It should be no surprise that the language of same-sex marriage is just as controversial as the arguments for it. The rhetorical choices of same-sex marriage proponents—especially their use of rights language—have been effective in winning over the minds of many young people. While rhetoric is unavoidable and hardly a malum in se, it can diminish understanding when it is used to make, rather than merely buttress, an argument. In a recent article, New York Times legal correspondent Adam Liptak used the phrase “opposite-sex marriage” to refer to unions between heterosexuals. It appears to be the Times’ first revival of the term since the spring of 2004, when same-sex marriages began in Massachusetts. Writing on the details of a court battle in San Francisco, Liptak asserted that the lawyer involved was advocating not, well, marriage, but “opposite-sex marriage.” (Liptak also said the lawyer’s arguments “seemed to fall of their own weight,” in case you’re wondering about his own view).
This kind of language is an anguish, no doubt, to those unrequited Times letter-writers who will soon lose sleep over the new, unwelcome adjective for their marriages. Who was it who said that same-sex marriage wouldn’t change anything but for gays? If we have begun to call marriage by a different name, something significant is afoot. So how is it that the institution that built civilization can so shamelessly be marginalized in a word? The Times could not be reached for comment, but reasons for objection hardly require explanation. On the one hand, there are the obvious objections. Sure, Liptak and the Times are probably trying to exert subtle pressure to change your view of heterosexual marriage as mainstream and same-sex marriage as marginal. And yes, “opposite-sex marriage” is deliberately symmetrical to “same-sex marriage,” suggesting the two kinds of relationships are functionally indistinguishable, or that they are mere variations on an institution that applies identically to gays and straights. But there is, I suspect, a deeper issue as well.
Perhaps Chesterton was on to something when he wrote about fences. In a chapter from The Thing, G.K. fashions an instructive parable on reform:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them,
there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably
be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution
or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected
across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it
and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.”
To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer:
“If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away.
Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you
do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense.
The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists
who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put
there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street.
Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good
thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was,
we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable.
Tearing down Chesterton’s fence requires reflection on its purpose, and the proposal to deconstruct is guilty until proven innocent. More importantly, those who would immediately destroy the fence without reflection are exactly the kind of reformers we should fear. So to the question of how marriage can suddenly be rechristened: Language choices, like fences, matter, and we can expect the New York Times editorial board to be in the business of demolition, with flippant disregard for the gravity of calling marriage “marriage.” If we continue to find serious thinkers outside the Times who have no use for marriage in society, let us send them back to think for a while before they decide to uproot any fenceposts. And if, as it seems, marriage is now “opposite-sex marriage” at the Times, we should hope that the change will be a matter of open debate, not subtle suggestion.
November 18th, 2009 | 12:20 pm
[...] Thoughts: Marriage of Opposites by Kevin [...]
November 18th, 2009 | 12:28 pm
“This kind of language is an anguish, no doubt, to those unrequited Times letter-writers who will soon lose sleep over the new, unwelcome adjective for their marriages.”
You’re freaking kidding me right? Is Steven Colbert secretly writing this column?
I’m losing sleep because the glbt community continues to be prevented from having their relationships recognized for purposes of government-based benefits. I’m not going to lose sleep because a journalist at the NY Times decides to use the factually true phrase “opposite-sex marriage” to describe my heterosexual, opposite-gender marriage.
“without reflection”
oh there’s tons of thought and reflection on both sides. clearly thoughts and reflection on marriage equality are different from yours and therefore wrong according to your article.
i think the NY Times has a use for marriage but just because it doesn’t jive with yours, it doesn’t mean it’s wrong
November 18th, 2009 | 12:46 pm
I’m losing sleep because the glbt community continues to be prevented from having their relationships recognized for purposes of government-based benefits.
Take away the idea of snarfing at the government trough with the other little rent-seeking piggies, and the problem goes away. What business has the government in regulating anyone’s sexual encounters, unless there is the possibility of offspring as the result of such relations? Check Plato’s The Laws (Book IV IIRC). Check the Code of Khamurapi. All civil laws regulating marriage have been directed at the provision for offspring, plus legal questions relative to the couple, qua couple, such as responsibility for debts, liability for crimes, etc.
If marriage had not been trashed over the past generation or two, there would be few willing to play among the ruins.
November 18th, 2009 | 1:56 pm
The point is that the Times [b]with malice aforethought[/b] is trying to get its readers to demolish the fence without thinking about it. The point is that they are trying to start something that, initially ignored, will eventually become part of the “normal reference” and will actually help destroy our society. By the time it actually is noticed by the general population, it will be too late.
November 18th, 2009 | 2:24 pm
“I’m not going to lose sleep because a journalist at the NY Times decides to use the factually true phrase “opposite-sex marriage” to describe my heterosexual, opposite-gender marriage.”
Talking about “opposite-sex marriage” is about as factual as talking about “three-sided traingles”. It shows that one has little understanding of what one is talking about.
November 18th, 2009 | 2:54 pm
When I am around people such as this “voice of reason” I am tempted to change my language. I sometimes will say my brother, when I mean sister, things like that. And if they stop and ask why I tell them I see no reason why I should let thousands of years of history tell me what a word means, and how dare they impose such things on me.
“My sister got his hair cut today, and his wife is very upset at how short it is.”
November 19th, 2009 | 4:52 am
[...] Kevin Staley-Joyce at the First Things blog quotes a great passage from the great G. K. Chesterton (from The Thing): In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to itand says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” [...]
November 19th, 2009 | 10:06 am
[...] 19, 2009 in Culture | by Brian Brown Kevin Staley-Joyce has a sober but provocative post over on First Things, addressing New York Times columnist Adam Liptak’s recent use of the [...]
November 19th, 2009 | 10:08 am
Hmm, Kevin…a few of your readers seem to have needed more time to reflect on the fence before they responded.
November 19th, 2009 | 2:12 pm
The proper distinction is not between “opposite sex marriage” and “same sex marriage”.
The proper distinction is between real marriage and state-defined marriage.
November 20th, 2009 | 12:43 pm
Yeah I’m going to start referring to my “pair of opposite shoes”. Cause you know, any 2 shoes is a “pair of shoes”, and some people do have two left feet. Right?
Separate just isn’t equal, and “two halves” doesn’t always make a whole. It takes two opposite halves.
November 27th, 2009 | 6:35 am
[...] And finally, Kevin Staley-Joyce recalls a great quote from the masterful G. K. Chesterton: “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and [...]
November 27th, 2009 | 6:46 am
[...] And finally, Kevin Staley-Joyce recalls a great quote from the masterful G. K. Chesterton: “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact