Moreover, different words have an advantage: they deliver meaning more precisely. “Sad.”
Or I can say: blue, dejected, dispirited, down, downbeat, downcast, drear, dumpish, dumpy; grieving, unenjoying; depressed, morose; depressing, dismal, joyless, mirthless, saddening, triste, desolate. What a good thing we didn’t just agree to stick with “sad.”
Sure.
Precisely the motivation of people arguing the other side.
“An existing word should be set in stone”? Oy vey. That’s not even the standard that language conservatives like Strunk & White have used.
Let me ask: when people started talking about the web as a tool of communication, did it upset you, since webs are what spiders weave? Does the concept of a cell phone, obviously containing no cellular structure, piss you off? Are you furious at Apple Computer for its Blackberries and other products entirely unrelated to fruits?
The advantage of using an existing word is that it comes complete with connotations and subtleties of usage. When I talk about Steve and Roger’s marriage, I intend all those subtleties to be included: the only part of the traditional definition that I DON’T want to include is the idea that one of them is a girl. The listener understands that.
If we invent a new term for common parlance–“Domestic Partnership”, for example–the listener gains none of the subtleties that the word “marriage” would connote. It’ll take decades or centuries for such subtleties to attach themselves to a new word. My speech is thereby impoverished if I use the neologism instead of the perfectly functional paleologism.
Daniel
Unless you’re suggesting that we’re not allowed to use “sad” when someone is dispirited, this analogy doesn’t hold, either. The words in your second paragraph are subsets of the first word (I forget the fancy linguistic term for that–something like hypologisms), whereas you’re proposing that the word for gay folks’ relationships would be alternatives to the word “marriage.”
If you want to invent neologisms for Alternate Sex Marriage and Same Sex Marriage, that’s cool. But SSM in common parlance (among folks that talk about it, at least) is one type of marriage, not an alternative to marriage.
Daniel
Too Zen for me. What the fuck do you mean?
Dang it.
You’re right.
The use of “marriage” takes the MODEL of an understood marriage and applies it to same-sex couples in a better way than “civil union” does.
I can hardly claim that a cell phone and a web browser were affronts to meaning.
I withdraw my opposition to the use of “marriage” to describe same-sex pairings.
What…that’s it?
Marriage is going to win, no matter what you put into law and no matter why.
When people of the opposite sex meet and go to dinner, they are “dating.”
When people of the same sex meet and go to dinner, they are “dating.”
When people of the opposite sex send flowers and chocolates and want to spend every waking hour with the other, they are “in love” and “being romantic.”
When people of the same sex send flowers and chocolates and want to spend every waking hour with the other, they are “in love” and “being romantic.”
When people of the opposite sex move in together to cement a romantic relationship, they are “shacking up” or “living together” or even “living in sin.”
When people of the same sex move in together to cement a romantic relationship, they are “shacking up” or “living together” or even “living in sin.”
When people of the opposite sex ride around in the same car, they are “riding around in a car.”
When people of the same sex ride around in the same car, they are “riding around in a car.”
When people of the opposite sex eat Cheerios together, they are “eating breakfast” or perhaps “eating lunch” or perhaps “eating dinner.”
When people of the same sex eat Cheerios together, they are “eating breakfast” or perhaps “eating lunch” or perhaps “eating dinner.”
When people of the opposite sex have sex, they are “having sex.”
When people of the same sex have sex, they are “having sex.”
We don’t have a separate term for much of anything that homosexual couples do as opposed to heterosexual couples. In fact, I can’t think of any words that aren’t intended to be insulting and only apply to same sex couples other than, well, “same sex couples.”
But–
but–
can you do that?
Serioudly, I’m glad I’ve said that I respect your positions and politics before, because that way it won’t sound like I’m just gloating when I say I’m damned impressed.
It’s rare to see someone consider an issue and change their minds, much less on a messageboard; I think you act as a model for how we all ought to try to behave round these parts.
