Colin Gunton, in The Promise of Trinitarian Theology,
notes “that the capacity of language increases by a process of de-synonymy;
that is, the process whereby two words which are in the beginning synonymous
take on different shades of meaning, and are so able to perform different
functions.” (Gunton, 10)
Sadly, the opposite is also,
too often, very true.
My children and congregations
have long-wearied of my insistence that “Words mean things.” As a corollary, though,
“for the thing you want to say, there is likely a word already.” As Gunton
advises, there may, in fact, be several words that mean what you’re trying to
describe. Unfortunately, very few others may ever have heard any one of the
particular words for what you want to say. (And, although Webster is still
selling dictionaries, most of us are happy to smile and nod until we find more
comfortably convenient vocabulary in use.)
Frequently, though, a single,
more common word may describe a broader, more complex reality, with the
unintended result that, rather than one definition that fits multiple words,
one word now has multiple definitions. These definitions may or may not
overlap. They may even contradict each other entirely. But which is it?
“Which is it?” That is the
central question remaining unaddressed in the current debate over what we have
been calling “Gay Marriage.” Which “marriage” are we talking about?
Once upon a time, (c.1300,
according to etymologists), we adopted a Latin term into English, not merely
signifying the relationship between two individuals, but specifically
referring, in both its verb and noun forms (“to marry,” and “marriage,”
respectively) to the natural result that offspring were produced by the
physical union of the two individuals.
Retroactively applying that term and its
concepts in translation of Greek and Hebrew texts, it applies to the earliest such
joining described in the Hebrew scriptures: Adam and Eve (Or, as would be
fitting in Genesis
5:2, the two halves of “Adam,” a term identifying humankind as a
whole, as well as the male individual of the original couple.) This resulted in
a condition that, for most of twenty centuries, has been celebrated as a
sacrament of the Christian Church in recognizing the intent of such couples to
procreate. Thus, for most of Western cultural history, the word marriage was
defined without much controversy.
As our story progresses,
though, there were other issues to consider, not least of which were the
benefits of such unions, their offspring, and the mutual care of these groups
(we call them, generally, “families”) for one another. Over time, these groups
were even seen to benefit the broader society, and were encouraged through
social and financial benefits that were unavailable to individuals and/or other
groups who did not conform to the scriptural pattern adopted. What became
confusing (long before any discussion of “Gay Marriage”), however, is that the
socio-political encouragements resulted in a state-sanctioned institution that
has progressively deviated from the origins and character of the sacrament of
marriage.
Today, then, the word
marriage applies not only to the Church-ordained sacrament that reflects
biblical descriptions of a particular relationship, it also has been applied to
the legal/political status of a variety of other relationships, so long as they
are registered with the state authorities in order to receive particular
benefits in what could more accurately be called “contractually-obligated
domestic partnerships.”
The confusion and
consternation that surrounds the term Gay Marriage has resulted from allowing
the word marriage to migrate in meaning to encompass at least two aspects of
human relationships: one, a specific, narrow, religiously-constrained sacrament
between two individuals who intend (and are presumably capable) to produce
offspring; the other, a legal status afforded to some of those couples and
others who register with the state in order to receive specific benefits.
In light of the above, perhaps
it is still confusing to state, “There can be no such things as ‘Gay Marriage,’
in that the relationship celebrated in the sacrament involves two individuals
who intend to produce offspring,” while maintaining that one’s socio-political
belief in equal protection (and equal availability of benefits) under the law
require their extension to any who are willing to register their
“contractually-obligated domestic partnerships” with the state.
Granted, some will want to
continue to offer preferential status to one or another category of these
relationships as more or less beneficial to the purposes of the state. My view
of our shared history is that these segregations have universally caused
significant damage to our society as a whole, in its various segments, and to
the individuals it comprises. I see a greater benefit to equal protections and
benefits for all.
As one among many Christians
who inadvertently perpetuate the confusion of marriage with “marriage,” as it
applies to state-sanctioned benefits (In my defense, the IRS offers only the category
of “Married, filing jointly” as the nearest description of my twenty-nine year
relationship with Shelly Annette Myers.), let me reiterate my apologies as well
as my repentance. Linguistically, the problem is not that we are calling
“marriage” that which cannot be a marriage. It is that we have, for so long,
used the term “marriage” to describe our enjoyment of preferential benefits as
heterosexual couples who have registered their contractually-obligated domestic
partnerships with the state.
We should stop. Or allow
others the same privileges.
5 comments:
Helpful article, Bill. Distinguishing between the Christian sacrament and the legal contract recognized by government provides perspective. I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, but I don't strongly disagree either. Charlie M.
Thanks, Charlie. I appreciate the encouragement.
The purpose of language is to communicate clearly. Marriage communicate something that has the weight of both history and culture - it involves the union of a man and a woman. It is declared publicly - which is important for society. Reducing the concept of marriage to a civil versus a religious distinction doesn't do justice to what it communicates. As you said, society has an interest in marriage. People who procreate have a responsibility to society. Blurring the definition based on an non-procreating few hardly benefits society as a whole. At a time when society was becoming fairly supportive of recognizing civil unions (which answers the civil equality question), the intrusion of homosexuality into the centuries-old understanding of marriage is an necessary overstep. It would not be so big an issue if it did not have other implications. At what point are churches that will not perform or recognize such unions, based on a biblical worldview, become outlaws?
Communicating clearly in the limited space available for replies to comments is nearly impossible. So, for this space: Thanks so much for thoughtfully interacting with the post above. Your comments provoked much thought (and even more words), and so my reply takes the form of a new post. Thanks again!
Post a Comment