Sorry, Fellas, You May Be the Wife, but You Can’t Be the Queen
As same-sex marriage continues its historic rise to acceptance throughout the world, many people—heterosexual and homosexual alike—are at a loss for words. At least they’re at a loss for appropriate language by which to address the spouses.
My friend Sally always introduces her legal lesbian spouse, June, as “my husband.” And June is just fine with that; she beams proudly whenever Sally uses the word. But for most of us, coupling the monikers husband and wife does not seem appropriate. Our roles in our relationships don’t mimic the traditional definitions of those terms which imply that one person represents a male and the other a female.
Even for heterosexual couples the old-world connotations of dominant husband and subservient wife no longer apply, and I know straight women who have a strong distaste for being referred to as her husband’s “wife.” Although they may be accepted almost universally, those terms are tainted with a history of sexism. Some kind of new lexicon is in order.
Perplexed, I decided to see what Miss Manners has written on the subject. She always projects confidence in informing us what is socially appropriate. Well, almost always.
Last fall a reader asked her: “With the advent of same-sex marriages, I sometimes find myself at a loss as to the correct form of introduction. Is each gentleman in a same-sex marriage the ‘husband’ of the other, with each lady in a similar relationship the ‘wife’ of her spouse? Or alternately, is a gentleman’s spouse his ‘wife’ regardless of the spouse’s gender, and a lady’s spouse likewise her ‘husband’? I recognize that the equality or inequality of forms has taken on substantial symbolic importance these days. I would like to treat all couples with equal courtesy, but our traditional language creates ambiguities when applied to our new circumstances.”
I was certain Miss Manners would come up with just the right answer. So, I was dismayed when I read her response, which stated (in part): “Dear Gentle Reader…Please don’t make trouble. Miss Manners is still weary from the emotion-laden battles over designations for couples who are not married.”
Deliberating on this thorny issue had left poor Miss Manners almost speechless. She did note that to use any term other than “husband” to describe a married male and “wife” to describe a married female “would appear to cast doubt on their status and throw them back into the partner category.”
She is not especially fond of that term either: “‘Partner’ is not the best solution (because it also describes a business relationship), but it is better than the explicit, overly cute or puzzling terms that [often have been] suggested.”
Thank you, Miss Manners, your answer is about as clear as last June’s Supreme Court ruling on the scope of equal protection under the law as it pertains to gay couples.
Personally, I’m okay with saying husband and husband or wife and wife—though I prefer to use “my spouse” when introducing John. I often use that word even though we’re still not legally married, so I’m being as inexact as if I simply said, “We’re significant others.” John sometimes introduces me as his “fiancé of 40 years,” though Miss Manners undoubtedly would argue that it is no longer an engagement after four decades. I would, too.
Perhaps the simplest thing to say when you’re introducing your spouse to someone who may not know your marital status is: “I’d like you to meet John; we’re married.” (That, of course, assumes your spouse is named John and you really have legally wedded.) Or if you’re introducing a couple: “This is Sally and June; they’re married.”
If you think we Americans have a hard time coming up with terminology to describe same-sex partners, just consider the poor Brits. With gay marriages set to become legal in England and Wales later this month, Parliament is busy trying to revise and rephrase more than 100 marriage-related laws dating back as far as 729 years ago. The government is concerned that some of the language in the old laws may have “unintended consequences” now that homosexuals can wed. The proposed amendments include deleting or rewording terms such as “widow” in laws regarding seamen’s pensions and taxicab licenses.
According to London’s Daily Telegraph, the changes also “will prevent the male spouse of a gay king or the Prince of Wales from becoming Queen or Princess of Wales respectively, as current laws would provide for.”
Some fans may ask that an exception be made for one of their favorite knights, but it appears that he will only be known as Queen Elton John in the United States. In his homeland, Sir Elton’s spouse David Furnish also will be ineligible from being called Lady Furnish. That’s because the revised law expressly forbids referring to the male spouses of dukes, earls and other male peers by the titles duchess, countess, or lady.
The difficulties in finding appropriate labels to identify our marital partners may become even more complicated as we contend with a growing number of gender identity descriptions available to each of us as individuals. As you may know, Facebook recently began offering members 55 separate gender choices with enough variety to keep even the most gender-secure individuals up late at night pouring through their options.
We can now select, for example, “gender fluid” if we feel more like a female one day and more like a male another. Or perhaps we are “non-binary,” which is defined as being outside the two-gender system or challenging that system. Some folks may want to select three or more of the choices.
I’m all about respecting and celebrating our differences, as well as gaining a greater appreciation of the complexities of human nature. But as I pore through so many gender choices on Facebook, I begin to wonder if we may be pigeonholing ourselves (and one another) too much—even with labels that by definition are “fluid.”
Perhaps we can eventually reach a point where we shrug off labeling altogether and agree to return to the simple mantra that John Lennon and Lady—er—Sir Elton John once sang so eloquently: “Whatever gets you through the night is alright.”