What's in a name?

An interesting discussion was had today in the student lounge regarding the granting of full civil marriage rights to same-sex couples and what we should call this 'inclusive' institution.

The position I take is one which was heartily advanced by Tom in today's discussion. (Qualification for Daily Hero Status - Agree with me / Be more liberal than me (that's how Marx got in) / Be damn funny) And that position is that the state should have nothing to do with the term 'marriage' - 'marriage' is a religious term and the state should have nothing to do with religion. Instead the state should have a term which describes the legally recognized union of two people - regardless of gender - e.g. Civil Unions (Tom wants to come up with a brand new word - I like this idea - but getting a consensus is gonna be tough) - and this legally recognized union would apply equally to hetero couples and homo couples. Now if any of those couples want to go ahead and 'get married' go ahead - more power to you - have your religious ceremony or whatever non-civil ceremony you desire and go ahead and call your union whatever you want - Marriage, Partnership, Civil Union, etc. But I am emphatic that the state should have nothing to do with the term 'marriage' - and I'll give two primary reasons why....

1. Marriage is an inherently religious term - regardless of the statistical outlier to whom the religious connotation doesn't come to mind - the overwhelming connotation of marriage - is man/woman - church - white dress - cake - rings. Yeah, marriage is largely a religious exercise that is sanctioned by the government ---- now it's understandably sanctioned - western society has a lot invested in this "two-person team" family unit - which is probably why the state sanctions marriage and not baptisms & bar mitzvahs - but it seems to me that utilizing a religious term is counter to the establishment clause and unnecessary - we have a more than competent Civil State which can record and affect the meaning of the union - no need for churches/temples/mosques to get involved with state affairs. Additionally the term is counter to notions of equality and justice - as historically access to marriage as an institution has been granted discriminatorily - Remember, Loving was only like 30 years ago - and Gay Marriage is legal in only ONE state. Which leads to my next point.

2. Marriage is associated with the inequity and discrimination mentioned above. If we as a society want to actually live up to our founding premise as a people committed to justice and equality (FOR EVERYBODY) - why would we grant equivalent rights but keep the same old nomenclature, especially when that nomenclature is fraught with religious meaning (this is why I like Tom's idea of finding a brand new word). Words are powerful - and I doubt that any among us, including those who would prefer that the state keep the term marriage, would have been okay with leaving the word 'colored' on the then-existing Southern lawbooks 50 years ago or allowing the same term to continue in usage in government records, such as the census - Outrageous - we wouldn't want any vestige or our discriminatory past to remain - even in the history books (kidding about the last thing....or am I).

Now, I don't have the clearest memory of the entire conversation - I think because I was desperately trying to understand someone's fruit analogy while at the same time trying to remain collegial and open-minded.....so I apologize in advance if I misstate anyone's argument - regardless - the arguments that I will paraphrase, while perhaps not the exact arguments that were discussed, are arguments that are put forth - and insofar that those arguments are advanced - my response would be appropriate.

1. There was a general allusion to the difficulties in updating statutes/Federal Tax Code to account for the proposed new nomenclature. I didn't take this point to be that it would be a hassle so why do it, but more of a we do things this way now, we can make this way fair, why go and change things that don't need to be changed. Fair enough, but as I alluded to above - I think that the word needs to go - I don't think that the term is fair - on its face - and it wouldn't be difficult to remedy the situation. Michael & Emily drafted a statute in about 5 seconds (independent from one another) when we discussed this topic - such that hey - Civil Unions are the new Marriage, Marriage is now wholly subsumed in a legal sense w/i Civil Unions blah blah blah. Have a commission that goes through existing law in order to make it complaint and as that is happening make sure that all new statutes comply with the revised terminology.

2. There was a fruit analogy which went to the point that marriage is marriage - it means man & woman - it's been that way for 2,000 - we shouldn't let the gays fuck it up (I say this in jest relating to what my classmate said, but it's a fair reflection of mainstream sentiment) - we'll give them their rights (as long as they shut the fuck up and stop having those damn Pride parades) but we don't want them calling it marriage b/c man & man does not equal marriage. So basically hetero 'marriage' = apples & homo 'civil unions' = oranges --- apparently they aren't the same thing (such that the different names are justified) but both will have the same rights. So it's basically an equal, but different naming scheme. Hmmmm......this sounds familiar......where have I heard this before......Oh wait, now I remember - it was phrased a little differently back in 1898 (I think they called it Separate but Equal) - but it was the foundation for Plessy - and legalized segregation. Didn't we, as a society (at least nominally) come to a conclusion about this policy about 51 years ago - yeah - it sucks - it's inherently unequal - and it brands the GLBT population as second class citizens.

Additionally - the government isn't recognizing a different concept w/r/to homo or hetero couples.....the concept is that the government is willing to recognize a union between two people - the government finds this union to be beneficial and as such chooses to incentivize this arrangement through the usage of government incentives and policies. But this isn't dependent on not having two penises or two vaginas in one 'union' - from the governments perspective there is no distinction between the gays getting together and the straights getting together - from the government's perspective there are no apple & oranges - it's all the same thing. So why bother with the two different names, unless your conferring a benefit upon one group of relationships by using a certain name....And that's exactly what the government is doing - its saying Marriage = Good, Traditional, Healthy, Normal / Civil Union = Second Class, Alternative, Different, Queer (but look how fucking accepting and progressive we are!). That's the jist of it.

In sum - I guess I have two points
1. separate but Equal = Bad, homo relationships and hetero relationships get called the same thing - Today, even those that wanted to keep the term marriage, agreed on this - Good Call.

2. Marriage = Religious, so the government shouldn't use it to sanction a relationship. This is a little more out there - and even if the GLBT rights movement is successful in getting rights that are equal - it's unlikely that this will change, but it's not the end of the world - I'm just hyper-paranoid about any religious influence/appearance in government.