How Do You Define "Redefine"?

I've been doing a bit of pondering, again, on marriage and gays and whatnot. The concept still makes me uncomfortable, mostly because of that reflex grumble that conservatives know well: the "My God, is there nothing they won't change?" (Yes, Social Security and tort laws). But that reflex is not an argument, so I've had to sit and think. A couple of points crossed my mind:




1. Permitting same-sex unions constitutes a redefinition of what marriage means. Marriage has always meant opposite-sex unions. It has never meant anything else. To suggest that allowing the term "marriage" to mean same-sex unions as well is not redefining the term is ludicrous on its face. The only relevant question is "why is marriage defined to mean this?"


2. Marriage isn't sacred anymore. We have, as a society, forgotten the answer to the previously posed question. The divorce rate in this country is a standing refutation of all attempts to claim that granting legal status to homosexual unions would destroy the institution. The fact is, marriage has already been redefined, from an institution whose primary focus is the raising of children to an institution whose primary focus is the personal happiness of those involved in the union. As long as that definition remains in effect, there is no legitimate reason to exclude gays, who have the right to pursue happiness. A truly conservative movement to preserve marriage would seek to undo this definition and establish the traditional one: that the primary purpose of marriage is to create and protect the young. This is the only legitimate reason to grant married couples legal priveleges denied to single people. We have forgotten this. The consequences of our unlearning this are everywhere. Gays desiring final acceptance by this stamp of government approval is entirely understandable. They're only trying to do what the rest of us are.


3. If this is true, then there can be no reason to deny Mormons or other polyamorists the freedom to marry as they choose. If marriage is a right, not a social institution with a committed purpose, then denying the right for a polyamorist to marry who he pleases has no rationale. It could only be a reflection of our society's Christian monogamist tradition, the very same tradition that would exclude homosexual unions. It will take but a few decades "consciousness-raising" for this minority to be placated as well.


4. If all of the above happens, we will have redefined "marriage" to mean whatever those involved want it to mean. The suggestion that a "lifelong commitment" is the binding thread behind these different varieties is difficult to argue. The only thing these unions will have in common is that they will have a piece of paper signed by the state, saying they are married. There is no compulsion on anyone in any of these situations to preserve this status, nor any consequences for ending it. It is inevitable that people should begin to wonder why we do any of this in the first place.




Solutions to this dilemna are several:




1. Do nothing. Keep marriage as it is and be content that it's good enough, so long as the deviates don't get to play. This smacks of hypocrisy, of Britneyism. It won't play. There are enough people who will find this unfair.


2. Open the doors, and damn the torpedoes. Let gays marry gays, and let polyamorists marry polyamorists. See what happens. It might turn out to mean nothing. Or it might lead us to wonder why things are still more decadent. Or we might not notice that things are so.


3. Re-redefine marriage as a covenant of personal responsibility, aimed at the raising of the next generation. The "covenant marriage" options available in some states is a good first step in this. But conservatives need to get back on the subject of divorce and start proposing solutions to turn it around. Mandatory pre-marital counseling and legal requirements to seek counseling before a divorce can be obtained can do much, I suspect, without necessarily restricting the grounds for divorce (although that should be looked into as well). In general, we must talk more about strengthening marriage and less about not weakening it.




I am of course interested in other ideas. Throw down, if you got any.