Redefining marriage and law through bio-psycho-religio-lingo-socio-legal factors

INTRODUCTION-DEFINITION OF REDEFINING:

On the point that once redefined  concept soon becoming a definition of that concept I take courage of redefining it again or in other words taking it back to the older form of  it in a new way. At the very outset  defining what is redefining, notwithstanding the fact that marriages being recently redefined  commonly in many countries of the world to be defined now as such on its acceptance by the public to be the definition,  I bring it  out as “to change the meaning of something or to make people think about something in a new or different way”[1] or “to give something a new meaning”[2] “to change the way you think about a situation or activity because of new developments or ideas”[3]. This redefining is necessary now as gay marriage initiates the severance and dismemberment of marriage and family in more family friendly societies, such as Spain and the Netherlands. Also there is free-fall towards the Scandinavian model – driving “home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any ‘family form’, is acceptable.” Redefining marriage does  simply expand the existing understanding of marriage,  fortifying the present understanding scientifically, foreseeing the break down of marriages and plight of children.

The  redefinition of marriage  that  I suggest can be set forth  as follows with a solid example relating to it, wherein we find values being absent, confusion reigning. That’s why lawmakers in South Dakota recently  found it necessary to pass a law requiring students to use bathrooms and changing rooms that correspond to their sex at birth. Why would lawmakers take time to pass a bill that says boys can’t go into the girl’s changing room, or that girls can’t use the boy’s bathroom?  Because on April 29, 2014, the U.S. Department of Education   proclaimed  against the basic understanding of the anatomy  of  a baby at birth determining  sex / gender. “Sex” under the Department’s new “interpretation” of Title IX, the law  required  schools to treat boys and girls equally, would now be determined by how a student “feels.” So if a biological boy “feels” like a girl, the school must treat him as a girl or face the consequences. In April of 2015, schools were reminded that a boy could use the girl’s changing room if he decided one day he felt like a girl. In fact the federal government threatened to pull $6 million in funding from a high school in Illinois until it complied with the new definition of sex in Title IX. But here comes  the problem, no court has ever interpreted Title IX as requiring schools to give students access to opposite-sex restrooms and changing areas.  Hence with the basic understanding of what determines a person’s sex  being rejected, schools were struggling to determine how to tell who is a boy and who is a girl. Here the new definition of the Dakota Education Department  is the redefinition of sex from its common sense. Having once been redefined it is the definition and so if  it  needs again different definition it is redefinition whether going back or coming to an entirely new one. This way the Common Sense Bill passed by the Department again is a Redefinition of sex. This way I am going back to substantiate things based on biology, psychology,  religion, linguistics, the society and law, which are nothing but things  related to common sense in marriage, which is my Redefinition of Marriage.

Throughout history and all over the globe  marriage, the union of a man and a woman, has been the bedrock of  any society and enabled communities to prosper. But now politicians are seeking to ‘redefine’ marriage to introduce same-sex marriage. Homosexual activists are demanding this radical change which would abolish the traditional definition of marriage and impose a new version on the whole of society, especially on the children who grow on what they are taught. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.

Marriage and family being  redefined legally is based on Biological, Psychological, Religious, Linguistic ,Social and Legal factors. These  six elements are vehemently connected with one another. Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Let us analyse all these as follows.

MARRIAGE:

It is important to define/ redefine marriage now lest we should not  forget what it is as

the Westminster Government issued an impact assessment  in 2012  on redefining marriage, explaining how the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ will need to be stripped from official data held by immigration and tax authorities.[4] The Labour Government Green Paper in 1998 on the Family, Supporting Families, said, “… marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain”.[5]

The legal definition of marriage , “the voluntary union   for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”[6] ,  having been redefined  in 2005  via three-people relationships  being given legal recognition through a “cohabitation agreement”[7] ,  after the  legalization of  same-sex marriage in 2001 by Holland as the first country in the world, we need to redefine it  again  in terms of true sense of marriage. The language of married love is spoken of  in and through their bodies  in sexual difference. We see the complete and total gift of self to the other, which is a gift being open to the further gift of the child. Anthropologically and Biblically  Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife “to multiply” with children and to be father and mother of them.

