Semantics is Important
I was reading an opinion in the newspaper (the periodical collection of large, awkward folded papers with black ink on them which people used to get their current event information and daily comics from before the mainstreaming of the internet) today. The subject was same-sex marriage. I enjoy talking about same-sex marriage because it is controversial. I like having opinions on controversial matters; offending people and being offended.
A background of opposition to same-sex marriage: the main essential debate has been whether or not to allow couples of the same sex to have the same or almost the same rights as heterosexual couples. Some opponents of same-sex marriage may finally accept that same-sex couples should be able to have at least some of the rights that they have, but the thought still crosses some of their minds:
"Well, I want Carol and Megan to have most of the rights I do so that they can efficiently care for their adopted child, but I still want the government to recognize that my heterosexualness is still vastly superior to their dykeiness."
So, civil right wars quickly become semantics wars. They want the government to show the public that unions between people of the same sex are recognized by the government, thus wanting them to be called 'civil unions', and that unions between heterosexuals are recognized by both the government and GOD, thus wanting them to be called the traditional 'marriage', which has come to have the connotative implications of clean, wholesome, straight, religious marriage.
In the opinion I read in the newspaper, the writer suggested that same-sex unions be called 'civil unions' and opposite-sex unions be called 'sacred unions', so that everyone is happy. I don't remotely understand where this person is coming from, the term 'sacred' carries even more of a loaded connotation than 'marriage'. What business would the government have telling me what's sacred and what's not? In any case, there are liberal Christians and Jews who think that God values both homosexual and heterosexual marriages equally, and so the government, by denying rights to same-sex couples and plutoing what that union is referred to in law, they are choosing one group's god over another group's god. It doesn't matter how many people worship the homophobic god, either, because the tyranny of the majority should be powerless over the FIRST AMENDMENT. My opinion is that both heterosexual and homosexual unions should be referred to as 'civil unions', because that's what they are. Just take all of the loaded words out of the law books. There should be no respecting of religious establishment in law.
A background of opposition to same-sex marriage: the main essential debate has been whether or not to allow couples of the same sex to have the same or almost the same rights as heterosexual couples. Some opponents of same-sex marriage may finally accept that same-sex couples should be able to have at least some of the rights that they have, but the thought still crosses some of their minds:
"Well, I want Carol and Megan to have most of the rights I do so that they can efficiently care for their adopted child, but I still want the government to recognize that my heterosexualness is still vastly superior to their dykeiness."
So, civil right wars quickly become semantics wars. They want the government to show the public that unions between people of the same sex are recognized by the government, thus wanting them to be called 'civil unions', and that unions between heterosexuals are recognized by both the government and GOD, thus wanting them to be called the traditional 'marriage', which has come to have the connotative implications of clean, wholesome, straight, religious marriage.
In the opinion I read in the newspaper, the writer suggested that same-sex unions be called 'civil unions' and opposite-sex unions be called 'sacred unions', so that everyone is happy. I don't remotely understand where this person is coming from, the term 'sacred' carries even more of a loaded connotation than 'marriage'. What business would the government have telling me what's sacred and what's not? In any case, there are liberal Christians and Jews who think that God values both homosexual and heterosexual marriages equally, and so the government, by denying rights to same-sex couples and plutoing what that union is referred to in law, they are choosing one group's god over another group's god. It doesn't matter how many people worship the homophobic god, either, because the tyranny of the majority should be powerless over the FIRST AMENDMENT. My opinion is that both heterosexual and homosexual unions should be referred to as 'civil unions', because that's what they are. Just take all of the loaded words out of the law books. There should be no respecting of religious establishment in law.