Redefining Marriage: What is at Stake?
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
| Jonathan Tame
“Marriage is an alliance entered into by a man who can't sleep with the window shut, and a woman who can't sleep with the window open.” George Bernard Shaw
While national Marriage Week was celebrated in 18 countries last week, the governor of Washington state signed a bill legalising same-sex marriages. Meanwhile, the British government is preparing to launch a consultation next month on redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Those supporting the change in legal definition argue that it’s an equality issue. In that case, any society committed to ending discrimination must not only allow same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples (which already exist in civil partnerships legislation), it is argued, but should do away with religious restrictions on gay marriage too. On the other hand, those opposing the redefinition of marriage agree that politicians should ensure minorities are not discriminated against, but it is not their job to redefine a centuries old institution that has its roots in the church, nor to pass laws forcing faith groups to act against their beliefs. Moral, religious and cultural arguments are being made to support the traditional view of marriage, but in public debate, the benefit of heterosexual marriage to society in the long term must be demonstrated.
Two arguments stand out. A sustainable society requires each generation to ensure the best possible outcomes for their children. Research studies overwhelmingly conclude that a stable domestic relationship between the biological parents of a child outperforms every other family structure in terms of health, emotional and financial outcomes for their children. Any change in law that further weakens this gold standard of heterosexual marriage for family formation and child development will lead to poorer prospects for children and the next generation.
Secondly, the way that men and women relate to each other is crucial to personal, family and society’s wellbeing. Competitive or coercive gender relationships have led to incalculable suffering over the years; but this problem is not solved by promoting gender uniformity (which is behind the campaign for same-sex marriages). Instead, the structure which best encourages interdependent relations between the genders needs strengthening; society calls this marriage. Redefining it for the sake of the few could bring relational suffering to the many; is it worth the risk?
Gender roles and relationships are stereotyped to the n-th degree, but each one of us can still choose how to relate to the opposite sex; do you have any relationships that need to be shifted from a competitive towards a more complementary basis?
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2: 24)
Read on...
“Gender cooperation: some implications of God’s design for society” is a Cambridge Paper by Michael and Auriel Schluter, which explores some of the challenges of influencing gender relationships. Read this insightful paper here.
Jonathan Tame is Acting Director at the Jubilee Centre, Cambridge. This article first appeared on Friday Five: Stimulating relational thinking, February 17, 2012.
http://fridayfiveblog.blogspot.com.au