Ireland’s Taoiseach seems to believe that the meaning of marriage can be decided by an argument which is shorter than the typical Tweet. While a US Supreme Court justice has pondered the wisdom of changing the meaning of an institution which has been about one man and one woman for “millennia-plus time”, Enda Kenny simply offered his conclusion that same-sex couples should have the right to say “two small words, made up of three simple letters – I DO.”
He hopes these two little words will become “letters of freedom” in the lives of same-sex couples; which sounds more like Mills and Boon than John Stuart Mill. Marriage was never about making anyone free; marriage is a binding covenant which restricts the freedom of the married partners. But sentimentalism sells and it makes for better sound-bites. And, to be fair, it isn’t Kenny’s only argument. Redefining marriage will demonstrate Ireland is a fair, compassionate and tolerant society. Which implies, more or less, that to disagree with the Taoiseach is to demonstrate that you are bigoted, cruel and intolerant.
But those who disagree with Kenny are not interested in discriminating against anyone: they simply believe that marriage is not a social construct which can change with political fashion. The nature of the family calls out for an institution which protects men and women in committed relationships. Of course, every family is a large, complicated web of relationships, and roles are seldom simply defined. This allows families to adjust and respond to tragic circumstances. Sometimes a grandmother must act as a mother to her grandchildren; often brother and sisters must become parents for their younger siblings. Sometimes two single aunts, or two single uncles, have combined resources to raise a child in one household.
Very often, these children will experience more love and care, and will see more wisdom, than some children raised by their biological parents. But however much honour and respect these households deserve, – and no matter how much support they should receive from the state – we would never dream of calling the adults “married”. There is more, it appears, to marriage than demonstrating commitment, forming a household, or even raising a child.
And marriage certainly does not exist to honour romantic attachments. It seems misguided to ask the state to dignify romance. To honour a romance, you write a poem, not a law; passion should be celebrated with art, not ceremonies. How can bureaucrats and judges ascertain if a couples intimacy is genuine and heartfelt? What stake could the government possibly have in our liaisons? What business is it of theirs anyway?
But the government does have a stake in families. And,whether we like it or not, at the heart of every family is a relationship between a man and a woman. Whatever our technological advances, a child cannot exist unless sperm and ovum meet. With the advent of reproductive technologies, the relationship between the man and the woman might be little more than an impersonal, anonymous financial arrangement. Still, without that man and woman a new life would not be possible. We might try to obscure the facts of life with elaborate legal fictions but these stubborn simple, biological facts remain.
It is also an inescapable fact that children seek to know and love their biological parents, and feel an acute loss when they can do neither. For better or worse, we feel a great attachment to the people who gave us our life and identity; all other things being equal, we need our parents to be as committed to one another as they are to us. And the desire to nurture our own children is deeply etched into our nature: it takes considerable amorality to override this programming. Yet it takes wisdom and virtue to turn those instincts into unconditional love; and such virtue is practically impossible without the guidance and support of a strong community.
Progress cannot write “male” and “female”, or “mother” and “father” out of human nature. Some have become so enlightened by modernity that they no longer see what was once obvious. They must be reminded that families cannot endure without children; that every child has a mother and a father; that intimacy between a man and a woman will tend to produce children; and that children do not only need parenting, but to be connected to their parents.
Our world is less than ideal: not every child will receive what they need. All the more reason, then, to promote and protect marriage. Marriage exists where a man and woman vow to live together in a life-long, exclusive sexual relationship. We protect and promote these relationships because every child deserves to have parents who would stay together forever. Every child should know who gave them life, and that the measure of love is not feeling and passion, but sacrifice and perseverance. Every person must be taught that the next generation depends on a man and a woman learning to love one another.
A civil society should allow everyone to express their opinions tactfully and respectfully. For all the talk of “diversity”, the rhetoric of some politicians and celebrities – and the odious comments made by the recently educated on Twitter – dogmatically demands that everyone in modern Ireland must subscribe to one point of view. Those who do not believe that marriage can or should be redefined are deemed backward, illiberal, Neanderthal, fascist fundamentalists who belong to a different era. It will take more than spin, sound-bites and the disapproval of the intelligentsia to convince someone to change their mind on such a profound moral issue. Perhaps they are not really interested in the opinions of their opponents so long as there is outward conformity to the new orthodoxy.
But nothing compels those who agree to shout it from the roof-tops; no one likes to force their opinion on others, but the Irish government has asked people for their opinion. So “No” voters ought not to feel they are committing a crime against humanity if ” they express their beliefs quietly in the privacy of the polling booth.
_____________________________________
Related Articles:
The Pros and Cons of Conscience Clauses
A Brief Case Against the Redefinition of Marriage