I'm 9 years into a marriage now and wondering why there is all this argument over the rights of people to be married, rights for marriage to be recognized, etc.
I think everyone's missing out on the more meaningful words, which are 'partner' and 'partnership'. Nine years into marriage, and it's the partnership that is most important to me. I remember about a decade ago I was working one day and one of my colleagues said she had met a former classmate and her 'partner' over the weekend. That kind of set me immediately wondering if this person's 'partner' was male or female. Because surely, if it was her boyfriend, wouldn't you just say 'boyfriend'? Or, fiancee? Why use partner unless you are struggling for a way to describe something? Or maybe they're living together but not married, because then you'd say 'husband' or 'wife' - for some reason it seemed weird to describe a spouse as someone's partner. I was engaged at the time - and for some reason would not have thought to describe my this person I was planning to join my life with as my 'partner'.
It wasn't always so complicated. When I was a child in school, we were always encouraged to pick partners. We 'partnered up' - we had partners for walking down the hall, partners for homework and reading and activities in gym class. We didn't choose husbands or wives, or girlfriends - we chose partners. It didn't matter whether you chose a boy or a girl - of course most people chose a same-sex partner, because there was quite a stigma to being partnered up with someone of the opposite sex. Heaven forbid all your friends tease you for having a boyfriend or girlfriend.
Today I am watching an interview with a same-sex couple and the discussion, as it always does - turns to the definition of marriage, etc. They weren't in favor of having any name other than marriage for their partnership. They said - it's like in the past where the white people and black people couldn't drink from the same fountain, sure everyone gets water but the point is not to let the black people taint the water from the fountain for the white people. And it is the same with marriage, by giving it a different name, you're separating because you fear that the word marriage will be tainted by the same sex couples using it.
I completely disagree, I don't think there is any taint to using it. I just think a better more accurate word is in order. I'm very attached to the word 'marriage' to describe my relationship with my husband, because its something I did in a Church before God, and actually according to my belief system - it means a partnership between myself, my husband and God. That is what it means to me, but of course I understand it's completely different for other people. There are plenty of marriages out there where God is not the third partner, and I don't think that 'taints' my marriage. Whatever - that's MY definition, and I don't expect everyone to use it the same way I do.
What is becoming more clear to me as the years go by is that the partnership is most important - without that, do you really have a marriage? How many married people would describe their spouse as a partner? We're worried that the definition of marriage is being tainted - what about partnership? It doesn't matter who you choose, but rather by how you behave as a partner. Building strong partnerships will strengthen the definition. What if we started to really think as partners, and to make a commitment (hopefully lifelong) to this partnership?
Maybe we need to ditch the arguments about marriage and the definition. It means different things to different people, and I don't think it's the government's business to define or change it. But it is the government's business to recognize partnerships - and to treat all people the same regardless of who they decide to partner up with. So, let's just all pick a partner. And if you would describe your partnership as a marriage because you had a wedding, then good for you, whoever you are. But if it's just this word we're all arguing about, I have to wonder if maybe what everyone really wants is a partner, and a partnership. They want their partnership to be recognized by the government and respected equally. It's just like when we were in school - choosing a partner doesn't in any way imply whether you should be picking a boy or a girl. We need to use a word like that. It seems to be more fitting than marriage, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
How would you feel about all churches getting out of the "marriage" thing and leaving it to the government by way of justice of the peace or liscenced marriage agent or ? And then each church can have a ceremony to bless or consecrate whatever partnerships their members feel comfortable with? (not my original idea, I listened to 3 priests discussing it yesterday)
I'd kind of like it the opposite way - I don't think the churches will back away from 'marriage' since that seems to be where the main fight over the word is coming from. I think the government certainly can leave that term behind and update to acknowledge legal partnerships or whatever. I could be wrong but to me 'marriage' is a faith based word that has taken on a legal/government definition. I think the churches can have it back, and have their ceremonies as they've always done.
But the paperwork we fill out for the license or the service the Justice of the Peace provides would be to make a couple legal partners. Or whatever term is suitable - though I struggle to think of a better one right now.
I'd gladly not be 'married' in the eyes of the government - any other word will work for me.
Post a Comment