I am thrilled to see Andrew Sullivan actually enter into a debate defending his use of the word “Christianist.” I didn’t care for his brief comment in Time, but his followup today was much better and actually leaves room for argument. “Supplies!” as Kuni might say.

Someone asks him, well aren’t you just enforcing your morality about others enforcing their morality? He responds that’s he’s fine living with the intollerent, but:

My point is that such intolerance not be enforced by the civil law; and that the civil law be restricted to reflect non-sectarian moral arguments that can be assessed and debated by Christian and non-Christian, Jew or Muslim, Mormon or atheist alike. If we can achieve a broad moral consensus, good. If we cannot, especially over divisive religious disagreements, then neutrality is the better option. And neutrality exists. A law that allows legal abortion or gay marriage as well as adoption and straight marriage is neutral with respect to its citizens’ choices. It is not biased in favor of any one of them. If you have a moral objection, persuade and proselytize, don’t legislate.

We have laws against murder and speeding, and he’d probably say that’s because we have a broad consensus that those things are wrong. He would be right, but how do we interpret when there’s a “consensus” on an issue? In a democracy such as ours, the best way is to look at what the law is. When the people actually want change (women’s rights, civil rights for blacks, welfare safety nets), laws get changed. Sometimes the laws may not reflect every single poll, and that’s because people might think something is a non-awful idea, but is also not worth being a deciding factor in voting. If there’s a “consensus” that something might be wrong, but not a consensus that it should be changed, the rule of law demands that it be left unchanged. In our democratic system, the government follows the people, but slowly enough that their tempers have time to cool.

For example, present laws reflect a consensus that marriage is between a man and a woman. There are now polls showing a split opinion on the issue (especially since there are several options on most polls, so people can construct whatever sort of majority they’re looking for), but nowhere have voters decided it is an issue of importance to change that law. True, that intolerant law impinges on the ability of same-sex couples to marry, but doesn’t it also reflect a consensus that was, and the present consensus that we don’t want to change that law? So it is that same-sex marriage advocates who can’t win in the legislatures take their issue to the courts, where the consensus of the people doesn’t matter.

And let me just point out here that Sullivan himself does not want laws that are “neutral with respect to its citizens choices.” He argues against legalized polygamy, polyamory, and incest. As singular issues, I agree with him on those matters; there is a broad national consensus against them. But they are not neutral; they definitely make choices of morality for our citizens. Shouldn’t he just be content “persuading and proselytizing” conservative Muslim men to that they should only have one wife? Why is he fine legislating?

In short, I think he needs to explain the mechanics of his “consensus.”  Why is there a consensus against polygamy, polyamory, and incest, but not against same-sex marriage?  Why is he part of the former consensus, but he calls the defenders of the latter consensus “Christianists?”

Posted by Apollo in Conservatism