September 4, 2013 (MercatorNet)
- We have all, or nearly all, done it -- talked about "gay marriage" or
"same-sex marriage". But according to William B. May, who has been in
the thick of the marriage debate in the United States, that's a mistake.
MercatorNet asked him to explain.
* * * * *
MercatorNet: People trying to defend marriage know that
“same-sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms, nonsense in fact, but
isn’t it just shorthand for referring to an issue? What’s the harm?
William B May: The only reason there is a debate
about the legal definition of marriage is because of confusion about its
true meaning and purpose. Without truth about marriage, people take
positions based on emotion and sentimentality. To restore the truth
about marriage we must witness it in a way people can understand.
The first thing to consider is that no one is really proposing to put
something called “same-sex marriage” in the law. They take “a man and a
woman” and replace it with “two people.” That has consequences that
people are not considering. So be careful not to oppose something that
is not there.
When they eliminate “a man and a woman” from marriage laws it
eliminates the only civil institution that is specifically geared to
unite children with their moms and dads – the sole reason for marriage
being a privileged institution in the first place. That exposes the
hidden agenda and the truth about what is at stake.
Opponents argue that they don’t want to change marriage, and men and
woman can still get married, so what is the big deal. The problem is
that men and women are not getting married, and this has created a
crisis with increasing fatherlessness and associated consequences, and
an increasing number of children living in poverty. Removing this
child-centric institution from the law removes authority to actively
promote the unique value of men and women marrying before having
children. It makes it illegal for public institutions to do so and makes
it legally discriminatory for anyone else.
What should we say instead of “same-sex marriage”?
Using the term “same-sex marriage” is one of the traps we fall into.
It implies the issue is about participation in it by same-sex couples
and makes us sound like our only motive is to oppose their aspirations.
It is critical to educate people that the issue is redefinition, not
participation and that redefining marriage has consequences. Redefining
eliminates the only civil institution that is geared to uniting children
with their moms and dads. The issue should be whether or not we need
such an institution.
Why do the terms we use matter so much? Are there implications we are not seeing?
We live in a relativistic culture in which words mean different things
to different people. For example when you talk about children needing a
mother and father, or say that a married mother and father is good for
children, that statement may be true, but different people have
different understandings of what children need and what is good. This
invariably leads to a debate about outcomes for children and competency
in parenting, and who can do a better job, which escalates emotions.
Ironically this has little to do with the meaning and purpose of
marriage.
Being born into a family with mom and dad united in marriage is a
human right, as the Catholic Church teaches, and the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child implies (in Articles 7 and 9 ). Our moms and
dads are part of our identity and we carry their flesh for all of
eternity. With every right there is a corresponding duty to promote
respect for that right and in this case to promote civil marriage as the
foundation of the family of common ancestry.
It is also important for people to be able to distinguish between a
real human right, that can only be recognized by law and never created,
and a claimed individual right or license. A human right applies to each
and every person without exception. The human right of children to know
and, as far as possible, to be loved and cared for their moms and dads
is a right that can be known by both reason and our own desire for
connection with the man and woman from whom we originated. This is also
an experience of God’s plan for creation, but is not dependent in belief
in God.
What definition of marriage do you recommend we should use in debating this issue?
“Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children
born from their union.” That is what marriage is; that is what it does.
The trouble is that children and family have been disconnected from
marriage.
Factors include no fault divorce making it adult-centric, the
separation of sex from procreation and marriage, having children
becoming a life-style choice for personal fulfillment, and the
increasingly accepted practice of intentionally depriving children of
their moms or dads or both through assisted reproductive technology
(sperm and egg donation, and surrogacy).
Considering these factors, it is difficult for people to understand
marriage by discussing complementarity, procreation, motherhood and
fatherhood, etc. It must be expressed in its totality. In reality,
marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born
from their union. It is a fact, something that the law can only
recognise, not change. If the word is redefined in the law, marriage
will still exist, but will be no longer recognized in law as such. It
becomes discriminatory to advocate that is has any unique value to
society, at least under the name of marriage.
What do you think of the term “traditional marriage”? Is it useful?
I just use the word “marriage”, but I am careful to use it in a
context so people know what I mean. “Traditional marriage” communicates
what we mean but nothing about its true meaning and purpose in a way
people can understand. Traditional has a connotation of connection with
and holding onto the past. However, marriage is about the future.
How does this work out at the ballot box? How are referendums worded?
I have felt that defining marriage between a man and a woman in law
does not go far enough. The law in some way needs to imply its public
interest; clarifying that its purpose is more than recognizing loving,
committed relationships between men and women. Perhaps it should state
something like, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognize. All public institutions must promote its unique value as the
only civil institution that unites children with their mothers and
fathers.”
Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.
Opponents will object because it reveals the real meaning and purpose
of marriage. They argue that children raised by same-sex couples have a
right to married parents, but this changes the subject because every
child in this situation has lost their mom, dad or both. Arguments that
this could provide stability for such children implies that marriage is
merely a human creation for some sociological objective. Marriage is
about the free choice of a man and woman to make themselves
irreplaceable to each other in preparation to receive life as a gift.
Marriage is the foundation of the communion of irreplaceability we call
the family.
Opponents cause further confusion by saying marriage can’t be about
procreation because not all married man and woman have children. That
may be so, but every child has a mother and father and has a right, as
far as possible, to be born into a family with them united in marriage.
All married men and women engage in the same conjugal act, which is a
commemoration and renewal of the marriage vows. Even sociologists from
across the political spectrum agree that it is important to reestablish a
norm for men and women to marry before having children.
How can we stay on the front foot in debates on this issue? Can we ever avoid being labeled “bigot”?
When we use the term “same-sex marriage,” it immediately tells people
we are against someone and the so-called “rights” they are advocating.
It’s an unfortunate tactic of our opponents to attribute motives to
those defending marriage in an effort to seek sympathy, discredit, and
intimidate. Avoiding the use of the term and instead focusing on what we
are for will help greatly.
We can understand the sincere desire of some people to have same-sex
relationships recognized, but marriage would have to be redefined in the
law in a way that eliminates the only civil institution that unites
kids with their moms and dads. How can anyone justify that? This issue
is not about homosexuality at all. It is about whether marriage is a
reality that not only unites a man and a woman with each other, but with
any children born from their union.
What opponents are really proposing is that marriage be redefined in
the law to be merely an institution for recognizing committed
relationships for the benefit of the adults. What is the public interest
in that? We love talking about other people’s sins, so it takes
discipline to avoid getting drawn into a conversation about sexual
ethics and personal behavior and stay focused on the reality of
marriage.
Actually, the marriage redefiners seem to agree with you. They
don’t use “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” either, but talk about
“marriage equality”. Why do you think that is?
Their research shows that 58% of people in the US already believe that
the purpose of marriage is to recognize committed relationships for
adults. So all they have to do is to say same-sex couples want to marry
for the same reason anyone else does.
The current understanding of marriage is one of the factors
contributing to the fact fewer people are marrying and more than half of
children born to women under 30 are outside of marriage. This is a
crisis that is touching almost every family. The focus must be on
changing current ideas about what marriage is for the benefit of society
and our own families instead of focusing on why same-sex couples don’t
qualify.
I imagine that marriage redefiners don’t want to use the term
“same-sex or gay marriage” because their current approach is more
effective, and the terms conjure up “anti-gay” feelings.
William B May is president of the United States organization Catholics for the Common Good
and played a prominent role in the Proposition 8 effort that
successfully restored the definition of marriage between a man and a
woman in California – since overturned by the courts. He is the author
of Getting the Marriage Conversation Right, a Guide for Effective Dialogue .
