{"id":451,"date":"2012-05-14T20:49:37","date_gmt":"2012-05-15T00:49:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/?p=451"},"modified":"2012-05-14T20:49:37","modified_gmt":"2012-05-15T00:49:37","slug":"gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2012\/05\/gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism.html","title":{"rendered":"“Gay Marriage,” Marriage, and Individualism"},"content":{"rendered":"

One can only hope that all of this talk over the controversial issue of \u201cthe liberty\u201d of homosexuals to \u201cmarry\u201d will get us to thinking a little harder about marriage and liberty. <\/em><\/p>\n

Marriage is a more vulnerable institution today than it has ever been in the past, it is true.\u00a0 Yet I don\u2019t think that this has much if anything to do with recent demands for \u201cgay marriage.\u201d\u00a0 In fact, if the demand for radically reshaping marriage so as to accommodate homosexuals can legitimately be said to signal a deterioration of marriage, then it is but the latest such signal, the culmination, perhaps, of a complex of marriage-imperiling trends that Western societies have long permitted.<\/p>\n

Divorce and non-marital sex of various forms, to say nothing of illegitimacy, are just some of the things that we have been allowing long before anyone heard of \u201cgay marriage.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

In an order of liberty like the United States of America was originally intended to be, perhaps it is impossible for us not <\/em>to allow such conduct.\u00a0 Yet there is all of the difference in the world between refusing to criminalize divorce and the rest, on the one hand, and, on the other, romanticizing <\/em>these activities.\u00a0\u00a0 In fact, it is precisely for the sake of conserving our liberty that we must take care to conserve the cultural prerequisites\u2014like marriage and family\u2014undergirding it.<\/p>\n

And what this means, at the very least, is that we must recognize conduct that threatens those prerequisites for the poisons that they are.<\/p>\n

But far from sounding the alarm on these kinds of actions, we not only normalize them; we romanticize <\/em>them (In some instances, like that of \u201cthe romance\u201d genre, we literally<\/em> romanticize them).\u00a0 From the Hollywood celebrity to the person next door, Americans (and Westerners) from all walks of life have acquiesced in, when they haven\u2019t actively encouraged, trends that have considerably weakened marriage.<\/p>\n

Most of these trends are the legacy of \u201cthe sexual revolution.\u201d Some of them, like the popular notions of \u201cfalling in love\u201d and \u201cliving happily ever after,\u201d and the idea that marriage is a \u201ccontract\u201d (as opposed to, say, a sacred<\/em> covenant<\/em>) can be traced back much further.<\/p>\n

Those on the political right are disposed to blame their opponents on the other side of the ideological aisle for marriage\u2019s reversals of fortune.\u00a0 Indeed, the leftist deserves no small share of blame.\u00a0 After all, the so-called \u201csexual revolution\u201d was devised almost single handedly by the leftist.\u00a0 Yet, as has been said, it has been quite some time since even the temperamentally \u201cconservative\u2019 has acclimated himself to the mores advanced by the revolution. Furthermore, only by the lights of a short-sighted view can marriage be said to have been sailing smoothly until the late 1960\u2019s.<\/p>\n

Actually, it is not a stretch to think that a certain understanding of \u201cclassical liberalism\u201d or \u201clibertarianism\u201d is guilty of facilitating the decline of marriage.\u00a0 The <\/em>cardinal libertarian principle is known as \u201cthe Harm (or No Harm) principle.\u201d\u00a0 For many a libertarian, this principle is sacrosanct. Back in the nineteenth century, the English philosopher John S. Mill articulated what has since become a famous statement of it.\u00a0 In his essay, On Liberty, <\/em>Mill wrote that \u201cthe sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-<\/em>protection [.]\u201d\u00a0 In other words, \u201cthe only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others<\/em>\u201d (emphases added).\u00a0<\/p>\n

If a person is engaged in self-<\/em>destructive conduct, and if he is an adult of sound mind, then he must be left unmolested, free to live in accordance with his own folly.<\/p>\n

