I imagine people have been hearing about the same-sex marriage debate all over the world, since the Pope is ticked enough to have denounced the issue....

Not to open a political/religious debate here, I think the problem lies not with the concept, but with the semantics. People the world over TEND to think one thing when they hear the word "marriage": a man and a woman and a union blessed and sanctified by the church - or simply recognised by the state.

Perhaps same-sex marriages could be called something else? After all, the language is constantly coming up with new words to describe new things - and same-sex marriages are a relatively new thing, still.

Can we AWADers leap into the breach and help out a li'l? Anyone got any ideas for a new word to describe what are currently known as same-sex marriages?

Steve and Fred are getting married? How wonderful! Those two are so devoted to each other--and so domestic. I think it's a good match.

I say get rid of the 'same sex' part--and just let 'em get married like anybody else who wants to.

that gets my vote, as well.

If I ruled the world ...

Any adult couple could enter into a civil union, which would be legally recognised by the state, employers etc., and which would have all the legal and financial benefits (and problems) we now associate with marriage.

Those who wished could then go on to also have the union blessed according to their religion. But that would make no difference as far as their legal and civil rights and obligations to each other. Call that marriage if you want.

As mod-ed says the word marriage is tied up with the religious ceremony in most people's minds. So I'd use the words "civil union" and "marriage" in recognition of that fact. So long as everyone's treated the same under the law, it doesn't really matter what you call it.

Bingley

I amend my vote to include Bingley's common sense.

Any adult couple could enter into a civil union

Vermont has done this and it has been interpreted as marriage by all the knee-jerks. And raised questions about Article IV Sect. 1 of the US Constitution:

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

IloVermont!
surprisingly, there has been little effort to rescind the Vermont civil unions law. thankfully. of course, there is, and will continue to be, opposition to it, but it's been pretty quiet.

If I ruled the world ...

Bingley, you made the same point a Catholic priest made t'other day on Canuck tv. It does make sense.

I guess I'm just thinking of the weight of tradition. Somehow, marriage is irrevocably defined in my brain as being something between a man and a woman. Why can't there be a new term for a "marriage" between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman? It is, after all, a new thing - ie, not the same as marriage as we have known it. And language is always growing and changing - it's so elastic, can't it stretch to come up with a new term?

Good concept, mg. It would be nice to have something to set the two apart...(hmm, cogs turning) unless there are some who want the "cover" of being able to say they're married, without revealing the gender of their mate. However, that has nothing to do with your idea. I'm afraid I can't come up with anything other than the mundane: partnering, mating--oops, scratch that one; hey, wait--how 'bout cleaved?

"Cleaved" is good, except that it can have two meanings, yes?

I wondered about something like "unified"....or "united" maybe. Then the union could be called just that - a union. Except, there's the labour connotation to the word "union."

What about an entirely new word? Something like "homarrige" - combining "homosexual" and "marriage," sounding close to "homage" which is nice....

Sounds too much like hemorrhage.

good point, Fald.
while I understand your thoughts, mg, I feel we really don't need another word, and actually it would be a step backwards to develop one. what we need is for people to wake up and realize that people are people(pipples are pipples-The Muppets Take Manhattan ) regardless of who they love(consenting adults, of course), and should be treated equally.

Yeahbut (sorry, couldn't figure out how to make the symbol on this keyboard, even with cheatsheets!), I'm not trying to say pipples ain't pipples - just that marriage has been one thing for so long, is it really fair to ask it to stretch to accommodate a very new thing?

We make up new words for all kinds of new things in this new world - and "marriage" between two people of the same sex can never be what most of the world understands marriage to be. So why can't there be a new word for it?

Bingley's view is common sense. The new possibility of legal unions between persons of the same sex is similar to what has happened in countries with a state religion. Time was in England that the only possible way to get married was to have the banns posted (or pay for a license) and have it done in the church, which meant the parish C of E institution, by the clergy of same. No matter if you were a dissenter; a ceremony conducted elsewhere or by someone not a C of E priest or bishop didn't count in law. It took a while for Parliament to allow a marriage to take place in any other fashion.

Same in Catholic countries. You couldn't be married anywhere else but in the parish church, whether or not you were Catholic. In time, civil marriages were allowed and, in many places were actually required for civil purposes and the church ceremony was extra. It is now the practice in Italy, for instance, if you are religious, to first go to the city hall for the civil ceremony (which only takes maybe 15 minutes), then to the church for the religious rite.

In other words, old laws and legal requirements have to be modified to allow marriage to occur in such a manner that those members of the body politic who can't meet the requirements will have a chance to be married. When there are a significant number of people shut out from legal marriage by a legal bar, it is in the interest of society (and maybe the church, if your religious views are liberal) to make modifications rather than having large numbers of people "living in sin" or being forced to be at a legal disadvantage in terms of entitlements, pensions, inheritance, etc. This, I think, is what we are now grappling with and trying to do something with, the Pope, Pat Roberts, George Bush, et al. notwithstanding.

can never be what most of the world understands
excuse me while I step off the edge off the earth...

eta, I'm not suggesting you're otherworldly.

