Is it "marriage"?
07/01/2015
I have, of course, been thinking a lot about the Obergefell decision and its implications. (And by the way--I never really learned very much in my German classes, but doesn't that word at least strongly suggest "fallen over" or "fall over" or something of that sort? Very appropriate if it does.) I don't feel up to writing anything of length about it, but I'll probably be posting shorter notes on particular aspects of the situation.
One of these is the word "marriage." In comments on the previous thread on the topic we mentioned the redefinition of words required to support the concept of same-sex marriage. This is almost my most fundamental objection to it: prior to any ethical concerns, concerns about the impact on family and society, etc., I had a visceral objection to the abuse of language involved. Several times in discussions (brief and unproductive discussions) with people who favored the innovation I objected that "same-sex marriage" was simply a contradiction in terms. I compared the effort to erase sexual distinctions from the concept of marriage to an attempt to erase the difference between squares and circles; henceforth those terms would be forbidden, as the terms "husband" and "wife" are now being forbidden in some places; there would be only "shapes," as there are to be only "partners" in marriage now.
Of course that got nowhere; I probably only confirmed the suspicion that I was a lunatic. Anyone bothering to respond to this objection, though, could say "Well, language changes all the time." And so it does. And that fact provides us as well as our opponents with a weapon. The redefinition of the word "marriage" is not an organic evolution of language, but an arbitrary and mechanistic decree handed down by an authority which commands less and less respect, and which apparently believes it can change reality by changing words. It presents us immediately with the problem of distinguishing what we mean by marriage from what the authority means.
I don't know yet how we'll do that; "sacramental marriage" is accurate but a bit unwieldy, and besides is specifically Catholic. But unless almost everyone falls into line with the party, some way will be found to distinguish man-woman marriage from same-sex marriage. It may be only a tone of voice suggesting implicit quotation marks around the word: They are "married." But something will develop.
Consider the typical fate of euphemisms. The word "moron" once had a specific definition, referring to a particular level of congenital mental impairment. It came to be considered offensive in that context. It and other similar terms were replaced by the more polite "mentally retarded," or just "retarded." Now, of course, those are offensive, and words like "special" are used. But no one is fooled. The condition has not changed, and the sort of person who will make fun of people with the condition, or put it to use as an insult, simply appropriates the euphemism.
What will probably develop is a sort of reverse euphemism, I guess. A euphemism is an attempt to avoid reality by not naming it; we'll be trying to name the reality which officially does not exist. We'll be trying to talk about marriage as we understood the word before it was redefined, not trying to avoid talking about it.
For book club we read (I read part of) a book called The Seven Big Myths About Marriage by Christopher and Jennifer Kaczor. I thought I was going to hate it, but it was not bad, and there were some good ideas there. It's published by Ignatius Press, so it's Catholic, but the author doesn't rely on religious arguments to make his points.
One of the things he talks about is the difference between covenant marriage and contract marriage, and the reason I mention this is because it makes me realize that many, probably most marriages these days are not marriage in the way we think about marriage. Marriage has already been redefined by our culture, so same-sex marriage is just another in a long line of false uses of the word marriage.
Too late to think any more.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 07/01/2015 at 10:36 PM
This is very optimistic take on the topic from Mac!
The Spanish atm is not recognizing my American card....
Posted by: Grumpy | 07/02/2015 at 06:13 AM
Heh. I do try to avoid going into sky-is-falling mode.
Posted by: Mac | 07/02/2015 at 07:40 AM
"Marriage has already been redefined by our culture, so same-sex marriage is just another in a long line of false uses of the word marriage."
This is true, and it's an argument that ssm proponents have used enthusiastically. For that matter it's been used enthusiastically by some ssm opponents, probably almost all Catholics, who argue that Christian acceptance of contraception made this development inevitable. Probably so.
Posted by: Mac | 07/02/2015 at 09:51 AM
There is an old (of course) George Carlin bit where he talks about "the softening of the language" and how it affects the culture. His example is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which began as Shell Shock.
Posted by: El Gaucho | 07/02/2015 at 10:54 AM
One of my children diagnosed and named a syndrome she observed in me: Departure Avoidance Disorder, or DAD, which is an inability to get out of the house on time in the morning. This diagnosis was made when she was dependent on me to drive her to school.
