ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, December 30, 1996 TAG: 9612300066
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: WILLIAM LOWE
ALTHOUGH I have not come to expect Cal Thomas' columns to serve as illustrations of the art of argumentation, his commentary on gay marriage (Dec. 11, ``Gay `marriage' and the Hawaii courts'') advanced an argument based on such poor reasoning that it merits attention as an example of the mediocre standards of contemporary public discourse.
In addition, the column demonstrates that writing is never without risk. In attempting to argue against gay marriage, Thomas succeeds primarily in offering a succinct summary of the weaknesses of the conservative position on the issue.
The primary weakness of Thomas' position is the profoundly anti-democratic grounds on which it is established. Despite the fact that Thomas cites popular opposition to the concept of gay marriage as a means of support, it quickly becomes apparent that his argument really has nothing to do with a democratic process of determining social mores. Instead, Thomas' opposition to gay marriage is rooted in an appeal to religious authority: "God is the Author of marriage, not a university sociologist, or think tank, and certainly not the courts."
In a totalitarian society, this line of reasoning would indeed prevail, but not in a democratic society that is founded in part on the separation of church and state. One of the truly liberatory aspects of democracy is that it is a system that allows for fluidity in public policy. Democratic values do not come down from on high; rather, we create our values in a continuous process of public discourse and meaning-making. Appeals to religious authority seek to suffocate democratic processes and conceal the history that lies behind the establishment of social norms. With this in mind, it is difficult not to note the irony of Thomas' comments on "the tyranny of the courts," even if Thomas himself is unaware of the tyranny inherent in his own position.
Thomas also reveals that he operates under a terribly naive understanding of language. He bemoans that the dictionary may have to be rewritten, because it says to marry ``is to join as husband and wife according to law or custom.'' Once again, he is attempting to establish his argument on fallacious grounds, this time on an appeal to linguistic authority. One can imagine that Thomas envisions words being rooted to absolute meanings that float somewhere outside space and time in an zone of omniscience alongside God.
There is nothing surprising about the heterosexual exclusivity of the dictionary definition of marriage. Language is governed by convention, and thus offers a history of the meanings determined by the empowered, not a history of absolutes. Language, like marriage, evolved in accordance with custom rather than divine authority. Thomas desires a world in which meanings are fixed and timeless, but such an understanding of both morality and language is better suited to a totalitarian than to a democratic society.
Lastly, Thomas converts his anti-democratic intolerance for homosexuals into ad hominem attacks against the concept of gay marriages. This intolerance operates simultaneously on multiple tracks.
The first track is Thomas' attempt to deny the right of homosexuals to exist as equal citizens in a democratic society. The recognition of gay marriages would serve as a means for the state to guarantee the citizenship rights of homosexuals.
The state's interest in marriage is secular rather than religious, and thus the issue revolves largely around the question of whether recognizing gay marriage is in the general public interest. By recognizing gay marriages, the state would acknowledge the legitimacy of all citizens to be the agents of their own interpersonal choices, and would overturn the long history of punishing certain citizens both socially and economically for exercising their right of choice in unorthodox terms.
The second track of intolerance entails Thomas' participation in the tendency to portray homosexuals as diseased persons in need of cure: ``My files bulge with stories of those who once engaged in sex with people of the same gender, but no longer do.''
Beyond the unintended eroticism of the phrasing, Thomas reveals that he is not content with eliminating homosexuals socially. He desires to eliminate them psychologically and ontologically as well. In Thomas' totalitarian world, there will be no homosexuals in public or private, and personal choices will be governed by absolute rule rather than by individual discretion.
The third track of intolerance involves Thomas' use of another fallacy. He concludes his argument by employing a non sequitur that suggests the acceptance of homosexuality in public policy will lead to social decline and ultimate destruction. Of course, he offers nothing to support this claim, most likely because there is no logical relationship between the two terms.
Thomas' claim is designed to seduce his readers into a response based on fear and prejudice rather than reasoned consideration. As citizens of a democracy, it is the readers' responsibility to refuse the seduction and demand a higher level of discourse in debates of public policy.
William Lowe is a former English teacher at a community college.
LENGTH: Medium: 88 linesby CNB