‘‘When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean......" - or striking a blow for swivel eyed loons!

Their Lordships voting

A few days ago I read of a bishop who sits in the House of Lords complaining of the pressure he was under in relation to voting for or against legislation about gay marriage. He has both religious and political concerns about the proposed legislation to but more worryingly felt increasingly pressured by party managers and those with an interest in the legislation to vote for the change in the law. In particular he commented about the recent criticism by a senior Conservative politician who called local party workers who might not favour legislation such as gay marriage “swivel eyed loons”. The bishop’s response was that having had his strong convictions about the issue for many years, in the name of democracy he felt he should “strike a blow for swivel eyed loons”. He was right. That is what democracy is all about – it’s not about being railroaded to vote this way or that by those more powerful. It’s about making one’s own mind up from the evidence available. One might agree or not with the bishop’s viewpoint but he is entitled to it – it is on that fundamental principle that democracy and law since the Magna Carta are based.

Mayor Bloomberg

I was thinking about the bishop’s predicament when I read another article on the same subject – this time by no less a person than Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York (Guardian June 3rd 2013). Bloomberg essentially made two points. Firstly that not to allow same sex marriages discriminates against gay people,  and to quote Bloomberg, “would relegate same-sex couples to second-class status”. He furthered this argument by suggesting that  “it is consistent with democracy's promise of equal rights for all people”. In other words he is linking same sex marriage with some democratic beliefs or imperatives. Bloomberg’s second thesis was something which, I have to say, had not really occurred to me – that gay marriage and all that it implies is good for the economy. He said: “..... legalising same-sex marriage has sharpened New York City's competitive edge in the global economy, because it has made us an even more attractive place to live and work – not just for gay men and women, but for all people who want to live in a tolerant and free community. And as someone whose company is building a new European headquarters in London, I can say that same-sex marriage would make the UK an even more attractive place for companies to do business, because freedom attracts talent”. No wonder Michael is in favour of gay marriage!

Bloomberg’s comments, too, resonated with the pressures being put on the bishop in the House of Lords when he said “Religious tolerance is a vital part of a democratic society. But religious rules should never dictate society's laws. Some religions prohibit eating pork. Others prohibit drinking alcohol. Others prohibit divorce. That is their right. But we reject any attempt to impose those prohibitions on society, because the freedom to engage in those activities should be no less protected. The same is true of same-sex marriage......”   That comment is so facile and ill considered that I wonder how Bloomberg reached the position that he has. Religious tolerance is indeed a vital part of a democracy – but changing the law about marriage is manifestly and vastly different than whether or not people eat pork or drink alcohol. We already have specific "rules" or laws  - both religious and civil - in relation to marriage we do not have the same sort of rules in relation to the eating of pork or the drinking of alcohol. Tampering with or reinterpreting something like marriage which already has a legal and social (and religious) status has clear implications for the law and for society. It can only be done after the most careful of considerations - hence the bishop's anxieties.

Protesters against gay marriage

Now at this point I need to declare my “interest” or viewpoint. I have listened to and read the various arguments and have a huge amount of sympathy or respect, or call it what you will, for gay people and their desire to be treated “equally” – whatever that might mean. I have absolutely no doubt that despite the changes to laws and social views of the past half century direct or indirect homophobia is both rampant and insidious in its workings – even in our most enlightened communities and societies.  Indeed, perhaps my comments in this blog are evidence of that – if so it is entirely unintended. But  while writing these last few sentences I am taken back to New York – Bloomberg’s own city when we visited it a few years ago. We were fortunate that we were in the city on the day of the Gay Pride Parade – what a wonderful experience – the spectacle, the fun but most of all the good humour and freedom of it all. When recalling the time that Sunday afternoon that we spent standing in the crowds on Fifth Avenue watching the Parade pass Pat and I often tell of the American lady who stood beside us in the crowd. As we watched she obviously heard our English accents and asked us, in a southern accent where in England we were from. “From Nottingham” we replied. “And do they have this sort of thing over there?” she asked. “No, not in Nottingham” we answered “but there is a parade in London – but not so big - do you have one where you come from?”  She looked at us and gravely said “No, Sir, we surely do not  - and certainly  not on the Lord’s Day. Where I live in Texas the sheriff would take out his shot gun!”  Yes, even in this day and age and even in the enlightened USA there is not universal approval  and freedom for all.

