A proposal to legalize same-sex marriage in Britain in 2014 has passed its first major hurdle to becoming law when the lower house of Parliament passed the proposal 400-175 on Tuesday.
British law already allows for civil unions, which offer the exact same rights and privileges of marriage. Since same-sex marriage is already recognized in England in-all-but-name, the legal ramifications of this law should be negligible. The real impact of this law will be social. I’ll explain how, but first let me make the case against calling same-sex unions “marriage” even if they enjoy the exact same rights afforded to married couples.
Treated as equals vs. being thought of as equals
Personally, I oppose any legal recognition and/or regulation of same-sex relationships, including civil unions. If you are going to create civil unions as an alternative institution to marriage, however, it is foolish to make it identical to marriage in every respect but the name. It’s like saying “you can work at the same place I work at, make the same money I make, get the same health insurance I have, but you can’t call it a ‘job.’”[1] Nevertheless, that is what England and other countries (including various states in the U.S.) have done. They have created two institutions that are identical in all-but-name.
Homosexuals have always said they just want the same rights as everyone else, so you would think that same-sex couples would be happy that they have secured the exact same rights as opposite-sex couples. Such is not the case. Now that they are being treated as equal, they want to be thought of as equals too, and see the difference in name as an impediment to achieving this social goal. They argue that a difference in name implies that the two institutions – while legally identical – are still somehow different. Furthermore, the reluctance to call identical institutions by identical names implies that the relationships of those in one institution are inferior to the relationships of those in the other. They are partly right. A difference in name does convey that the two institutions are somehow still different, but “different” does not necessarily imply that one is superior to the other. As I’ll argue momentarily, people are reluctant to call same-sex relationships “marriage” because they believe the term specifically describes a particular kind of union – one that same-sex couples are incapable of forming.
While I am sympathetic to the “re-namers’” perspective, I still think a better case can be made for calling the two legally-identical institutions by different names.
A faulty presupposition
Those who claim civil unions that are identical to marriage in all-but-name must also be called “marriage” seem to presuppose that providing identical benefits to different groups requires that any and all distinctions between those groups be eliminated. This is demonstrably false. The Great Ape Project is attempting to obtain legal rights for apes that equal those of man. If they succeed in doing so, would that mean we must begin calling apes “men.” No. They do not qualify for the name “men” because they are by nature something very different from men, even if they come to enjoy the same rights that men enjoy. In a similar way, just because the rights of those who participate in the institution of marriage have been extended to same-sex couples does not mean we must describe the union of same-sex couples as “marriage.”[2] The only reason to call both unions “marriage” is if both unions can be properly described by the term “marriage.” Such is not the case, and thus we ought to call each union by different names.
Most people recognize that “marriage” means something in particular. Historically speaking, marriage has always been understood to be the kind of relationship involving a union of sexual opposites with a natural propensity for reproduction. It’s obvious that same-sex relationships, by nature, are simply not of the marital sort. While many people are willing to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, they are not willing to redefine the institution of marriage because doing so would gut marriage of its historic meaning. To forge a definition of marriage that accommodates both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the lowest common denominators must be sought. “A union of sexual opposites with a natural propensity for reproduction” would have to be reduced to something like “a union of two people” to make that accommodation. In doing so, the concept of sexual complimentarianism and the strong connection between marriage and reproduction – so vital to the historic concept of marriage – simply vanish! That’s why even those who think same-sex couples should have the same rights as married couples are not willing to call their relationships “marriage”: Marital relationships have not changed, and thus they see no reason to redefine the historic understanding of a marital relationship out of existence simply to accommodate the desires of same-sex couples who want to use that name to garner social approval of their relationships.
The fact of the matter is that there is nothing inconsistent with holding (1) that “marriage” only refers to relationships involving a union of sexual opposites with reproductive potential, and (2) that same-sex relationships should receive the same rights and responsibilities married couples enjoy. One could argue that while same-sex couples should have the same rights as married couples, the term “marriage” does not properly describe their union, and thus their union should not be called a “marriage.”[3] Calling their union by a different name does not imply that it is inferior to marriage, but simply different than marriage. This approach preserves the historic understanding of marriage, while at the same time giving same-sex couples the same benefits enjoyed by married couples.
What’s in a name?
The fact that the two unions function differently in society is another reason for calling the identical institutions by non-identical names. While both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are capable of loving and committing to one another, only a union involving sexual opposites is capable of producing children – a function that is vital to the perpetuation of society. Since there is a socially significant difference between the two types of relationships, we are fully justified in making a nominal distinction between them as well. “Marriage” should be reserved for the kinds of unions that contribute to the continuation of society, while other kinds of unions should be called by a different name such as “civil unions.”
