Newspeak and Same-Sex Marriage

Last week we noted David Warren’s observations of how Ontario’s Bill 171, which changes the language in marriage law by replacing “husband” and “wife” with the gender-neutral “spouse,” and how, by changing the language, it provides the grounds for future human rights claims against those who use offensive “heteronormative” language.

This week, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe observes how those “offended” have taken to the streets, and he connects a few more dots on how this new form of social technology will likely shape up:

What is underway here is not simply a tweaking of legal terminology. The crusade for same-sex marriage has never been aimed merely at adjusting the familiar boundaries of married life to make it more inclusive. The real target is the significance of marriage itself — the idea, fundamental to human happiness and all successful societies, that the purpose of marriage is to bring men and women together for their mutual welfare and for the protection and well-being of any children they create or adopt. It is that deeply ingrained belief that the marriage radicals are determined to do away with. One purpose of the official marriage newspeak is to make such thoughts increasingly unthinkable.

When technology makes gender roles (or anything else with a connection to nature) seem irrelevant, then language becomes increasingly opaque, which in turn makes it difficult even to think of what certain terms and phrases signify. This is Orwell’s central teaching about politics and the English language. In his blog, Snowy makes the Orwellian (in the good sense) observation that proponents have narrowed down the terms of debate, making it nearly impossible for an opponent to receive a fair hearing.

Even so, near the end of Jacoby’s column he alludes to Massachusetts Governor Romney’s assertion that ”every child has the right to have a mother and a father.” This of course got him in hot water. However, the rights-claim needs to be considered. If people of the same gender have the right to be married, why should their right out-weigh the right of a child to have both a father and a mother? As thoughtful commentators have observed, the current debates over same-sex marriage rarely consider the rights and needs of children.

Hat tip: Proud to be Canadian