Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

My Wish List

Visit this Wish List at Amazon.com
Blog powered by Typepad
Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Changing the Laws of Marriage | Main | Clarifying My Words »

April 18, 2004

Changing the Language of Marriage

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.  Since the prohibition on SSM is drawn based on gender, any defense of that classification must refer to gender.  This is a theory for the harm of SSM that accounts for the fact tha we allow infertile couples to marry without the harm occuring.  Secondly the theory doesn't simply alledge cultural changes, but explains in more detail how those changes will come about.  As I noted in my last post unlike other changes in marriage, SSM would not change the laws which govern the marital relationship, but it could indeed change the language as Elizabeth suggests.  We might more often refer to spouse instead of husband or wife, and parent instead of mother or father. 

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.  For example flight attendant for steward/stewardess.  SSM could continue this trend in the area of family relationships.  So the words "mother" and "father" might become outdated in place of "parent".  Likwise 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. 

1a.  Sometimes this change is accompanied by pressure to conform to the new language, ie political correctness.   Thus Elizabeth might seem not only outdated, but also politically incorrect when she uses the words "mother" and "father".  (The problem of being labeled politically incorrect not for the langauge choice, but for the overall statement, I consider separately below). 

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 possilbe 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.] 

2a.  Again irrespective of whether the law contradicts her statement, it is conceivable that SSM will influence our culture so as to foster an era of political correctness where it becomes "un-pc" to make such a statement, not because of the language used, but because of the belief stated.  [James Lileks recently blogged about this sort of danger].

3.  [I don't think Elizabeth meant this, but it's worth mentioning]  There is another possibility.  Some, especially many opposed to SSM, have criticized  many of the studies looking at gay parenting.  As Prof. Judith Stacey noted at the Quinnipiac conference I attended last month, many different variables get conflated both in the studies and even more in the debate concerning them.  Some of these variables include (1) The gender of the parents, (2) The sexual orientation of the parents,  (3) The number of parents, and (4)  The marital status of the parents.  These are just the few Prof. Stacey mentioned, there are of course others including the existence of a divorce in the child's life, whether and at what age a child was adopted, etc.   In any case same-sex couples currently aren't allowed to marry, so it is hard to control for the fourth variable above.  Same-sex marriage thus could improve our knowledge of "what children need".  It is possible that this knowledge could lead further to the idea that other factors, (such as having married parents who love the child and each other) are more important than the presence of a mother and a father.   

A lot of possibilities here (and there could be more), but I am going to focus on #1 because that is my best impression of what Elizabeth meant, and because I have already discussed issue #2 before.  [Although I would be happy to discuss it further, if anyone wishes].  My first correspondence with Elizabeth actually  concerned issue #2.  See Elizabeth, me,  Elizabeth, me.  The short of my argument there is that while we--I believe correctly--claim that children's parents shoud ideally be married, it does not follow that when we allow two people to marry we believe they are ideal parents. 

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 langauge 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 repsonsibility 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 responsibliities are themselves defined by one's gender, rather they are defined by one's actions.
 

02:43 PM in Arguments Against SSM, SSM and Sex Discrimination |

Comments

lucia

No apology is ever required for alliteration. ;-)

Posted by: lucia | April 18, 2004 at 08:44 PM

Galois

Actually alliteration apologies are always appropriate ;]

Posted by: Galois | April 19, 2004 at 10:28 AM

Ampersand

Conversely, I can't condone combining constantants to create such ca-ca; your composition could (and should) compel contrition.

Posted by: Ampersand | April 19, 2004 at 07:05 PM

Galois

so sorry

Posted by: Galois | April 20, 2004 at 09:04 AM

lucia

Silly Amp, is so severe! I celebrate the success of sumptuous sentences

Posted by: lucia | April 20, 2004 at 10:15 AM

trey

yes, but alliteration allows a liberal allocation of allusions all with allure, as Allen had alluded.


ok, just had too.. and a comment about changing of language.

You are definately correct that even in the gay and lesbian community, which probably has a larger percentage of population that has an aversion to gender-typing and language than the general population, still overwhelmingly uses 'mother' and 'father' and their derivatives when refering to parenting roles, and in very gender-specific manners.

Most male same-sex couples with children (where both men have parental roles, legal or otherwise) have their children call them Daddy and Papa (or Papi) and to a lesser extent 'Daddy John' and 'Daddy Joe'.

Most female same-sex couples with children seem to be called by Mama and Mom, Mommy and Mama, etc. Many as 'Mama Jane' and 'Mama Jennifer' (or whatever their real first names are.

A smaller percentage call their parents by their first name, but this seems rare to me.

I have never seen, in literature, experience, or otherwise two same-sex parents called 'mom and dad' or 'parent 1' and 'parent 2' etc.

I think the terms "mother and father' are quite safe.

Posted by: trey | May 04, 2004 at 05:21 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.