LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth |
CAMP Talk: The Name Game: Marital and Census Semantics |
by Bill Sievert |
Reluctantly, I checked off the box for "Unmarried partners" on the U.S. Census form. Several national organizations had urged people like us to do so in an effort to include gay households in the population count. I obliged because it was the only choice that made any sense whatsoever in describing who lives at John's and my address. But, for two people who have shared a roof and a relationship for 27 years, "Unmarried partners" seems such a cold term and a vague one at that. It could include all kinds of non-gay living situations, ranging from straight roommates who coown a business to groups of hippies practicing communal living. And, what about the countless number of lesbians and gay men who were not in a live-in relationship on Census day? How were they supposed to be countedas "unmarried partners in search of partners"? You may think that I am leading up to making a point about the importance of enacting legislation to create a state of gay matrimony, but I'm not. The use of the term "gay marriage" is almost as annoying to me as the euphemism "unmarried partners." The major problem with our using the M word is that it bothers insecure heterosexuals who, for whatever inscrutable reasoning, want to keep the institution to themselves. Many non-gay people who would otherwise be sympathetic to our appeal for domestic partnership protections on such important matters as insurance, inheritances, adoptions and rights of hospital visitation, simply cannot handle the concept when we describe what we want as marital. Wedded bliss, yeah right. Why do so many of us want to emulate an institution which, in contemporary society, fails as often as the typical gay or lesbian summer beach romance? Most of the unmarried straight women I know don't want to walk down that hallowed aisle, and my divorced friends say they would never go there again. Still, many gay peoplemen in particularare adamant in wanting to hear wedding bells. Perhaps the need stems from having spent too many lonely childhood afternoons dressing up our Ken and Barbie dolls. Yes, I understand that there are two distinct elements to the concept of marriage. One involves the state's recognition of a relationship, and I'm all in favor of our being afforded legal rights comparable to those of married couples. Heck, I'm even in favor of unmarried heterosexual partners having such rightssomething they're still fighting for in most states. But, as we did in the recent California ballot initiative, we will continue to lose our battle if we insist on calling the goal "gay marriage." We'll lose because of a silly game of semantics. Why can't we come up with another bit of terminology that acknowledges the special nature of our relationships, that recognizes us without portraying us as carbon copies of traditional brides-and-grooms? "Lovers" is one-dimensional and "significant others" is cute but goofy. I like the description "partners in life." Even "domestic partners" is fairly accurate in a legal sense. Whatever words we settle on, the real question is whether it is all that important to be able to describe ourselves as husband with husband or wife with wife? To many gay people, marriage also involves a religious or spiritual commitment. For decades now, openminded ministers and rabbis and even some Catholic priests have presided over rites called Holy Unions. They are lovely events that bestow blessings on our relationships and encourage partners to take each other seriously. Let's keep those Holy Unions coming, but there is little reasonother than provocationfor a gay couple to irk members of their families or their less open-minded colleagues by calling these ceremonies marriages. After all, one reason so many straight people crave weddings is to amass vast quantities of gifts from as many of their acquaintances as possible. It's a once-in-a-lifetime (or twice or thrice) opportunity to be the winner on "Supermarket Sweep." Only a few times in our 27 years together have John and I considered getting married. Those crisis points have come after we attended some friend or relative's nuptials and added up the loot they took in. At such moments, we have slapped our cheeks, covered our mercenary mouths and slowly counted to ten. We don't really need all those gifts any more than we need third-party approval to validate our lives. We know, and everyone who is important to us knows, that we have persevered in our dedication to one another for the better part of three decades. We are very proud of our accomplishment. Even though we sometimes admit to "bickering like an old married couple," it would add nothing to our appreciation of each other to have lawmakers or churches define our relationship with the same vocabulary they used to describe the pacts of our parents. However, you are more than welcome to send us anniversary gifts each May. Bill Sievert is co-owner of Splash on Baltimore Avenue and a member of the CAMP Rehoboth Board of Directors. He and John divide their time between Rehoboth and Florida. |
LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth, Vol. 10, No. 3, Apr. 7, 2000. |