If marriage does not have to be defined as the union of one man and one woman, on what basis should a ‘marriage’ be limited to only two people?  Jonathan Yarbrough, one of the two men to obtain the first same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, USA, has said: “I think it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner… In our case, it is. We have an open marriage.”[8] Guardian blogger Martin Robbins said: “What’s wrong with polygamy? It seems to be that a child brought up by three loving parents would have some quite big economic advantages, and humans have cooperated in child-rearing since the year dot.”[9]

BIOLOGICAL FACTORS OF A MARRIAGE:

Children are born to people of different sexes when they are biologically united which is the ultimate aim of marriage, as men being 25%  feminine  in nature and women being 25% masculine, we need the perfection biologically by their union in marriage. This is not at all possible otherwise. So by present redefinition of marriage we try to change the natural phenomena  of the marriage. Only a man can be a father; only a woman can be a mother... The chemicals, hormones secreted  in women do not secrete in men and vice versa  and so the parental  patronage of  a mother or father  brings irreplaceable gifts to the shared task of child-rearing . A child should not be deliberately deprived of a married mom and dad. Parenting is gender-specific, not gender-neutral.  Biologically  men and women are different so the child gets solace, comfort and  health. Men could understand the feelings of the child in one way and the mother could  do it in another way biologically. If this mother-father relationship is replaced  by   single gender relationship the child would lack drastically throughout its life. Who would replace it by what ? Men and women perceive pain differently and respond differently. “Women (and men) are certainly influenced by their hormones, and certainly influenced by their genes. But hormones and genes do not act in a vacuum. They act within an environment, and very importantly, within a society. A woman is very capable of both affiliating and responding sensitively to her baby and to still maintain a life.”[10] A hormone is a chemical substance. It is secreted by one tissue and travels by way of body fluids to affect another tissue in our body. In essence, hormones are "chemical messengers." Many hormones, especially those affecting growth and behavior, are significant to both men and women.[11]

“Research indicates that, on average, children who grow up in families with both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage are better off in a number of ways than children who grow up in single-, step- or cohabiting-parent households. Compared to children who are raised by their married parents, children in other family types are more likely to achieve lower levels of education, to become teen parents, and to experience health, behavior, and mental health problems”.[12]

Children are conceived through heterosexual intercourse, not through homosexual ones. The most basic unit of society - the family - is based on biology not ideology. It is still certain and visible truth  that most people marry and most marriages last for life.[13]. Biological stature begins with what one eats, which designs his intellect. A seminar on Marriage conducted  at  this University read a paper on Food and its relation to marriage[14]. Our eating patterns design our thinking capacity in tune with the nature.

BIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL  FACTORS:

I  personally believe that in marriage child’s rights are supreme, as the idea fortified in an address  by Hon’ble  Madras High Court Justice Vimala in one of the Conferences[15] and parenthood is nothing more than a duty/responsibility to fulfill the rights of the children. But the conflict arises in the matter that as many believe, we are biologically programmed to have parental instincts at a certain age, and it's universal. Being with his father  or mother is a pure child’s right, which is the duty of the parents to see that the child is not  deprived of that right.

Psychologist Shelley E. Taylor coined the phrase "tend and befriend" after recognizing that during times of stress women take care of themselves and their children (tending) and form strong group bonds (befriending). The reason for these different reactions to stress is rooted in hormones. The hormone oxytocin is released during stress in everyone. However, estrogen tends to enhance oxytocin resulting in calming and nurturing feelings whereas testosterone, which men produce in high levels during stress, reduces the effects of oxytocin. Men tend to have a "fight or flight" response to stress situations while women seem  to approach these situations with a "tend and befriend" strategy. What one hears and knows affects  his psychology leading to a belief and the belief system of a person defines his behaviour.

RELIGIO FACTORS:

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. As former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey has said: “The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.”[16].The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage. There is a little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. The Scriptures say in Genesis 2:24 that a man is to leave his family and cleave to his wife.This concept is repeated in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7. All the scriptures in the Bible concerning marriage presuppose heterosexual marriage. We can teach our kids that there are important spiritual and societal reasons to believe in traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriage. But if same-sex marriage becomes legally recognized across the country, our kids will be told that gay marriage is a civil rights issue and that those who oppose it are akin to the racists of history who opposed interracial marriage and supported slavery.

We can teach our children at home that marriage is between a man and a woman, but our children's public schools will teach them that marriage includes same-sex couples. Both would be "equal marriages" under the law.

