Asking the Right Question in the Marriage Debate

Fascinating article written by gay rights activist Rodney Croome at the ABC Religion website. He is, of course, writing from the position of wanting law reform to incorporate same sex relationships into the provisions of the Marriage Act towards there being no legal (and I assume from his point of view, no societal) difference between opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

Rodney has always been erudite. I heard him speak at the University of Tasmania once to a "hostile" audience and he did so without guile or misunderstanding. It's similar in this article.

I find myself agreeing with his sentiments about how this debate can be made more substantial:

...the public broadening of support for allowing same-sex couples to marry has yet to be accompanied by a deepening of the case for reform.

Proponents dwell on human rights principles such as legal equality without, like their opponents, asking what marriage is for and if same-sex couples fulfil its purpose. They focus on the benefits of equality for gay and lesbian Australians without sufficiently advocating the wider benefits for children, religion, society and marriage itself.

A deepening of the debate is important because the right of same-sex couples to full legal equality, as important as it is, does not address the concerns of those Australians who believe the issue is as much about what marriage means and how society benefits as it is about what principle demands and same-sex couples deserve.

Reform advocates frequently declare that allowing same-sex partners to marry is an issue of equality and non-discrimination. In response, opponents of reform declare there to be an intrinsic difference between same and opposite-sex relationships that legitimately disqualifies the former from marriage...

...To successfully meet this challenge, reform advocates must not just assume there is an equivalence between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships that means there should be no legal and social distinction between the two. They must explain it.... [emphasis mine]

Like opponents of reform they must answer the deeper questions, what is marriage for, can same-sex couples fulfil this purpose, and, if so, what wider benefits will flow?

I think this advice can be taken up by both sides of the debate. As I have mentioned in other places this particularly debate is about the definition of a symbol - the semantic scope of a legal representation of a substantial social/theological/psychological/emotional reality.  In this debate the question is no longer about whether "civil unions" should exist.  It is about whether or not such a union is or should be the same as marriage and whether the distinction is either a) an expression of intrinsic reality or b) discriminatory.

It is now a conceptual debate - "What is marriage?" And both sides have been insipid in how that question has been answered with responses that boil down to ranty "it's for us, not them" or "it's for all of us."

And it's not for lack of material. The conservative Christian voice, for instance, has a wealth of tradition, theology and reason to sing of the intrinsic joys, beauty and benefits of marriage between a man and a woman. But we haven't. We so often lapse into statistics and defensiveness, focussing on the "attacks" and the "attackers" rather than allowing the strength of what is being "attacked" shine through.

I can understand why, though.  Because the "What is marriage?" question is easy to deliver and answer from the (metaphorical) pulpits of life.  But where do the differing answers get resolved?  The actual question, as far as outcomes are concerned, is not "What is marriage?" but "What is marriage, legally?"

The first question provides the concepts and the principles which should, ideally, inform the second question.  If we go in the other direction and ask the legal question before the conceptual question we bottom out; marriage becomes nothing much more than paperwork.  And if that's all "marriage" is, then we might as well make it open to all - because it has become nothing and is of no value either to traditionalists or revisionists.

Rodney seems to recognise the danger of this sort of irrelevancy, from "his side":

When opponents of reform declare same-sex relationships and marriage incompatible they are not only showing contempt for the capacity of gay people to love, commit and parent. They are also declaring a lack of faith in the capacity of marriage to uplift whomever it embraces.

Worst of all, they are condemning marriage itself to ever greater irrelevancy. Perhaps the most important wider benefit of allowing same-sex couples to marry is that it will strengthen the institution of marriage by ensuring it keeps pace with society's growing acceptance of same-sex relationships.

Yet, strangely, I'm not sure if his rhetoric is actually moving towards the depth he is looking for:

Firstly, and quickly: Is the point of marriage really to "keep pace with society's growing acceptance of same-sex relationships?" Does the meaning of marriage depend upon popularity?  That seems rather shallow.

Secondly,  when he does seek to answer the "What is marriage?" question he begins with the "What is marriage, legally?" question.  He looks at the Marriage Act and draws out one conclusion - that it is about "mutual fidelity."  That's almost at the "it's just about the paperwork" level of conclusion.

Surely if we need to pose the deep question of "What is marriage?" we most go past what is in the Marriage Act to the concepts the Marriage Act rests on.   I remain unconvinced that such a debate is possible if "legality" is the only common ground - the ground that's being fought for.

But with a hat-tip towards eternal hope and the desire for conceptual debate - even if it can never be meaningfully resolved legally - allow me to suggest a question that interacts with legality and causes us to focus on the underlying concepts:

Why do we need a "Marriage Act" at all?

Now all I need to do is go think about what answer I would give...