I have a simple idea to solve all of this.

Why don't we just call homosexual people "heterosexual." We can call one of the partners "male" and one of them "female." Then there won't be any impediment to them both calling themselves "married."

Okay, so I'm joking. Sort of.

At its heart, this is really a semantic argument. Most people aren't offended by "civil unions" for homosexuals, wherein the couple obtains legal benefits equivalent to those that married couples receive. Some states have this, but most don't; however, we could get there pretty quickly. There's no real justification for not extending legal marriage benefits to civil unions. So it's only partially an issue of legal oppression. I'd argue it's really a form of linguistic oppression. Homosexuals are rightly disgruntled at not being able to say, "This is my spouse," or, "We're married." Why should they have to use inferior terms to describe their relationship, regardless of legal status?

But let's look at the other side of the equation. For most people (and yes, despite the hoopla, I firmly believe this is what most people believe, based on polls AND actual votes), marriage has a sanctity that is special -- and well-defined. They prefer that the word keep it's traditional definition: union between a man and a woman. They're not really concerned about "legal" rights as much as they don't want to besmirch the word and change the definition. Otherwise they'll have to start saying, "This is my traditional spouse," and, "Yes, we're really married."

So, if we assume that homosexuals obtain the right to be called "married," what will the heterosexuals want to be called instead?

And while we're on the subject, we might as well start now with this: females rallying to be called "husbands" because the term "wife" is linguistically oppressive.
posted by Tim at 7:36 AM