The Real Legal Picture

People who support the natural-conjugal understanding of marriage get used to being asked: 

Why do you oppose the rights of gay people to get married?

There are assumptions in this question which need to be addressed.

The Definition vs Rights Distinction:

The first assumption cuts to the core of the issue. It is the key to understand the whole thing.  I usually point it out by asking this question:

“Why do you oppose three-sided shapes being rectangles?"

The question is nonsensical. A rectangle is a shape with four sides and four internal angles. A shape with three sides does not have the same nature of a rectangle – and calling it one would be a confusion of terms.

That is … unless you had he US Supreme Court redefine the word “rectangle”.

That's the key to this whole thing. We are led to believe the question being debated is: "Who has the right to get married?"  But – strangely enough - both sides give the same answer to that question: Everyone.

The real issue in this debate is kept out of sight.  In part because the mouthpieces of our culture do not understand the issue, but also because asking the real question might expose the fraudulence of the popular rhetoric.  That question is:

"What is marriage?"

Once you start evaluating the issue from that standpoint, the entire landscape changes shape.  Instead of seeing this as extending the "right to marry" to a new group of people, you see that what is happening is the legal redefinition to conform to a new cultural philosophy.

Definitions Do Not “Ban” or “Outlaw” Things:

The rhetoric in our society is all about people trying to “ban gay marriage” and “outlaw” it. But let’s look at the issue from the standpoint of definitions… is that what is happening?

Let’s answer the question by pointing to some examples which most rational people would agree are not real marriages.  We can hopefully agree that a person cannot marry a dog, a dolphin, a building, or herself

The reason why a person cannot marry a dog, a dolphin, a building, or oneself is the same reason you cannot have a married bachelor, or a childless parent.  Those unions are incompatible with the definition and nature of marriage.

Marriage simply is the union of multiple humans.  So the union between a woman and a dog or dolphin cannot be that sort of relationship.  Applying the word “marriage” to these circumstances is just confusing the meaning of the word.  It would be like a three-sided rectangle.

So - given the fact that we define marriage an institution between multiple humans - is it accurate to say that our law "banned" or “outlawed” self-marriage, dolphin-marriage, canine-marriage, and edifice-marriage?

Nope.  When you “ban” something you are acknowledging the existence of a thing, and then make a rule that said thing is not allowed and anyone found in possession of that thing will be punished.

Well... look around.  Is anyone seeking to punish that woman and her dolphin? No, she can say she’s married to that dolphin all she wants.  All that just means is she’s confused about the nature of marriage.

So no, we have not banned those thing.  Those examples just don't exist in our legal and philosophical structure as metaphysical possibilities. They are not "banned" because there is nothing to ban. According to the law those things are impossible absurdities.

But what would we tell those people who are convinced they are indeed "married" in those ways? All we could do is say, "You're mistaken".  That is... unless those people had the government redefine the word.

All Definitions Discriminate:

Some will say that the natural-conjugal definition of marriage is discriminatory. Is it?

Well… yes. All definitions are discriminatory. That’s what definitions do – they draw distinctions between different things. A triangle is a shape with three sides and three internal angles. That definition discriminates against all other combinations of sides and angles.

So let's return to the "non-discriminatory" definition of marriage:

Marriage: (n): A mutually beneficial living arrangement between two romantically-linked adults which is recognized by the government.

Hmmmm.... why only two?  Isn’t that a form of bigotry against people who can't feel satisfied with one partner?

Why do they have to be adults? Isn't that discrimination against young people who feel ready to get married?

Why do we assume they must be romantically linked? Maybe some people want to marry strictly for economic reasons.  Perhaps siblings taking care of a parent?

People who support the gender-neutral redefinition of marriage assume their position is arrived at by removing all forms of discrimination. Not really. Just the one form of discrimination they don't like.

Same Access, Different Preferences:

The second assumption which needs to be addressed is the idea that people are denied the right to marry based on their sexual orientation.  This, people say, is the equivalent of denying women the right to vote – or denying African Americans the right to property.

