Marriage Equality for same-sex couples

SR:  What do you think of Obama’s endorsement of same sex marriages?

  M:  How tiresome! We have already discussed the topic. 

SR: Yes, I remember you admired Obama’s use of language and choice of words in presenting his position. 

M: It was well done, was it not?  He expressed himself very nicely.

SR: Never mind how nicely he worded things or the expressions he used, what do you think of marriage equality for people of the same sex?

M:  Marriage equality?  It is another marvelous term which frames the outcome Obama wishes to achieve.  

SR: Never mind the expression!  What do you think of the idea?  

M:  The idea is a wonderful construction of words to sell his product to the American Public.  Remember the saying: The medium is the message?  The term marriage equality is good packaging for his message.  Many have already bought the idea.

SR:   I don’t think it is good packaging. I find it deceptive and contradictory.

 M: From your perspective it looks that way, but not from his. He has a right to frame the question the way he wants.

SR:  I disagree. He should frame the question fairly so that it corresponds to reality, instead of putting a spin on it that promotes his goals. 

M: Really?  I see nothing wrong with this phrasing of the issue.  He is for the right of people of the same sex to enter into marriage, and says they should have that right recognized by law, just as people of opposite sex do.  Why not call that marriage equality?

SR: Because two men cannot do what a man and a woman can do, namely generate new life. Nor can two women. So marriage equality between gay couples and heterosexual couples is a contradiction in terms.  It is like a square circle:  an absurd concept that does not fit the reality it purports to name. The mouth can say the words, but the mind cannot picture the reality.  No same sex couple can couple and engender new life. That’s the reality of the situation.

M: Can you prove your assertion and get people to believe you? Obama has a good following behind his proposal.

SR:  It is self evident and axiomatic. It doesn’t have to be proved because it is obvious, like the statement that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

M: It is not at all axiomatic. There is much more to marriage than the act of procreation.   

SR: Of course there is.  Man is to woman, and woman is to man, as lock is to key. But what is clearly distinct and unique to the male-female union is the generation of new life.  That is why it is the distinguishing feature.

M: Aha! The lock and key metaphor shows that you are using the same slippery language as Obama! If it is fair for you to do, then he can use elusive language too.

SR:  Man and woman are to each other as lock is to key.  There is nothing deceptive about that. The use of lock and key imagery connotes the depth of rich meaning signified in the marriage union. It is accurate and corresponds to reality because husband and wife do unlock what is in each other by enabling one another to grow in various ways.

M: You may say so, but I believe you bear the burden of proof. You have to make your assertion so attractive that it compels consent.

SR: Truth is attractive. Truth is compelling.  The truth is good and beautiful.

M: Only to those who already agree with you. Remember the words of the poet Robert Frost: “They say the truth will set you free. But my truth will bind you slave to me.”

SR: I have heard that verse somewhere.

M: Some people find your version of the truth enslaving, not freeing. They find your position too rigid, dogmatic, and in short, absolutely inflexible.  What can you say to them to change their minds?

SR: I don’t know. I don’t know how to make anyone see what they don’t want to.  Do you?

 M: That is the weakness of your position. You want the truth to be freely embraced. Truth is too complex to speak for itself; also, too abstract. It has to be specific, concrete and alive.

SR: I agree with that!  But instead of complex, I would use the word mysterious. Truth is simple but mysterious. The lived truth is what mysteriously compels assent. The lived truth is beautiful and attractive. Its witness has a splendor which moves people to freely say yes to it! 

M: That is not the point I was trying to make. Now you are twisting my words for your purpose.  But I digress. To return to my point:  You need specific, living examples that personify the Truth of marriage you profess to see so clearly.  Many in your Church do not share your vision of marriage.  What does their lived experience say? What does their  testimony give witness to if not the falsity of your position?

SR: I’m not sure. I need to think more about that. Maybe their lives witness to the mystery of God’s abounding mercy.