Current Governor of Ohio, John Kasich, jumped into the vast pool of Republican presidential hopefuls rather late, but nevertheless merited a spot among the top ten candidates in the recent GOP debate (if we must persist in calling it a debate). He is doing well in the polls, and has the advantage of being from a key swing state, but it is unlikely that he will be the eventual Republican nominee.
During the debate, Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly asked Kasich how he would explain his opposition to same sex marriage to his own children if they were gay or lesbian. His response embodies almost everything wrong with the conservative response to gay marriage, but it is not unlike what many other Americans would have given. To his credit, and as many have praised him for since the debate, he did not come across as an angry bigot. While it may have helped win some votes for the Republican party, his answer did nothing for the argument against gay marriage.
He began by admitting, “I’m an old fashioned person and I happen to believe in traditional marriage.” This encourages the idea that the only reason for opposing gay “marriage” is simple good old-fashioned beliefs, probably of the religious kind. Of course, religious beliefs should be sufficient grounds for opposing gay marriage, but because Christians in particular have done a poor job articulating the rational basis for their faith, religion has become equated with irrational superstition.
Next Kasich agreed to accept the Obergefell decision. If a politician says he is against same sex “marriage”, as Kasich has presumably said previous to this debate otherwise Ms. Kelly would not have asked the question, and agrees to accept the Obergefell decision, as Kasich has, then what does it mean to be against same sex “marriage”? Does that then relegate the matter to the sphere of personal opinion and remove it from public discourse? In which case, why continue to talk about it? The issue becomes inconsequential.
Then he cited his attendance at a friend’s wedding “who happens to be gay.” This “cite a friend” tactic is commonly used by people after they say something racist in order to seem less racist. Kasich must have feared he would be accused of homophobia if he didn’t reference his friend’s wedding. In fact, his entire answer to the question is focused on avoiding this or similar accusations.
Rather than offering rational support for his position, he essentially surrenders to his opponents. And that is the crux of the problem with Kasich’s response. There is no rational support of the position given in the public square. That does not mean that rational reasons to oppose gay marriage do not exist, however, they were not given.
Conservative thinker Robert George of Princeton presents an argument for traditional marriage based upon natural law that our conservative politicians would do well to study. In an increasingly secular society we need to find ways of communicating our ideas to others without appealing solely to religion. The Church’s teachings are based upon faith and reason, not faith alone. Too many times when something is hard to explain or hard to swallow we take the easy way out and end the discussion with “that’s what the Church teaches,” or something similar. Robert George offers an alternative.
His argument is that marriage is a comprehensive union of two people of the opposite sex. Marriage cannot be between two men or two women or between more than two people because they cannot form one unit at the biological level as men and women do when they come together in the conditions for procreation. The value of marriage is realized in the complete sexual union of a man and woman. Furthermore, marriage is more than a means to an end, it is an intrinsic good. That means that marriage isn’t for the sake of having children, or receiving tax breaks, or bettering society. Although those are all consequences of marriage and good things, marriage is an end in itself.
Kasich’s next point was a strong one, “Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do, doesn’t mean that I can’t care about them or can’t love them.” This is true, and an important counter argument to the fallacy that disagreement with a person’s choices is the same thing as hatred for the person. Conservatives must be able to calmly defend their positions without displays of bigotry or malice. The message needs to be attractive.
Kasich then suggested that issues like gay marriage “are planted to divide us.” Gay marriage divides people regardless of whether or not Fox decides to ask questions about it. Furthermore, it should divide us. The family is the basic building block of society, as families crumble, so does society. If marriage is redefined once, what stops it from being redefined again? Fifty years ago, even the term “gay marriage” was inconceivable, and now it is legal.
A majority of the rest of Kasich’s response was dedicated to equating God and faith with love and acceptance. God is love, this is true; and Christ does teach us to love everyone, even our enemies. But Christians acknowledge that human nature is broken in the very first book of the Bible, hence human desires are often disordered. As St. Paul laments, “I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Rom 7:15). Love, therefore, is not accepting all human desires and choices, it is willing the rightly ordered good of the other. So yes, God does love despite sin and failure, but He does not encourage lives continued in sin, rather Christ’s exhortation is to repentance.
Although Kasich is unlikely to win the Republican nomination, last week’s response was stereotypical of conservative politicians when faced with similar questions. If we want to reverse Obergefell, we must first reverse public opinion, and that will not happen if an intelligent argument is not attractively articulated to the American public.
Jacquelyn Lee is a senior at St. John XXIII College Preparatory and plans to attend the University of Dallas in the fall to study Classics.
