Garling Gauge

Solution to Gay Marriage is Semantics

Removing ‘marriage’ from the marriage equation

Sometimes choosing the right word makes all the difference.

Ever notice how a stray word here or there can fundamentally change the course of a conversation?

Sen. George Allen found out when he arguably lost his 2006 Senatorial reelection bid by referring to an opposition campaign cameraman as “Macaca“, a racial epithet. A video of the incident became viral and Allen’s campaign languished from the fallout.

[flv]http://garlinggauge.com/videos/macaca.flv[/flv]
Allen’s regretful moment

Partially due to that one word, former Navy Secretary Jim Webb narrowly defeated Allen in the 2006 Virginia Senate Race. (Watch for Webb to be touted as a possible Democratic Vice Presidential choice in the upcoming months. A Governor will probably be chosen, but Webb will be considered)

Ever notice how politicians never directly answer a question?

The answers given by politicians tend to take on a different perspective than that of the original question, rephrased to best suits their needs. A few stray or wrong words can create unwanted headlines and heat from constituents. Sen. Joe Biden received scrutiny early in his 2008 presidential bid when he called Sen. Barack Obama, ‘clean’:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

What was meant as a compliment turned quickly into peril for the nascent Biden campaign.

Politicians try to be careful with their words, especially now with video in league with the internet.

Great leaders, orators, and politicians alike understand the power of language, using phrasing, pitch, deliberate pause, and trigger words to appeal and persuade the listening audience.

Social progress and political history are replete with examples of powerful words and phrases, such as FDR’s “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” from his first inaugural. Listen to the audio excerpt:

For example, were told we invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq because we were in imminent danger of attack with weapons of mass destruction. As the years have gone by, the story has changed to: We invaded Iraq to fight Al Qaeda and democratize the Middle East.


If you can’t win the argument then change the nature of the debate.


When it comes to the issue of gay marriage however, politicians rely solely on their beliefs or honed skills of deflection instead of changing the nature of the issue, often with inconsistent, dissonant results.Bill Richardson had a doosy the other night at the LOGO forum for Democratic presidential candidates when he said that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not a biological attribute:

“I made a mistake.” he said according to the Daily News. “I screwed up,”"[The blogs] went nuts saying, you know, that I literally was a moron and that I didn’t understand their struggle,” he said.

While Richardson’s and others’ thoughts on the development of ones sexual preference might be jarring to most, the dominant issue at the LOGO Democratic forum was the candidates’ beliefs on gay marriage. See how they responded:

Article continues below

Sen. Barack Obama on the church’s role
in determining civil rights



Sen. Barack Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage



Gov. Bill Richardson’s stance on same-sex marriage



Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s stance on same-sex marriage



Sen. Hillary Clinton’s stance on same-sex marriage



Former Sen. John Edwards’ stance on same-sex marriage



Former Sen. Mike Gravel’s take on same-sex marriage


Candidates use a variety of tactics to engage, deflect, reinterpret, or dismiss their stance on gay marriage.The Democratic presidential candidates have diverse opinions on the subject, yet none of them have re-evaluated the basic premise.

• Sen. Barack Obama sees it as an equal rights issue.
• Gov. Bill Richardson focuses on what he considers achievable.
• Rep. Kucinich believes in same-sex marriage.
• Sen. Hillary Clinton sees it as a road to equality and the States should decide.
• Former Sen. John Edwards sees it as a personal and religious issue.
• Former Sen. Mike Gravel believes in same-sex marriage.

Now Gravel comes close to changing the nature of the debate but errs by railing against religion (he rails against most things, really):

I resent religion saying that it is a religious term. It’s not . Marriage preceded all forms of religion in civilization. Marriage is a commitment between two human beings in love.

Changing the nature of the debate isn’t always a bad thing. Sometimes politicians are asked false premise questions. Steven Colbert has coined his own:

“President Bush: Great president, or the greatest president?”

The ferocious social upheaval caused by same-sex marriage lies in the nature of how marriage is defined. Many get married in a church, synogogue, or mosque, though some have civil weddings, at city hall or a drive through Elvis booth in Vegas.

Herein lies the beginning of the rub. The indoctrination ceremony into social partnership acceptance is anchored in religious tradition. As most religions do not condone same-sex marriage, religious, cultural, and social barricades persist. Advocates for same-sex marriage do not have enough leverage with their ‘equal rights’ argument to overcome this nation’s (and much of the world’s) insistence that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage advocates are swimming upstream.

