The decision of a federal judge in California to overturn Proposition 8 and rule that the State's ban on same-sex marriages violates the constitutional right to equal protection is but one more proof that our culture's moral underpinning is in severe danger.
What underlies this and, more or less, all socially contested issues is both an undifferentiated misconception and misuse of the principle of equality. This tendency in the political and juridical realms must be considered the most pernicious trend that has begun to destroy American and Western culture's social fabric.
In addition to the philosophical misconception of the equality notion, ideological strategies are applied in the public and political realms to insulate the concept and prevent a critical debate from taking hold. Whoever attempts to question equality aspirations is denigrated as discriminating, antiquated, a violator of human rights. As far as the issue of same-sex marriages is concerned, even as 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 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 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, differentiation and disparities are allowed. This fact grasped, 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 groundless differentiation.
It is the perennial task of politics and its legislative and juridical proponents – at any given time and any stage of societal development – to decide which differences are justifiable and which are not. This principle defines what is meant by social justice and demonstrates that a one-dimensional concept of equality must not be confused with justice. (Social) justice can only happen when the two levels of equality – the formal-normative and the factual-contextual – are reconciled and synthesized on objective grounds.
Only the violation of formal equality's outer boundaries or absence of a factually evident reason for any stipulated regulation violates the principle of equality.
This outlined dualism of form and content forbids the schematic 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 in both its respects – as a religious sacrament and 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 credos. 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 it is about more than the desire to satisfy individual sensitivities and personal preferences when it comes to the claims of the gay communities and particularly same-sex marriages. When we deal with gender issues and related topics, we face actions that aim to create new power structures and identity designs, intending to alter our societies substantially. 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.
An adequate understanding of equality is necessary to grasp the issue in all its far-reaching implications, comprehend its multi-faceted impact on society, and unmask the ideological strategies pushing the problem in the various societal contexts.
It appears to be utterly essential to revive and preserve the fundamental values of gender relations and deny arbitrary designs of same-sex unions to being put on level par with traditional forms of human cohabitation. The importance of the issue is paramount and rests at the core of our cultural identity. We will soon find out if our collective social reason will recover the strength to overcome the onslaught of the impertinent forces of irresponsible social engineering and reverse the course of moral deconstruction.
A California federal judge's recent decision is one more example of why we must not leave same-sex marriages to regional sentiments and state legislatures' arbitrariness. It will not be long until federal constitutional regulations must settle the issue in a way with which the entire nation can live..
What underlies this and, more or less, all socially contested issues is both an undifferentiated misconception and misuse of the principle of equality. This tendency in the political and juridical realms must be considered the most pernicious trend that has begun to destroy American and Western culture's social fabric.
In addition to the philosophical misconception of the equality notion, ideological strategies are applied in the public and political realms to insulate the concept and prevent a critical debate from taking hold. Whoever attempts to question equality aspirations is denigrated as discriminating, antiquated, a violator of human rights. As far as the issue of same-sex marriages is concerned, even as 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 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 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, differentiation and disparities are allowed. This fact grasped, 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 groundless differentiation.
It is the perennial task of politics and its legislative and juridical proponents – at any given time and any stage of societal development – to decide which differences are justifiable and which are not. This principle defines what is meant by social justice and demonstrates that a one-dimensional concept of equality must not be confused with justice. (Social) justice can only happen when the two levels of equality – the formal-normative and the factual-contextual – are reconciled and synthesized on objective grounds.
Only the violation of formal equality's outer boundaries or absence of a factually evident reason for any stipulated regulation violates the principle of equality.
This outlined dualism of form and content forbids the schematic 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 in both its respects – as a religious sacrament and 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 credos. 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 it is about more than the desire to satisfy individual sensitivities and personal preferences when it comes to the claims of the gay communities and particularly same-sex marriages. When we deal with gender issues and related topics, we face actions that aim to create new power structures and identity designs, intending to alter our societies substantially. 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.
An adequate understanding of equality is necessary to grasp the issue in all its far-reaching implications, comprehend its multi-faceted impact on society, and unmask the ideological strategies pushing the problem in the various societal contexts.
It appears to be utterly essential to revive and preserve the fundamental values of gender relations and deny arbitrary designs of same-sex unions to being put on level par with traditional forms of human cohabitation. The importance of the issue is paramount and rests at the core of our cultural identity. We will soon find out if our collective social reason will recover the strength to overcome the onslaught of the impertinent forces of irresponsible social engineering and reverse the course of moral deconstruction.
A California federal judge's recent decision is one more example of why we must not leave same-sex marriages to regional sentiments and state legislatures' arbitrariness. It will not be long until federal constitutional regulations must settle the issue in a way with which the entire nation can live..
