school system controlled by the very liberal NEA that from day 1 our forefathers who fought for and built this country allowed their superstitious beliefs (read religion) to control them to the point of stepping on many people and destroying lives, enslaving others and committing genocide over religious feuds.
For these kids to continue down this path, in order to “give a vote to the dead”, would be to continue to make mistakes that limit the rights of others in the name of their own very faulty religion. It has been well instilled in them , it has been DRILLED into their heads from 12 years of schooling where they spend the bulk of their day, that the very ancestors their dreamy parents revere & try to emulate were actually selfish, greedy, land-grabbing men whose hostile behaviors towards others had everything to do with their religion, which is the source of all of the “mistakes” that today’s youth must now correct & par reparations for. It would be the “ultimate mistake” for these kids to repeat the “sins of the past” by giving their forefathers a vote in what is acceptable.
Public school is the culprit.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Watchingtheweasels
Posted on August 3, 2012 at 12:20pm
Twinspeeder is right.

“Don’t our ancestors—our dead—have any say? There were a lot more of them than us. Are we to judge they were mere brutes lacking our magnificent reasoning abilities?”

Unfortunately, this is precisely what the liberal/progressive mind judges them as – dead, white slave owning bigots who have nothing of use to share with modern society.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
joboww
Posted on August 3, 2012 at 11:21am
Finally a piece that include some Chestertonian work

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Twinspeedr
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 2:48pm
I like your thought process but the one point that you seem to neglect is that you assume that your Liberal audience understands why, (much less accepts), the fact that human nature doesn’t change throughout History. The pervasive and self-affirming nature of Social Darwinism simply casts your argument aside with a quick flip of the “modern man is evolving socially”. These ideas are at the very core of our public education system nowadays. They will not think twice to throw the baby of our wise ancestors out with the bathwater of History itself since “we have moved beyond those old ways of thinking”. Ignorance has ushered in a social meme of “we want EVERYONE to be happy and equal, unlike people in the old days”. This idea plays very well to a young audience who finds themselves very unprepared for the world by overworked parents who were all too busy chasing the next tax bracket and were overly permissive and uninvolved with their children. 100 years of Progressivism has built an army of young culturally & morally inept people that spend most of their time indulging in self-gratification. Unbeknownst to them the Government has taken the place of God in their minds, and the Government is singing a very pleasant tune when they shut out your old, boring, stodgy history. That would take too much time away from hanging with friends to bother thinking about.

Home School your kids folks! PLEASE! For the love of God, just do it. It is the only way to begin to turn this boa

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Ducky 1
  Posted on August 2, 2012 at 8:44pm
  Wish I knew how to turn this all around but I am a strong believer in home schooling. I want the freedom that I grew up with to be there for my children, grandchildren…etc. Sad that for me to say that marriage is to be between one man and one woman constitutes hate speech. How did we get here??
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on August 3, 2012 at 8:54pm
  I love what you said Twinspeedr, and I do homeschool my kids.
  
  Here is the problem with the writer’s response: Kids graduating out of our schools have no idea what marriage, family, or even our government is supposed to mean.
  
  They think marriage is about love. Marriage wasn’t about love, it was about creating a family. Love is just a part of it. Homosexuals cannot procreate. They are incapable of of having children between themselves. That alone negates any rights they think they are entitled to in regards to marriage. You cannot demand fundamental rights to do something you are fundamentally incapable of doing.
  
  The average public schooled child does not understand that our most basic government freedom is freedom from government, so it’s unlikely he truly understood that part of the reply either. Especially if he is advocating for more government (as a liberal).
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.