Any public debate on ethics where the participants of the discussion do not share a common “ultimate” story is a debate that is likely to be decided by coercion and force. There is perhaps no better contemporary example of this than the ongoing debate on homosexual marriage. In particular, the November 2008 approval of Proposition 8 in California—an amendment to the state constitution that declared only marriages between females and males would be legally recognized and allowed—has lead to heightened debate on the subject nationwide. Opponents of Prop 8 argue that homosexuals should have the same right to legal marriage as heterosexual couples and that the state should not privilege one type of relational arrangement over another when defining marriage. Proponents of the ban posit that marriage by definition is a union between a man and a woman and has a particular quality to it that should not be equated with monogamously committed same-sex couples.
Those supportive and critical of homosexual marriage incessantly argue with each other publicly and privately. Each hopes to sway the legal system and the broader culture toward believing that what they are arguing for is right, just, and moral. Contingents in both camps debate as though they possess a universal moral certitude regarding their positions. They maintain that through common sense and reason any person should be able to see that their cause is clearly right. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the gay marriage debate, common sense and reason cannot solve the dispute because neither exists in a universal way. Forms of common sense vary depending upon the traditions, habits, and thought patterns of whichever group is holding the sense in common; there is not one form or kind of common sense that is exactly and uniformly the same across cultures or even between groups within a particular society. With sexuality, the particular beliefs about the purpose of sex held by one religious group will inevitably create a framework of sexual sensibility that is different from another group that does not share the same notions. So, some, assuming a definition of “natural,” say, “The parts just don’t fit,” and conclude that common sense says that gay relationships are not on the same level as heterosexual ones and should not be legally affirmed in the same way with marriage. Others assume that sexually expressed human relationships are not justified by the external anatomy and procreative capacity involved, but by the love and commitment that is present between two people; for them, this is common sense. Either way one goes, the foundational assumptions about the meaning and purpose of love, sex, and relationships in these scenarios are different. Here, there is not a common sense to be held in common.
One may concede the lack of universality in realms of common sense, but might ask if reason is not a more calculated, precise, dispassionate, universal standard to which all people can appeal? In short, no. The notion of autonomous universal reason has the same qualitative problem that many conceptions of common sense have. How a group reasons and the “rules” of reason used depend upon what the group values both intellectually and in practice. In turn, these aspects are all held together by the story the group holds or tells about the nature, meaning, and purpose of life. Thus, different ultimate stories produce different forms of reason. So, if a group of people believe in a particular god with a particular character and a particular telos (“end” or “purpose”) for humankind and behavior, the content and nature of their reason will be different from a group that believes in no gods at all. This situation is perhaps best summed up by Catholic priest, Richard John Neuhaus, who said, “Debates between [Christian] tradition and reason are actually debates between two traditions of reason.”
When not recognized, this lack of a common foundation to which different groups can appeal for the adjudication of disagreements results in people arguing past each other and finding it incredulous that those who disagree with them could be so ignorant and morally reprehensible. On the side of support for gay marriage, arguments are often made based on something called “universal human rights” believed to transcend any particular religious or cultural beliefs; these rights are supposed to be accessible to all through reason. Again, the “reason” problem here is that how one construes and fleshes out the substance of these “universal” rights is entirely dependent upon one’s cultural, social, and ultimate assumptions about life. There is little chance for gay rights activists to convince conservative Catholics, Evangelicals, and Mormons that there is a universal human right to marriage that should somehow take greater precedent over the injunctions of the particular god of the universe that they believe is against homosexual behavior. There are no universal human rights that can universally be known as universal.
Of course, the difficulty on the side of those that argue against gay marriage is fundamentally the same. Instead of using human rights language, this side appeals to a definition of marriage itself that they cast as universal and unchanging. For religious conservatives, marriage is an institution that is ordained by God and, in great part, is a way to reflect the nature and image of God. It is believed that this reflection is only accurately done through monogamous male and female relationships with their capacity for procreation and the intrinsic physiological “otherness” embodied in them. The problem with this in the American socio-political context is that this particular logic does not work and carries very little purchase outside of Judeo-Christian circles. In other words, they are arguing for a definition of marriage on theological grounds that are not shared with those they are arguing against.
Now, if one is hoping that in this short essay that I will some how find a way to reconcile the differences and eliminate the tensions involved here, you will be disappointed. I cannot. The only way to get universal agreement on common sense, reason, and understandings of marriage would be to get everyone in the world to share the same ultimate meanings, purposes, and understandings of life and the universe; I do not see that happening anytime soon. In the American context there will ultimately be one broad perspective on legal homosexual marriage that will have cultural and political dominance over the other. Though those in favor of gay marriage have balked and bristled against conservative Christian hegemony over understandings of marriage for much of Western history, they are now, in turn, positioning themselves to gain dominance over the cultural imagination and will inevitably capture it; it will simply be the same game, but with different winners.
All of this is not too say that it is impossible in this situation to live side by side in the midst of such disagreements on sexuality. Even though there certainly will always be one story of the ultimate that carries more peoples lives and imaginations than other narratives in a society, perhaps tolerance of the people’s lives and practices associated with more marginal stories is still possible. This, I believe, would have to start with the recognition of the nature of the current situation, which is that, while there may be some universal story or meaning that stems from some god or the cosmos, there is not a universal narrative that can be known universally by all people in the same way. In other words, there is no common ground of meaning, common sense, or reason with which to convince the other that she or he is wrong. Until this is acknowledged, the debate can only keep heading in the direction that it already is: one big argument where gay rights activists and conservative religious people will try to dominate and coerce each other into legal and social submission.