The lover of liberty can sympathize with the thrust of the Harm principle.\u00a0 But once the general truth encapsulated by this principle is elevated into an abstract and absolute doctrine, it becomes self-defeating.\u00a0 As Mill says, the Harm principle is \u201cto govern absolutely <\/em>the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion or control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion<\/em>\u201d (emphasis added).\u00a0<\/p>\n

Notice, while the inviolability of the individual requires legislators to refrain from enacting laws that undermine his self-chosen engagements, it requires as well as that his fellow citizens refrain from judging him harshly!\u00a0 Nor is this an idiosyncrasy on Mill\u2019s part: because the concept of \u201charm\u201d is not self-explanatory, Mill is simply drawing out the reasoning of the Harm principle to its logical end.<\/p>\n

To put it another way, once individuality\u2014a historically and culturally-specific disposition\u2014is exchanged in favor of the creed <\/em>of individualism<\/em>, the result is not more, <\/em>but less <\/em>freedom.\u00a0 Once the individual is free from the moral constraints imposed upon him by way of the judgments of his fellows, the only thing left to control him is the government. <\/em>\u00a0So, more \u201cindividualism\u201d equals more government.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And this is the problem with individualism (as opposed to individuality).\u00a0 By focusing on the individual in abstraction from the complex of historical and cultural contingencies that make him the concrete being that he is, we license all manner of conduct.\u00a0 Yet we don\u2019t appreciate that much of this conduct is corrosive of just that delicate balance of institutions that gave rise to our individuality to begin with.<\/p>\n

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.\u00a0<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One can only hope that all of this talk over the controversial issue of \u201cthe liberty\u201d of homosexuals to \u201cmarry\u201d will get us to thinking a little harder about marriage and liberty. Marriage is a more vulnerable institution today than it has ever been in the past, it is true.\u00a0 Yet I don\u2019t think that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n"Gay Marriage," Marriage, and Individualism<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2012\/05\/gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\""Gay Marriage," Marriage, and Individualism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"One can only hope that all of this talk over the controversial issue of \u201cthe liberty\u201d of homosexuals to \u201cmarry\u201d will get us to thinking a little harder about marriage and liberty. Marriage is a more vulnerable institution today than it has ever been in the past, it is true.\u00a0 Yet I don\u2019t think that…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2012\/05\/gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"At the Intersection of Faith and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-05-15T00:49:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jack Kerwick\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\"Gay Marriage,\" Marriage, and Individualism","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2012\/05\/gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\"Gay Marriage,\" Marriage, and Individualism","og_description":"One can only hope that all of this talk over the controversial issue of \u201cthe liberty\u201d of homosexuals to \u201cmarry\u201d will get us to thinking a little harder about marriage and liberty. Marriage is a more vulnerable institution today than it has ever been in the past, it is true.\u00a0 Yet I don\u2019t think that…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2012\/05\/gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism.html","og_site_name":"At the Intersection of Faith and Culture","article_published_time":"2012-05-15T00:49:37+00:00","author":"Jack Kerwick","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2012\/05\/gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2012\/05\/gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism.html","name":"\"Gay Marriage,\" Marriage, and Individualism","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-05-15T00:49:37+00:00","dateModified":"2012-05-15T00:49:37+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/6832222998cc14717ded1849531201c5"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2012\/05\/gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2012\/05\/gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/2012\/05\/gay-marriage-marriage-and-individualism.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"“Gay Marriage,” Marriage, and Individualism"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/","name":"At the Intersection of Faith and Culture","description":"Beliefnet Voices - Jack Kerwick","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/6832222998cc14717ded1849531201c5","name":"Jack Kerwick","description":"I have a Ph.D. in philosophy from Temple University, a master's degree in philosophy from Baylor University, and a bachelor's degree in philosophy and religious studies from Wingate University. I teach philosophy at several colleges in the New Jersey and Pennsylvania areas.","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.jackkerwick.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/author\/jkerwick"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/399"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=451"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":452,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/451\/revisions\/452"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/attheintersectionoffaithandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}