The Semantics of Same-Sex Marriage

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
      Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
      What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
      Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
      Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
      What's in a name? that which we call a rose
      By any other name would smell as sweet;

Excuse the cliche in using such an overused quote. I've been working quite a bit on Romeo and Juliette at work lately. Shakespeare's plays really are beautifully written. I now realise how little I appreciated being made to study them back at school. The language is so fluid and vibrant and conjures to mind emotions that there don't even exist words for. Amazing.

Anyway, the reason that I mention this passage from Romeo and Juliette is because I've been thinking about the semantics of the Gay Marriage/Civil Union/Marriage debate recently and have found some relevant sentiments in the passage above. It seems to me that a large proportion of the religious community don't necessarily dislike or not accept gays but simply can't come to grips with them being 'married'. To non-religious types it might seem petty (it definitely seemed that way to me) however for the devout 'marriage' is a clearly defined term and doesn't recognise same-sex couples. This sort of objection is somewhat understandable I think, even if it is, perhaps, a little misguided.

On the other hand the queer community are not too concerned with definitions - they just want equal recognition (a fair and reasonable request). I doubt that same-sex couples would mind if they were claimed to be 'hoojamasmacked' instead of married as long as everybody else (including the straight community) were given the same label. The problem is that it is too late to simply CHANGE the word from 'marriage' to 'civil union' or anything else because 'marriage' already carries with it centuries of connotations. When people announce that they are 'married' they are referring to a ceremonial public legitimization of their love and often that is the extent of the definition. Whether wrongly or rightly the social use of the word 'marriage' has changed over time and has become less about religion and heterosexuality and more about social recognition. The change has already occurred and no amount of etymological fact-stating is likely to revert our use of the word to a previous definition.  So how do we live with this evolved (those opposed might prefer 'mutated') definition of marriage so that same-sex couples can enjoy the legitimization of their love without stepping on the toes of the religious?

Well firstly we must accept that if it is equality and legitimacy that we are after 'marriage' is the word to use; but we also want to distinguish between the marriage that is god-approved and the marriage that is not. (Notice that I'm using the word 'marriage' as it is used socially, not by definition: Given a narrow and traditional definition 'gay-marriage' could be considered an oxymoron.)  I suggest that a prefix be added to the beginning of the word 'marriage' when the ceremony is religious in nature. This prefix should be uniform within faith groups but be used primarily as a formality. For example Christians might choose to have a 'holy-marriage'. This type of marriage would be conducted in the presence of a religious figure and would be restricted to those that are willing to obey certain religious rules (e.g. Only heterosexual marriages, no polygamy, etc). Those who want to get married but are not religious simply get 'married'. This type of marriage is open to all as a primarily legal and social process. It entitles the married-couple to legal and social benefits but is secular instead of religious. 

Thus, everyone can get 'married'; it's just that some marriages are religious and others are not. It is my hope that under such a system the prefix would become a formality that is stated only rarely. In general public discourse a homo-sexual couple could proudly proclaim to be 'married' without contradiction in the same way that a religious couple could claim to be 'married' - the prefix would be either irrelevant (let's hope), or implied.

I think that this would mark a step in the right direction for equality. I doubt the non-religious would mind having 'holy' (or some other accepted prefix) absent from their title, and likewise the religious probably wouldn't mind having an expression of their faith ('holy' or otherwise) included in their marriage title. 

The main problem would be found in religious homosexual couples. There are certainly religious homosexuals that would prefer to have a 'holy marriage' than a regular marriage. . . what happens here? This is a problem for priests and religious figures to sort out. Perhaps certain priests will perform holy marriages between same-sex couples, perhaps not.  If not, however, I do not think that it is right to force religious figures to perform 'holy-marriages'. Subjectively speaking I don't see a problem with a same-sex religious couple having a regular marriage but still being active participants in their faith. If same-sex religious couples are denied 'holy marriage' in a religious institution it might be rather sad, however they could still have a religious-style ceremony at a regular marriage - there just wouldn't be the official prefix attached to their union. 

So what do you think? Is this idea plausible at all? Can you think of a better prefix than 'holy'? What other problems do you think that this idea might face if put into practice?

Voting

And now I vote.

