Bradley's been at it again . . .

Over at The Ethical Exhibitionist, my pal Bradley posted a thoughtful and provocative reaction to the election results, which he titled "Lets Not Pat Ourselves On the Back Too Hard." Though I'm sure I'm about to get myself into a heap of trouble, here's my response:

nathan is entirely on the mark when he writes

the problem is that they (and we) haven't respected that there are two things that we're talking about as one. One is a legal contract between two people, upheld by the State that agrees that two people will share life together. The other is a religious symbol that has all sorts of meanings different than what the majority of "marriages" encompass.

I also admire his attempt to engage the ethos of those who vote to deny the rights of their compatriots on moral grounds. This is an important, if extremely difficult, step in working toward consensus—or at the very least, mutual respect. That said, I hold fast to the opinion that it is erroneous in the extreme to attempt to legislate morality.

As you know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, but on this issue I break with much of my party. To say that I cannot understand the justification for denying people these basic rights understates my stance: doing so undermines, at the most basic level, everything this country stands for. It is our concern with rights and liberties that underscores every US ideology and serves as our common ground. I cannot comprehend why anyone would want to deny their neighbors the full rights and privileges guaranteed (implicitly and explicitly) by the constitution—or to amend a constitution to limit the rights of one’s own citizenry. The only limits to freedom I can embrace are those that reflect the philosophy that one person’s rights extend only as far as another’s begin—that is to say, we cannot justify violating another’s rights in the name of our own. The 1996 Congressional Essays reflect the importance of reasonable limits cogently.

More to the point, allowing same-sex marriage (or, the related hot-button topic of the ‘90s, allowing homosexuals to serve in the US armed forces) does not impede on the rights of the individual; disallowing full rights and privileges does.

One final thought: while it may be 'democratic' to allow the constituency to vote on such an issue, it runs counter to the notion of the 'republic,' which explicitly ties liberty to law. If one considers the notion of law Aristotle advances in the Politics as “reason unaffected by desire” and understands morality as pathos(in the rhetorical sense), then it is worthwhile to note that, perhaps ironically and certainly theoretically, it is my party—with its philosophical concern for definition and law—who should be the most adamant champions of equal rights under the law . . . for every US citizen.