Daniel
I must admit, given previous history of Pit threads, I never expected this to remain this civil and to have this resolution. Would that all disagreements end this peacefully.
Amen to that! Rick, my hat is off to you!
Does there need to be a ceremony, with doves being let loose?
The man made a compelling point. I read it, argued against it, offered counter-examples, which he acknowledged but then distinguished. He drilled down to the heart of the issue and his point was valid. What more is needed?
Whew!
I feel like the Berlin Wall just came down. 
I am joshing you, Bricker…I think I apologized earlier for splashing you with that really wide brush I was carrying earlier, and if I didn’t, I do now.
Getting back to your example of adoptive, foster, step, and biological parents. It is true that a particular family may not mark the difference in ordinary conversation, and that it may be impolite to do so in casual conversation unless you know the family well. However, there are good compelling legal reasons for the different terms, and all of us know of them.
Similarly, I have an interest in a civil union that encompasses households and couples that in no way could be considered married. I believe there is a need for this benefit. People in my life I care about could really use it.
There would need to be a legal distinction between a civil union and a marriage. That does not mean that equivalent rights and respect cannot be granted to both.
The government recognizes all kinds of distinctions. There are 562 federally recognized Indian tribes. There are 15 different boxes you can check on the Census form when the government asks you what race you are. Many of these racial categories are eligible for special benefits.
To say that “separate but equal” has been banned is not, strictly speaking, true. There are plenty of distinctions drawn, every day. Why this should be any different, especially if it might need to happen to expedite getting benefits to people, escapes me.
Do me a favor, sir, if you would, and respond to my active GD thread on rights. I do believe that there’s a communication interrupt between us as regards the concept of judicial interpretation of law – and if I’ve been slightly tending to exaggerate in one direction, I respectfully submit that you also have in the other. Your courteous response on the topic earlier in this thread disarmed my hostility and led me to try to get a handle on what it is you are really saying – hence the thread. And I would greatly like to understand the position much better – even if I disagree, I’d like to do that as an informed disagreement, not as a targeting of strawmen that look vaguely like your position. Thanks!
Welcome back from the Dark Side. I’m mightily impressed.
I agree that civil unions ought to apply to folks whom, in normal parlance, we’d never consider married (e.g., an old man taking care of his invalid sister). I disagree that we need separate legal distinctions for these relationships, but I am open to being persuaded otherwise. How do we profit from such a legal distinction?
The reason why I’d prefer NOT having such a distinction is that it opens the door for giving unequal rights to people in such a relationship. Having one set of laws that covers everyone makes it that much more difficult to discriminate against folks.
Daniel
Please keep in mind, before I’m invited to wear the White Hat, that I still contend that marriage should be regulated by the states.
I hope that doesn’t chill the welcome.
Simply a restate of the view that, if you disagree, they’re making a new law, and if you agree, they’re interpreting an existing one.
Here it is: You support the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.
It proves only that you accept it as legitimate because you approve of the process.
Well, there you have it. Congratulations and welcome to the ranks of the pro-legal-SSM advocates.
(1) Somebody had to be the first, and (2) the ruling stated very clearly its basis in our history.
That is what they did.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough - I wanted to hear you say what part of the reasoning in the ruling you disagree with, not the right of the Commonwealth of MA to make its own laws.
But it has become clear that there is a compelling reason to change, hasn’t it? Real people are subjected to real legal disabilities, for no definable and presentable reason, as well as social disabilities because we haven’t changed. What reason would be compelling?
Upon further review, it appears you now agree with both legalization and use of the common name. Nicely done, and you are indeed a mensch. The rest of the above appears to be moot.
Upon even further review:
Sounds nice, except that gets into the full faith and credit issue at the federal level, and that isn’t just going to disappear. As soon as a gay couple legally married in MA moves to Louisiana and has to sue to be recognized, how would you see that case being resolved? Would a couple of any composition have to get remarried every time they move to a different state under your proposal?
You can have a grey hat, like the kind the Texas State Troopers wear.