Skip to main content

"Redefining" marriage

OK, let's deal with this idea, presented by the critics of marriage equality, and defenders of "traditional" marriage that same sex marriage "redefines"  marriage.

Is this true? What is the nature of this "redefinition"?

I think we gain an important insight into this from an interesting story that has just emerged from Australia. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney has added the word "submit" to the vows a wife makes to her husband in the marriage ceremony. In the proposed new wording the minister will ask the woman "Will you honour and submit to him, as the church submits to Christ?'

This is justified by the very conservative bishop by explicitly saying that equality between sexes is wrong. Clearly women need to submit to men, according to this bishop.

This is the argument for "traditional" marriage. It is about one woman (or more) submitting to a man. It's about women becoming, in some sense, the property of men.

In this understanding of marriage obviously same sex marriage makes no sense, because there can be no submission. In same sex marriage there cannot be a power differences between sexes, so there cannot be "traditional" marriage.

So when people talk about the "redefinition" of marriage I say, yes, we are talking about a redefinition, but for most of us, this redefinition has already happened. The redefinition is about understanding marriage as a partnership between equals. The redefinition happens when we consider women equal to men.

So the redefinition happens when we consider marriage a partnership of equals.

If you understand marriage as being a partnership between equals, then same sex marriage makes sense. Two men and two women can be just as much a partnership of equals as a woman and a man.

But if you consider marriage to be about men having authority over women, then same sex marriage will never make sense, because there can be no power differential between the two people based on sex.

This is why I believe same sex marriage as the potential to redeem and renew marriage, by confirming it as a partnership of equals, by purging it of its sexist undertones for everyone.

I once heard someone, I think it was Gene Robinson, say these words, and I believe they really apply here:

"Homophobia is just one small room in the mansion of sexism."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Greetings brother. Good to hear from you again.It has been about three months since your last entry. Glad you are alright. Enjoyed this entry a lot.
Shalom
TAH
If you view 'same sex marriage as the potential to redeem and renew marriage',then ponder the statistics for dissolution of civil partnerships since their introduction ;-rose by 28% in 2011,48% in 2010, by 96% in 2009,by over 200% (!) in 2008 ; with a mean age of 38 years at dissolution,one can hardly cite immaturity as a cause.
What's your point, Kenneth?
A 'power differential' may exist in any kind of relationship on many other grounds apart from sexual difference - wealth,age, emotional maturity,etc.Mutual submission of partners to one another is,I would contend, an essential feature of successful marriage - selfishness is one ingredient that cannot be contained for long in a marriage and is probably the biggest reason for their failure.Marriage involves mutual sacrifice one to the other ; it is the working out of this mutuality that is both the thrill as well as the challenge of marriage.The 'partnership of equals' you describe could just as easily be applied to ordinary friendships, where the aspect of submission and sacrifice is mostly fairly minor and irregular ; it is the transformation of friendship into the mutuality of concern that characterises real marriage, not the caricature promoted by Archbishop Jensen and other 'backwoodsmen'.
Partnerships in business,as in life,do not necessarily contain the idea of lasting committment; they may be of mutual benefit to those involved for a while but will come to an end, not always with recrimination, when they have served the purpose of one of the participants - the statistics that I quoted for civil partnership dissolutions indicate that many will be short lived . Those who keenly advocate same sex marriage rarely express any deep appreciation of what they consider marriage to be ; until they do I shall continue to regard their proposals as a 'torture of the English language' to quote Archbishop Sentamu.
I agree Kenneth, that an argument for same sex marriage needs to, in some sense, be an argument for marriage. That's why for some people same sex marriage is quite a conservative position.

I don't disagree with the points you make about mutual submission, but the key word here is "mutual" - so there is equality.

Everything you say seems to be an argument for same sex marriage - that it has deeper associations of lasting commitment compared to the dry term "civil partnership." That is exactly why I'm fighting for same sex marriage.

You have offered no argument against same sex marriage.
sarah said…
My last post was specifically addressing the aspect of commitment in marriage in response to your remarks about the power differential in marriage.The consummation of marriage has always been taken to be the sexual union of the partners in a physical act that carries the potential for procreation of new life ; absence of this has been accepted as grounds for annulment of the marriage .Whatever genital acts that are performed between same sex couples intrinsically lack this potential ;procreation can only happen with the cooperation of a surrogate third party.In the same way that siblings may live together in a mutually supportive and committed relationship but cannot marry on grounds of consanguinity, I believe that relationships of similar quality between persons of the same sex cannot and should not be described as marriages.Same sex marriage has been described as like vegetarian haggis ; putting together two words whose definitions are mutually exclusive is, in terms of logic, an empty proposition.
The comment about this post should have been made under my name
iChat a great analysis of the power agenda present in so many versions of 'traditional' marriage, thank you!

The comment from 'sarah' actually came from me, as I had overlooked that 'my other half' was signed in before I dispatched my comment and it is not a result of a sudden gender change on my part !
Anonymous said…
Coming from a Mormon stance where it is clear that the temporal state registered partnership is just a part of a marriage that will be eternal. With the two aspects being done in separate places. I can't help thinking the key is to separate the state regulation of a partnership for the benefit of the partners and their dependent children and the more ambitious "contract "made in religious marriages(love till parted by death for instance). Would it be so awful for the state to offer all civil marriage /partnerships and Faith groups to offer their sacraments as they wish. Mormons manage an understanding of a difference.Maybe the state will offer regulation of polygyny/polygamy if enough folk ask for it. And there seems no shame in people having short lived partnerships if that was all they promised. Civil partnerships appear better suited to human frailties in some ways.

Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with