This is nothing new. We have always made a nominal distinction between marital relationships and other kinds of relationships. We call relationships between blood-relation “family,” relationships between non-blood-relations “friendships,” and business relationships “partnerships.” To say same-sex relationships should also be called by a distinct name is wholly in line with existing practice. Given the distinctives of their relationships, their unions should no more be called “marriage” than non-blood relationships.
A third reason for calling two non-identical things by different names is because calling two non-identical things by the same name breeds confusion. This is the social impact I spoke of earlier. When marital relationships and non-marital relationships are both called “marriages” and the definition of marriage is adjusted accordingly to strip it of its historic connection to sexual complimentarianism and reproduction, society will inevitably lose sight the purpose and significance of “traditional” marital relationships. As J. Budziszewski wrote:
Words must square with things. Things do not change natures just because we change the words by which we refer to them. We might decide to call dogs “cats,” but we would not thereby succeed in turning dogs into cats, because dogs and cats are different kinds of realities. In the same way, we might decide to call same-sex liaisons “marriages,” but we would not thereby succeed in turning these liaisons into marriages because they too are different kinds of realities.
You might think that if what I say is true, and the characteristics of things are not changed by the words that we use for them, then it makes no difference what words we use for them. Not so. It does make a difference. Although we cannot change dogs into cats, we can confuse ourselves by calling dogs cats. In the same way, although we cannot change same-sex liaisons into marriages, we can confuse ourselves by calling them marriages.[4]
There’s much more to a name than its phonetics. Words have meanings. Words refer to specific things. When X refers to Y, but we call both Y and Z “X,” we will ultimately confuse ourselves about the nature of Y and X will lose its meaning.
There are good reasons for reserving “marriage” to refer exclusively to opposite-sex couples, and those reasons do not involve value judgments concerning homosexuality, or imply the superiority of opposite-sex relationships.
[1]As I’ve made the case elsewhere, there is no reason for the government to regulate same-sex relationships in any manner. But if a government chooses to do so, and chooses to afford them with the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities afforded to marital relationships without also calling their unions “marriage,” they are inviting the charge of discrimination and setting themselves up to lose the inevitable legal battle to reserve the term “marriage” only for those relationships that conform to the historic understanding of “marriage.”
[2]By employing this analogy, I am in no comparing same-sex couples to apes. It is an analogy to establish a principle, not a comparison.
[3]This is not my own view. Personally I think it is unjust to provide two unequally situated parties with identical benefits. My point is merely that one can support equal rights for same-sex couples, and yet appropriately refuse to call their relationship “marriage” because their relationship fails to satisfy the historic understanding of what constitutes a marital relationship.
[4]J. Budziszewski, “The Illusion of Gay Marriage” Philosophia Christi 7 (2005): 45-52; available from https://bearspace.baylor.edu/Francis_Beckwith/www/Sites/same-sex.pdf; Internet; accessed 6 February 2013.
February 8, 2013 at 5:34 pm
There is only one true way to stop squabbling over same-sex, opposite-sex marriage and one I fully agree with. Eliminate marriage altogether! Marriage,simply put, is an Institution whose time of demise has arrived; marriage is no longer relevant in secular society. Marriage is supported only by Religion (whose time to die has also arrived) and Businesses like DeBeers, Barbie Dolls, the Fashion Industry and Wedding Planners. Diamonds, Decor and Demons for Dollars.
Sexuality has always been the centre of control in every society since the year dot and today’s society is no different and cannot keep their hands off needing to cite the chronological stroke of midnight to determine the sexual reproductive viability as far as age determination is concerned.
Sexuality on the other hand was always so offensive to so many people that the only way for it to be allowed whatsoever was to find a way to legitimize sex. Thus was Marriage invented and later as secularism evolved the Marriage License was invented by government as to take come control of the sexuality issue and make some tax dollars at the same time; why let the Church rake in all the money available in the Marriage Façade of Religion?
LikeLike
February 8, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Leonardo,
Marriage itself is a pre-political, natural institution. It can never be done away with. What could be done away with is the government regulation and privileging of marriage relationships. But libertarian, Jennifer Roback Morse, points out, this would be disastrous for society. She argues that:
1. “It is not possible to privatize marriage.”
2. “The attempt to privatize marriage will not result in an increase in freedom, but will actually increase the role of the state.”
