The debate about marriage isn't about a word

[dsc]

I know how frustrated some of our straight allies get when so many of us gays insist upon the word marriage. I know it seems trivial. After all if we have all the rights, then why does the word matter. Because it isn't about the word.

Either we gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered are citizens or we aren't. Either we are to be treated just like everyone else or we aren't. We can't be a little bit of citizens. We can't be 3/5 of a person. This debate isn't about a word, it is about us. I understand why some of our opponents feel as they do. I also understand why our allies may find this trivial. But that doesn't negate the fact that we can't be full citizens until we are treated as full citizens are.

Marriage is, like it or not, how a great number of people in this society measure the seriousness of a person and his or her relationships. We just saw a breathtaking example of this from no less than Laura Bush. Commenting upon Dr. Rice running for President she said that she couldn't see that happening given that Rice is unmarried, an only child whose parents have died. (you can go to People Magazine's website for a quote).

No matter how many rights we are given by governments, the majority of people in this country will forever view our relationships as less than a straight couple's as long as our relationships aren't marriages. And as long as that is true, we won't be citizens. It is as simple, and as complex, as that.

[jody]

1. For many, the debate is about a word. They accept/support civil unions but oppose describing those

arrangements as "marriage" because for them the word "marriage" has significant, historical meaning within their religions.

[HockeyMom]

2. Exactly

"The sacred, holy, sacrament (yes, he said that too) of marriage", to quote our dear leader (sic). That implies that marriage is RELIGIOUS. Really? What if the COUPLE doesn't want the SACRAMENT of marriage???

This is why to be truly fair ONLY ceremonies in places of worship should be called marriage. All civil, legal, contracts issued by the state should be Civil Unions for EVERYONE. Leave marriage and RELIGION to churches.

We need separation of church and state more than ever now. We can start with the sacred, holy, sacrament of marriage.

[jody]

6. I'll help you lobby for that.

:hi:

[SemperEadem]

10. I thought that sacraments

were strictly about Catholicism, not protestantism? The whole of the 16th century is for naught if not protestants are embracing a clearly Catholic rite.

[salin]

4. what is interesting to me - is that in the past 3-4 years that the GOP

has been using the issue as a scare tactic to get farright voters to the polls... the public sentiment has shifted towards the majority favoring civil unions. That wasn't the case three years ago. I think the right's tactics have forced public discussion and to some - "civil unions" seems like a logical compromise - but that wasn't the case just a few years ago. Frankly, I would venture to bet that if the right continues to try to make gay marraige a political issue, the general sentiment in the public will continue to evolve - and that the support for civil unions would evolve into support for gay marraige.

Not trying to make a civil rights era position of "wait and things will change eventually". Just commenting upon big, significant shifts in the public's attitudes - especially among younger people - and the ironythat the growing support seems to stem from the actions and words of the shrill right.

To the OP's point. I can understand why that word matters. But count me in the "all marraiges should be civil unions" and "marraiges should be something extra - through religious institutions" camps - as it leaves matters of state to the state, and matters of the church (and the various religions and denominations) to the church.

[Sherman A1]

3. I can see both sides

folks on both sides of the issue take exception to the term marriage (you either want it or don't want "them" to have use of the term), and we need to be respectful of people's views even if we do not agree. Perhaps I am too naive to 'Get It", but isn't marriage (within the legal sense) really about property and who has rights within the the framework of partnership, so in the definition of the law, are not all "marriages" really civil unions? I really don't care who does what - where or when with whom. It doesn't threaten my marriage or make it better. I want everyone to have their rights within the context of the law. If we change the term to "trunip" makes no difference to me.

[jody]

7. Agree re civil unions and marriage being quite different especially in some religions

e.g. Roman Catholic, which I understand may not consider a marriage dissolved until the Vatican approves. That suggests a clear distinction between civil contracts approved by government and marriage contracts approved by the church.

I may be wrong on my assertion re Roman Catholic marriage and if so, I'm sure someone will correct my ignorance on that matter.

[Irreverend IX]

5. Yeah, well...

You can fight for that word and lose, damaging the Democratic party in the process, or you can agree on civil unions and win. If a civil union measure passes, gays who enter unions will just call themselves "married" anyway, and soon everyone but hardcore fundies will follow suit, and later you can push to change the law's wording from "civil unions" to "marriage" and win. Battles for public favor are best fought incrementally, and starry-eyed idealists tend to crash and burn in the real world of politics.

