It’s Only a Word, Right?

Image via Wikipedia

One of the key arguments before the California Supreme Court yesterday revolved not around allowing same sex couples the right to legitimatize their unions but instead around the ownership of a word. The word in question is the term “marriage” and certain religious conservatives feel very strongly that they should be allowed to define that term as pertaining only to those unions which involve a man and a woman with the sole purpose of initiating a family. To say that this does not make me angry would be a lie. It does. My first impulse is to rail against the injustice of a world in which, after so many opportunities to learn lessons from the past, we still validate hatred and prejudice. However, I am of two minds on this issue. The more rational part of my mind says, let them have their word if it means so much to them. After all, it is only a word. Or is it?

Last summer, my best friend was joined in life partnership with his husband in a beautiful ceremony on the Hudson River in New Jersey. The service was presided over by an ordained minister who bound them together under the watchful eye of family, friends and God. No lightning bolts rained down from heaven expressing God’s anger or hatred at their union. In fact, when the boat set sail that July 4th evening, a steady rain had begun to fall, threatening to change their plans and force them to move the ceremony inside the boat instead of on the upper deck as they had hoped. When six o’clock approached, however, the skies mysteriously cleared and the sun began to shine over the water. I can only think that God approved.

In my eyes, that couple is now married. I view them as husband and husband, joined together in Holy Matrimony. I was honored to sign as witness when they went to the courthouse to apply for their license. On the top of the form are the words Civil Union. This is the only thing that distinguishes their certificate from that of heterosexual couples who may choose the option of a civil or a religious certificate.  These words do not change the love and devotion that they feel for one another. That was clearly evident in the way that looked at each other as they exchanged their vows. Nor do they change the way that their union is perceived by family and friends who came together that day not to witness a “unionizing” but to witness the marriage of two people who were and still are very much in love.  Nor do the words change the fact that this union was presided over by a minister who had enough faith in her own relationship with a loving God to invite that God to look down upon their union. 

The problem with allowing gay couples to use the word marriage, according to some conservatives, lies not in the fact that they want to legitimize their unions but in the fact that marriage is about creating a family. Same-sex couples can’t do that. At least not in the traditional sense in which copulation is a direct precursor to breeding the next generation. Marriage, these groups insist, should then be reserved for heterosexual couples whose union is the first step to creating a family unit. This is an interesting argument because it presents more problems than it solves. What about couples who choose not to have children? What about partnerships in which one or both partners is sterile? If the couple is not planning on starting a family or is not able to do so, then the couple must not be allowed to marry under this definition of the term. Perhaps they, too, should only be allowed a Civil Union license. Perhaps, when applying for a license, one of the lines on the form should include an anticipated date of procreation. If you miss your date, your marriage becomes void.