3. “Attempting to privatize marriage will perpetrate great injustices to children.”
I summarize her argument here: bit.ly/YLuHHp.
Of course societies have needed to regulate sex. If sex is not used properly, it can have disastrous results in society. Look at our own sexually liberalized culture. What has it resulted in? More venereal disease and more kids being raised in one-parent homes, which has deleteriouis social effects.
Jason
LikeLike
February 9, 2013 at 4:33 pm
That marriage is pre-political is rather meaningless really: That’s like saying marriage is pre-government, pre-state, pre-family even?. The natural institution you refer to is not marriage; the natural way of the human experience is the consummation of sexual union, marriage was merely the term that conceptualized human nature and made it into what we call the “Institution” of marriage. Jesus alluded to this in his answer regarding divorce: ““Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what Good Nature has joined together, let not man separate.” (read) “joined together” Institution of man’s marriage; “divorce” institution from man’s marriage.
Jennifer Roback Morse is very cute in her phrase that it is not possible to “privatize marriage” but the very essence of the institution of marriage is the “privatization of marriage” that the dogma of religion has imposed on the world view. And she is quite correct that privatization of marriage has not resulted in an increase in freedom because it never could; an increase in freedom has come about when marriage began being undermined by what is secularly referred to these days as “Common Law” union which oddly enough parallels exactly the Jesus reference.
It is worth noting that there is no common law anymore in Alberta, Canada: Most people would be surprised to hear that there is no such thing as living “common law” in Alberta. The federal government recognizes “common law” relationships for income tax purposes, but the Alberta government does not.
In Alberta, the phrase Adult Interdependent Relationships (“AIRs”) is used instead of common law.
AIRs are actually a bit different from what most people consider as a common law relationship. For example two people living together in a non-sexual relationship of interdependence may have the same legal obligation as a couple.
If you are a common law Alberta adult independent partner, you have the right to spousal support and various estate rights.
If you rely on your adult independent partner for financial support and your adult independent partner passes away, you are entitled to support from your adult independent partner’s estate, just as if the two of you had been married.
If your adult independent partner dies without a will, you are entitled to the same share in your adult independent partner’s estate as if you had been married.
You can end an adult independent partnership by written agreement, by living separate and apart for one year, by getting married or by entering into an interdependent partner agreement with another person.
Neither gender nor sexual orientation enters into this new arena; two sisters or two brothers can have this union or any two human individuals.
And finally in response to Morse’s privatization of marriage, that is exactly what has happened because of the Church’s attempt at privatization of marriage: the biggest injustice on the children who were born out of the privatizatin of marriage(wedlock) and were therefore ostracized as bastards of society. Thank goodness secular sense is prevailing at long last and human relationships can return to nature’s intended union.
Regarding your idea about “of course sex not used properly…” but that’s just the point isn’t it when the so called self righteous of society believes it is in everybody’s interest to follow what they deem to be the righteous way; religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business.
More venereal disease is about as smart as saying more mouths to feed in a population of 7 billion compared to; say, A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987). During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion and already in the early 21st century e have reached 7 billion.
The causes of STDs are bacteria, parasites and viruses and to suggest that more venereal diseases are caused by a sexually liberated culture is an inert argument. On the other hand it is worth noting the newest vaccination against the STD: Most cervical cancers are caused by the sexually transmitted infection human papillomavirus (HPV). Widespread HPV immunization, however, could reduce the impact of cervical cancer worldwide.
And guess who is against this? Religionists!
The use of HPV vaccinations as a method to prevent cancer has scientific support. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “every year about 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and 4,000 women die from this disease in the U.S.” By stopping the transmission of the disease, the HPV vaccine is a way of preventing cervical cancer.
Haley is not the only republican to backtrack from earlier support for the vaccine. In 2007, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) mandated the vaccine for young girls through an executive order. But when he was running for president, his GOP competitors blasted Perry for supporting the mandate. Perry eventually rescinded his position, and, like Haley, said that his support for the mandate was a mistake.
Schoolgirls are being denied a potentially life-saving cervical cancer jab at their schools on religious grounds.
Some schools in England have opted out of the HPV vaccination programme because their pupils follow strict Christian principles and do not have sex outside marriage. The jab guards against two strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV) virus – 16 and 18 – which cause 70% of cases of cervical cancer. It is offered routinely to girls aged 12 to 13.
The wall against the elimination of STD’s? RELIGION naturally. Religion is a conspiracy against health, beauty, well- constitutedness, bravery, intellect, benevolence of soul, against life itself.
