Words matter. If there’s anything I’ve learned from a life of talking, let alone writing, it’s that. What you call things directly affects how you see things, how you think of them. A rose by any other name is not a rose, not entirely. It may smell as sweet, but so does a cinnamon bun.
I don’t remember the first time I ever heard a gay man refer to his partner as his husband, but I think I remember what I thought when I heard it: “How cute.” This was years ago. I don’t remember who said it, or even if it was in person or simply someone I saw in a movie. Thinking about it, it was probably a live conversation – there weren’t a lot of gay folks represented on TV even 15 years ago, and I probably wasn’t watching those few who made it on the air. I never saw Torch Song Trilogy; it didn’t skeev me or anything, it just didn’t interest me enough to seek out. Not with The Last Starfighter in Theater 2.
So, My point was? Oh, right – “husband.” I thought it was nice that this guy was calling his boyfriend his husband. Nothing wrong with that, call him what you want. It sure as hell sounded better than “partner,” which sounded like a business arrangement, or “life partner,” which frankly sounds to me like a prison sentence. “Meet Crusher. He’s my life partner. Got any cigarettes?”
But one thing I never actually thought – that the guy I was introduced to was the other guy’s husband. I couldn’t take that at face value at all. He was a boyfriend, a lover, a…shudder…partner.
In other words, no matter what this guy said—not that he made an issue of it—I didn’t take their commitment as seriously as he did. As they did, husband and husband.
Now, I might’ve had a girlfriend at the time, or maybe not. But whenever I had a girlfriend, I was committed to her, and to the relationship. I might have loved her, I might have not – it really depends on the girl. But I was trying, I was faithful, and I like to think I was pulling my weight, relationship-wise. Sometimes it was work.
I didn’t see anything wrong with being a boyfriend. It was a pretty high level of emotional commitment, in my book. But I say this now, as someone who’s gotten to the “husband” chapter of the book: A boyfriend is NOT a husband. Not remotely. Neither is a fiancé a husband, despite what I thought of my level of commitment in that year and change. It’s not that I loved Kathy any less when I was a boyfriend, or a fiancé, or any of that. But the commitment is different. Not by nature, but by degree.
And when it comes down to it, I know damn well that heterosexuals aren’t the only people capable of the degree of commitment to be a good husband, or a good wife. If I can do it, it can’t be THAT tough – at least with the right spouse (another word I hate, incidentally – its gender-neutrality makes it sound somehow clinical. Esposa and esposo in Spanish are great, but "spouse" seems invented rather than organic). And it’s not just the will to be committed that makes the commitment possible. The word itself makes it possible. I didn’t think it was possible to be more committed to Kathy, to have more personally at stake in her health and safety and happiness, than when I was her fiancé. Fact is, I was wrong. Being a husband changes things, amplifies them. I imagine being a wife does, too.
Gays and lesbians should be able to marry. They should call their partners husbands and wives… and not only mean it, but have everyone know they mean it, and know what it means. Anything less is second-class. Civil unions may be a necessary step to get where we should be as a society, but they're just a step – not the destination.
Rob
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Why Civil Unions Aren’t Enough
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly. I used to think civil unions were sufficient--that it was about having those legal protections and privileges like hospital visitation, health benefits, etc. But after I thought about it, I realized (duh) that marriage isn't just about those things, and there's no logical reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Unless we want to start defining marriage as a union that produces children, in which case you and I aren't really married (to our respective spous--er, special ones, that is).
Re: "defining marriage as a union that produces children"
I feel a little bad pointing this out -- it's somehow like misusing my knowledge about a church which I have at this point functionally abandoned -- but as recently as the first half of the Twentieth Century the Roman Catholic Church DID define marriage in those terms. The inability to conceive was, I believe, grounds for an annulment. There could be no proper marriage where there was no chance of offspring.
Hmmm, true, but when I said "we" I meant as a country.
And one can have the ability to procreate and still choose not to (I didn't mean to imply that we four are sterile--we just like our sleep!), but those who define marriage as a baby-making venture would probably find us morally suspect or at least weird.
While I see the historical relevancy of how different churches define marriage (I think there's something similar in some Jewish traditions), what matters most to me is how our government treats its citizens.
Churches can and should do what they want -- first amendment and all that. I'd expect some churches will eventually allow gay marriage, due to internal pressure from their congregations. Others will resist, possibly due to pressure in the opposite direction from their congregations, or possibly through the inertia of dogma. Either way though, I don't think the government or the courts can tell churches who they can and can't marry. I would hope most would see the light and marry gay people, but it's up to them. Those who don't like it can find another church.
In general, I have been in favor of the term "Civil Union" if it is chosen as the single legal definition for the purposes of taxes, health benefits, power of attorney, etc. To put it another way, I really don't care what term the law uses, as long as the same term applies to everyone equally.
So why not just use "marriage" and be done with it? I have to accept that most religions are, at the very least, struggling with the concept of same-sex marriage. I can also appreciate that marriage is also an institution with a deep religious background. There may be historical precedents that show the term marriage applying to same-sex or childless unions, but most religions that define marriage as M-F union, usually one that produces children. I do not ascribe to those religions, but I must respect their freedom to do so.
Given how deeply the term marriage is woven into religion, I think it is resonable for government to decide it is unsuitable for use in leagal definitions. In this way, you can leave the religious leaders to wrestle with the definition of marriage and move forward with equal protection under the law.
In this scenario, anyone who wants to can still say they're married. They can use the term husband, wife, ball 'n' chain, whatever. I don't think they would be deprived if those terms didn't have a checkbox on their 1040.
I also think there should be a button to spell-check your blog comments.
It amazes me that this post is so old. I remember it, and I'm constantly being unsettled by the time-line compression of my memories these days.
Anyway, re-reading it following your posting of Olbermann's Special Comment on the Prop.8 tragedy (http://robstaeger.blogspot.com/2008/11/book-of-love.html), got me thinking about the words involved.
I didn't mention it when I first commented, but I actually like the term "spouse." Yeah, it may sound a little clinical or at least detached in the ways it's used -- when it is used -- in contemporary discourse. And I'll be the first to admit that I have a greater-than-typical propensity for concern about a word's etymology. It's in that very concern that my discomfort with the term "husband" is rooted.
Putting links in a comment here is a trick that still eludes me (if it is, indeed, possible), so I'll trust that googling definitions online isn't too imposing a task to presume. If you examine the definition and history of the words, it turns out that husband has roots that refer to the head-of-household rather than the male half of a married couple. They're the same roots the give us "animal husbandry."
Spouse, on the other hand, shares the same root as sponsor and espouse. It comes from the Latin spondeo, spondere, meaning a form of solemn promise. It can refer, but is not limited, to betrothal; there is no implicit distinction of gender or position; it's all about the promise, the vow, the commitment. Etymologically, spouse can refer equally to both halves of a couple, without regard to gender. You're Kathy's spouse, she is yours; the lingual implication, to my mind, is equality in mutual commitment.
I doubt we'll ever find the word in common use -- it does sound somehow clinical, which seems a shame to me.
Dude... you really come through sometimes, y'know? You just totally saved that word for me.
Spouse. Espouse. I suddenly like it so much more.
And yeah, common usage tends to be the term of last resort when searching around for a gender-free word to describe a gendered person (much like sibling instead of brother or sister), but I've got a whole new respect for the word now.
Thanks.
Post a Comment