"Write to Marry" Blogging Day

On the surface it seems like such a reasonable compromise - why not call it a "domestic partnership," or "significant other," or "same-sex conjugal association?" The minority gets "their rights," and no one has to invoke the M-word. Everyone's happy, right?

No.

The late Saul Alinsky in his 1971 Rules for Radicals explained it so much better than I. In the chapter, "A Word About Words," Alinsky tells early 1970s-era youth that words in political organizing *do* matter. The hot-button words of his era were different than those of today, but the same principles still apply. I've taken the liberty of inserting into his text the word "marriage" where "power" appears in the original. I don't think Alinsky would mind.

The question may legitimately be raised, why not use other words - words that mean the same but are peaceful, and do not result in such negative emotional reactions? There are a number of fundamental reasons for rejecting such substitution. First, by using combinations of words such as [domestic partnership] instead of the single word [marriage], we begin to dilute the meaning; and as we use purifying synonyms, we dissolve the bitterness, the anguish, the hate and love, the agony and the triumph attached to these words, leaving an aseptic imitation of life. In the politics of life we are concerned with the slaves and the Caesars, not the vestal virgins. It is not just that, in communication as in thought, we must ever strive toward simplicity ... It is more than that: it is a determination not to detour around reality.

To use any other word but [marriage] is to change the meaning of everything we are talking about. As Mark Twain once put it, 'The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.'

When two gay people, men or women, publicly pledge themselves to each other, and when society recognizes that union, that's marriage. Yes, it is a redefinition of marriage. We have seen many such redefinitions over the centuries. At one time, for the upper classes at least, marriage was often a cold and bloodless uniting of dynasties or fortunes. Most today don't subscribe to that idea. Marriage has changed: permitting divorce, giving property rights to married women, insisting that Southern states recognize interracial marriages. Now it's changing some more.

On the personal side, marriage is a meeting of minds, hearts, and bodies, which leads to the uplifting and support of one another. Love, security, and stability are ratified with this public affirmation. But gay couples making this commitment need more than affirmation. Justice demands the following rights:

- To file jointly on federal and state income taxes;
- To get a spouse's share of Social Security benefits;
- The spouse exclusion from federal and state inheritance taxes;
- Full consideration as adoptive or foster parents (on par with straight married couples);
- Any corporate benefits extended to straight spouses (medical, pension, life insurance, etc.);
- To have their marriage (contracted in one state) recognized as valid in all states;
- To have Canadian, Dutch, and other foreign marriages recognized as valid in the USA, especially for immigration.

I'm sure I've forgotten other, equally important points of fair treatment.

Finally, as a married-mom-with-kids, I want to say to the political action groups "defending marriage" that they aren't defending me, and certainly don't speak for me or my situation. I don't lose anything if gay couples achieve civil rights and recognition. I lose big time when gay couples stay closeted; pay more tax or are denied medical insurance benefits; feel that they can't exchange simple gestures of affection in public. Why? Because we are all interconnected. We are responsible for each other. It's not just a matter of, "I've got mine, forget about you." My marriage is not an excuse to deny others what I enjoy.