Reply #23: It's just the term "marriage" that's the stumbling block. [View All]

[shimmergal]

We're rapidly approaching the point where quite a majority -- all but entrenched homophobes -- support civil unions.

Of course I know that gays -- many of them, at least -- think the term itself is worth fighting for.

In both cases, it's all about validation. Gays see the "marriage" word as proving validation and personal acceptance of them; many married hets feel that "marriage" having a more exclusive meaning validates and supports their own union.

I think we need to take the word "marriage" off the table entirely. It certainly was not conducive to most participants' equal rights (especially women's) until the last 2-3 decades. And as long as the state writes the "default contract" this could be true in the future too, whether in the same direction as the past or another way.

Yes, I know it would be slow work revising all the statutes to read "civil union" for marriage, but in the meantime there's no reason we have to give the word any power. (Churches could retain the term for their ceremonies and sacrament, of course.) In ordinary discourse, there are plenty of synonyms. Anybody for using
"matrimony"? Or "wedlock"? Personally I prefer the latter for the reason I mentioned above -- the state writes a contract that you're locked into unless you divorce -- but then I'm dubious about the institution anyway. The recent use of the term "married" for inantimate objects or ideas--like, "it was a stroke of genius to marry the romantic ideal to the property aspects of the institution," has further degraded the word.

OK, maybe I'm a kook about this. But it might help close the gap.