What's so special about the term "marriage"?

I’d prefer if the government stayed out of marriage entirely. I think that anyone should be able to marry anyone else that is capable of consenting. I don’t give a damn who marries who as long as everyone involved is okay with it. I personally think the whole idea of marriage is a bit strange, but whatever, I’m not going to push my decisions or ideas on others if they extend the same benefit to me.

People act like it’s just about the name, but many gay marriage proponents do not care about the name. It’s just a scapegoat used by the anti-side to indicate that gay couples are fighting for a word and nothing more. What they’re really fighting for are equal benefits and equal legal standing, which of course, comes with a “marriage”.

There are definitely plenty of gay people in favor of the term “marriage” being used, however. As a linguist, I understand that words and their connotations can not only affect society drastically, they can become the focus of certain social issues. The reason why I would favor the term “marriage” would be on principle more than it would be on pragmatism. Saying “you can have a union, but not marriage” is still unequal. It’s so so close, but still off by a small percentage. Marriage is not just a religious institution. This is not a theocracy. Then it follows that there is no reason why gay people should be denied a “marriage” on principle.

Also, on a more superficial level, we like the idea of weddings and dresses and tuxedos. Who honestly hates weddings? Most people don’t. Gay people just want to be able to have the same ceremonies that straight people have. They want it to carry the same connotations and have the same associations. “Civil union” is rigid and governmental; “marriage” is casual and romantic. These are huge generalizations, but you understand what I’m getting at.

People want there to be no distinction between a gay union and a straight union other than the gender of the people involved. They want to live in a society where we don’t have separate terms for gay unions, that point out the fact that these are different. They want it to all be the same.

Unfortunately, much of the country is not ready for such a drastic change. And that’s where the practical side of me comes in. If we can start by allowing same-sex unions that are EXACTLY THE SAME as straight marriages other than the word “marriage”, then fine by me. That is my main goal. I am not going be a stickler about a word. But if other people care so much about the word that they’d be satisfied if gay couples could obtain the exact same rights as straight couples just without the word “marriage”, then by all means, satisfy that.

@DominicX I’m with your excellent answer most of the way, but are wedding ceremonies exclusively for marriages? Why not tuxedos and gowns and DJs and cake to celebrate a union by a different name?

Also, my mom made a point that I’m not sure I agree with completely or not, and it was that gay is different than straight. Not worse, or less good, or negative, but different. So why not a different name for the partnership as well? Is your point that the connotation of having it called something other than marriage would be seen as bad-different in the eyes of many people?

@Likeradar

Yes, it is different, but there is no reason why it needs to be differentiated. It’s the same union, it’s the same type of connection between two people, why do we need a separate term just because the people are gay? Do we need a separate term for a marriage between atheists or Jews? Or black people?

The goal of many gay people (including myself) is a world where being gay is like an eye color. People don’t think twice about it. We want it to be viewed as normal and on the same level as heterosexuality. Creating separate terms beyond the basic differentiation of “gay” vs. “straight” doesn’t achieve this.

@DominicX And that is a very good point and makes perfect sense. Thanks. I’m wondering how mad my mom would be if I woke her up to ask her that. :)

“Marriage” is the word in the English language that means a union between 2 people for life. Why should one group of people get to use the word and another group not? Why should the word be reserved for one group and denied to another? The only reason to deny the use of the word “marriage” is simple bigotry. I honestly don’t think the issue is any more complex than that.

I’m gay. Anything that keeps me from enjoying my life to its fullest in the same way a straight person gets to enjoy their life is bigotry. If I can’t hold hands with my boyfriend in public, that’s because of bigotry. If I have to change the way I use pronouns in a conversation at work to safeguard my job so my co-workers don’t know I’m dating a man, that’s bigotry. If I have to lie about my sexuality in order to serve my country in the armed forces, that’s bigotry. Those are just a few simple examples.

We’re not fighting for just a word. We’re fighting for justice. We’re fighting for equal protection guarantied by our highest law.

My view like others, is that it is what the word represents. Mates/partners/significant others/civil partners or any other terms you can think of don’t, for some people, speak of the same institution and commitment as the term marriage, hence why they would want to use the term marriage instead.

Marriage means a lot of things to different people I guess, especially depending where they are in their particular situation at any one time.

If a couple of people want to dedicate their lives to each other and call it marriage, go ahead. There are thousands of heterosexual marriages with a lot less commitment and love in them and to argue the term marriage should be their preserve misses the point of the union the term pertains to.

I believe that we all should have equal rights. If only it were that simple. It’s a sad thing to fight for rights everyone should already have.

If anybody who chooses can change the conceptual difference in definitions of words, then it would be perfectly OK for someone to enter a cat in the Dog Show. There is no security in understanding communication if words no longer have a conventional meaning. Eventually, everyone will talk past each other, and this is a cause of, not a solution to, conflict. Anyway, regarding @DominicX . “Gay” and “straight” are NOT the same. If they were, then there would be no debate. If they were, then neither of us would have a preference in the gender of our partners. But we do. And that distinguishes one “type” of relationship from the other. And before everybody tries to give me shit, I am totally not concerned about who is gay or not. It is none of my business. But abusing the language is dangerous, and if you have seen other comments by me in related treads, you will know my position.