Posted by: Mac | 07/02/2015 at 02:21 PM
I'm curious to know whether this syndrome presented when you had something you wanted to do or only when you had something you didn't want to do.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 07/02/2015 at 02:32 PM
About Christian acceptance of contraception making this development inevitable -- even without that, though, wouldn't our society's modern willingness to accept, to tolerate have pushed us here sooner or later in any case?
When the news about Christine Jorgenson's transformation from man to woman hit the news in 1952, it was all very perplexing to my 10-year-old self. I don't remember much serious discussion around me about it, mostly just humorous remarks. By 1959, in the movie, Some Like It Hot, there's the light-hearted, ambiguous last line delivered by the fabulously rich playboy when he discovers the woman he loves is actually a man: "well, nobody's perfect." The movie was a huge hit.
Even earlier, way back in 1934, Cole Porter wrote the perfectly titled "Anything Goes", with lines like these:
Posted by: Marianne | 07/02/2015 at 02:58 PM
Bridge on the recordings I've heard (if memory serves):
The world's gone mad today
And good's bad today
And most guys today
That women prize today
Are just silly gigolos
Anything goes
The racier lines you quote are not in the recorded versions I've heard. I wonder if they were published. I know there are other songs where Porter had some pretty sexual lyrics that weren't in the official version.
Doesn't really matter, though, as far as your basic point's concerned. It really goes even further back, back into the 19th century for intellectuals and into the middle class and popular culture in the 1920s.
Posted by: Mac | 07/02/2015 at 03:24 PM
Janet, I don't think that question can be answered definitively, because the studies were probably all done in the didn't-want scenario.
Posted by: Mac | 07/02/2015 at 03:25 PM
According to this site, the lyrics I noted are in the original 1934 version of the song. Those lines you quote are similar, but not the same:
The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
And that gent today
You gave a cent today
Once had several chateaus.
Here's a recording from 1934 that has the original lyrics, including the racy lines.
Here's Ella Fitzgerald's recording in 1956 -- she does the lyrics you quote, and without the racy lines in the 1934 version.
Posted by: Marianne | 07/02/2015 at 04:08 PM
It's probably true that since contraception partly separated sex from procreation (it doesn't totally - hence, the lamentable increase in abortion) the homosexuals were able to capitalise on this.
However, the use of contraception (even the intention of using it at the outset of the marriage) does not make a marriage invalid. Neither a natural nor sacramental marriage is made null by this. It is a terrible sin and offense against the sacrament, but one which can be absolved and which does not actually invalidate it.
It is of little help whatever to talk only of sacramental marriages, IMO. I think we still have to speak about natural marriage, because that is God's creation and He elevated it to a sacrament. But the sacramental marriage is based upon the natural marriage and our promotion of the common good must include care for all natural marriages.
Posted by: Louise | 07/02/2015 at 05:32 PM
While caring for the people who are engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, I really think we need to keep in mind how evil the thing is. Partly because of the incessant carping of these activists for the last 25+ years, it is now commonplace or at least not unusual for men to think they have a right to sodomise their girlfriends.
And a Catholic matron must now sometimes use the word "sodomise." Unheard of in my Nanna's day.
Also, that particular aberrant perversion can kill people.
So under these ghastly circumstances, I think I have a moral duty to speak very plainly as often as possible. I do try to be delicate where I can. I do try to be kind, or at least to argue about ideas, rather than make personal attacks. But for myself, I'm in favour of a "hardening of the language."
I dispute that most natural marriages are not really marriages, even if the meaning is a bit lost on some of the individuals. I would say that most marriages after a divorce are not marriages at all. That's where most of the fake marriages have been until now.
A new word may well arise. I hope it does if we cannot reclaim the word "marriage."
the happy thing about a fairly informal society is that when introducing people to one another it is not really necessary to say, this is Bob and his wife, Nancy. so in most social situations one could simply introduce people by first names (or title and surname as the case may be) without naming the relationship and in fact I have long done this.
