![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
i have made a Decision.
edited to add two things:
1. the original timestamp on this post was 12feb2004, 14:08 EST. i mention this because i'm going to post-date it, at least for a while, so it always appears at the top of the page for anyone who happens to stop by this journal.
2. either before or after you read what follows, you should also read this post by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
thebratqueen.
Have been thinking about this since this morning, when I heard the latest report from Massachusetts on the radio in the car on the way to pick updarthrami. Thinking about it more, as one tends to, in response to theferrett's post about the sincerity of Christian belief (more or less). Finally reached a decision:
I'm not going to speak of gay marriage or same-sex marriage any more.
Language influences thought. Gay couples wish to be granted the right to marry, yes -- but the whole idea is that those marriages should be legally equivalent to marriages that happen to include people of opposite sexes. The political right wants to codify the definition of marriage to specify one man and one woman; and as long as people keep using the phrase gay marriage, it's going to be easier for the right to claim that this is something different than "real" marriage.
I'm not going to allow that. Language belongs to all of us, and we can and should be aware of the implications of the words we use and construct our speech with care. (Over here on the pro-choice side, don't we describe our opponents as anti-choice, because "pro-life" suggests that we are "anti-life" or "pro-death", which is sort of off-message? And don't they call us pro-abortion, as though we were insisting that people have the operation whether they wanted it or not?) So from now on, instead of talking about gay marriage and same-sex marriage and whatnot, I'm going to call it like it is: the debate is about marriage, which is available to some and not to others on legally artificial grounds. What the equal-rights crowd wants is for marriage to be available to everyone. Full stop.
Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "done."
Who's with me?
1. the original timestamp on this post was 12feb2004, 14:08 EST. i mention this because i'm going to post-date it, at least for a while, so it always appears at the top of the page for anyone who happens to stop by this journal.
2. either before or after you read what follows, you should also read this post by
thebratqueen.Have been thinking about this since this morning, when I heard the latest report from Massachusetts on the radio in the car on the way to pick up
darthrami. Thinking about it more, as one tends to, in response to theferrett's post about the sincerity of Christian belief (more or less). Finally reached a decision:I'm not going to speak of gay marriage or same-sex marriage any more.
Language influences thought. Gay couples wish to be granted the right to marry, yes -- but the whole idea is that those marriages should be legally equivalent to marriages that happen to include people of opposite sexes. The political right wants to codify the definition of marriage to specify one man and one woman; and as long as people keep using the phrase gay marriage, it's going to be easier for the right to claim that this is something different than "real" marriage.
I'm not going to allow that. Language belongs to all of us, and we can and should be aware of the implications of the words we use and construct our speech with care. (Over here on the pro-choice side, don't we describe our opponents as anti-choice, because "pro-life" suggests that we are "anti-life" or "pro-death", which is sort of off-message? And don't they call us pro-abortion, as though we were insisting that people have the operation whether they wanted it or not?) So from now on, instead of talking about gay marriage and same-sex marriage and whatnot, I'm going to call it like it is: the debate is about marriage, which is available to some and not to others on legally artificial grounds. What the equal-rights crowd wants is for marriage to be available to everyone. Full stop.
Dot it, file it, stick it in a box marked "done."
Who's with me?
no subject
Just thought I'd mention that. *g*
As I've already stated
no subject
I'm with you. You're a genius. The only thing I woould add, is to say (as I explained to my father, when he asked why) - I care about this issue because it is a civil rights issue. Not a "gay" or GBLT issue. As the Mass court said, we've already learned in this country that seperate is not equal.
Marriage should be legal for all. After all, the more committed families in our society, the stronger our society is. Period.
Re:
IDIC 4 eva, baybee.
Re:
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I have always had a problem with that. The first group that comes up with a snappy name for a political debate, gets to own the issue.
no subject
no subject
What amazes me so about this issue is that not too long ago there were laws on the books that made my marriage illegal in some states (my husband is Caucasian). Everyone now sees the folly of those old "Jim Crow" laws. When will everyone see the folly of refusing Marriage to everyone who is in love and wish to make that commitment!
no subject
Indeed, I would have said this first, if I could have codified the ways in which the phrase "gay marriage" was annoying me.
no subject
Ah, you have finally driven me to finish and install my linguistics icon. ~g~
8^-
Re:
no subject
I've friended you, btw.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2004-02-13 06:37 pm (UTC)(link)Looks like Mark is too. http://www.occams-razor.info/archives/000065.html
terri