Same-Sex Marriages - The Supreme Court in Charge of this Society's Future

In 2010, at a time when Barack Obama and hosts of other politicians and media pundits championed the states to decide the issue of same-sex marriages, I argued that such profound cultural questions "must not be left to regional sentiments and the arbitrariness of state legislatures." Readers can found the respective blog essay below under the title of "Ideological Misuse of Federalism leads to Bad Governance" (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2012/05/ideological-abuse-of-federalism-leads.html)

Boy, was I right! One beauty of proper philosophical reasoning is the timelessness of its findings. Like most of my other writings, this essay is as topical as when I published it on Oct 9, 2010. In the case of Mr. Obama, who had just departed from his previous conviction and come around to embrace same-sex marriages, it was quite apparent that it was about shirking responsibility along with political expediency that made him espouse that stance. 

Now, roughly four years later, the Supreme Court has to decide the issue for the entire country. As was to expect, the court is profoundly divided over the issue. In the following, I outline the why and provide the solution and answer to this subject matter: 

What underlies this and, more or less, all socially contested issues is an undifferentiated misconception and misuse of the principle of equality. In addition to the false philosophical conception of the equality notion, ideological strategies are applied in the public and political realms to protect the idea and prevent a fierce debate from taking hold. Whoever attempts to question equality aspirations is being denigrated as discriminating, antiquated, a violator of human rights. As far as the issue of same-sex marriages is concerned, opponents are even called homophobic. This intolerable state of public debate needs urgent change. The essential prerequisite for a turnaround would be the proper theoretical understanding of the notion of equality, as, with Aristotle, only sound theory can ultimately provide for good (political) practice. 

 

It is clear that in terms of their human dignity, all men are equal – male and female, people of any ethnic descent, skin color or sexual orientation, infants and geriatrics, everybody. Yet, in addition to their biological and sexual differences, all humans are different regarding their concrete way of being. How would we otherwise justify different income levels, responsibilities and entitlements, property, and tenure? 

For the proper dealing with the idea of equality, it is thus inevitable to differentiate two levels of equality – the formal or primary one, on which all men are equal; and the factual or secondary one, based on the former, on which differentiation and disparities are allowed. The fact grasped that equality clearly forbids a schematic equal treatment and not only affords but even demands differentiations that have to be justified by objective and factual rationales. The only thing the principle of equality forbids is arbitrary and baseless differentiation. 

This outlined dualism of form and content forbids the schematic and straightforward treatment of gender issues and any other aspect of social disparity, including the issue of same-sex marriages. 

"To treat the latter different from traditional marriage does not at all violate the principle of equality. The (moral) imperative to upkeep traditional marriage in its exclusivity – as a religious sacrament as well as a civil union – derives from the idea that every social claim has to be designated its proper place in the cultural cosmos of (occidental values) and ideas."

This cultural underpinning cannot and must not be altered by impulses of individual hedonism and personal gratification, which seem to have become the driving social forces in our societies. Instead, the stakes of the common good and humanistic considerations have got to return to our public, political, and legal discourses. 

But in the given context, we must not deceive ourselves over the fact that when it comes to the claims of the gay communities and particularly same-sex marriages, it is about more than merely the desire to satisfy individual sensitivities and personal preferences. When we deal with gender issues and related topics, we face claims that aim to create new power structures and identity designs that substantially alter our societies. The termination of the traditional binary gender code in the name of equal treatment and anti-discrimination, as a precondition for the destruction of traditional marriage, is supposed to pave the way for an amorphous society that allows for all possible combinations of social coexistence and ways of life. 

The burden resting on the Supreme Court judges' shoulders is no small one, for the future of this society will depend in no small measure on their decision. A community losing its capability to enclose itself in a "bounded horizon" (Friedrich Nietzsche), losing its sense for differentiation and the power to accept a hierarchy of values, its instinct for rank and distance, is destined to perish.

Astonishing Media Double Standard on Ukraine

The murder of Boris Nemtsov, a liberal Russian politician and avid critic of President Putin, back in February, caused a significant outcry and was covered extensively by virtually all mainstream media in the West. Without substantial evidence, from the beginning, the murder of the politician culminated in speculations about the Russian Government's involvement. 