Despite parental warnings that economic disaster awaits should Labor or the Greens come to power I will not be voting for the LNP. I just can't bring myself to vote for a conservative party and the so-called 'Liberal' National Party seems to me to be paradoxically conservative given it's 'liberal' title. The holding of values merely because they feel comfortable, because a certain generation has been taught a certain way and it seemed to work, is NOT a justification for these same values. What this amounts to is a conformity to custom. That is all. Until it is proven that allowing greater social freedoms (i.e. marry whomever you want, take whatever substances you want provided you are informed and do not harm anyone but yourself, terminate your life if you are rational and informed and no longer wish to live, etc) will cause the demise of the country I will assume that the naysayers are operating on hunches and guesses. Here's what Mill has to say on the matter:

In this age, the mere example of nonconformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which is contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of the time. (John Stuart Mill. pg64. 'On Liberty')

Mill applauds the eccentrics that the conservatives mock. The queers, the tree-huggers, probably even the conspiracy theorists, are praised by Mill for escaping the vice-like grip that cultural norms inflict upon us. It is not that these people are necessarily right - It's the fact that they have continued to think and question society that makes these thinkers so valuable. Mill drills the point home some more when he says: 

A people, it appears, may be progressive for a certain length of time and then stop: When does it stop? When it ceases to possess individuality. (John Stuart Mill. pg68. 'On Liberty')

I'm an arts student. I study philosophy. Whilst I try to engage myself in the economic discussion I am much more at home when discussing political ideologies. I want to vote for the party that maximizes liberty; I also want to vote for the party that encourages free-thinking and operates free of dogmatic belief. It is primarily the latter point that deflects my political compass away from the LNP. I am not convinced that the LNP are a bunch of free-thinkers. In fact it seems as if conservativism is fatally flawed in that it uses the thinking patterns of the past to influence decisions in the future. Isn't this obviously a closed-system with no room for progress or change? Hasn't every beneficial social revolution begun as a revolt again the norm? To accept the status-quo and advocate no discussion of change is to assume that we have reached the roof of our moral and political development - an overwhelmingly arrogant claim. The end of slavery and race discrimination would have once seemed like a 'radically progressive' ideal in the same way that allowing same sex marriage now seems, to some, like a 'radically progressive' ideal. The very fact that the idea of same-sex marriage seems 'radically progressive'  (or as Mill would say 'eccentric') to some shows to me that it probably has a lot of potential. All we need now is a discussion free of dogmatic religious influence (we are, let us remember, a secular country) and we may have a hope of coming to a conclusion. Unfortunately many of the anti-same-sex-marriage arguments amount to either a religious objection or an unjustified belief allowing same-sex marriage would cause everything that we hold dear to us to fall apart.

Fortunately there is a simple solution to our lack of consensus that is soundly based in science. When the results of a certain course of action are unknown (but may lead to immense potential gain) the scientist will perform an experiment. Provided the experiment is conducted under the correct circumstances the results of the experiment can confirm or deny previous hypothesis. So how do we discover the effects of same-sex marriage on the wider community - Simple, why not perform an experiment? Fortunately experiments in same-sex marriage legislation have already taken part here on earth and, perhaps surprisingly, the world didn't fall apart. In fact the academic literature on the subject is vast and easily accessible. A quick google seach delivered to me a recent study on the effect of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands on heterosexuals. (http://www.iza.org/conference_files/TAM2010/trandafir_m6039.pdf) It that found that:

"Same-sex registered partnership does not affect different-sex marriage negatively and the availability of an alternative institution increases the different-sex union rate."

For this reason I find it hard to believe that allowing same-sex marriage would have any significant negative effect on the heterosexual community.

This issue has been a large motivator in establishing who I will vote for, more-so than anything else. It might take an intelligent person to come up with a great monetary policy, but it takes an open minded, questioning person to come up with a great social policy. Arguably the LNP has better economic policies (I'm not sure whether this is true or not) and if so perhaps it points to a greater level of intelligence within the LNP compared to the Labor and Greens; However it is evident that the virtues of open-mindedness and questioning are to be found to a greater extent in the non-LNP parties.  A great philosopher is both intelligent and open-minded; but if I were to choose just one attribute I'd go with being open minded and questioning. Intelligence is wasted if the possessor of the intelligence is too close minded and unquestioning to apply it to anything worthwhile.   

