Language, emotion and same-sex unions
The Presbyterian Layman May/June 2000 Volume 33, Number 3, May 22, 2000
Feelings are likely to run high and rhetoric is likely to be slippery when General Assembly commissioners debate denominational approval for “same-sex unions,” which, being interpreted, is “marriage.”
Intense emotion and imprecise language are standard tools of the trade for gay activists. And with widespread sentiment to postpone discussing gay ordination for another year, the highest profile item on the activists’ agenda becomes gay marriages, specifically defeating three overtures that seek to add specific provisions to the Book of Order that would prohibit ministers from conducting, and church property from being used for, such ceremonies. (See story, Church court, assembly to review same-sex rites)
In debating these overtures, commissioners should be prepared for both emotional manipulation and linguistic obfuscation.
“We are your children and you’re killing us” is part of an impassioned stump speech that has played well at past assemblies. Personal pain is paraded until sentiment overwhelms any residual tendencies toward rational thought. At this point, unsubstantiated claims are presented as uncontestable fact.
This year one such claim could be, “All any homosexual wants is to be involved in a long-term, monogamous relationship. Because that is their desire, it is therefore their right to have such relationships blessed by the church, legitimized by the state and considered in every way the equal of heterosexual marriage.”
That’s where the fuzzy language part comes in.
The Bible declares marriage to be between a man and a woman. Even California agrees. So gay activists soothingly affirm “Of course that’s what marriage is. That’s why we are advocating ‘same sex unions.’ We’re not calling for gay marriage but for religious ceremonies uniting same-sex partners conducted in churches by ministers and legally recognized by the state.”
It is worth noting, however, that Presbyterian ministers in Hudson River Presbytery who conduct such ceremonies used the terms “marriage” and “holy union” interchangeably when interviewed by The New York Times. (A case concerning the presbytery’s authorization of such ceremonies is currently before the denomination’s highest judicial body. See story, Church court to hear three major cases)
When the language is parsed and emotional equilibrium restored, one thing is clear: Proponents see same-sex unions as marriages. God does not. No compromise is possible. No common ground exists.