Gay Marriage in Iowa and Vermont

The recent ruling in Iowa and Vermont to allow gay marriage because it is now deemed to be a constitutional right sparked a couple of thoughts and questions in me. First, it may not be an obvious one, but one thought is: (1) regardless of whether or not gay marriage really is “constitutional” (I personally cannot see the connection), why is the American constitution elevated above the constitutions of other world governments? (2) Another question is: Why does it seem so suspicious that “constitutional” is being substituted for the idea of “worldliness”?

As for question 1, doesn’t it go against Western/American values to elevate one culture (or religion for that matter) above another? Isn’t this seen as “intolerant” by the majority of enlightened American values? Wouldn’t it be seen as “close-minded” to say that the American constitution is better than, say, a French constitution and that we shouldn’t even entertain legal notions embraced by the French (I have nothing in mind here, it is simply a random example)? I will give a different illustration. If a country were founded by homosexuals, and they created a constitution distinctly favoring the homosexual lifestyle, would this be seen as especially “enlightened”, or especially “intolerant”? My confident guess is that, in light of current American values, it would be seen as especially enlightened and highly-evolved. Isn’t it intolerant to view the values of other cultures as less-evolved or even as primitive?

I will allow the issues emerging from question 1 to be addressed by question 2 also since they are closely related. I hope the connection is made.

To attempt to restate question 2, why does it feel like using the word constitutional is simply the reason given to justify the changing of laws based on the degree that the new law actually does fit the constitution, when it feels oddly (perhaps more) like the law is being changed based on the particular whims of the current culture? What prevented the Founders and the few hundred years of courts, judges, adjudication, and legislation to realize that gay marriage is actually a value allowed and perhaps upheld by the constitution? Why now? Why not 200 years ago, or fifty years ago, or one year ago? I anticipate the answer to this question is that the majority values of the population have shifted, or even perhaps something along the lines of: our legal system has evolved from the “primitive” to the “enlightened.”

While this observation could easily expand into a host of other ethical questions (e.g. Isn’t it arrogant to assume people living in another century are primitive simply because they held different values?), I want to for now simply keep the question on the level of the spirit of question 2, that pertaining to cultural influence. Is it permissible that our laws seem to only reflect the current values of our culture, which could change in 50 or 100 years? Maybe it is not enough that I ask this. Perhaps I am forced to dig deeper here upon realizing that the entire concept of democracy is based on the answer to this last question being in the hearty affirmative. I am not so much suggesting that the ideals of democracy be changed to substitute them for something else, but I would go so far as to challenge what it is about American culture that allows the laws regarding what is right and wrong to be changed based solely on what the values of our culture are. What are these values and why do we have them? If it is enough for our culture to simply go with the majority rule and decide ethical standards based solely on what most people think is permissible, then it begs the question of the foundation of these standards? If they can change tomorrow, what good are they? Why should people in fifty years follow the standards of today? Or should they? If not, why not? If this cannot be answered sufficiently, I would submit that the “Republic in Which We Stand” is made of not rock but sand, and we are in the end no better off than nations in bondage to dictators since tomorrow we could find ourselves in chains also, if it be found best to do so in the majority opinion.

Who’s to say this is out of the question for “enlightened” citizens? This same so-called enlightenment type thinking, specifically the ideals of Darwin played out to their logical conclusions (e.g. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life), produced the horrors of Hitler and Stalin in the 20^th Century. Who’s to say if we can keep our footing in the shifting sands of cultural values and avoid the same sort of “enlightened” atrocities? Is Western culture really above these horrors?

I don’t think much is accomplished by any of what I just said, but I think bottom-line it’s pretentious to put too much stock in the opinions of the masses.