LikeLike
February 12, 2013 at 10:37 am
[…] Britain, now France. France has allowed civil unions that confer many of the benefits of marriage since […]
LikeLike
March 13, 2013 at 1:03 pm
“why let the Church rake in all the money available in the Marriage Façade of Religion?”
Secular businesses and governments make far, far more money on marriages than the Church…
“That marriage is pre-political is rather meaningless really: That’s like saying marriage is pre-government, pre-state, pre-family even?”
It’s certainly not meaningless in the context of this discussion. Pre-government, pre-state, sure. Pre-family…?
“the natural way of the human experience is the consummation of sexual union”
Is that from an anthropology textbook? You might want to elaborate.
“marriage was merely the term that conceptualized human nature and made it into what we call the “Institution” of marriage”
Yes, what we term as marriage now is a fundamental part of human nature and society, that transcends politics. You basically agree with Jason then.
“the very essence of the institution of marriage is the ‘privatization of marriage’ that the dogma of religion has imposed on the world view”
…What?…
And what was the purpose of the AIR description?
“the biggest injustice on the children who were born out of the privatizatin of marriage(wedlock) and were therefore ostracized as bastards of society. Thank goodness secular sense is prevailing at long last and human relationships can return to nature’s intended union”
Being ostracized has nothing to do with the privatization of marriage. It’s just a social attitude/behaviour, and can just as well occur with state-run marriage. Are you saying that secular rejection of marriage altogether is prevailing and is beneficial for the children? Yes, because thank goodness for all the children born outside of committed, parental unions? Or that *is* what you want, but as a more generalized union that is not specific to mother and father? Maybe you could be more clear, but I don’t see any benefits for the children there.
“Regarding your idea about ‘of course sex not used properly…’ but that’s just the point isn’t it… religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business.”
No…no that wasn’t the point at all. But you apparently felt the need to interject with that, before continuing on to address his original point anyway.
“More venereal disease is about as smart as saying more mouths to feed in a population of 7 billion compared to…”
You’re obviously interpreting it is the number of cases, where it’s reasonable to assume Jason was referring to prevalence, which is hard to argue regarding the facts.
“The causes of STDs are bacteria, parasites and viruses and to suggest that more venereal diseases are caused by a sexually liberated culture is an inert argument”
How on Earth is that an inert argument?? Yes, STDs are caused by those pathogens… And they are spread largely by sex! It’s common sense that a sexually liberated culture leads to far more networks of sexual partners to spread disease. And then you spend the rest of your comment talking about several specific objections to specific vaccine plans. And then conclude with:
“The wall against the elimination of STD’s? RELIGION naturally. Religion is a conspiracy against health, beauty, well- constitutedness, bravery, intellect, benevolence of soul, against life itself.”
Leo, you make it difficult to take you seriously at times. You seem so clouded by antireligious rhetoric and demonization as to not understand reality in a whole and reasonable way.
(Apologies in advance for how long and messy this response may appear when posted)
LikeLike
March 13, 2013 at 5:54 pm
David:
Indeed your response IS messy: but could not be otherwise since you could adequately refute anything I wrote.
“Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people….” This is what marriage was in the beginning; first, by common sense and secondly by biblical acknowledgment:
“Have you not read that nature …. at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife(sexually), and the two shall become one flesh’(sexually)? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.(sexually)
Do you suppose he is talking about a couple holding hands? lol
That children were ostracized as bastards out of wedlock was a religious denigration.
“Yes, STDs are caused by those pathogens… And they are spread largely by sex!”
How did the pathogens begin to be spread largely by sex? How did the pathogens originate? Obviously the pathogens did not need sexual activity to originate so the fact that they utilized sexual activity says more about the pathogens than the activity they employed to transmit.
STI’s have absolutely nothing to do with human sexuality so please don’t try to condemn human sexuality because of the pathogens that take advantage of the activity to procreate themselves. How can you blame human sexuality for the germs that infect them; OMG if that is not the lowest, most callous form of self righteous religionists; it is no small wonder why religious insanity is responsible for so much death on the planet blaming humans for the pathogen infections humans contract!
Get a grip on reality David…….
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 12:07 pm
[…] rights and responsibilities as marriages, so this is just a name change for them. But there is something to be said for a […]
LikeLike
August 4, 2015 at 7:54 am
[…] Why the word “marriage” is worth fighting for: Britain is one step closer to legalizing same-sex… […]
LikeLike