When somebody murdered three Ukrainian critics of the incumbent president Poroshenko within a few days in April, no such outcry could be heard. The assassination of Oleh Kalashnikov, a former Ukrainian member of parliament and vocal critic of the ruling administration, and the murders of opposition journalists Oles Buzina and Sergei Sukhob went by more or less uncommented. In previous blogs, I've already made clear that Poroshenko was a stooge installed by Washington and Berlin in a coup in the course of the so-called Maidan Revolution in the spring of 2014. Barely any media reported on these events, and the silence of the media in conjunction with the lack of comments from the US state department and EU foreign ministries and NATO, OSCE, and EU representatives speaks volumes. It gives indirect testimony to the West's collaboration in Ukraine's Maidan coup and the ensuing destabilization and radicalization.

Aside from the double standard in reporting and commenting, which violates the primary principle for news outlets to report factually and objectively, it demonstrates how most of the media degenerate into mere propaganda instruments for whatever policies suit their ideological agenda.

Failed Foreign Policies Cause Human Catastrophes

Some 800 people recently died when an overcrowded refugee vessel collided with a merchant ship in the Mediterranean. Among the rescued were a handful of people-smugglers, thus giving testimony to migrant-facilitators' business, thriving in the Middle East as it does in Mexico and Latin-America. As an entry gate into the E.U., Italy can hardly cope with refugees' seemingly never-ending stream from the north-African state belt. Both the Italian Navy and Coast Guard are overwhelmed by the challenge. The European Union is scrambling to find solutions. For now, more funds are supposed to flow into the refugee programs Triton and Poseidon. 

This exodus of people fleeing the conflict zones and war-torn areas of Africa and the Middle East is a direct result of the U.S. and the E.U.'s failed foreign policies. I have criticized the blunder of U.S. foreign policy, supported by the European Union and NATO, in my blog entries of 2011 on Libya (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2011/03/us-and-european-foreign-policy-blunder.html) and 2013 on Syria (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2013/05/disastrous-foreign-policy-failures.html), and warned against the policies of supporting violent and extremist insurgent movements while letting down established heads of state and governing political administrations. It began with the Muslim Brotherhood's support in Egypt against President Hosni Mubarak and then the US-led NATO campaign to take down Libya's Gaddafi. The support of a conglomerate of dubious insurgents in Syria was the third cornerstone of a U.S. foreign policy that is unethical and outright in the wrong, as it is ineffective and destructive. 

While the E.U. does everything in its power to help refugees and get a grip on the situation, it abides by its strict immigration policies, thus preventing the internal order from descending into utter chaos. In contrast, the U.S. is propping up its foreign policy blunder by national security foolishness, courtesy of presidential executive immigration orders that pave the way for more or less unlimited immigration, serving nothing but sealing the fate of future political and social disaster.

 

However, most concerning is the fact that these policies seem to find an ever broader acceptance and support on a bipartisan level. Powerful voices of senators, congress members, and presidential candidates for the 2016 race on the Republican side espouse similar, if not identical viewpoints on foreign policy and immigration. 

Given the U.S.'s two-party political system, one has to wonder how the State Department could alter its harmful stance on essential foreign policy and national security issues? If both major political forces align in their position on such topics, how could this ever change and U.S foreign affairs brought back to its senses?

Empirical evidence and the reality of failures don't appear to have any impact. Established authorities and political counterparts are merely doubling down and adding fuel to the fire. In previous commentaries, I have criticized the geopolitical madness vis-a-vis Russia that has been unfolding in Ukraine. Ideological prejudice and a certain arrogance appear to be the dominant forces in a media-driven political business that seemingly doesn't allow concessions to be wrong. What is supposed to be a sign of strength and compelling character is now considered a weakness. 

What can be a solution to this predicament in global affairs, for the most part, instigated by the failed policies of the U.S. and the Transatlantic alliance? Let me reveal a secret here not debated in the political realms, even at the reproach of talking pro domo.

I see the only hope for betterment in the return of philosophers to the ranks of political advisers and proper philosophical instruction to higher education curricula. As far as the former aspect is concerned, the political business, specifically the advisers to political stakeholders and executive decision-makers, has to be enriched and balanced by adding the holistic philosophical thinker to the equation. As far as the latter aspect is concerned, I am talking about conveying the broad history of ideas of philosophy. No lip service to philosophy by providing courses in which so-called philosophy professors and lecturers try to indoctrinate a liberal-progressive political agenda. What is needed is a focus on ontology and social and moral philosophy, thus enabling critical thinking and independent and profound judgment.

No longer must the hubris of jurists and economists, who too quickly get stuck in sterile materialism and superficial rationalism and whose consciousness is lacking profound philosophical reflection, dominate politics and policy-making.