[Der Blaue Engel]

8. Fighting for true equality cannot "damage" the Democratic party

Scapegoating certain members of the party and pretending it's about semantics, on the other hand, does damage to more than just a political party.

[Irreverend IX]

13. The words "gay marriage..."

Make Jesus freaks come out of the woodwork to vote and stokes their anger towards the Democrats. That's an undeniable fact in light of the results of the gay marriage legalization proposals that have come up in various states. If you have ideas on how the Democrats can push gay marriage and still win elections, I'd like to hear them.

[JackBeck]

14. You mean how gay marriage cost Menendez the election in New Jersey?

Lots of crap was thrown at the GLBTQ community around DU right before the election. It was determined that the GLBTQ community was going the lose the New Jersey Senate elections because the NJSC had reached a decision over gay marriage, the attitude being that all the fundie voters were now going to come out in droves and vote Republican.

Still waiting for the apology...

[Der Blaue Engel]

15. Gay marriage is a stupid term

A marriage cannot be "gay." GLBT people are fighting for the right to marry. It's marriage equality, not gay marriage. IMO. And I don't see any Democrats "pushing" gay marriage (or marriage equality). I see them supporting it or not supporting it.

As for Jesus freaks (by which I assume you mean fundamentalist xians), I don't believe in pandering to hate groups to win elections. Standing up for civil rights is the right thing to do, whether a majority supports it or not.

I agree with the suggestions above that separating marriage as a religious ceremony from the legal contract of a civil union, regardless of sex or orientation, would be an acceptable solution.

[JackBeck]

17. When will you prove your "undeniable fact"? You are such a phony.

I'm getting real tired of alleged Democrats and Progressives claiming that supporting GLBTQ rights loses elections.

This particular poster makes an outrageous remark and then doesn't have the balls or ovaries to back up their claim.

I say we should TS pathetic idiots once they spout BS they can't support. Why do we have to put up with this outrageous bullshit around here?

[dsc]

9. The evidence strongly suggests you are wrong

The margin of victory for these seem to be totally independent of how draconian they are. Ohio and Michigan both had these on in the same year. Ohio's was far worse than Michigan's but they both won by similar margins. Our opponents, at least the honest ones, admit that it is the rights they find objectionable. The word is at most secondary.

[JackBeck]

18. I'm still fighting and haven't lost.

You clearly haven't thrown into the game.

You seem to be one of those who stands outside the fight and then claims "victory" once your side wins.

My question to you is why haven't you joined yet?

[SemperEadem]

11. it bothers me

that an adult cannot enter into a binding contract with another to share their lives, their love and their property and have the same legal recognition in emergencies and matters of life and death unless they are of opposite sexes. I don't see why such a contract drawn up between two people of the same sex could not be honored by the state and all entities just because one segment of the population thinks they know the mind of God. When it all boils down to it, it's nobody's business but the two people involved... why this obsession for fundamentalists to park themselves in everyone's bedroom and direct traffic amazes me.

[caseycoon]

12. There is nothing trivial

about EVERYONE in this country not only asking for, but demanding equal rights. Civil unions are not equal. I'm straight, female, married for 25 years. Personally, I DON'T understand the opposition to same sex marriages. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I am shocked by the slavering hatred of some of your opponents. Those people are sick! I hope with all my heart that same sex MARRIAGE will soon be legal in all states. I guess that's unrealistic, but it is my hope.

[crim son]

16. I'm looking at the definition of "marriage"

and I don't find that religious institutions can claim it for themselves:

marriageBoston marriagecelestial marriagecivil marriagecommon-law marriagemarriage of conveniencemixed marriageopen marriageproxy marriageshotgun marriage

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

You can also have a "marriage of flavors" i.e. a compatible union of flavors. People were getting married long before Christianity and I believe they get married outside of Christianity as well. It is, frankly, bullshit for certain groups to co-opt the word and try to prevent its use by gay couples. Now, if a church prohibits the marrying of a gay couple then I believe the couple ought to look elsewhere for religious legitimization. But to deny these people the word "marriage" to describe their union is blatant discrimination. It may be just a word, but it is fraught with meaning for everyone.