opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
28 Aug 2014
Another Bad War in Iraq

In fighting disease, aggressive action is not always advisable. Two years ago a federal panel recommended … Read More.

24 Aug 2014
Democracy and Ferguson

Not all the residents of Ferguson, Missouri, are black; not all of them are out protesting; and some think … Read More.

21 Aug 2014
What About 'Black-on-Black Crime'?

The shooting of Michael Brown and its turbulent aftermath have renewed an old question: Why does the black … Read More.

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition


In all the bad days that opponents of same-sex marriage have had lately, few compare with the one they had this past week in a courtroom in Chicago. Lawyers defending the bans in Wisconsin and Indiana were buried in an avalanche of skepticism and incredulity.

The judges demanded to know what worthy goals the prohibitions serve, and the attorneys had terrible trouble coming up with any. Perhaps the low point for their side came when one was asked why Wisconsin makes it so hard for same-sex couples to adopt and ventured to say, "I think tradition is one of the reasons."

At that, Judge Richard Posner did not slap his forehead and exclaim, "Of course! Why didn't we see that? Everything makes sense now!" Instead, he retorted: "How can tradition be a reason for anything?"

Many states, he noted, had a hallowed tradition of forbidding interracial marriage until 1967, when the Supreme Court said they couldn't. Posner couldn't see how entrenched practice, no matter how ancient, mattered in that case or this one. The argument, he said, amounted to: "We've been doing this stupid thing for a hundred years, a thousand years. We'll keep doing it because it's tradition."

His rebuff betrays a fatal problem for opponents of same-sex marriage. One of their central arguments is that we should limit marriage to male-female couples because that's been the norm in Western cultures for millennia. It's an argument deeply rooted in conservative political philosophy. But conservative political philosophy has never really had much influence in the United States, even among those who call themselves conservative.

In his 1953 book "The Conservative Mind," Russell Kirk expounded a view peculiar to the right. "Even the most intelligent of men cannot hope to understand all the secrets of traditional morals and social arrangements," he wrote, "but we may be sure that Providence, acting through the medium of human trial and error, has developed every hoary habit for some important purpose." It's not an argument often heard in our debates.

Americans do pay homage to our past by invoking the Declaration of Independence, the framers, the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln and so on.

But the idea that we should be afraid to make changes in our laws for fear of rending the organic fabric of society doesn't command much allegiance on either the left or the right.

Liberals have never made a fetish of obeisance to the past. They agree with the revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine that giving primacy to tradition unjustly places "the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living."

American conservatives largely share that premise. The New Deal has been in place for some 80 years, but conservatives don't believe in conserving that . Their feeling is it was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.

None of this means Americans have no use for traditions. We have all sorts of favorites, from fireworks on the Fourth of July to football in autumn. But we feel entitled to alter and embellish them at our whim. The fireworks we see are bigger and better than the ones Americans saw a century ago. Football now starts in August and goes till February.

Marriage morphed repeatedly long before gays got it. Women acquired more rights, divorce became available to anyone who wanted it, and alimony grew less common. People of different races can now marry each other even in places where it was once cause for lynching.

Longstanding arrangements that make sense endure without controversy, and that's just the point: They make sense. Tradition and a good reason will win an argument, just as tradition and $2 will get you a ride on the bus. Americans don't keep doing things unless they serve our purposes, even if they suited our grandparents to a T.

The 20th-century Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. spoke for most of us: "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."

The prevailing ethos in this country is that we are the masters of tradition, not the servants. We treasure the customs and practices passed down from our ancestors. And we change them anytime we want.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



1 Comments | Post Comment
I have never understood delusion "libertarians" like Chapman, who is all in for expanding the power of the state when it makes him feel better. Because that is what he and the other gay marriage apologists are doing: extending the state-associated benefits of marriage to thousands who will abuse them.
Marriage is a positive right; it has become something bestowed by the state, like voting. When “denying” gay marriage, government is not forbidding anything; it is simply not extending the social benefits of marriage to individuals who choose to partner with those of the same sex.
Now one could say that government should not be in the marriage licensing business in the first place, and I would agree. But let's not overlook the reason for states co-opting of the institution of heterosexual marriage: any children which might result. The family unit is the most important sociological construct in the history of man. To say it has been wildly successful seems trite. So to extend the institution of social union of any type to homosexuals seems pointless, sociologically.
Moreover I can tell you some harm it would do. For every married gay or lesbian with a stay at home partner employed by the government, it will costs the citizens more. Of course we know there shouldn't be so many government jobs, but that is a trend that looks to be increasing. I admit it is a relatively small amount, but it is real.
There is also the idea that we are formally endorsing, socially and culturally, the idea of same sex relationships. (This is of course what the gay movement wants.) For what reason can government impose a condition that is to many religiously objectionable? Seems like some have found a weak point in the wall between church and state. I will have none for me, but thank you.
Finally the whole idea that marriage is a right is, well, wrong. A married couple is a collective of two. The couple do not have more or less rights together than they do as individuals. Any man and any women can each individually marry anyone else of the opposite sex, so gays can (and do heterosexually) marry, just not anyone of the same sex.
Comment: #1
Posted by: TM Owens
Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:42 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Steve Chapman
Aug. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 3 Sep 2014
Thomas Sowell
Thomas SowellUpdated 2 Sep 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 2 Sep 2014

1 Jun 2014 Obama's Conservative Foreign Policy

24 Apr 2008 Chicago's Misfire on Gun Violence

12 Nov 2009 Muslims and Mass Murder