Marriage Inequality – A Problem Caused By Redefining Marriage

How do you ensure that an airplane and an elephant have equal rights?

Huh?!?!??

Answer: You don’t.  An airplane and an elephant are different in so many ways that talking about equality between them is pointless.  The two are simply different, not unequal.

It is absurd to talk about equality between an airplane and an elephant until you first get rid of the difference.

Which is why I say that “Marriage Inequality” is a problem that is caused by redefining marriage.  The romantic union of two men is as different from a marriage of a man and woman as an airplane is different from an elephant.  The two relationships are not unequal.  They are different.  At least until you redefine them in a way that erases or obscures the difference.

The redefinition of marriage is the unspoken assumption beneath the debate on same-sex “marriage.”  It is a redefinition that has been going on with little or no thought in the United States for decades.  That redefinition is at the heart of the tidal shift with no-fault divorce in a previous generation.  It is also why cohabitation is on the rise in our country.  That redefinition appears complete - or at least dominant - and has happened to a great extent “under the radar.”  Unfortunately, the consequences of this redefinition are not so easily avoided or ignored.

If you would be willing to invest the time and energy, there is a deep and thoughtful reflection on this matter – from 2012 no less! – entitled What is Marriage? online by the journal Theology Matters.  You can get it at no cost by clicking here.

Here are the opening paragraphs:

What is Marriage?
Consider the two competing views:

Conjugal View:
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts — acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure,
including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.

Revisionist View:
Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life.  It is essentially a union of heart s and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.

It has sometimes been suggested that the conjugal understanding of marriage is based only on religious beliefs.  This is false.  Although the world’s major religious traditions have historically understood marriage as a union of man and woman that is by nature apt for procreation and childrearing, this suggests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the demands of our common human nature have shaped however imperfectly) all of our religious traditions to recognize this natural institution. As  such, marriage is the type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human reason, whatever our religious background. We argue in this Article for legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage, using arguments that require  no appeal to religious authority.

I’m willing to have the conversation on the nature of same-sex unions.  But we should be honest about the redefinition that the slogan “marriage inequality” assumes, and talk as well about the consequences that follow from this redefinition.