The Gay Marriage Fight - Terminology Matters

[rpgamerd00d]

A lot of the problem with the fight for Gay Marriage has to do with terminology, believe it or not.

First and foremost, the word "Marriage". Marriage is a very bad word. It has both a religious meaning and a civil meaning. You can go to Town Hall and get a "Marriage" license. You can go to church and have a priest perform a "Marriage" ceremony. Many conservatives do not want to allow laws that make it legal for gays to "marry" for this reason. We liberals think its wrong to disallow gays to be married. We view it as unconstitutional. However, forcing a church to perform a ceremony that goes against its religious beliefs is also unconstitutional, and as a Liberal, I would have to side with the church and fight against any law that would force them to perform marriages for gays. That is why I feel that the first change in terminology that we need is to abandon, utterly, the word "Marriage". Use "Union", or better yet, "Civil Union" or "Legal Union." Remember, if the fight is over LAW, then use the LEGAL terminology. It doesn't mean gays could not still find a priest to perform a relgious ceremony for them.

Next, and almost as important, is the word "Rights". Marriage is not a Right. (notice the capital R). It is not guarenteed at the Federal level, and it is not part of the Constitution. Technically, a state could ban all marraige, gay and straight, if it chose to. So, we must avoid falling into the trap of calling this a Right. It is not a Right. It is a benefit. It is a freedom. It is a priviledge. But it is not a Right. This may seem like semantics, but I assure you, the Conservatives think this is a big deal. I'm sure you are all aware of the Conservative view of "Strict Constructionism" when it comes to the Constitution. To a Conservative, making Gay Unions a "Right" would actually give them something straight people don't really have, and to them, that is not acceptable. So, to avoid falling into this Constitutional Arguement Trap, we need to avoid the word "Right".

Finally, we come to "rights" (notice the small 'r'). Call them benefits, perks, boons, whatever you want. The right to visit your partner in the hospital, the right to inheritance of property, the right to inherit social security of your spouse, etc. There are many legal benefits, or rights, that a married person gets that are for the most part denied to Gays and their partners. However, a good number of these legal benefits can be gained thru the filing of certain legal documents. But not all of them can be. And that is where we need to make the issue. Its about gay and lesbian couples having access to ALL the same benefits that straight couples do, and WITHOUT having to go thru all of the extra legal hurdles to gain them.

I hope this helps you, and I hope you are more careful about the Terminology you use when discussing this issue with others. We need to be clear about what the issue is, and not get sidetracked into conservative side-arguements.

[shoelace414]

1. I use "Gay Marriage Benefits"

because then you're talking about the benefits, and not the marriage.

[ruggerson]

2. The issue

imho, is not about religion or even love, for that matter.

At its core, it's about equal access in a democratic republic.

If gays and lesbians pay the same taxes as everyone else (which they do), then gay and lesbian couples should have the exact same access to the benefits and rights that everyone else has.

No more, no less.

Period.

[SammyBlue]

3. In my 100th post, I wrote about winning the language war

That those who control the language, control the debate. I got mocked by alot of DUers as saying I was speaking bullshit.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. . .two years later, someone says the SAME thing. MAybe I wasn't stupid.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. Would you then use the term "marriage"

for a religious ceremony?

I like the word "union." And we need to find a more generic word for husband and wife. I dislike spouse, and partner is just too platonic. Someone should make up a new one.

I know it has become politically incorrect, but I still refer to my husband as...my husband. I just can't do the "my partner" routine. I guess I'm too old.

[ruggerson]

5. I think the word marriage is fine

for a religious ceremony. The thing is, when people get married in a church, there are really two dynamics at work. The priest or reverend or pastor has to also supply a marriage LICENSE, which is the legal, civil aspect of it. Without that piece of paper, they are married in the eyes of the church, not the state.

The religious right has made great headway by conflating the two forms of marriage, religious and civil, and stirring up opposition based on fear and misinformation.

If somehow, people can be made to understand that gays and lesbians are only demanding the "civil" aspect of marriage (that which is adminstered by the government) and also wish to let religious dominations keep marrying and refusing to marry whomever they please, the debate would be markedly changed for the better.

[rpgamerd00d]

6. Marriage should still be used for religious ceremonies, yes.

And in many areas of life, the word "Spouse" is used (medical forms, insurance forms, etc.) Spouse is a decent term.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. I'm okay with "spouse"

for forms, but want something that trips a bit more lightly on the tongue. But have no suggestions, really. I will come as it all evens out.

[rpgamerd00d]

12. "Lover" works wonders to break the ice at parties. :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. Yeah, lover is good

maybe I'll start saying that. Of course my husband will get glimmers in his eyes and I won't get any sleep.

[ruggerson]

17. And that's a bad thing?

;-)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. Nope, not a bad thing

at my age, you appreciate everything just a bit more!

[xchrom]

7. i think that the distinction has to be driven home that those churches

that don't want to perform gay marriages won't have to.

it is about my -- all gay and lesbian folk -- rights to pursue the same benefits as a tax paying productive member of society as any one else.

[Gormy Cuss]

8. Complete separation of marriages from civil unions is part of that

The extension of that argument is that religious marriage would no longer have legal standing, only civil unions. Those already married when the law changed would be grandfathered in, but all new 'marriages' would be strictly between you and your faith. If that newly married couple wants the benefits and responsibilities of civil union they need to go through the civil procedure separately.
No more recognition of a religious ceremony as binding under civil law. Your faith and acts done under the banner of faith can conform to sacred rituals of your group and the state isn't interfering.

Works for me.

[Der Blaue Engel]

10. It's a civil rights issue

I don't care what you call it, it is a civil rights issue. Discrimination against one class of citizen. Period.

And if we're going to start correcting faulty terminology, can we please stop calling it "Gay" Marriage? How is a marriage gay? It is same-sex {whatever-term-you-wish-to-use}.

Edited to fix HTML error.

[MadMaddie]

11. Well said....

[Maven]

13. Well...

1) No.

Whether we like it or not, the word "marriage" denotes both the civil arrangement and the religious ceremony. Thousands of state and federal statutes refer to the word "marriage," as do centuries of judicial opinions. We can't change that now just because we want to engage in a new rhetorical strategy. Like it or not, "civil union," at least in this country, denotes a separate institution not merely because of its place in modern social discourse, but because of the weight of existing marriage-related laws. I assure you, "marriage" is a perfectly "legal" term.

But your heart is in the right place. The way to approach this is to refer always to civil marriage. Also, the term marriage equality (or equal marriage) should be used whenever possible. NEVER EVER use the term "gay marriage"--that's the other side's framing.

2) This is debatable. More liberal Supreme Court justices have been inclined to hold that there is a "right" to determine one's own familial relations or to engage in other forms of "intimate association," as in cases that examine the limits of "substantive" due process. There is also, obviously, an Equal Protection Clause argument to be made here. Of course, ultraconservatives on the courts won't even acknowledge a Constitutional right to privacy, so if we were to define our "rights" by their interpretation of the Constitution, most people would find themselves without rights they assumed they already had. ;) Anyway, if using the word "rights" makes you uncomfortable, use "marriage equality" as specified above--it ties into the 14th Amendment issue as well.

[rpgamerd00d]

14. nice one! Thanks - nt

[Maven]

16. sure. and thanks for the original post

Thoughtful and necessary. :toast:

[demigoddess]

19. I am for the right of gays to get MARRIED. with all the rights and

privileges involved. Anything less is putting religion into our civil laws. And only one small sect of religion at that. I think most of us have come to the conclusion that gays are born that way and discrimination is unlawful and immoral.