In an unconventional Constitution Day lecture on Monday, professor Peter Meilaender challenged traditional perceptions of two of America’s most iconic pastimes: democracy and sex.
“I’m going to take my start from the Obergefell decision,” said Meilaender, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision that the right to same-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution. He stated he had been “thinking about the Supreme Court case over the summer,” and felt it was an issue that would find interest among broad audiences.
Meilaender focused his lecture, not just on the Obergefell v. Hodges case, but also on the evolution of national sentiment that contributed to the case and its outcome. For the lecture, Meilaender drew heavily from the work of nineteenth century political philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville.
Meilaender contended “democracy … tends toward characteristic forms of vice,” specifically, vices that rebel against moral authority while maintaining a “tame and moderate” appearance.
“Of all temptations,” Meilaender argued, “sex is the most democratic.”
Meilaender discussed Constitutional interpretation, as well as the legal arguments surrounding the Obergefell decision. However, he concluded the “inner logic of democracy”—in other words, a cultural mindset inherent to democracy itself is a driving force in public opinion and policy on sexual behavior. Citing philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Meilaender proposed democracy’s thirst for liberty and equality can be taken to a harmful extreme, manifesting as “obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself.”
Junior Marta Gowett stated the lecture was “a little more political” than she expected, given the lecture’s title and advertising. She commented she appreciated the way Meilaender presented democracy’s flaws, specifically, the idea “because everyone has a say in what’s going on … if everyone is saying the same thing, even if it’s wrong,” then the majority’s opinion is likely to trump any external standard.
Psychology professor Paul Young praised Meilaender for “presenting [the lecture topic] in such a way that … it wouldn’t alienate people from a variety of opinions or perspectives,” but also avoided hypersensitivity. However, Young said he would have liked to see more connections drawn between the lecture’s “depiction of the American mind that comes from Tocqueville’s analysis” and constitutional interpretation.
The lecture concluded with an informal question and answer session where attendees engaged Meilaender on how Christians should approach the topic of same-sex marriage. When asked how, and if, Christians could resolve divisions of opinion within the church itself, Meilaender acknowledged that regaining a sense of “we” among believers would be difficult. He offered the tongue-in-cheek proposal that the American church could “take a vote, and somebody’ll win; somebody’ll lose. As you know, that has its virtues as well as its vices.”