Christopher West: Brad Pitt reads from a misguided script

Brad Pitt and Marriage: is the Hollywood star’s latest pronouncement, this time on same-sex marriage, just another example of famous rich people saying things that sound really cool at the time?
This is the final installment of a short series of columns exploring the question: What is marriage? In the first installment, we looked at the union of man and woman as the foundation stone of life and civilisation itself.
In the second, we drew from 2,000 years of Catholic teaching to formulate a definition of marriage. Here, I want to respond to some of the challenges raised by those who see same-sex “marriage” as a matter of justice and equality.
Proposition 8 is an initiative on California’s ballot that would overturn that state’s decision to legalise same sex “marriage.”
Last month, movie star Brad Pitt made headlines when he donated $100,000 to fight Proposition 8.
The statement he offered typifies the sentiments I want to respond to in this column: “Because no on has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8.”
Who wants to deny people their rights? Who is for discrimination and inequality? It seems Pitt has everything on his side. But let’s apply some critical thinking to his statement and see where it takes us.
Admittedly, I will raise more questions than I will be able to answer in this short column. Still, I would argue that these are the questions that must be raised if we are to get to the heart of the matter.
No one has the right to deny another person his or her life, even though one might disagree with it.
I assume Pitt is referring to denying a person his or her “way of life.” Actually, courts do this all the time. In fact, that’s what courts exist to do. Courts exist to uphold and defend a “way of life” that serves the common good and to dissuade us from any “way of life” that does not.
The question at hand, then, is this: Is redefining marriage in accord with the common good? If not, the courts have an obligation to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and to dissuade us from any contrary “way of life.” Everyone has the right to live the life he or she so desires if it doesn’t harm another.
No reasonable person would agree to this statement without the disclaimer “if it doesn’t harm another.” The question then becomes: is the homosexual “way of life” harmful? Pitt simply takes for granted the widespread idea that it is not, and expects us to do the same. But the question remains: Is the homosexual way of life harmful? Courageous people need to ask this question and let the data – all the data – speak.
Discrimination has no place in America. Discrimination has become one of those buzz-words that is “indiscriminately” linked with injustice. It seems we have forgotten that there is such a thing as just discrimination. We “discriminate” – that is, we distinguish and discern by recognizing differences – all the time, and must do so.
Discrimination is unjust when the difference recognized has no bearing on the matter at hand. Discrimination is just – and required – when the difference matters. For example, it is unjust discrimination for the state to deny blind people the right to vote. It is just discrimination for the state to deny blind people driver’s licences (there is no universal “right” to drive a car; one must qualify).
It is unjust discrimination for the state to say a woman can’t enter the town hall. It is just discrimination for the state to say a woman can’t enter the men’s locker room at the local gym. So, is denying marriage to those of the same sex just or unjust discrimination? The question at hand is this: Does the sexual difference have any real bearing on marriage?
If it does not, any state denying marriage to those of the same sex would be drawing meaningless distinctions. But if the sexual difference is intrinsic to what marriage is, then we are dealing with just discrimination.
Finally, Brad Pitt says that his vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8. Who in his right mind is opposed to equality? But what does Mr. Pitt mean by “equality”? Does equality mean a bland sameness? Is there no place for meaningful distinctions? I’d say Brad is using the word “equality” indiscriminately.