Rhetoric and the redefinition of marriage (Debate in the new millennium, Part 2)

I want to blend two previous threads here.

First, it is a hallmark of Millennialist discourse to redefine words in the middle, then use them in their new definitions, often as an ironic commentary on previous ideas in the discourse.

Second, the widespread public endorsement of homosexuality will continue to be a goal both fought for and fought over.

The two threads come together in the current reaction to California's passage of Proposition 8 which limits the definition of marriage to dual gender relationships only.

There is a cry among the proponents of same-gender marriage that the passage of Proposition 8 has removed the rights or affected the civil rights of homosexuals in California. This reasoning is based at least partly on the idea that, since the California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that the right of marriage must be expanded to include same gender couples, there is a civil right to marriage that is being removed from same gender couples.

"Civil right" is usually defined as a right granted by the 13-15 amendments to the US Constitution. The 13th Amendment abolishes slavery, and the 15th prohibits limitations on the voting rights of adult males. The only right possibly claimed to have been abridged by Proposition 8 would be those defined in the following clause from the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The way the argument in favor of same-gender marriage is usually framed implies that the right to marry has been taken away from homosexuals.

This is not true.

If there were laws that sifted homosexuals out of the equation before they were allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender, then there would be a civil rights issue. If, for example, a homosexual man and a lesbian woman chose to marry, and they were asked about their sexual orientation before the ceremony, then were forbidden to marry after confessing their homosexuality, then their civil rights will have been violated.

Marriage has always been defined as a dual-gender relationship, and only recently have modifiers begun to alter the meaning of the word (ie, "gay marriage"). Marriage has never been taken away from homosexuals; same-gender sexual relationships with the same sanction of marriage have only recently been considered and redefined to use the word "marriage."

The entire argument, therefore, is based on redefinition ("marriage," "civil right"), and not on a previously understood definition of either idea.

Related to redefinition are grammatical implications. "It is not a choice," is often say about "being gay." "Being" and "gay" are both redefined in this construct, but "it" is used as a pronoun without a specific antecedent. An argument then becomes impossible. How can the question of choice be debated when what "it" is is not clear?

The same tactic is used in discourse over abortion. The expression, "right to choose," is frequently used in public discourse of abortion, but "choose" is used as an intransitive verb, when the intention of both sides is that it is transitive--in other words, it requires the direct object "abortion" (also in its verbal form "to abort"). Do I believe in the "right to choose"? Of course, in the abstract who in the United States objects to the right of choice. Do I believe in the right to choose abortion, or the right to choose to abort a baby? There, the debate may become more productive.