The Prop 8 Trial and the New Theory of Politics
“They reject the political determination of will by the people… the idea that the act of voting is an act of national will is decisively rejected. The plebiscite is to express and enforce the concordance between the objective will of the people embodied in the (leader) and the subjective convictions of the people. The plebiscite is a declaration of loyalty…, not an announcement of an individual’s will.” From The New Science of Politics, by Eric Voegelin.
Since the beginning of my involvement in the same sex marriage debate, I have tried to explain the wider ramifications of removing gender from marriage. Ted Olsen, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 trial, claims that he can see no rational reason for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples. Since he can’t imagine any reason, he supposes that there are no reasons. Hence, he concludes, that animus against gays and lesbians is the only possible explanation for the adamant opposition to redefining marriage. Poor Mr. Olsen seems unable to imagine this entire line of argument that looks beyond the immediate consequences of same sex marriage, to the wider sociological and political ramifications.
The advocates of same sex marriage are in fact, bringing into being something much more extensive than “marriage equality,” or “opening marriage to all.” In fact, redefining marriage will put into place a whole series of incentives, which will in turn put into motion a far-reaching set of changes. The advocates of same sex marriage have been distinctly unwilling to take this seriously. (You would think that after losing election after election, they would make an effort to address the arguments of their opponents. The fact that they have not, is an arresting fact, which requires an explanation in and of itself. More on that later.)
Let’s start with the changes to the political order that are coming in the wake of the movement for “marriage equality,” and indeed, of the Prop 8 trial itself. Advocates of same sex marriage do their best to wrap themselves up in the American flag, and try to connect their movement with the traditional ideals of our people. However much they may attempt to do this, they are in fact initiating political ideas that have no precedent.
They cite the Civil Rights movement that brought voting rights to African Americans and ended legally sanctioned segregation. It is instructive to note how few African Americans share this view. Look back at the roughly 70% of African American voters in California who voted Yes on Prop 8. Look now to the efforts in the District of Columbia to preserve the gendered definition of marriage. That effort is led by African American pastors against the political classes of the District.
But the original (and real) Civil Rights movement succeeded because people were really persuaded that race is an irrelevant characteristic for full participation in the political, economic and civic life of the nation. By contrast, no one can seriously maintain that marriage is a necessary condition for participation in civic life, or that an unmarried person is a second class citizen in any meaningful sense. No one can believe that individuals with same sex attraction are unable to participate in the economic, political and civic life of this country, with or without the redefinition of marriage. The vast majority of Americans are persuaded that sex is in fact relevant to marriage and its purposes. They believe that marriage without gender or sex is an institution without purpose or meaning. This is why so many people are reluctant to strip sexual differentiation from the legal institution of marriage. The American public is persuaded that the demands of fairness and decency are satisfied by legal provisions that solve the practical problems same sex couple may face.
Hence, Civil Rights movement utterly fails as a precedent.
The advocates of same sex marriage have completely failed to convince the American public that redefining marriage is a civil right. Rather than try to persuade people that sex is an irrelevant characteristic for marriage, the advocates of same sex marriage berate their opponents and dismiss their arguments. And this is where they are in the process of redefining the political order itself.
Advocates of same sex marriage are so convinced of the rightness of their cause, they believe they only have to accept elections when they agree with the outcome of the elections. This trial itself is not just a trial of Proposition 8. The voters of California themselves are on trial, for having the temerity to vote in favor of natural marriage. When Ted Olson calls the campaign managers of Prop 8 to the witness stand, he is, in effect, calling the voters of California on to the stand. It is every person who voted yes on 8 who is on trial here. Make no mistake about that.
Perhaps now you can see why I chose the quotation from Eric Voegelin for the opening of this column. Let me give you the full quotation, without the elipses, and note that Dr. Voegelin wrote this in 1938.
They (the theorists of German National Socialism and Italian Fascism, both drawing on the vocabulary of German Romanticism) reject the political determination of will by the people– again especially in the German theory, where the Fuhrer is the only carrier of the people’s will. In the teaching on the plebiscite, the idea that the act of voting is an act of national will is decisively rejected. The plebiscite is to express and enforce the concordance between the objective will of the people embodied in the Fuhrer and the subjective convictions of the people. The plebiscite is a declaration of loyalty to the Fuhrer, not an announcement of an individual’s will. … The god speaks only to the Fuhrer, and the people are informed of his will through the mediation of the Fuhrer. (66-7)
Voting invalid unless it conforms to the “national will:” this is not the kind of political system we want to live under.
From The New Science of Politics, Eric Voegelin, originally written in 1938, reprinted in Modernity Without Restraint, Volume 5 of The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, edited with an introduction by Manfred Henningsen (Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 2000).