Thus, my relatives' concubines (legally, their second "spouse") or lovers are never recognised by me as anything other than simply a person. I would never introduce my uncle's concubine as my aunt. She is just "Kelly" (not her real name). Another relative's long term lover, although they don't live together, was never known by my children as anything other than a "friend."
I will not recognise Unreality. But I've had 25+ years to nut through all this. My family's a mess. Precious people, but a mess.
Posted by: Louise | 07/02/2015 at 05:51 PM
I talked to a canon lawyer once about the effect contraception has on sacramental marriage. He said that although the marriage is valid after the exchange of vows, the bond is not rendered permanent until consummation in an integral marital act.
A contracepted act is not that, therefore the bond can theoretically be dissolved if all sexual acts have been contracepted, although in practice there cannot be sufficient evidence for a tribunal to rule that the bond can be dissolved.
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 07/02/2015 at 06:32 PM
Thank you for researching that, Marianne. I was hoping you would, as I didn't have time. I was thinking it was from a Broadway show, and that seems to be the case. I guess that included the original lyrics. The versions I know are mainly Ella and Frank.
Dang, it's catchy.
Posted by: Mac | 07/02/2015 at 07:19 PM
I don't disagree with your reasoning about hardening of language, Louise. My view is entirely pragmatic, in the sense that I want to approach any discussion in a way that won't just cause the other person to write off whatever I say. For that reason I tend, in my own eyes at least, to go easier rather than harder. I'm not sure that people who disagree with me would see it that way.
It's just really hard--no, impossible--to know what effect one's words are going to have. Maybe really blunt "this is a sin" talk is what some people need to hear. I don't think there's a single correct answer.
By the way, I didn't mean to be saying that non-sacramental marriage is not marriage. I'm not sure what Janet meant "not marriage in the way we think of marriage," but in agreeing with that I meant only not necessarily intending a lifelong commitment ("I'll do this but bailing out is always an option if I don't like it") or not intending ever to have children. If I'm not mistaken both those may invalidate a Catholic marriage. But it's still natural marriage.
Posted by: Mac | 07/02/2015 at 08:13 PM
I was thinking specifically of what the author meant by covenant marriage in which both intend a lifelong marriage and are open to children and they marry for the sake of love and not simply for physical enjoyment or some benefit such as social status or wealth, etc.
My problem is that I've been too darn busy to give much though to what I'm writing. ;-)
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 07/02/2015 at 08:30 PM
I was discussing with my friends last night that I was surprised at how this decision affected me. It literally made me sick. And I couldn't shake this cloud of doom for several days. Another friend said that she kept feeling like we should rend our garments, and weep and mourn in repentance. I think that's it. It's like there is a palpable change in the spiritual atmosphere.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 07/02/2015 at 08:45 PM
I can't tell you how many comments I have written here and deleted this week. Part of the reason is that I think it's important that we be very careful--that it's the time to be as wise as serpents and innocent as doves because we are truly sheep among wolves. I have said very little about the SCOTUS decision anywhere but here. I have made a few comments on people's Fb updates, but not much at all because I just don't think it's the right venue--at least not for me. Facebook naturally tends toward dissension, and that doesn't get anyone anywhere.
I don't think I can do any good by saying anything online (not counting here;-)) and I think I might do a lot of harm. I don't think I have the slightest chance of pushing back the tide, but I do think that I just might have a chance of helping to save someone's soul if I just wait and watch very careful, and see what presents itself.
There have been occasions when something very forceful has almost leapt out of my mouth in a discussion with friends, and when it has happened, it has completely surprised me, because I knew it wasn't me, and I could tell it really hit home with the person I was talking to. Of myself I could never do this. Mostly I just try to be a friend to people and when they know me really well, I'm able to slip in a word here and there.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 07/02/2015 at 09:26 PM
"I think we still have to speak about natural marriage, because that is God's creation and He elevated it to a sacrament."
Louise, I think this is exactly right, and what we have to keep in mind. I've seen too many Christian writers responding to SSM in an unhelpful way, by presenting sacramental marriage as being completely different from/ on a higher plane above the marriages of non-Christians, as if grace did not build from nature. They do this to emphasize the need to protect Christian marriage from those who would compromise our religious freedom, but sometimes it makes it seem like our definition of marriage is some esoteric doctrine or ritual, instead of the witness of all history, tradition, and evolutionary biology.