Just, I bet if you polled people in South America, China, India and Africa, many of them would not understand the concept of "marriage" between two people of the same sex. Also, if you polled (God love 'em, I know I do) the geriatric set, many of them would probably be confused about it. They might well be open-minded enough to accept two people of the same sex wanting to commit to each other and have that commitment recognised, but they wouldn't necessarily understand why such a union would be called a "marriage" - given that many older people understand marriage to be between a man and a woman who intend to be together forever AND PROCREATE - something that gays and lesbians will never be able to do, unless science meddles with biology even more than it already has. Homosexuals can certainly raise children together, but they can't actually produce them (unless we're talking about a gay and a lesbian).

Seems to me to be a significant enough difference to warrant a new word, but obviously I'm in the minority, so forget I spoke.

eta, I'm not suggesting you're otherworldly. rats.

actually, what I was getting at was that strongly held ideas about things can change, and that I feel that this is no different. you're right about those groups, at this time, feeling that way, but I think it doesn't have to be that way.
and I'm not so sure about you being in the minority. actually.

Just, I bet if you polled people in South America, China, India and Africa, many of them would not understand the concept of "marriage" between two people of the same sex

er, mg, read as worded, this statement appears to suggest that such 'concepts' are endemic to the G8 nations! And possibly inadvertently, it reinforces multiple stereotypes. Just the sort of thing that the rights movement is fighting against!

the geriatric set, many of them would probably be confused about it.

Hey just a gol durn minute there, youngster!
But seriously ....... Speaking for my own 74-year-old self, and for many of my friends of the same age, and a few even older, we understand quite well the concept of any type of consential union between two people - whether the same or opposite sex. And the way you kids are talking you'd think it was something new! In my youth the term for two women living together was a "Boston Marriage." Dunno' where the phrase came from but it was well known. Homosexual men were "confirmed bachelors." I can't help but think those are two euphemisms we are well off without. I favor a litle light and fresh air, thank you very much.
Civil marriage is nothing new in USA - ask any Justice of the Peace! (I are one!)
The legal protection thatwould be offered by a consential union is only fair for two people who have pledged themselves to each other.
I have seen (and heard of) some distressing situations that have happened because of the lack of legal protection.
I had two friends, lovely, kind, decent, honorable men, who had been exclusively together for 23 years when one died of a myocardial infaction.
The survivor was treated very badly by police who were called to the "unexplained death." He was held in a separate room until the coroner confirmed the death by heart attack and was not allowed to leave the room until after the body was removed.
Then the family swooped in - although they had refused to speak to the deceased for over 25 years because of their "lifestyle." (Arrrggghh)
The body was taken a great distance out of state for burial in the "family plot" and his life companion cannot even visit the grave as they refused to tell him anything about the funeral or the location of the cemetery.
All his partner's effects were taken away, and the bank accounts which were in the deceased's name (containing money contributed by the survivor) were awarded to the closest next of kin - a surviving brother. It was a nightmare!
Now consider what it would be like to have someone you loved for 23 years torn from you with such ruthlessness.
I am strongly in favor of a consential union that would give same-sex partners the same legal rights that enjoyed in a male-female unions.
I cannot imagine what I would have done if someone had treated me that way when my beloved John died.
As for the Pope's ruling, it's a regulation not an article of faith and so I am at liberty to excercise my free will and ignore it if my conscience so dictates. And it does.
Homosexuality has ever been with us. God made us all and I cannot believe He would withhold Her love from any creature.
So there. Harumph!

People of the same gender who are coupled tend not to refer to their opposite as a spouse, but rather as their "partner." What is wrong with calling these relationships "partnerships"? Or is it too much like the business usage of this term?

What about an entirely new word? Something like "homarrige" - combining "homosexual" and "marriage," sounding close to "homage" which is nice....
It also sounds like "fromage" which is french for "cheese".

oh let people get married if they want too, and call it all marriage, if you give it a different name then people will think it is a different thing and it's not. As for procreation, no one still thinks that do they? I've never heard that outside of period dramas. Does that mean childless couples aren't really married? What about barren ones who adopt? Sperm donor pregnancies? Invitro's?

(rant)I don't know why you have to have a whole ritual thing anyway. Can't you just sign a piece of paper? I'd prefer that, I've been living over the broom for three years now, my partner periodically asks me to marry him and the answer's always going to be no because: oh Jesus, what a nightmare, a whole day with all of my family, a big white dress (eurrgh) and I'm paying? Christmas is bad enough.(/rant)

"living over the broom"

Now that's an expression I've not heard in years !
It has some quite formal connotations, too. It originally referred to an unofficial form of marriage, that was recognised by the community in which you lived, but not by "the authorities." In the days before state benefits, civil recognition was not important for people who owned no property, of course - marriage is very akin to a comercial or real estate contract and had a lot to do with property rights and inheritance.
But within a community, even of landless workers, such things do have importance and the commitment shown by "jumping over the broomstick" with your chosen mate in the full gaze of your fellows is very relevant to the present discussion.

Thanks for reminding me of the word (and the concept), dody.

period dramas.

I have one of those once a month.

once a month
<snort>

I have one of those once a month.

You'll outgrow it, AnnaS, I promise.