While eventually same-sex marriage might become socially acceptable through education, progressive leadership, court battles, and persistence, it’s a steep climb.

Advocates need to change the nature of the debate.

And what is this magic potion for same-sex marriage success?

First, stop pushing for same-sex marriage.

Confused? Good. Here’s why:

The answer to equal human to human marriage lies in removing the notion of marriage from the equation. Marriage is too loaded a word. Words are powerful, and marriage is right up at the top. People have extremely strong definitions of what marriage means to them which can be difficult to change.

The solution is a paradigm shift thats defuses, redefines, and alters the semantics of the issue.

Defusing

One of the tenants of martial arts is deflecting or using your opponents energy against them. Society’s traditional notion of marriage is the energy that needs to be deflected, which can be done by removing the term ‘marriage’ from the debate for same-sex partnership equality. By removing the word ‘marriage’ all the baggage associated with that term are partially difused from the issue.

Civil unions tries to do this but ultimately fail by separating heterosexual partnerships and homosexual partnerships into separate ‘different but (mostly) equal’ categories. Civil unions are not the answer, but are close.

Redefinition

Former Sen. Mike Gravel is wrong to resent religion for believing marriage is a religious term. He might very well be correct in his statement, but it does not push forward equal benefits and acceptance of same-sex couples. Supporters of traditional marriage fear the concept of marriage they hold so dear is being trodden upon, they fear our society is changing too quickly or in the wrong direction. As FDR so eloquently orated, fear is quite powerful.

If a large percentage of our society associates marriage with religion, then we need to allow that word to become a religious term. By letting go of ‘marriage’, people can redefine the ‘civil’ definition of marriage.

We need to work for the equivalent of state sanctioned civil unions for all citizens, while allowing marriage to evolve into purely a religious sanctioning of a civil union.

Every couple that chooses to “marry” gets a “civil union” from the state, and, if they belong to a religious group, that union can be confirmed by their church in “marriage”.

Semantics

Same-sex couples also have ideas of what marriage is as well. The words ‘marry’, ‘marriage’, and ‘married’ are powerful and substantial words for everyone, not just heterosexuals. The term ‘civil union’ does not lend itself to literal congruency with marriage. The term ‘partnership’ has been added to civil unions to fill this gap, but really only further cracks an already fractured concept.

A word needs to be chosen that not only smoothly transposes the definition of marriage, but can also be used in the same fashion.

For the purpose of this article, let’s use the imperfect word ‘Sanction’ for a state decreed union.

Sanctioned can be used interchangeably with marriage:

• We want to get married. We want to get sanctioned.
• Will it end in marriage? Will it end in sanction?
• Will you marry me? Will you sanctify me?
  

According to thefreedictionary:

[sanction]…is a borrowing from the Latin word sncti, meaning “a law or decree that is sacred or inviolable.” In English, the word is first recorded in the mid-1500s in the meaning “law, decree,” but not long after, in about 1635, it refers to “the penalty enacted to cause one to obey a law or decree.” Thus from the beginning two fundamental notions of law were wrapped up in it: law as something that permits or approves and law that forbids by punishing. From the noun, a verb sanction was created in the 18th century meaning “to allow by law,” but it wasn’t until the second half of the 20th century that it began to mean “to punish (for breaking a law).”

The dual meaning of the word ’sanction’ is a drawback. Ideally, religions could use the word ’sanctify’ and the state could use the word ‘marriage’. Will you sanctify me? We just got sanctified! etc. But, alas, marriage is already too indoctrinated in religion.

If not the word ’sanction’ then what? That question needs be resolved before redefining marriage can gain any traction.

Politicians and advocates for same-sex marriage need to change their approach and think outside our current legal framework of marriage. By renaming state sanctioned marriage and expanding the legal rights to all couples, the intense social conflict of same-sex marriage rights can be assuaged, providing an easier path to equal rights. At the same time, religions and denominations can keep the word and meaning of marriage as inviolable, refocusing the battle for same-sex partnerships as an equal rights issue.

Think win-win.

“Marriage”… they can keep it.

*

http://dave-burke.squarespace.com/storage/what%20makes%20a%20marriage.jpg

Stumble it!