The distinction we should make, I think, is not between natural and supernatural marriage (which are honestly the same thing) but between natural marriage and "civil marriage." IMO, we should emphasize the fact that recognition by the government has nothing to do with the validity of marriage: marriage is between families, with the blessing of the Church, period. We get marriage licenses for convenience's sake--for matters of inheritance, etc.
Posted by: Nathan P. | 07/02/2015 at 10:25 PM
Good points. The natural/sacramental vs civil distinction is being forced upon us in a big way, so that difference is going to be more and more emphasized.
Posted by: Mac | 07/02/2015 at 11:00 PM
"...she kept feeling like we should rend our garments, and weep and mourn in repentance."
I keep thinking "This kind cometh not out but by prayer and fasting." Not welcome words to me.
"It's like there is a palpable change in the spiritual atmosphere."
I think there is. I hate to use the "tipping point" cliche, but it really seems to apply. It's not as if any of this stuff hasn't been with us for decades, or hasn't been visibly and rapidly gaining in power for the past ten or fifteen years or so. But this is like the point in a game where it becomes clear to the losing side that it's no longer possible for it to come back and win. In sports you're supposed to keep trying even when you're in that situation. If nothing else, you can hope to reduce the margin of defeat. "Trying" for us means different things to each of us, but I do think it's important to do it, whatever form it takes.
One form it takes for me is resisting the temptation to just write people off.
Gotta stop now, it's late, maybe more tomorrow.
Posted by: Mac | 07/02/2015 at 11:07 PM
As I was saying my prayers this morning, it was pouring down rain as it has been pouring down rain fairly frequently for a couple of months. It crossed my mind (in a kind of lighthearted way) that I need to see a rainbow to remind me that God isn't going to destroy the world by flood. And then I realized that, of course, I have been inundated by rainbows in the last couple of weeks. It's ironic, isn't it? That when we feel like we are about to be engulfed by this flood, the very symbol of the encroaching flood is the rainbow. And though they use it in a very different way than God intended, I think that maybe He is using it to remind us that He is there, and that He knows what is going on, and that He will give us the strength we need to do whatever it is that He is calling each one of us to do. So, when you see your Facebook page lit up with little rainbow-tinted profile pictures, think of that.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 07/03/2015 at 07:52 AM
That's a good distinction, Nathan.
"Trying" for us means different things to each of us, but I do think it's important to do it, whatever form it takes.
That is a very good point, Maclin, and one temptation we all have to resist is to think that what we are being led to do is the same as what everybody else is being led to do. We're not just a phalanx moving in lock step, everyone with the same job. We're a Body, each with His own function in that Body but each supporting the other.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 07/03/2015 at 07:57 AM
Yes. I feel a strong drive simply to speak the truth about what's going on and its implications. Whether that is a call or just my frustration with all the falsehoods that are circulating, I have to discern. It means thinking and speaking more about politics than I really want to do.
Posted by: Mac | 07/03/2015 at 09:34 AM
I read a piece by an evangelical recently that said something to the effect of, "Why should we expect the country to conform to Christian morality?" My response was, in my head, "This isn't Christian morality: it is human morality. Natural Law and all that."
Posted by: Robert Gotcher | 07/03/2015 at 12:23 PM
That distinction is wasted on the liberal know-nothings. A few years ago there was a lot of gasping and fainting when the concept of natural law turned up, maybe in connection with Catholics on the Supreme Court. They couldn't seem to get their little heads around the idea at all, and seemed to think it was some theocratic Catholic idea which, if it got into power, would have them all in chains.
Posted by: Mac | 07/03/2015 at 03:37 PM
"I don't disagree with your reasoning about hardening of language, Louise. My view is entirely pragmatic, in the sense that I want to approach any discussion in a way that won't just cause the other person to write off whatever I say. For that reason I tend, in my own eyes at least, to go easier rather than harder."
I definitely don't think there's a hard and fast rule for this. Each and every situation is unique and requires a wise response. In such times as these, that wisdom will need to be prayed for regularly in our various interactions.