Supporters  of  same- sex  marriage repeatedly argue that they merely want to redefine ‘civil marriage’, while leaving ‘religious marriage’ separately.  But this is not acceptable. There can be  only one definition of marriage in law.  As the Church of England has said: “They mistake the form of the ceremony for the institution itself.”[17]  I reiterate that English law defines marriage as “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”. This definition was given by Lord Penzance in the leading case Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee [1866].[18]

A legal marriage may be solemnised in either a religious or a civil setting, but whether the ceremony takes place in Westminster Abbey or a registry office the couple enter the same legal union – marriage. The definition of marriage stands whether the ceremony is religious or civil. Lord Penzance said his ruling recognised the understanding throughout ‘Christendom’. The Western legal tradition on marriage is explicitly based on Christian teaching but marriage is not just for Christians. It is universal. Marriage between one man and one woman for life is part of the natural moral order. It is an independent reality which no governing authority should seek to restructure.

Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is a creation ordinance, instituted by God. Quoting from the book of Genesis, the Lord Jesus Christ said:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”[19]. Virtually all the world’s religions take the same view that sex is exclusively for marriage as in 1 Corinthians 6:9 of the Bible.

LINGUISTIC  FACTORS:

Language. Two sections of the brain responsible for language were found to be larger in women than in men, indicating one reason that women typically excel in language-based subjects and in language-associated thinking. Additionally, men typically only process language in their dominant hemisphere, whereas women process language in both hemispheres. This difference offers a bit of protection in case of a stroke. Women may be able to recover more fully from a stroke affecting the language areas in the brain while men may not have this same advantage. The language pateern of the couple-men-women perfectly complement each one’s lacking. We see that there are three types of languages: the initial language of intimacy and relationship, the language of information, the language of motivation that connects us with romantic love and the deepening communication that we crave as married couples, which are available in heterosexual marriage, as researches suggest[20]

The lingua franca of communication throughout the world today is English language. This language has been designed based on the 44+1 Phonetic symbols for speech and 26 alphabets for writing used in the language, which have been structurally ( shaped) based on our human anatomy, though it is surprising. This is the reason that it has become the most popular and well accepted communicative language for the world amidst many classical and ancient languages.[21] It is also very specifically shaped to be a love language in heterosexual marriage as research on the language has delved[22]

The language spoken, being of pivotal importance, becomes  one’s  protection from accidents, diseases etc. As this is the reason for a language being used for prayers. Moreover women language pleasingly commands while men’s language commandingly pleases and both of them are required for a family.

SOCIO FACTORS:

The future of marriage  would  be a matter to everyone. Marriage is the cornerstone of society. All around the world, across all religions and cultures, the successful societies have been those based upon marriage.[23] Philosopher John Locke referred to marriage as our mankind’s ‘first society’. Marriage is actually a  public commitment, not a private liaison. The married family is profoundly vital for a stable society.

Children are morally entitled to be raised by their biological father and mother, whenever possible. The Argument from Child Welfare presents empirical evidence that this moral entitlement is reflected in the measurable well-being of children.

Social science research has demonstrated that children tend to thrive best when raised by their biological parents, and that mothers and fathers therefore each contribute something unique and valuable to the parenting enterprise. Children raised by their mother and father have a better chance of being prosperous, healthy and well-educated in adulthood. Man-woman marriage policies enshrine this arrangement as a social ideal worth pursuing, while same-sex marriage undermines this ideal altogether.

The impact of  a society activates a person according to his understanding. Rutgers University sociologist David Popenoe explains:”We should disavow the notion that “mommies can make good daddies,” just as we should disavow the popular notion…that “daddies can make good mommies.”… The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being”[24]

As American scholar Prof. Susan Brown recently stated in a review of the research evidence: “Over the past decade, evidence on the benefits of marriage for the well-being of children has continued to mount. Children residing in two-biological-parent married families tend to enjoy better outcomes than do their counterparts raised in other family forms. The differential is modest but consistent and persists across several domains of well-being. Children living with two biological married parents experience better educational, social, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes than do other children, on average. Variation in well-being among children living outside of two-biological-parent married families is comparatively low and often negligible. The benefits associated with marriage not only are evident in the short-term but also endure through adulthood.” The best of all environments for raising children is marriage as the spouses have committed here  themselves to each other, and thus their children, for life. No other kind of relationship whatsoever  provides this environment of stability and permanence for children. Social science confirms that lifelong and loving marriage is the ideal context in which to raise children. We can see the great  majority of children (almost two-thirds) live in a household headed by a married couple.[25]

LEGAL FACTORS:

