Galois: Definitions

Books Relevant to Same-Sex Marriage

Other Books of Interest

My Wish List

Blog powered by Typepad

Subscribe to this blog's feed

« None of the Above | Main | If We Treat People Equally, Then We Are Saying There Is No Individuality? »

July 20, 2004

Definitions

Definitions come up frequently and importantly in the debate over same-sex marriage. Some argue that prohibiting same-sex marriage is not sex discrimination because marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It is the definition which excludes same-sex couples and not the government. In the 1970's a number of courts used such arguments to reject suits seeking SSM. While this type of curt dismissal has lost quite a bit of credibility in the courts today which note that such logic is circular, it is still quite powerful in the public at large. In a Pew Forum Poll conducted last November, 16 percent of those opposed to SSM cited the definition of marriage as a man and a woman as their main reason for opposing SSM. Only moral and/or religious concerns were cited more often. I often hear how the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had no right to redefine one of our basic social institutions. When other courts struck down interracial marriage bans it was different because that didn't involve the definition of marriage. Even the movement to have civil unions instead of SSM is popular with some because they believe it would treat gays equally without changing the definition of marriage. (Another reason for the appeal of civil unions is that until they are actually passed into law nobody knows exactly what they entail. So two people can claim to both support civil unions while having very different images of what such civil unions would look like.) Many opponents of same-sex marriage like to refer to gay "marriage" because they claim such a thing does not actually exist by definition. Finally I have heard a number of variations on the idea that defining marriage to include same-sex couples would be like defining the word "dog" to include "cat".

My reaction to these arguments may be shaped by my career as a mathematician wherein definitions play a critical role. In the May 2004 issue of American Mathematical Monthly, Barbara Edwards and Michael Ward had a fascinating article discussing mathematical definitions and their findings regarding student misuse of them. Borrowing on the ideas of philosopher Richard Robinson and lexicographer Sidney Landau, they refer to two different categories of definitions: (internal citations omitted)

[Robinson] distinguishes between lexical and stipulative definitions. Robinson writes "Lexical definition is that sort of word-thing definition in which we are explaining the actual way in which some actual word has been used by some actual person". [Landau] discusses the same category, but uses the term extracted definitions in place of lexical definitions because they are "definitions that are based on examples of actual usage, definitions extracted from a body of evidence."....By contrast, Robinson uses stipulative definition to "mean the explicit and self-conscious setting up of the meaning-relation between some word and some object, the act of assigning an object to a name (or a name to an object)"....Thus, extracted definitions report usage, while stipulated definitions create usage, indeed create concepts by decree.

Mathematical definitions are generally of the stipulated variety. When defining a mathematical term the mathematician will often have to make decisions about whether or not to include certain properties. In doing so the goal is not to arrive at a certain Truth, but rather to figure out which definition will be most useful in communicating certain concepts. Those concerns may lead one mathematician to define a term one way and another to define the same term differently. In fact, the same mathematician might even use a term in different ways in different papers or talks provided it is clear to the audience how the term is being used in that context. For example, you might hear at a talk, "When I say ring, I shall always mean that it contains a unit element," even though this property is often not necessary for something to be considered a ring. Of course the mathematician must take into account how a term has been previously used (especially in the same subject area) and weigh the benefits of any changes against possible confusion the altered definition might cause when communicating, but the definitions are still imposed rather than extracted.

It seems to me that when a definition is put into a statute it is also stipulative. Thus in order to obtain a conviction for robbery, it is not sufficient to show that what a person did would generally be considered robbery by most people, but rather that each element of the crime as defined in the statute occurred. (I was on a jury once where some of my fellow jurors did not like the fact that I wanted to satisfy myself that each element of the crime was proved. They thought that once it was determined that the defendant had indeed mugged the victim, we should automatically return a guilty verdict on all counts with which he was charged.) The legal codes are filled with statements like "As used in this title...`highway' includes streets and roads." So when I hear the analogy about defining a "dog" to include a "cat", I am undisturbed. The law does things like that all of the time. Even the courts will sometimes interpret a word to mean something quite different than it's usual usage. In 1985 the Supreme Court declared unanimously that Long Island was not legally an island. (As far as I know no one brought forth a constitutional amendment to defend traditional islands.)

