A THOUGHT ON LANGUAGE...
An friend of mine in her 90's, who has completely accepted that her daughter-in-law of almost thirty years left her husband [my friend's son] for a female partner, was looking for a way to deal with the current political scene around gay marriage, and said with disarming simplicity something LIKE this:
"Of course they have to have all the rights of a married couple; that is a question of human rights. But they cannot have the name -- you cannot fundamentally change something that has always existed and use the same word; the language will rebel. They are creating something new, and they should have the courage of their conviction and give this new thing a new name."
But then, she lives in Vermont, where it has one...
"Of course they have to have all the rights of a married couple; that is a question of human rights. But they cannot have the name -- you cannot fundamentally change something that has always existed and use the same word; the language will rebel. They are creating something new, and they should have the courage of their conviction and give this new thing a new name."
But then, she lives in Vermont, where it has one...
I have no right to weigh in on the gay marriage question, as of yet. I haven't even had a fleeting gay sexual encounter in, oh, multiple presidential terms. So to be concerned about gay marriage (whatever the hell you want to call it) would indicate that I have much higher-quality problems than I currently have.
ReplyDeleteA gay friend of mine often says, "Hey - whatever floats your boat..." At this point, I'd be happy just to get the damn thing out of drydock...
But I agree with your nonagenerian friend. You can call it whatever the hell you want; call it Fred, or Al, for that matter.
Just grant me the right that if I ever manage to rope someone into partnering with me, that when (not if) the Big One finally comes, that my partner can come and sit with me in the emergency room or ICU as the family member he truly would be.
If I can share the intimacy of both body, mind and soul with someone, I should be able to share my financial and legal legacy with them, too.
I'm more than happy to leave str8 folk with "marriage" (after all, look how well they've cared for it!) Taking "marriage" as a tradition from str8 folk would be like buying a former car-rental vehicle - neither one has been treated particularly well by the previous holders-of-record.
I've thought about this alot. At first I wondered why gay people would even care to be called "married." The argument from the anti-gay marriage people made sense to me...
ReplyDeleteUntil I understood the legality of it all. The dilemna I see is this:
Marriage has a religious definition tied to it in most people's minds. Religions don't accept gays or allow them to be married. This strong religious emotional voice is what is the initial reaction against the gay marriage issue. They are speaking from their moral/religious voice.
The other definition is legal. This is the one that gives married people extra rights. To deny them or call gays something else is allowing for them to be second class in a sense.
The only solution I could see for this was to create a new term and reword all the legal crap to take out the religiously loaded word "marriage." Good luck with that though...I don't see this happening anytime soon. Gay's will have to be just that until the religious definition or a new definition warrants change, second class "civil unions" for now. I think most gays are kinda okay with that only because it's a long struggle ahead and one step (civil unions) at a time is still progress.
I have noticed a tendency these days to differentiate with the use of terms
ReplyDeletelegal matrimony and holy matrimony.
Legal been used in place where Gay Marriage is legal.
Steve F. make a fair comment I would say.
Time out. Let's sort out the apples and oranges here.
ReplyDeletea] Steve has the first nailhead banged in straight, if you will allow me the term: all rights are ALL rights, because they are HUMAN rights.
b] But Bear Old Buddy, civil unions in, say, Vermont [so near and yet so far] can be celebrated in churches that support them, at least in the UCC, where the individual congregation wears the pants and there are no bishops, etc. [That cuts both ways, but I won't go there now.] What is "second class" about a civil union -- or a Fill-in-the-Blank Union -- as long as it fulfills every requirement but the M word Andrew Sullivan demands? [http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/]
I obviously think my friend is wise in her refutation of Sullivan's claim, but even George W is now in FAVOR of civil unions. When Vermont passed them, it was a Wild-Eyed-Radical thing to do; now it's the Almost-Conservative-Republican position. Sometimes things move so fast it makes your head spin and your stomach roll over. There is a great book about the VT debate, by the way, called "Civil Wars" by David Moats -- search in Amazon or your local library.
If two men or two women choose to enter a sacramental relationship, then they deserve a crack at it as much as those of us who have made a mess, or a near mess, of it. I think that a new and dangerous adventure deserves a new and dangerous name.
I am hereby soliciting suggestions...
Stay well out there.
The lunatics here in the asylum are thinking of you.
Sorry, perhaps I didn't make my point clear. What I see is that people opposed to using the marriage word for gays is a knee-jerk reaction regarding their religious beliefs, once they see the legal problems, then they are for it, but not "marriage"! Let's create another term, they think and call it "civil unions."
ReplyDeleteIt's not the celebration of civil unions that worries me or recognition by churches, what makes my situation second class. Is something like the form that asks you, check one of the following:
_ married
_ civil union
as opposed to
-married/civil union
If we are saying they are essentially the same thing, why create a new word? You can't because of the religious undertone to the word "marriage."
To make my point further, imagine once interracial marriages were recognized they were given the term "civil union" instead. You see this as being okay?! I don't.
It's only a way to discriminate and that's what we're talking about right?
Bear:
ReplyDeleteactually, there was "another word" for interracial marriage, which was the term under which it was declared illegal in MANY states: "miscegenation".
Well, from here on in we part ways. What was EVIL there, declaring that a new name was required although the only difference between such a couple and any other was the fact that one of them had different skin-color. The marriage itself was no different than marriages all over the world had been from time immemorial, except that it was happening in Jim Crow America.
Now, the union of two gay people is fundamentally different, even if the intent is the same -- it is literally a new thing under the sun, which we are told there isn't! I am definitely saying "marriage/civil union", but I also hold to the fact that we NEED TO CELEBRATE something that has been newly created in our time -- and people think God is not STILL the Creator every day!! I call this living proof, and that is why I agitate for proclaiming the wonder and delight of it with a new NAME.
I will continue this rant under the "Civil Union" posting above...
For another voice - one as a gay man, someone married 30 years, and a clear- thinking lawyer and civil-rights advoicate, you might check out Tom at PurpleScarf and this post about insisting on "marriage," rather than "civil unions." He makes some powerful points, most of which I could be persuaded to follow.
ReplyDelete