The name is important from a social perspective. The word “marriage” means pair-bonding, commitment, trust, etc. When you say “I’m married,” people interpret this differently than when you say “I have a partner” or “I’m in a civil union.”

Demanding that gays use a different word amounts to denying them this social recognition.

to say nothing of the hundreds of legal rights that come with the with “marriage” but I’m assuming that’s not what we’re talkinga bout here.

I thought that this was just an exercise in semantics until this issue struck very close to home. My business partner and I are both engaged to be married, as we are also close friends we are thinking of making this a double ceremony. Not so simple, we’ve found. My fiance is female, so our official status will be “married”; Gen’s fiance is female, so “civil union” will be the operative term. We have to get a legal opinion as to whether the JP can perform the ceremonies concurrently or must separate them. We’ll likely be setting a precedent. It’s important to us for personal symbolic reasons, but some busybody could jeopardize the legality of our bonds by challenging this. Also, our civil status would be recognized nationwide, while Gen and Karen’s recognized status would vary by state.

If it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck… Equal rights, Hooah!!

From my understanding, marriage and unions don’t offer the same rights. This could have changed recently, but from the last time I really looked at it, there were some pretty major differences between the two (like being recognized in other states if the couple moved and a few other things).

Personally, I think people should be able to get married, regardless of if they are the same sex as their partner.

@josie

Yeah, I know they’re not the same. The difference is the gender. Everything else is the same. This is what I don’t understand about anti-gay people in general. They act like being gay is just so different form being straight. “Isn’t it a choice? Isn’t it only about sex and not about love?” No and no. The only difference between being gay and being straight is the gender of the person you’re attracted to. Otherwise, everything else is the same. We need separate terms for the orientation so we can know whom someone is attracted to. But we do not need separate terms for a union between them, we don’t need separate terms for gay children, or gay politicians, or gay actors, or art made by gay people, etc.

There are both symbolic and functional advantages to the word. Functionally, it just makes it so much easier to attain a whole set of rights and financial arrangements that civil unions do not provide, even if they say they do. It’s just too complex and only marriage can do it all.

Symbolically, it stands for the equal recognition of the validity of same-sex marriages. It says that the law (and thus, the society) recognizes that gay people are people the same as everyone else. It is extremely important to say that. And, of course, that’s why homophobes fight it so hard.

If it’s not special and not such a big deal, then why can’t we call same sex unions marriages? see it goes both ways.

It’s very simple. It is a failed concept to have two sets of rules for two sets of people which are supposed to be separate but equal. We tried segregation once, it didn’t work. Most people wouldn’t really care if you called ALL “legal marriages” the same thing, the problem comes in that the term “marriage” was not coined by a government, it was coined by the church. It is first and foremost [in the eyes of the religious] a religious institution, a union of two souls in the eyes of God. As people invariably create pair bonds and family unions out of the adjoining of their souls when man began to form legal “states” and these states began to confer certain rights and responsibilities on its people, it was only logical to create a legal institution to affirm the confirmation of legal rights of each individual to be shared with the person with whom he or she created said life bond. Ergo, as this institution already had a name, the legal systems simply adopted the existing name, not foreseeing the problems inherent with this decision. To my way of thinking, the concept of being “legally married” should by all rights, given the supposed separation of church and state, have a different name, one name which would cover all such legal contracts. Because in legal terms, marriage, when stripped of its religious/spiritual meaning is simply a contract between two consenting parties of sound mind to share in various rights related to finances, property and familial consent. To create TWO such states, one for one group and one for the other would mean essentially that a set of laws would need to cover each legal institution, not being he same thing, they would not be covered under the same legal precepts, and therefore, even if both sets of rules were exactly the same word for word in the beginning, there is no protection to keep one of these institutions from being enhanced or diminished by legal action without any effect being bestowed upon the other, and as a result, as soon as someone changes any part of either set of laws, the institutions become separate and unequal. Given the lack of ANY sound legal reasoning for disallowing any two consenting adults of sound mind to enter into a contract and simply doing things “the way they’ve always been done” is no more acceptable in the minds of gays and straights with an innate belief in social justice than would be the re-segregation of society on racial grounds.

I think that’s a great theory, @dalepetrie. I wonder if any lawyers are working on cases using that theory.

I believe the part about separate but equal, and the part about needing a valid legal reason for denying rights to one group while giving them to the other is at the heart of every argument made in court. I don’t think however anyone is legitimately pursuing renaming legal marriage to something else, it’s been talked about, but I do not know of a court case in which it has been requested.

Where does “Common Law Marriage” fit in to this?

@Pied_Pfeffer Most states don’t recognize common law marriages anymore. The last time I checked (my mom was wondering before she got married last year), there were only 11 states that recognized common law marriage and even those states had several requirements for what was considered common law marriage. Living with someone for a certain number of years wasn’t enough for it. The couple also had to present themselves as a married couple (so introducing each other as husband and wife, etc).

@Seaofclouds Thanks for the response. I’m just wondering why there isn’t more of a fuss made about the use of ‘marriage’ in the title.

@Pied_Pfeffer Good question! You would think people that wanted to protect the “sanctity” of marriage would have a problem with it (with the living in sin and all that).

I’m sure it falls into the vein of civil service marriages, where they are recognized by state governments, but both are allowed to use the word. It just seems like it is one more example of why the push-back isn’t right for not allowing the term to be used for same sex unions.