Utah’s recent ban on gay marriage has been repealed by Federal Courts. The claim is made that marriage can be redefined based on the sexual orientation of the couple in order to not oppress those who are homosexual. It is obvious that the courts do not follow the ideology of Immanuel Kant in making its decisions because when one analyzes what a categorical imperative entails and screens the maxims used to support the legalization of gay marriage through the qualifications, one will discover that it cannot be legalized morally according to Kant.
Kant explains the beginnings of morality as well as how to achieve it. He purports that nothing in and of itself can be inherently good minus goodwill itself; all things can be used for good and evil with that one exception. He affirms that the purpose of reason is to help mankind achieve and discover that goodwill because all of our needs as humans have attached to them instincts to spur us on to meet them, while goodwill is not a need per say. Reason helps us to understand goodwill and to find happiness by making moral decisions that adhere to our goodwill. Kant defines the highest sense of morality as a categorical imperative which has three formulations.
The first formulation is that a moral act must be universally achievable without instigating any sort of contradiction. Killing oneself out of self pity, for example, defeats the purpose of self pity in the first place and therefore contradicts the very meaning of itself. Therefore suicide is not moral according to Kant. Also, Kant does not allow exceptions to a rule, therefore killing oneself for some noble cause still would not qualify for him as moral. He would assert that not only under his first formulation, but also under the second, which is that a moral act cannot use other people as means only, as opposed to being an end in and of his or herself. The suicidist uses his own self as a means, and thus disqualifies his action for fitting the categorical imperative. The third formulation is that anyone who declares an act moral must be willing to abide by the same, thus creating what he calls a kingdom of ends. Each and every member of the kingdom must follow the moral code as logic calls for. This also shows that suicide could not be considered moral, because anyone who thinks it moral must abide by the rule and kill himself in order to be moral. Some actions will qualify partially as a categorical imperative by satisfying one or two of the requirements, but in truth all three requirements must be met in order for Kant to assert that the action is moral. That is why he included all three formulations in his definition of categorical imperatives.
To discuss the morality of legalizing homosexual marriage, one must remember the definition of the word to be able to seek contradictions in any maxim given to support or refute the notion. Marriage has been defined in different ways throughout the course of its existence, but has been understood as the unit in which families are created and raised and entails having multiple parents/spouses present. Some cultures have declared it to being between only one man and one woman, whereas other cultures have deemed it just for one man to marry multiple women. The idea of polygamy, if the kingdom of ends wants to find itself achieved, must allow for a woman to marry multiple men as well. For polygamy to satisfy the first formulation it must exclude the option of someone marrying someone else that is already married, or a situation could arise in which a man married to three women married to three men individually who in turn have married three wives apiece etc. Marriage would therefore be a formality and nothing more, and basically it would cease to exist, especially if we were to make polygamy universal. On the other hand, marriage between one man and one woman would be moral seeing that everyone can do so and no contradictions present themselves.
Now there are people that intend to call a homosexual relationship “marriage”. Essentially, they want to redefine marriage to fit their own purposes, while affirming to allow others the same option, and therefore passing the formulation of the kingdom of ends. However, they have opened up a new can of worms here: if one person can redefine marriage to satisfy their fancy, that means that everyone must be able to in order to fulfill the first formulation. If this is true, a man who desire to marry his dog could argue that marriage should not be limited to humans because animals have rights and he longs for his companionship to be legally recognized. Since the formulations cannot be conditional, regardless of how many people agree or disagree with him he must be given that right to choose. Going back to our previous example of polygamy, a polygamist could also argue that she is bisexual and desires to have multiple partners in her marriage of both genders; all seven of them love each other and wish to engage in a four man and three woman marriage. Marriage would then mean that anyone can group living things together regardless of number and the state must recognize it as a marriage. This creates a question as to why we have marriage in the first place if the definition is subject to drastic change to fit contemporary views or personal opinion. However, the idea of civil union, which differs from marriage and is designed for those who wish to live together but whose relationship does not qualify for the term “marriage” allows for such people to have that union without inciting contradictions in logic.
Taking the last maxim one step further, if one can redefine marriage, the maxim must be universal to qualify as a categorical imperative. Therefore, if a person can redefine marriage, they must also allow for the redefinition of other words as well. This maxim would disseminate the very utility of language. Granted, connotations have changed over time, such as the word “gay”, which used to mean “happy” and now suggests male homosexuality. The word was used in a different context as a euphemism and now the euphemism has overridden the initial definition as understood by society. That is very different from changing the word “borrow” to include stealing by calling theft “borrowing without asking”. If marriage can be redefined as including the option of homosexuality, then theft could become simply borrowing because it is close enough that we can begin to use the words interchangeably. Therefore, the concepts of stealing and borrowing become one, as would marriage and civil union. Mixing definitions creates contradiction.
Moving on from the legal semantics of marriage, let us discuss the universal implications of homosexual marriage. Seeing as those following Kant’s theory aspire to live in a kingdom of ends, they must live in a manner that everyone else can adopt as well. Therefore, a person who chooses to only live in a homosexual lifestyle cannot be a member of said kingdom because if the whole human race were to do the same we would have no following generations unless we were to force certain individuals to have children, thus making them a means and not ends. Remember that allowances cannot be made based on circumstances according to Kant, even if those circumstances are emotional and physiological differences or sexual preference. However, if everyone were to submit to the idea that marriage is heterosexual regardless of sexual orientation, no contradictions are present. The human race would continue on as normal despite the discomfort of some as moral decisions are known to cause anyway.
Let us say that Kant were to concede one violation of his rule of not making exceptions based on circumstance, and that violation is to allow morals to change based on sexual preference. Homosexuals claim the right to “marry” each other because they say that homosexuality is a natural inclination that they have. It is difficult for them to overcome it, and anyone who says that they must do so is an oppressor. Their claim written as a universal maxim would read: a person may do as he or she feels and be justified by morality. We have already discussed why homosexual unions cannot be universal, and this maxim follows suit. If human beings redefine morality to mean “how one feels”, serial killers can hold that they feel great pleasure in killing others. They can claim that it is difficult for them to overcome the urge, and therefore laws that prohibit murder are oppressive. As we can see, if we allow one group of people to decide that their struggle to accept one of Kant’s formulations for a categorical imperative and still call it moral, and we allow all others to do so, the purpose of the three formulations would fail. Therefore, there can be no exception made for homosexuals based on their emotions.
To conclude, in order to homosexual marriage to reach the status of a categorical imperative, the redefinition of marriage must be allowed in all instances based on how the person seeking to change the concept of marriage sees fit, and everyone must be able to act based on their emotions and physical desires without legal consequences. These maxims are self contradictory, and therefore homosexual marriage cannot exist morally as a categorical imperative.