Maggie Gallagher says that marriage was not and cannot be created merely by law. Even if that were true, we are concerned with what the legal definition of marriage should be, and that most certainly is created by the law. I don't believe, however, that her statement is even true. Unlike dogs, cats, highways, roads, or islands, marriage cannot exist apart from the law. People can have sex. They can make promises to one another. I wouldn't call something marriage, though, unless it's implications were recognized by others, that is unless it were recognized by law. That, however, is simply a matter of how I would use the word marriage. What is important here is the stipulative definition of marriage imposed by the law. Note that even those that discuss the distinction between civil marriages and religious marriages--myself included--are only making a distinction as to which law applies, civil or religious. In neither case is marriage separate from law.

I am therefore completely unpersuaded by attempts to avoid certain issues by referring to the definition of marriage. Same-sex marriage already exists under certain legal codes (like Massachusetts Law), and the debate is whether or not it should exist under other legal codes as well. That being said, I am sympathetic to those that are reluctant to embrace same-sex marriage because to them that is not what marriage is. Change is scary, and it will take some time for people to get used to the idea of two people of the same sex being married. I will, however, continue to push for this change because I think it is unjust to do otherwise and I believe more and more people will come to accept it before too long.

03:42 PM in Arguments Against SSM, What Is Marriage? | Permalink

Comments

And of course, we must not forget that in Nix vs. Hedden, the US Supreme Court decreed tomatoes are a vegetable. Botanists consider them fruits.

Words take different meanings in different contexts. When we are discussing laws regulating civil marriage, the law defines the parameters of marriage. The sex of the adults is simply a parameters.

Posted by: lucia | July 20, 2004 at 04:32 PM

Interesting Lucia. I was not aware of that case. If vegetable can be defined to include fruits, then it has no meaning at all. The court (over one hundred years ago) destroyed vegetables.

Posted by: Galois | July 21, 2004 at 10:27 AM

I hope that those of us who support traditional vegetablehood will join forces to take back that important category of comestibles.

Posted by: elf | July 21, 2004 at 12:56 PM

Yes. Well, and if you note: Beans are not seeds.

The court just went hog wild on this!

The attempt to class tomatoes as fruit is not unlike a recent attempt to class beans as seeds, of which Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for this court, said: 'We do not see why they should be classified as seeds, any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds, in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance. On the other hand in speaking generally of provisions, beans may well be included under the term 'vegetables.'

And the did so long, long ago. This is truly judicial activism at it's worst!

Posted by: lucia | July 21, 2004 at 01:24 PM

Those of us of the pro-vegetable research council have been fighting the inclusion of these FRUITS into an age-old category that has meant only one thing for thousands of years. These activist tyrannical justices redefined vegetables and our dire predictions are coming true. Avocados are now considered by many as vegetables and even if not, they actually USE them as vegetables.

Society is falling apart.

Posted by: trey | July 21, 2004 at 01:28 PM

I think you are all forgetting the real victims of this vegetable confusion. The children. When we tell them to eat their vegetables, they might think an avacado has the same nutritional value as spinach. And we can't tell them differently, because the law says so. And it gets worse. First a tomato is a vegetable, then an advacado, what next? Soon chocolate will be a vegetable and people will be eating fondue instead of soup. And you wonder why this country has a problem with obesity.

Posted by: Galois | July 21, 2004 at 02:25 PM

Chocolate soup. mmmmm..

Posted by: lucia | July 21, 2004 at 04:12 PM

Could some one please answer this question. "What is the purpose and function of marriage as it relates to the state"? I have followed the SSM debate with much interest and have yet to find this question adequately addressed.

Posted by: Pietro Armando | August 12, 2004 at 03:04 PM

Pietro,

The purpose of marriage is to establish a legal relationship with specified obligations and consequences. It helps the state by helping its citizens become more productive and content. It also generally promotes stability and order. If you would like to see this addressed in more detail see Jonatahn Rauch's book, Gay Marriage or for a more historical perspective E.J. Graff's book, What Is Marriage For?. Both can be found in the left sidebar.

Posted by: Galois | August 12, 2004 at 03:29 PM

"What is the purpose and function of marriage as it relates to the state"? I have followed the SSM debate with much interest and have yet to find this question adequately addressed.

Gabriel provided a brief list, and I agree Rauch discusses this at some length.

But, I think Gabriels list and Rauch's are incomplete. If we thought about it a long time, we'd end up coming up with a very long list. Some issues would be more important and some less.