This paper analyses law recognizing of marriage as  an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. The conflict perspective of marriage with a special emphasis to divorce is analysed. Gender biased enactments  inviting  same-sex marriage are no good, being set forth. Consummation by sexual intercourse is foundational to marriage law throughout the Western world and removing it would completely alter the legal understanding of marriage.[26]

In India such enactments as Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Indian Penal Code Section 498A  etc. are women centered. Many men and women  relatives  of the ‘men-husband’ in India have been arrested, harassed , because of the above said IPC till Arnesh Kumar case[27], irrespective of  offence committed. The same way Sections  18,19,22,23(2) etc. in D.V.Act,2005  especially 23(2) are  against men and even natural law, “Audi alteram partem “ meaning “Hear the other side”. These laws make men hate marriage as it is gender-biased and they would tend to choose gay marriage if available, though it is absent now.

In Spain, birth certificates use the terms “progenitor A” and “progenitor B” in place of mother and father. Canada has removed the concept of “natural parent” from its laws and Sweden seeks to remove the terms “boy” and “girl”, replacing them with one term[28] In 2009 Mexico City introduced same-sex marriage, and already politicians there have proposed two-year fixed term marriages. Instead of divorce, the two-year marriage is not renewed.[29] It is something like a two year term in partnership firm.

Gay marriage initiates the severance and dismemberment of marriage and family in more family friendly societies, such as Spain and the Netherlands. There is free-fall towards the Scandinavian model – driving “home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any ‘family form’, is acceptable.” Either which way, same sex marriage is more a terminus for marriage or ultimate act of dissolution, rather than a force for revival.[30]

The US Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. In dissent, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the Constitution had nothing to say on the subject of same-sex marriage. “If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”. Chief Justice Roberts responded that “people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”[31]

The Supreme Court of India  did not  say  that  Gay Sex should be banned  as it is against Indian Culture and laws of nature. Instead it  said that a High Court does not have the authority to change a law and over ruled the verdict of the high court. As a result Gay Sex Marriages were criminalised again  This is a welcome gesture  though India  had  accepted homosexuality within Indian culture for thousands of years before the West. The legal knowledge examines  his balance in life, his  attitude towards marriage and his total success, leading to happiness.

SURVEY:

A survey that majority of people all over support the view expressed in this paper. Let us point out them for the benefit of the society.

A team of 18 academics reported  in 2011 examining  over 200 separate social science studies on cohabitation, marriage and the plight of children[32] as follows:

*A child who is not living with his or her own two married parents is at greater risk of child abuse;

*Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health, on average, than children in other family forms;

*Cohabitation is associated with higher levels of psychological problems among children.

Above all, The Westminster Government’s Social Justice strategy paper read as follows in March 2012:  “Analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study shows that around one in ten married parents split before a child’s fifth birthday, compared to one in three cohabiting couples. Given that married relationships tend to have greater longevity and stability than other forms, this Government believes marriage often provides an excellent environment in which to bring up children. So the Government is clear that marriage should be supported and encouraged.”[33]

It is also researched that same-sex partners are more prone to diseases and they suffer for want of immunity also.

CONCLUSION:

Same-sex marriage has been created by a tiny minority of countries around the world – only ten out of the 193 UN member countries. Mexico City and six US states have also introduced same-sex marriage. There have been alarming repercussions.[34]. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support  marriage. It gives me pride being an Indian to see that India had accepted homosexuality centuries before the West as most historians agree that homosexuality was largely accepted by across the Indian  until the British colonialism dominated India in the 18th century and introduced Section 377 in Indian Penal Code in 1980. But now having known  about and lived with  homosexuality  more than any other country we do not like to regress or go back to when we were almost like animals to define marriage, where we may also find the next  step as in Canada, where there are major attempts to  legalise polygamy through the courts using the precedent of same-sex marriage, which was introduced there in 2005.[35] . The  same sex couples adopted  children  will grow up with a skewed version of a family, where the society will disintegrate. We can  find the mental tensions of the same sex families. Marriage is an objective reality defined by nature itself not the State. The State does   recognize  what has been existing since we know nature. In a very real sense politicians can no more define marriage than they can decree that henceforth the moon shall be deemed to be made of cheese. Their redefining marriage as prevalent would be the triumph of ideology over reality. But my redefining marriage is an invitation to be back to reality. I hope personally that the realization  of this verse saying as  “So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.”[36]  will really help us take  in  the nature’s natural unity called marriage truly and sincerely with a commitment as a few chorus with the England Prime Minister, David Cameron for their deviation of the definition of marriage despite being conservative, the lack of commitment[37] .