But prior to the recent supreme court decision, were people denied the right to marry based on sexual orientation?  No.  In fact, the claim is demonstrably untrue.

Take, for example, the new series coming to Netflix called “Grace and Frankie”, or the older movie named “Brokeback Mountain”.  What do these stories have in common?  They both feature men who are same-sex attracted… and yet had wives.  

It is not unheard of for a man (or woman) to “come out” to his spouse after years of being married.  In these cases we can ask the question:  Are such persons gay?  Yes.  Were they married?  Yes.  So are people denied access to marriage based on their sexual orientation?  No.

This is one of the biggest and most offensive differences between the popular rhetoric and reality:

There was no inequality under the law between "straight people" and "LGBTQIA people".

Why? Because inequality means the law makes different rules for different groups of people. But with marriage, the law made no distinction between groups of people. It proposed one definition for everyone and no one was denied access to it based on their sexual orientation. 

The REAL situation is that some people’s sexual orientation disposes them to types of romantic relationships which do not fit the definition of marriage. Some may see that as unfair, but it isn't a civil inequality.

It will be no different now that the legal definition of marriage has been changed to gender-neutral. There will still be some folks whose relationships fall within the definition and others whose won't.  But the law will be the same for everyone.

This truth will be even more obvious when people start advocating for multiple-marriage using the same language of equality. What do you say to them?  Are people who are attracted to more than one person really unequal under the law? 

Of course, the next step is to say that marriage is whatever people want it to be. It is anything and everything. In which case it means nothing.

Relativity for Thee But Not for Me:

One common objection is the claim that marriage has always been subject to redefinitions.   (This is usually coupled with crude references to marital practices in the Old Testament of the Bible)  Thus, the person says, we should stop refusing to recognize the same-sex marriages.

There are two problems here:

First, the claim is made that the definition of marriage is a culturally relative and fluid.  Then the person insists society stop denying recognition of same-sex marriages.  But that demand itself makes reference to some absolute definition of “marriage” which is over and above what society says.

So which is it?  

This is generally how generally how these discussions go.  The person in favor of the gender-neutral redefinition simply asserts his/her own definition of marriage as absolutely and universally true... but never seems to realize it, much less explain why.  So questions like, “What do you think marriage is?  How do you know that is true?  Why should your definition be imposed on society?” are usually met with blank stares.

The second issue is that the crass examples (usually given from the Old Testament) all share one thing in common:  They are meant to unite men and women together in preparation for whatever children they produce.  That is the common thread that unites them.  That part of the definition has never been fluid.

The Ubiquitous Interracial Marriage Argument:

Advocates of redefining marriage say the natural-conjugal definition is like the laws banning interracial marriage. Does this objection work? 

If the goal is to scare people into silence: Yes.

If the goal is to make a valid comparison: No.

The difference goes back to the all-important rights vs definitions distinction.  The interracial marriage laws acknowledged that such unions would indeed be marriages, but criminalized forming them.

This is different from having a legal definition of marriage.  Defining marriage –(no matter what that definition is!) - means that some relationships that fall outside that definition are not considered marriages. 

For comparison, try imagining two laws: 

One bans tricycles with yellow aluminum frames and imposes penalties upon those making them.   Everyone agrees that a yellow aluminum tricycle is still a tricycle.  This is like banning interracial marriage – where you take a certain type of thing and ban it.

The other defines a tricycle as a three-wheeled, foot-powered vehicle. Would such a law render four-wheeled tricycles illegal? Will you go to jail for making a four-wheeled tricycle?  No, because anyone who knows the nature of a tricycle knows that such a thing cannot exist.  This is akin to defining marriage – no matter what the definition is.

So there’s why the two are not the same.  One bans real things based on irrelevant criteria, the other defines a thing properly.

But where exactly do we get that definition from?  We'll cover that next.

[BACK]