Here is a "for instance"factor, that relates to the state. In the US, marital status is considered when assessing income taxes, or poverty. The reason we do this is that knowing two people are committed to pooling resources, caring for each other etc. makes a difference when you try to estimate whether or not they need social assistance to relieve poverty. It also makes a difference how much we believe they should pay in taxes. If the US didn't recognize marital status at all, then we couldn't figure out how to account for these two purposes.

Is this the most important purpose as far as the state is concerned? Probably not-- I think as far as the state is concerned, encouraging people to form kinship bonds and end up helping each other is greater benefit to society that the issue of taxes or say, food stamps. But, these other things are factors. And there are likely tons of factors.

Most books discussing the state interest in marriage will at most touch the surface, because you end up sounding silly when you start listing all the small ways that recognizing marriage can be important.

Posted by: lucia | August 12, 2004 at 03:41 PM

"The purpose of marriage is to establish a legal relationship with specified obligations and consequences. It helps the state by helping it's citizens become more productive and content. It also generally promotes stability and order".

1.) When did the state establish this legal relationship called marriage?

2.) How does it differ from other contractual or legal relationship? What makes marriage unique in that sense?

3) What disorder exsisted prior to ssm that ssm will correct? How will ssm make society in general, and OSM in particular, more stable?

Posted by: Pietro Armando | September 14, 2004 at 08:45 PM

1.) When did the state establish this legal relationship called marriage?

Which state? If you mean when did the fist society recoginze a marital relationship, you'd have to ask some anthropologists. I would guess that prehistoric civilizations had something we would consider marriage making it rather difficult to date with any certainty. I don't really know, though.

2.) How does it differ from other contractual or legal relationship? What makes marriage unique in that sense?

Each legal relationship is different. Each has its own rules and consequences. Marriage is unique in many repects, but one would be simply the number of different places marriage is recognized is probably far greater than for any other legal relationship.

3) What disorder exsisted prior to ssm that ssm will correct? How will ssm make society in general, and OSM in particular, more stable?

I'm not sure what you mean by disorder. I'd say the biggest problem that existed prior to SSM was the hundreds of thousands of relationships that were/are almost completely unregulated and unrecognized. Three were no guidelines as to how to handle things (property, custody, etc.) when the relationship ends for whatever reason. There were no guidelines for recognizing conflicts-of-interest. There was no protection for individuals (adults and children) who depended on these relationsips etc. Perhaps it helps to imagine the problems that might occur if we had no marriage whatsoever.

SSM would make society more stable by making it more providing guidelines in a variety of uncertainties. It would also make it more stable by making it more likely that people would find somebody for whom to be responsible and somebody who will be responsible for them. I would suggest reading Rauch's book (see left sidebar) for more details about the benefits of marriage for stability.

Posted by: Galois | September 19, 2004 at 09:52 PM

"...hundreds of thousands of relationships that were/are almost completely unregulated and unrecognized".

1.) Why do such relationships need recognition and regulation?

2.) How do they differ from the "hundreds of thousands" of unmarried opposite sex couples who cohabitate and who share joint financial/property/custody etc. ?

Posted by: Pietro Armando | October 03, 2004 at 08:41 PM

best casino gambling online reviews -
bonus casino online reviews -
casino free games online play reviews -
casino online slot reviews -
free internet poker casino games reviews -
free online casino gambling reviews -
internet casino gaming reviews -
online casino gaming reviews -
beating casino internet reviews -
best casino gambling internet reviews -
best internet casino reviews -
best online casino bonus reviews -
best online casino directory reviews -
blackjack casino online reviews -
blog casino online reviews -
casino free games online reviews -
casino free online reviews -
casino gambling internet online reviews -
casino gambling online reviews -
casino games online reviews -
casino internet online poker reviews -
casino online gambling guide reviews -
casino online play reviews -
casino online poker reviews -
casino online top reviews -
find online casino reviews -
football online gambling reviews -
free internet casino games reviews -
free internet casino reviews -
free no deposit online casino reviews -
free online casino download reviews -
free online casino slot reviews -

Posted by: grace | November 02, 2007 at 01:54 PM

Cialis is an erectile dysfunction drug that has overcome its more famous predecessor Viagra in different parts of the world in terms of total sales. This means that Cialis is also developing its base in terms of consumer satisfaction. If we go deep into the cialis speak we will come to know that there are certain very major and influential plus points of Cialis over Viagra. Hence it is not surprising that it has been able to overcome the popularity charts of its five years older brother Viagra.

Posted by: Cialis speak | February 05, 2008 at 01:17 AM