Scruton on hope, truth, and same-sex marriage

The latest The Stone column is by Roger Scruton, with the suggestive title ‘When hope tramples truth’. There is not much to disagree with regarding his apparent main point, namely that we all prefer to hear good news over bad news, and that we have a strong tendency to seek confirmation for the beliefs we already hold rather than to actively look for dissenting opinions. In particular, the phenomenon of confirmation bias (and other similar cognitive tendencies) has been extensively documented by psychologists. So far, the piece is just trivial. (It remains nevertheless sound advice that, to counter confirmation bias, looking for counterarguments to the thesis one wants to establish is quite effective -- as philosophers know all too well but do not always practice.) 

But of course, Scruton has a non-trivial (and controversial) point to make, concerning his own ‘worry of the month’ (see the wikipedia entry for some of his other worries), namely same-sex marriage.

Optimists have therefore united to promote this cause, and, as is so often the case, have turned persecuting stares on those who dissent from it, dismissing them as intolerant, “homophobic,” “bigoted,” offenders against the principles of liberal democracy. Of course the optimists may be right. The important fact, however, is that hope is more important to them than truth.

Even if the first point is not to be dismissed outright – perhaps it would be better to have a less heated, less judgment-laden debate with the dissenting voices – the second point is entirely obscure to me. In what sense is being in favor of same-sex marriage more about hope than about truth? Can anyone explain to me the relevant meaning of ‘truth’ here? Does he mean the future truth (because pessimists such as Scruton are like Cassandra: prophets!) of the total erosion of the institution of marriage as we know it? How does that follow at all? And why would that be such a bad thing, actually?

For what it’s worth, take the case of the Netherlands, the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage in 2000. As it so happens, Prof. Scruton will be visiting the country next week, and will be able to observe for himself the effects of this historical decision. I’d be very curious to hear from him what he sees as the devastating effects of same-sex marriage in this country – unless, of course, he thinks that 13 years is not a sufficiently long time span for such effects to be observed.

More seriously, if his concern is with “fundamentally altering the institution” of marriage, then the question is: what would be so bad about it? There is much to rejoice in the fundamental modifications that the institution of marriage has undergone (at least in some places; think Saudi Arabia…) over the last century or so. In particular, and at least in theory, men are no longer the ‘legal guardians’ of their wives, and instead we have something that comes closer to a symmetric legal status between spouses. In other words, institutions are being fundamentally altered all the time, and marriage in particular has come a long way but still has a long way to go before it becomes a truly egalitarian institution. Same-sex marriage is a logical next step.