A very hot and wonderful day on Fifth
Avenue a few years ago

I am totally convinced that there is a moral, political, economic and social imperative that governments and peoples need to ensure that all in society, whatever their viewpoint, gender, orientations, colour, creed and every other dimension of the human condition are treated equally and have the same opportunities and rights. But, despite all that, somewhere deep within me lurks an anxiety and a concern about the term “single sex marriage”. No matter how I try I cannot rid myself of the view – not especially for religious reasons – that implicit in the term “marriage” is, in the western tradition, an undeniable and long established assumption of heterosexual union. There, I’ve said it! In many respects I wish it were not thus – it would be so much easier and comfortable to simply go along with it and say – “Hey, we must stop this discrimination, this blatant unfairness -  everyone should be allowed to marry whatever their background , we all have to be equal, democracy is at risk if we do not do this......”  I'm sure that the poor bishop felt exactly the same. Indeed it would fit in with our modern pluralistic viewpoints  and we have consistently done it on many other issues for many years. But, as I say, it's implications are such that it is too important to be done lightly and for me there is a nagging doubt that this cannot be right.

And for me this is the nub of the concerns expressed by the bishop. It not the desire to impose upon others a religious belief or to limit the freedoms of others because of their sexual orientation  or religious convictions. It is a simple anxiety about the terminology. Indeed this was the essence, I think of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s concern  - that a legitimate issue and much needed piece of legislation was being badly and clumsily confused with the requirements of “marriage” in its accepted sense. It beggars my belief that the rights, freedoms and opportunities of gay people cannot protected and promoted and “equal” to everyone else’s without this confusion with traditional marriage.

In writing this I am minded of a comment by the American political philosopher Michael Sandel. He was not writing about gay marriage but made the comment that “Democracy does not require perfect equality, but it does require that citizens share a common life. What matters is that people of different backgrounds and social positions encounter one another, and bump into each other in the course of everyday life.......”  Clearly, to ensure that the rights and experiences of all are protected and promoted  there is a need for more than Sandel suggests and in the final analysis – and certainly, in relation to guaranteeing the rights and democratic, social or economic statutes in gay partnerships - there will be a need for clear legislation. But, it should not be beyond the wit of politicians and governments to ensure that this is specific to the need rather than simply “bending the rules” and the accepted and established  conventions and meaning of the word “marriage”.  By simply recycling or redefining that term or condition seems to me to be a clumsy and inappropriate option.  It restates and reinforces the  nonsense world envisaged in the words from  “Alice Through the Looking Glass”. When Alice met Humpty Dumpty on his wall, and he was talking nonsense and was quite unintelligible. He used words that had entirely different meanings to Alice and when she questioned him on this he replied  "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less...........’"This is what is being done in relation to the word “marriage” when we talk of “gay marriage” – it is a usurping of the term and simply bending it to mean whatever one wants it to.

I am not suggesting that language must be fixed and unchanging. Language and words are always changing – and English more so than many other tongues.  All language must be creative – for it not to be so means is the surest way of bringing about its demise. But there is a difference, it seems to me, between developmental change (e.g. “OK” to replace “all right” or the introduction of completely new terms (e.g. “software” – to define something that was previously unknown) and the knowing redefining of a specific term to mean something else which is what is happening to the word "marriage".  