"By the way, I didn't mean to be saying that non-sacramental marriage is not marriage."
No I realised that, btw. I was speaking more about some of the ideas I've read recently, which seem to discount natural marriage.
"I'm not sure what Janet meant "not marriage in the way we think of marriage," but in agreeing with that I meant only not necessarily intending a lifelong commitment ("I'll do this but bailing out is always an option if I don't like it") or not intending ever to have children. If I'm not mistaken both those may invalidate a Catholic marriage. But it's still natural marriage."
I do think the intention of never having children makes it a non-marriage (even if children were later to follow by accident, so to speak). Same with the intentional non-permanence. So yes, there certainly are a few non-marriages around.
"That distinction is wasted on the liberal know-nothings. A few years ago there was a lot of gasping and fainting when the concept of natural law turned up, maybe in connection with Catholics on the Supreme Court."
Bless them. They are truly scared of the Catholic Faith. I think that's a good sign. But obviously I'd like them to convert etc.
Posted by: Louise | 07/03/2015 at 07:00 PM
Father James Schall wrote a long piece discussing several aspects of all this. He ends with a slightly optimistic thought (at least to my mind) that perhaps sanity will eventually prevail:
Of course, the Episcopalians did just yesterday give their blessing to same-sex weddings in their churches, so maybe forget the optimism.Posted by: Marianne | 07/03/2015 at 07:07 PM
"I was discussing with my friends last night that I was surprised at how this decision affected me. It literally made me sick."
Initially I felt nothing much, although I considered it to be very bad - just not surprising. Later, I felt much as you did.
I'm inclined to believe that corporate resistance, will have a good effect over the long term. Not that it will change things in the written law perhaps, but we can affect one heart at a time and that will be easier with some corporate resistance I think. But we must each follow our own conscience.
Posted by: Louise | 07/03/2015 at 07:09 PM
"I've seen too many Christian writers responding to SSM in an unhelpful way, by presenting sacramental marriage as being completely different from/ on a higher plane above the marriages of non-Christians, as if grace did not build from nature."
Right.
"We're not just a phalanx moving in lock step, everyone with the same job. We're a Body, each with His own function in that Body but each supporting the other."
Very true. That is definitely how I see it.
Posted by: Louise | 07/03/2015 at 07:15 PM
Excellent observations from Fr. Schall.
"...basically an issue of reason." Yes, that's very closely related to what I was saying about language. It's not even abstract reason, just common sense. I laughed when someone I know hailed the decision as "a victory for common sense." But from the point of view of this decayed concept of marriage that we're talking about, I suppose it is common sense.
"Many people engaged in these activities sooner or later come at least to suspect a problem exists..."
I've always thought that was present, and sooner rather than later. But forcibly repressed. I think it accounts for some of the ferocity directed toward those who won't go along. It's a bit like masturbation: I think people just instinctively know that there's something amiss with it, and are ashamed of it, even if they have bought into the whole idea that everything and anything sexual is ok.
Re the Episcopalians: of course they did. A Facebook wit posted a story about it with the remark "Major real estate holding company announces HR policy change."
Posted by: Mac | 07/03/2015 at 07:37 PM
I am so grateful that this space exists. I know I don't comment regularly, but I do read. And lately it has been a great comfort knowing you all are out there.
I wasn't surprised by the ruling, but I have felt like I am in a kind of mourning since it came down. I have been surprised by the finality and violence of many of the personal reactions of people on the left. They got their way and knowing them, I expected smugness and gloating. But I did not expect to hear, for instance, so many people talk of cutting off contact with relatives who fall on the "conservative" side, for instance. I don't mean gay people shunning traditionalists because they feel personally attacked. I mean straight people who are the kind of casual liberals who changed their facebook picture to an equal sign, cutting off their mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers for holding in any way to the proper definition of marriage. Since this is not personal for them, where did that rage come from? I have seen, on parenting boards where I read to get support for pregnancy issues, women talking about banning anyone in their family who has traditional beliefs from having contact with their children. Why now? Why does this court decision mean it's time for them to banish and condemn loved ones who disagree, when they could tolerate us a month ago? It is very strange and feels ominous and oddly apocalyptic.
