Rant

[celandineb]

I'm not telling anyone what they can and can't like/read/write, first of all. Just to make that plain. Nor am I saying that if you like the following, I think less of you. It's not directed at anyone in particular nor inspired by any specific fics. This is just me being peevish, okay?

Comments

[celandineb]

if we are going to change marriage, perhaps those terms should go away

Yes. Marriage isn't what it once was, despite the desperate efforts of a few radical conservatives to pretend they can turn back the clock. So it seems to me that the terminology should be rethought. This is one reason why I refer to my husband as SO when I mention him in posts; I don't hide that he is male or that we are legally married but I don't want to emphasize that. If that makes sense.

I don't know all that many same-sex couples in RL just now, but I can't think of any who use husband/wife (though with such a limited sample it's not meaningful). The woman I know best refers to the other woman in the relationship as her partner, and that seems just fine.

[celandineb]

Yeah, I don't really like "boyfriend" either although there are circumstances in which it seems to fit. (Heck, in RL I don't like it, and have never really used it!)

I agree, they could just live together permanently and not worry about it, or worry about what other people might expect. Unless there's some legal provision for gay marriage in the wizarding world, which seems very unlikely to me. So why use terminology that doesn't apply?

[a_d_medievalist]

Yeah, not to mention the age thing. Maybe H and D could use is, but neither for Snape. I've been trying to come up with something myself ... paramour? Because lover is squicky and puts too much emphasis on the sex. OTOH, were I to take a lover promarily for the sex, I suppose I'd call him/her that.

[celandineb]

I don't know of a good word, really. A lot of them are gender-specific, others are kind of cutesy, some are too old-fashioned/formal (swain? beau?). "Partner" is for me the least problematic and most flexible. "Significant other" works but it's too awkward for casual use.

[ms_mindfunk]

I see things almost the opposite to what you suggest. Since 'marry' is a generic word that means to unite or join, I think every legalized domestic/romantic partnership should be considered a marriage. If you can marry two pipes or some rope, then two men or two women can certainly claim the title. If people want to go the extra mile (kilometer?) and have their union performed or blessed by their religious leader according to the tenets of their faith, that's their business. However, since marriage is a civil institution regulated by the state, it should be equally available to all people who want to bind themselves with another in that way. Nobody would be forcing any religion to perform blessings or ceremonies for couples that break its rules, like same sex joinings or remarriages, but the government wouldn't be discriminating against its people because of arbitrary religious beliefs that have no place in dictating the law

[celandineb]

I guess for me since a religious person (priest, minister, rabbi, whatever) can perform a ceremony and it's considered legally binding, that seems to trump the civil aspect. If that weren't the case there would have to be a civil ceremony, with the religious ritual as an addendum.

lottelita found only one mention of homosexuality in canon -- she cites it up thread here.

[ms_mindfunk]

Religious leaders are granted the privilege of performing weddings, but they are acting as an agent of the state when they do it. They have to fill out the license and associated paperwork and file it with the county clerk's office, for example. In some jurisdictions they must be licensed by the state as a minister, or legally ordained by their denomination in order to perform weddings. Weddings aren't legal if those requirements aren't met, or if the officiant doesn't file the paperwork by the dealine set by the jurisdiction, regardless of the religious laws or customs that may have been performed.

Some states have laws that allow non-clergy to apply for authority to perform marriage ceremonies. For example, California law permits anyone to apply for permission to become a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages for the day. There are also entities like the Universal Life Church that legally ordain anyone who has a few bucks regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Then there are weddings performed by judges, JPs or court

[mordyn4]

I started to read the comments too, but whoa. Still, I wanted to pipe up with a moderate nod. It's annoying, but not a major squick

[celandineb]

It's not a major squick, really, but more a big peeve. It doesn't prevent me from reading a fic even if I know there's going to be a "wedding", I'll just grumble under my breath and read that bit quickly (okay, if that's the entirety of the fic I'll probably not read it).

I felt I could make the lifelong commitment, and so I was willing to do it. One of my sets of grandparents have been married 65 years, and the other set nearly 64 (they're all still alive) so I know it's possible from seeing it in my family (my parents' own divorce notwithstanding). Now, things may change in the future, but... I do also want to have a kid or two, if possible. And I live in the Bible Belt through no fault of my own. And I'm pragmatic, and socially speaking, it's still better to be married than not especially if you're having kids.

[mordyn4]

Agreed. I think I would have trouble being so cavalier if I wanted kids.

[celandineb]

I consider myself fairly romantic and definitely committed to my own SO, aka my husband. But if I were in an equally serious relationship with a woman -- which was possible -- I would not use the term "wife". Even if we had had some kind of ceremony (legal or simply for ourselves). Nope. Doesn't work for me.

And no, "husband" and "marriage" aren't inherently religious terms, but they carry a lot of religious baggage with them. Which I don't like. Personal preference, as I said.