The ancient Athenian Philosopher Cratylus increasingly felt that communication was  becoming increasingly impossible without exactly defined words. He found, even in those far off days,  that language could change so quickly that it was impossible to be sure of its meaning. As a result, legend has it, he gave up speaking entirely. Cratylus would have had much in common with Professor Tony Judt  who wrote  eloquently on this. Judt reminded us of the importance of clarity of meaning in words just before he died when he commented “....it [the misuse of words] ......leads to a shortcoming of thought.  For many centuries in the western tradition, how well you expressed a position corresponded closely to the credibility of your argument....... it was never a matter of indifference...... Confused words suggested, at best, confused ideas ....... when words lose their integrity so do the ideas they express........the outcome is potential anarchy.“

When we go down the path of words losing their established or intended meaning, of fudging the edges of words, or worse, of changing the meaning of a word then we are potentially on a slippery spiral with far reaching and often unintended repercussions. The very essence - the language, the thoughts, the ideas, the  intentions, the aspirations and the beliefs - of a society and civilization is at risk. Once words and ideas become fudged or unclear then they can be used by those who would influence and over power us. Words and their meanings matter – it is upon the meaning of words that democracy and law are built. For hundreds of years legal arguments and judgements have been made based upon the meaning of the law as expressed in words - the British Parliament and the chambers of lawyers throughout the land are filled with documents and learned papers all filled with words and legal clarifications of what this law or that means.  In America the interpretation of the Constitution and the many amendments to it are all based firmly in a clear understanding of the words uttered by the Founding Fathers and upon the subsequent judgements of the Supreme Court since. Much as it appeals one cannot simply rewrite legal history or civilization's "take" on what something means - especially when the word in question is a term defining one of the fundamental social and legal building blocks of that society

Prof. Tony Judt just before he died

So, for me the issue about “gay marriage” is not a religious issue. It is not an issue about democracy. It is plainly and simply about the word that we would use to describe the institution – and for me it cannot be “marriage”. I have absolutely no doubts that gay people have a “right” to expect equality of opportunity (whatever that means) in relation to the law, their relationships and to the rest of society. That would seem to me to be a simple moral imperative which society cannot and must not avoid. It cannot, however, be called a “marriage”. It cannot, I believe, be outside the wit of society to find a term to describe a gay relationship that is in every way equal and the same to a heterosexual marriage – but it cannot for me be termed “marriage.”

There are two other points that I would make – both in relation to mayor Bloomberg’s comments.  He talks of the important implications for democracy if gay “marriage” is not sanctioned. His anxieties may be well placed – but for me the danger to democracy is far more evident and concerning in the case of the bishop who felt himself pressured and threatened by those who would influence him. Just as fundamental to democracy as equality of rights is that of the right to hold unpopular opinions. When we lose that right we really are well on the way to a totalitarian state. And secondly (and this might seem trivial – it is not) when politicians of any creed begin to use as their argument that used by Bloomberg to recommend gay “marriage” – namely that it would “sharpen the competitive edge” or it will “make it  an attractive place for companies to do business”  then alarm bells begin to ring. In my experience  when issues that are essentially moral  in character or are subject to the requirements of law are being espoused as "good for commerce" or the making of profit then there is a clear conflict of interest. The financial scandals of the past four or five years are witness to that. The actions of Wall Street and the City of London – and millions of other financiers throughout the world - were all intended to “sharpen the competitive edge” and make these places "attractive to companies to do business". I’m not, however, too sure how many today would argue that they were also moral or right or good for wider society. I have absolutely no doubt that Bloomberg is right in his observation – it may well attract wonderful creative talent to New York and London when gay marriage is legitimised – but it is not a premise upon which to sanction an essentially moral or legal question. When Bloomberg - a high flying businessman - extols gay marriage because it will improve business then my immediate reaction is "well he would say that wouldn't he!" - and I immediately think of the old saying "When money talks nobody checks the grammar" . A not wholly inappropriate reflection when business is being used as a legitimising factor to redefine language or influence opinion!