Richard Land is a Dolt (Immodestly Modest Edition)

Richard Land the president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Not surprisingly, he has some traditionally conservative viewpoints on marriage, which he’s lately put together in a “modest proposal” of disingenuity and prejudice at the Christian Post (which he is, not coincidentally, the Executive Editor):  What Relationships Should Be Called Marriage: A Modest Proposal:

The issue of whether Americans should approve “same-sex” marriage …

Aaaaand, we’re off and running with “scare quotes”.

… continues to be debated heatedly in the 2012 election cycle. President Obama has “evolved” on the issue …

Aaaaand, more scare quotes.  Minor credit because it was a quotation, but “evolve” is also a Baptist do whistle word.

to the place where he supports “same-sex” marriage, making no distinction between the time-honored institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman and a relationship between two people of the same sex.

Or, perhaps seeing the institution as something not definitively tied to gender as much as to other attributes.

The issue emerged recently in a September 20th debate in the U.S. senatorial contest in Virginia between George Allen (R) and Tim Kaine (D). Former Governor Kaine, when asked about the issue, couched his answer in terms of civil rights and equality, stating “that relationships should be treated equally.”

Equivalent relationships should be treated equally.  The question, of course, is what are the fundamental attributes that constitute “equivalent.”

Marriage has been defined in Western civilization for at least two millennia now as being a sexual relationship between one man and one woman. Christianity has defined it so historically, most often coupling it with life-long permanence and monogamy. As an Evangelical Christian, I certainly embrace that definition.

And here we come to a core problem with this entire debate:  lack of clarity of terms and historical precedent.

Marriage has been defined, in Western civilization for at least two millennia …

• As a way for two (usually) people who love each other to commit to that love in fidelity. (Relatively modern, but what most people think of as marriage these days … and gender blends only come into it when someone raises the question.)
• A way to ensure sexual fidelity to avoid sexual sin.
• A way to ensure sexual fidelity to avoid debates of paternal lineage and, thus, inheritance. (This has been the biggie in Western history.)
• A way to establish inter-family ties and political bonds. (See: royal marriages)
• A way to establish a home for children.

And, of course, that ignores the fact that “Western civilization” (not to mention “Christianity”) are not universals, and have no more objective standing than any other social configuration around the globe across space and time.

However, how do we deal with those who would choose to extend some of the legal privileges our society has accorded marriage to same-sex relationships without shattering the definition of marriage …

I suppose you could have a rational, intelligent discussion about what “marriage” is, about what those legal privileges are, why they are associated with marriage, etc.

… or discriminating against people outside the heterosexual definition of marriage?

I suppose you could … um, what?

(This is the intro to an interesting line of argument from Land. Stay tuned.)

How do we protect society against those who would extend the special status of marriage to homosexual, lesbian or polygamous relationships?

What makes you think you need to protect society from them?

And why do you lump polygamy with monogamous marriage?

How do we protect time-honored titles, like “husband” and “wife,” from being attacked as homophobic or sexist terms to be replaced by spouse #1 and spouse #2 or “Mom” and “Dad” from being reduced legally to caregiver #1 and caregiver #2?

Well, you certainly don’t do so by insisting that those titles should only be used in certain, defined-by-you, relationships, and thus cannot be used by others.

Instead, one way is to accept and include others into those titles.

Such legal assaults …

Ooooh. Sounds violent.

… on these time-honored family terms seem inevitable if “same-sex” marriage becomes equal with heterosexual marriage.

Scare quotes!

Also … why?  I know gay couples who refer to a “husband” or “wife” or plurals, depending on what they mean to those people.  The presupposition that those titles only apply to a given gender is actually part of an argument that they have a meaning beyond gender — that husband doesn’t just mean the male spouse, but has certain objective, intrinsic roles that are different from those of wife.

If that’s what you really mean, Richard, then say so.

