Replies

Mrs. Don-o is pointing out that what we refer to as "heterosexual marriage" is so disconnected from both natural and spiritual reality that it's hard to muster up much energy to defend it, and it's difficult to make a good case for it even if one has the impetus. I personally think, "Oh, whatever ...," about "gay marriage," although the free speech and religious freedom threats have me pretty concerned.

The current issue (Aug/Sept) of First Things has an article that I think is relevant: "Technocracy Now" by James Kalb. Mr. Kalb says that the "project" of the political and cultural elite that has brought us "gay marriage" can be described as "maximizing the satisfaction of preferences." This view of the "good" for which we strive permeates nearly all of modern life, including "conservatism."

If "heterosexual marriage" is simply an institutional vehicle for "maximizing preference satisfaction" for the spouses, then how does it differ, in essence, from "gay marriage"? It differs only in the accident of the presently-preferred sexual activities of the participants.

In my opinion, without a much grander picture of holy matrimony, conforming to both the natural and spiritual realities of the human person, no ground in the public space can be gained. This doesn't mean that individual couples won't live out holy matrimony, although that's harder when "preference satisfaction" is their criterion whether or not they're aware of it. However, the general view of marriage has nothing new to offer people who see the goal of human existence as maximizing preference satisfaction with a minimum of constraint.

(Pardon all the "quotes": I'm working with someone else's idea which I have not fully absorbed, although I feel as if I've been on the verge of coming up with something like this concept.)