But I write in the past tense because Berry’s recent remarks make a
definitional move that this older essay didn’t foresee, and doesn’t even
seem to permit. They put a question mark after many of his earlier
statements. He has retroactively obfuscated his point about limits and
definitions. Here’s what I mean:
In his recent remarks, Berry
mocks the idea that “homosexual marriage is opposed to and a threat to
heterosexual marriage, as if the marriage market is about to be cornered
and monopolized by homosexuals.” He goes on to make the excellent
point, which is exactly in line with his decades-long argument, that
infidelity, divorce, and promiscuity without any regard for marriage are
the real problem. Marriage as an institution is breaking down around us
because it’s being done so badly. ”Heterosexual marriage does not need
defending… It only needs to be practiced, which is pretty hard to do
just now.” He has a good point, perhaps even the main point, and we’ll
hardly catch Wendell Berry cheerleading for the culture of sexual
self-expression and self-fulfillment.
But he does apparently move
to include homosexual relationships in the category of marriage (I
assume he is thinking of that status of permanent, lifelong commitments
between homosexual partners). That is hard to square with the language
and the direction of his “Use of Old Forms” essay.
via patheos.com
SEE ALSO
"Wendell Berry on God, same sex marriage and surface mining" (James Bruggers)