Ditto for “Mom” and “Dad”, which seem even less vulnerable to social trends than you think, Richard. “Heather Has Two Moms” … nobody’s arguing that a female parent/guardian of a child should be referred to as “Caregiver”.  It may mean that formal forms that get filled out at the beginning of the school year need to use the term, but socially and familialy, I suspect “Mom” and “Dad” will continue to survive.

(And, if they don’t, as words — so what?  What’s more important is the role being played than the nomenclature — which is why we don’t mind that we don’t use the terms mater and pater any more, either.)

I propose that as Americans we declare heterosexual marriage as the only relationship in our society that is to be defined by its sexual nature and that it will continue to be defined as a legal relationship between one man and one woman consummated by sexual intercourse.

Well. Isn’t that interesting?  I haven’t heard of marriage being defined as “consummated by sexual intercourse” since history classes about kings and queens. I suppose it’s been used as grounds for divorce (or annulment), but in general I don’t know many people who don’t consider themselves married until they’ve had sexual intercourse under certain legal grounds. Especially given the statistics (for better or worse) about couples who “consummate” their relationship long before they get some sort of legal (let alone religious) blessing.

Of course, that begs the issue of why.  Why should “heterosexual marriage” be “the only relationship in our society that is to be defined by its sexual nature”?  So far, the only harm described by you, Richard, is that some government forms might have to have labels changed.

This obsession with sex seems, frankly, kind of unhealthy.

If two men or two women are living together in a relationship and they want to ask the state legislature in their state to grant some of the special legal privileges accorded marriage to their relationship the state legislature should respond in the following fashion: “We will consider your request, but the sexual nature of your relationship will be irrelevant to our discussions because marriage is the only relationship in our society that is defined by its sexual nature. Why should other people who are living in committed relationships that do not involve sexual activity be discriminated against or left out?”

In other words, the state legislature would not discriminate against two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship. Why should such households and relationships be left behind when legal privileges and recognition are being passed out just because they are not in a sexual relationship?

Um … what?

So Land’s “modest proposal” seems to be, “We will only consider sexual activity for heterosexual relationships. [Because  considering it for other relationships is too icky.]  Therefore, we cannot give homosexual couples ‘special’ rights and privileges  because that would be unfair to other couples who are living together who aren’t getting such ‘special’ rights and privileges.”

Huh.

A few thoughts on how wrong this is.

First off, it handwaves the whole subject of why sexual activity should only be considered in a heterosexual relationship. It’s sort of DADT writ large and Queen Victoria refusing to believe that two women could possibly do or feel such things. The sole distinction in heterosexual relationships, as a generalized whole, is that the have the possibility of creating children.

Of course, individuals in homosexual relationships can have children, and the couple can raise them as a family. But Land chooses to ignore this.

And, of course, some heterosexual relationships cannot have children, but Land still chooses to recognize them as sexual relationships.

And, of course, some of those “maiden or widowed” women who were “living together” historically were, in fact, engaged in sexual relationships that were simply not publicly acknowledged.

Further, there are, in fact, legal and legislative proposals and laws that encompass non-sexual relationships as couples that ought to be able to share in at least some of the legal rights of married couples, as to benefits, and visitation, and inheritance, and so forth. Land appears to be unaware of this, but it’s out there. And if two people who care for each other choose to pool their lives together, platonic or not, why should the law treat them as substantively different from two folks who are having legally registered (heterosexual) sex?

If the peoples’ elected representatives in the various states were to undertake such legislation, it would certainly do much to protect marriage as the unique institution that it is in our society, while according all other relationships that equality that former Governor Kaine so desires.

Except, of course, Land’s belief is that the result would be heterosexual (sex) marriage über alles, with any other relationships arbitrarily relegated to second-class ones, whereas the reality is that such legislation might instead raise other committed emotional and financial relationships to the same level of heterosexual (sex) marriage. Which, I suspect, is not what Land intends.

Modestly or not.