#5 - Marriage Privatisation & Nietzsche

The way I see it there are 2 ways to achieve marriage equality in Australia:

1) Give same-sex couples the same marriage rights as straight couples;

OR

2) Take away the marriage rights of straight couples. 

It seems that option 1 gets far more coverage in the media, which is a fact I find interesting. What exactly is so important about marriage that abolishing the institution altogether is frowned upon so much? Perhaps it is my place in culture that makes it easy for me to question these things - I am told that marriage was taken much more serious 50 years ago. Now, however, people get divorced as much as they get married and the 'sanctity' of marriage isn't really apparent. The reason that I think people are hanging on to the marriage idea is simply because it is culturally ingrained into them. Here is a passage from Nietzsche that I think reflects this ideology perfectly:

Custom and what is in accordance with it.— To be moral, to act in accordance with custom, to be ethical means to practice obedience towards a law or tradition established from of old. Whether one submits to it gladly or with difficulty makes no difference; enough that one submits. We call “good" the man who does the moral thing as if by nature, after a long history of inheritance—that is, easily, and gladly, whatever it is (he will, for example, practice revenge when that is considered moral, as in the older Greek culture). He is called good because he is good “for" something. But because, as mores changed, goodwill, pity, and the like were always felt to be “good for" something, useful, it is primarily the man of goodwill, the helpful man, who is called “good." To be evil is to be “not moral" (immoral), to practice bad habits, go against tradition, however reasonable or stupid it may be. To harm one’s fellow, however, has been felt primarily as injurious in all moral codes of different times, so that when we hear the word “bad" now, we think particularly of voluntary injury to one’s fellow. When men determine between moral and immoral, good and evil, the basic opposition is not “egoism" and “selflessness," but rather adherence to a tradition or law, and release from it. The origin of the tradition makes no difference, at least concerning good and evil, or an immanent categorical imperative; but is rather above all for the purpose of maintaining a community, a people. Every superstitious custom, originating in a coincidence that is interpreted falsely, forces a tradition that it is moral to follow. To release oneself from it is dangerous, even more injurious for the community than for the individual (because the divinity punishes the whole community for sacrilege and violation of its rights, and the individual only as a part of that community). Now, each tradition grows more venerable the farther its origin lies in the past, the more it is forgotten; the respect paid to the tradition accumulates from generation to generation; finally the origin becomes sacred and awakens awe; and thus the morality of piety is in any case much older than that morality which requires selfless acts. (Human, All too Human 96)

This is one of my favorite passages of Nietzcshe that I have read so far and reflects the mob morality that I come across every day. Most people simply accept that there are things that are right and wrong without questioning the arbitrary tradition that has led them to this belief. It is these people that will repeatedly assert "But marriage is between a man and woman!" with the belief that they have genuinely asserted a statement of worth. I don't believe that these generations deserve abuse for what are now seen as outdated values; to quote Nietzsche once more:

Socrates and Plato are right: Whatever man does he always does the good, that is to say: that which seems to him good (useful) according to the relative degree of his intellect, the measure of his rationality. (Human, All too Human 102)   

Outside of philosophical circles it is quite rational to base ideals for the future on the successful ideals of the past. For this reason I don't think that it is fair to say that those who have a knee-jerk reaction against same-sex marriage are immoral or stupid or anything else like that. It is, however, blameworthy to keep a closed mind or refuse to acknowledge relevant details of a situation.

I'll keep this post brief because my desires to run off on a tangent are becoming unbearable. The point I am trying to make is that there is another often overlooked solution to the same-sex marriage problem that maintains equality. Contrary to popular criticism I do not believe that privatizing marriage would de-value it in any way, rather it would strengthen the bonds of marriage because of the personal ties that people could make. Perhaps marriage could still be a 'legal bond' in that the vows written by the wed-couple must be abided by or else an agreed consequence would occur but this really isn't the important part. The important part is the 'expressive aspect' of marriage discussed by Martha Nussbaum in 'From Disgust to Humanity'. Marriage expresses a a public declaration of love that not only proudly defines the persons involved but deserves recognition by the public. I do not believe that privatizing marriage would degrade this 'expressive aspect' of marriage at all.