What is the "right side" of history?

As I was reading on the Interweb today, I came across an article entitled: “Will Minnesota Voters Be on the Right Side of History?” The whole premise of this seems to encapsulate several assumptions that I have found in a large number of LBGT-agenda-driven arguments, so I'd like to respond to them, and by extension, to this article.  As I understand it, Ms. Chellew-Hodge is arguing the following:

1.       History has a “right side” and a “wrong side,” and we can determine ahead of time what arguments are on the “right side” of history.

2.       The debate about gay marriage is primarily concerned with the civil rights of gays and lesbians to marry whom they wish.

3.       Gays and lesbians serve their country and their communities with pride and distinction; therefore, they and their behavior should be accepted.

4.       Advocates of traditional values have no valid argumentation; all of their arguments detract from real “conversation.”

First, Chellew-Hodge begins her article with an assumption-ridden title asking if Minnesota voters will be on the “right side” of history.  What makes her believe that history has a right side?  Neither history nor culture is linear—if anything, it’s cyclical, a series of back-and-forth swings on a pendulum.  Thus, how can we be sure that culture will continue evolving as we currently see it evolving?  Even if it does, why does that mean that this evolution is a good thing?

The main problem with this argument is that it leads to moral cowardice.  Things that appear inevitable now become morally acceptable, regardless of their actual ethical content.  In Germany of 1930, the anti-Semitism and eugenics of the Nazi party may very well have appeared to be on the “right side” of history –yet they were still monstrously wrong.  In the deep South in the late 19^th century, Jim Crow laws and institutionalized segregation seemed culturally unchangeable—that doesn’t mean they were on the “right side” of history.

Second, the debate about the definition of marriage is not one of civil rights and especially not one of human rights.  Put simply, marriage is not a right—it is a social institution designed to perpetuate and reward behavior that society as a whole deems acceptable.  We do have a right to family: to live with whom we will, to love whom we will, and to have whatever children come from this relationship.  We have a right to whatever religious ceremony we wish to have performed (from those who wish to perform it), but we do not have the right to have this union recognized and rewarded by society as a whole.

Don't get me wrong-no one believes in the sanctity of the marriage covenant more than I do--as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I firmly believe that marriage for time and for all eternity is a blessing and the apex of the new and everlasting covenant with which we are saved (by the grace of Jesus Christ).  Nevertheless, when we are making public policy in a lone and dreary world and in a heterogeneous nation where many have divergent opinions, marriage must be treated as a social institution so that the morality of the majority can hold sway:

Therefore, when debating the definition of marriage, bemoaning the fact that some people aren’t accepted and cannot be rewarded for behavior that society disapproves of is not relevant.  Instead, we should approach the debate as one of pure morality: someone’s morality will be legislated, so we might as well be honest about it and legislate the morality of the majority, rather than obfuscate the whole debate with a smoke screen of “rights.” 

Third, while many gays and lesbians serve as model citizens and even heroes, this does not affect how homosexuality should be treated as a practice.  Chellew-Hodge infers  that since gays and lesbians are good people, we have to accept and reward their sexual deviances.  Using this vein of logic, I could also conclude that since plagiarism is conducted by many students who give to the community, that plagiarism should be rewarded.  Likewise, since many good parents eat their steaks very rare, that this behavior should be lauded and institutionalized.  Most gays and lesbians are good people: this does not mean that we have to reward (via marriage) all of their behavior. 

Finally, Chellew-Hodge falls into a trap that most gay-“rights” activists fall into: claiming that their adversaries have no part in any rational debate, and that any arguments they posit are simply homophobic:   “According to the Baptist Press, though, instead of a conversation, anti-marriage equality groups “will focus on two themes that have proven successful in other states: 1) children need mother and fathers 2)legalizing gay marriage will have negative consequences on religious freedoms and impact what is taught in elementary schools.”” [1] Rather than engaging these ideas on their own merits, Chellew-Hodge ignores the vast amount of data that support them.

Instead, she lightly dismisses these (and by extension, any argument favoring traditional values) as not part of any rational debate.  Of course, I can’t blame Chellew-Hodge specifically.  This instinct to demean all argumentation against her agenda is systemic: nearly all gay “rights” activists act this way.  This is because they wish to define “conversation” as meaning, “conversation with which I agree”. 

So what should we talk about in the debate about the definition of marriage?  In the end, the argumentation on both sides is normative, and the rational discussant will acknowledge the moral implications of all these points, recognizing that both sides have intelligent, passionate supporters.  This debate is inherently a moral one, and should be treated as such rather than as a group of intelligent, rational debaters lecturing a motley collection of hicks and ignorant religionists.

---