CHANGING THE LANGUAGE OF MARRIAGE: Gabriel Rosenberg

Elizabeth Marquardt gives what I believe is one of the better arguments against same-sex marriage in a response to me. She writes: "With SSM our language of marriage has to become gender neutral. We can't say that children need mothers and fathers, only 'parents.' Once we do that, the idea that when a man and a woman have a baby it's a good idea for them to attempt to get married and stay married will be greatly weakened. That weakened norm of marriage, resulting from legalized SSM, will lead to more children of heteros growing up without their married mother and father, and suffering the consequences."

Before responding, let me explain why I find it to be better than many typical SSM arguments. First of all, it refers specifically to gender. ...Secondly, the theory doesn't simply allege cultural changes, but explains in more detail how those changes will come about. ...

Now I will explain why I disagree with Elizabeth about these consequences. The key link is that she and others won't be able to say children need mothers and fathers, only "parents." I've had similar discussion with Eve Tushnet concerning this idea, as part of a larger discussion here, so some of what I say might seem familiar. There are several things that Elizabeth could mean by this statement. Here are some I can think of, in order of what I think she likely means.

1. As culture changes, language changes as well. In particular, we have seen lately more gender-neutral substitutions for previously gendered language. ...So the words "mother" and "father" might become outdated in place of "parent." Likewise husband or wife might become outdated in place of "spouse." Thus when Elizabeth says children need "mothers" and "fathers" she will sound awkward and old. ...

2. Maggie Gallagher has said that if SSM were legal, when she said children need mothers and fathers the law would contradict her. It is possible Elizabeth meant this as well [especially in light of some past conversations which I will detail below], although I distinguish this from case one because the problem is not one of evolving language but rather perceived public policy preferences pertaining to parenting. [I'm sorry I couldn't resist the alliteration.] ...

Now let me turn to the change in language argument. First of all I don't think we will do away with the words "mother" and "father." Even in same-sex couples I believe each parent is generally referred to with the gendered language. It is not that Heather has two "parents," she has two "mommies." I frequently read (and enjoy) Daddy, Papa, & Me. As the title indicates, there is still gendered language in same-sex parenting. I doubt that Father's Day and Mother's Day will ever be combined into one "Parent's Day." I can't imagine there will be a time when the common saying becomes "Do you kiss your parent with that mouth?" Even in other areas gendered language has still managed to persist. My wife hates the word "actress" (she feels it carries connotations of just being a pretty face), but the reality is the word remains quite prevalent. Even the law itself is likely to continue to use gendered language only allowing it to be interpreted in a gender-neutral fashion. Actually this is already the case.

In so far as Elizabeth is stressing the need of a child for its mother and father (and not just a mother and father), I believe the language will not change, nor is it problematic if it does. People are not going to somehow forget that a baby is born of a man and a woman. Thus it makes perfect sense to refer to "the mother and the father" when talking about this reality. On the other hand, even if one said a child needs the parents who created it, this would convey the same idea. I have mentioned earlier that we need to promote the idea of people taking responsibility for their actions in society. That includes the need of people to take repsonsiblity for the consequences of their sexual actions. I believe same-sex marriage actually futhers the goal of individual responsibility. Since marriage is about taking responsibility (including but not limited to taking resonsbility for sexual actions), allowing and even encouraging same-sex marriage helps in this matter. Nor do I believe gendered language is necessary to promote the concept of personal responsibility. We all must take responsibility for our actions regardless of our gender. Nor do I believe the responsibilities are themselves defined by one's gender, rather they are defined by one's actions.

more
posted by Eve at 2:32 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home