Rebecca Hamilton at Patheos wrote a very good blog entry about how this is turning "brother against brother." As a former "progressive" who used to wave the rainbow flag and was brutalized, stalked, and harassed by "friends" when I had my conversion, I can't emphasize enough how true every one of her observations is. There is such evil and such darkness wrapped up under the fluffy bunny "love wins" surface. I am haunted still by what I saw and heard in my days "inside" and yet I guess I have reclaimed enough innocence that I am still shocked by the rage and the violence when it lashes out.
What I am struggling with now is how to be loving, or even to fake it, when I feel such sadness and honestly disgust and anger. I am in the position of knowing too much. When I see the latest HuffPost type campaign about a "gay 8 year old" or whatever, my maternal instinct is raring to rip a predator to shreds. They paint it as so cute, like being gay just means liking pastels a lot and crying at movies, but it's not, it's just so much that an 8 year old should have no idea about, the idea of this being forced on our children, so they can learn to "accept" it and identify with it at an early age, just makes me sick. The overtness of the propaganda and the totalitarian streak means me feel both angry and panicky. I keep hearing that we shouldn't be afraid and we should be loving and not angry, but I don't know how one does that, at this point.
Posted by: Cailleachbhan | 07/07/2015 at 01:24 PM
I'm not seeing or hearing people talk about that kind of shunning, but then I wouldn't necessarily. I might not be aware of someone doing it to me if they didn't tell me. From things you've said here before it sounds like you live in a part of the country where progressives are very dominant.
Some of it I think is that people are intoxicated with self-righteousness. It's a potent drug. People on the left are especially prone to it, in the same way they're prone to bigotry, because they think they aren't. Attributing those things exclusively to their enemies for so long has them thinking that they themselves are by definition not guilty of them.
I saw a somewhat chilling thing on Facebook. This was several weeks ago, before the decision. Someone told the story of a woman at her gym objecting to a "trans" person, i.e. a man, using the same dressing room as her. So the management threw her out. And the person who was telling the story thought this was a great victory for tolerance.
Posted by: Mac | 07/07/2015 at 04:40 PM
Here's a very helpful post from Janet:
http://thethreeprayers.blogspot.com/2015/07/i-want-him-to-be-in-heaven-with-me.html
Posted by: Mac | 07/07/2015 at 06:41 PM
An acquaintance of mine was undergoing that kind of shunning on Facebook. "We've had great time together and we really love you, but we just can't have friends like that."
Blech.
Thanks, Maclin.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 07/07/2015 at 08:55 PM
Like I'm always saying, this is a conflict between two incompatible religions. From that point of view, "let him be unto you as an heathen and a publican" is not really surprising.
you're welcome.
Posted by: Mac | 07/07/2015 at 09:19 PM
Re "This kind cometh not out but by prayer and fasting."
As I was looking around the USCCB website today trying to find something to put in the bulletin about the SCOTUS decision, I found a video called, "Call to Prayer" in which the Bishops asked us to fast and abstain from meat on every Friday--also for a daily rosary and weekly Holy Hour.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 07/08/2015 at 12:41 PM
I've been praying that prayer of St. John Fisher for strong bishops ever since the HHS mandate came around. I guess when they ask something, I should listen. This video is not a response to the new decision. It's been around for a while.
AMDG
Posted by: Janet | 07/08/2015 at 12:42 PM
Not surprising, as the need has been pretty apparent for some time. Quite a long time, really, way before any of this stuff.
Posted by: Mac | 07/08/2015 at 02:30 PM
I hadn't seen that video. I'm glad it's there. It should be more widely circulated.
"When I see the latest HuffPost type campaign about a "gay 8 year old" or whatever, my maternal instinct is raring to rip a predator to shreds."
Right. At a certain point this gets very personal - with our children.
Posted by: Louise | 07/08/2015 at 03:36 PM
I just saw Janet's post. Wonderful.
Praise God!
Posted by: Louise | 07/08/2015 at 03:38 PM
In some ways this is a good time to be a Catholic. It's a pretty horrible time to be a Catholic parent.
Posted by: Mac | 07/08/2015 at 04:48 PM