As I sometimes drive around and hear the various talk shows on the radio I have noticed the lack of understanding of conservative talk show hosts in defending marriage. They seem to totally be missing the basic grounding of the the natural law or at least unable to make an argument based on that appeal. Their main thrust is the belief that marriage between one man and one women is the traditional understanding, a time honored arrangement and definition. While in many cases something becomes traditional because it conforms to the natural law, to only go back as far as the historical argument is insufficient. The argument based chiefly on traditional understanding and definition of marriage fail to be persuasive in this culture. Talk show hosts are not the only ones lacking in the understanding of what the natural law is, but so is the majority of the country. Relativism has made many at least agnostic if not downright hostile to natural law theory.
The arguments on the side of homosexual marriage are just as shallow. Sometimes I think I woke up in the bearded Spock universe. We have a Republican President expanding government programs and liberals are all of a sudden advocates for state rights. Though this new found respect for state laws doesn’t seem to expand to California where the same people are jumping for joy at the San Francisco’s mayor thumbing his nose at state laws. Another argument I heard against the Federal Marriage Amendment was that Constitutional amendments historically were trending towards expanding rights to people. Though I am not sure how outlawing slavery, creating an income tax, and limiting presidential terms is an expansion. The whole idea of considering the merits of an amendment based on trends is silly. Another argument I heard was that if you don’t like same-sex marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex. I guess if you didn’t like slave ownership you should just not buy one. What passes for rational arguments in societal debates is truly sad.