Mohler is incorrect if he says throughout history marriage has been [solely] defined as a heterosexual union. It has not. If he meant to qualify that to just civilizations, then he still appears to be wrong. Same-sex marriage apparently became illegal in ancient Rome in the AD 300s, but it was not always so according to Boswell’s “Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality”. I believe it was Herdt who discusses Dorian same-sex marriages in ancient Greece.

Language exists to communicate cultural concepts, and the concepts a word carries are controlled by culture – a candle flame is good (it provides light) while an inferno is bad (is destroys and kills) yet flame and inferno are in practice the same thing – fire. New concepts generate new words (internet, homosexual, photograph) or co-opt existing ones (google, gay, camera) in order to be communicated. Words’ meanings are not set in stone, and in some cases different groups who attach similar but distinct meanings to a single word.

For example, both scientists and the LGBT community take “homosexual” to mean “someone attracted only to the same gender” – which includes ex-gays and excludes bisexuals & transsexuals. For the Religious Reich “homosexual” means “someone who has sex with the same gender” – which excludes (some) ex-gay people, but includes many bisexuals & transsexuals. The Religious Reich’s meaning is based on voluntary action, allowing them to perpetuate the idea that being gay is a choice; ours is based upon involuntary emotion, which precludes that same idea.

In the case of the word “marriage”, for me it is where two adults have made promises to love, care for and support one-another as equals. For many moderate Christians the definition is similar, but restricted to a man and woman. For the Religious Reich it is the same as for moderate Christians, but with the man dominant and an explicit expectation of reproduction. Go back further and marriage is the means by which a man comes into material possession of a woman and her property; further still and the man is able to take possession of several women in this way; yet further and women are treated in a manner similar to cattle – marriage was a form of purchase, with women traded as breeding-stock to produce heirs. In each case as you go down that thread, the meaning of the word marriage (or its cognates) has changed slightly to reflect changing cultural attitudes, with successive concepts supplanting older ones until the oldest concept of “marriage” bears little resemblance to mine.

The Religious Reich fears losing control over public discourse regarding homosexuality, and the fight for gay marriage is right at the core of this: for them it is a battle over the definition of a word which symbolises their public influence. Lose the battle and they lose the war – even those who hold to their idea but are happy to let others define marriage differently are a threat. This is why they say gay marriage will be the “end of civilisation” – it will, but only their restricted definition of “civilisation”. For everyone else, civilisation will carry on regardless.

I read Mohler’s essay as an admission that it’s all not about the family itself or the true good of the children, or even about the notion of marriage for the Christian Right at bottom (so to speak). It’s really only about maintaining childrens’ belief in the distinctions and definitions that underly the traditional patriarchal family roles and its divisions of authority/power. In short, it’s about propping up the traditional patriarchy at the expense of gay people.

The myth of heterosexual superiority in service to the desire for heterosexual hegemony in service to the reality of heterosexual privilege.

Or on a more personal level: I’m better than you.