tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post115310343216125880..comments2023-11-10T16:19:46.880-05:00Comments on Blogslot: Terms of EndearmentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1158510823472643002006-09-17T12:33:00.000-04:002006-09-17T12:33:00.000-04:00How about "marriage equality"? "Gay marriage" doe...How about "marriage equality"? <BR/><BR/>"Gay marriage" does tend to be taken as gay male marriage, and let's not forget that many people in same-sex relationships are in fact bisexual, or for that matter transgendered folks who don't fit easily into male-female classification.<BR/><BR/>"Unions" and "marriages" can't be interchanged; legally, the institution of marriage confers over 3,000 distinct rights to its participants; domestic unions vary, but most offer less than 1,000. It's a back-of-the-bus compromise option that can't be equated with the real deal.<BR/><BR/>I don't have any real objections to the use of "same-sex marriage" (no quotes around marriage, please!) but I think that "equal marriage" or "marriage equality" present a more realistic view of the situation.Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01707876816232349299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1153268987829355332006-07-18T20:29:00.000-04:002006-07-18T20:29:00.000-04:00Bill, I agree with your thoughts on this issue, pa...Bill, I agree with your thoughts on this issue, particularly the unnecessary (and rather insidious, I might add) practice of adding quotation marks to "marriage" in this context. <BR/><BR/>Most articles discussing the subject expressly or implicitly recognize the largely theoretical nature of same-sex marriage (theoretical because same-sex marriage is allowed by law in only one state), and this sentiment will be conveyed to and likely understood by even the least perceptive reader.<BR/><BR/>As such, adding quotation marks to "marriage" really adds nothing to the reader's understanding in most cases, but it may tend to suggest that the author of the piece (or the publication) views the notion of same-sex marriage as invalid, whether legally sanctioned or not. <BR/><BR/>I agree with mupu that including the quotation marks intimates a "subtle scent of mockery," but I fail to see how excluding the offending punctuation suggests endorsement of same-sex marriage.H. Philip Asterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00970489392681184111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1153164491239193312006-07-17T15:28:00.000-04:002006-07-17T15:28:00.000-04:00I've been thinking about the terms "same-sex union...I've been thinking about the terms "same-sex unions" and am wondering whether this term could not just refer to labor organizations consisting of construction workers, policemen, Indian chiefs, and other such groups.Leonardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07680935313621903480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1153161163843149612006-07-17T14:32:00.000-04:002006-07-17T14:32:00.000-04:00If anything, you'd think that a publication that d...If anything, you'd think that a publication that disdains same-sex marriage would be trumpeting the very real nature of the union that some are seeking to allow. It should be <I>real, Real, REAL <B>marriage</B></I>, not <I>"marriage"</I> in quotes.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1153117246727650722006-07-17T02:20:00.000-04:002006-07-17T02:20:00.000-04:00When you're talking about whether states will reco...When you're talking about whether states will recognize actual marriage between members of the same sex, you're talking about same-sex marriage. Non-marriage "unions" are another thing altogether.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1153107483965406162006-07-16T23:38:00.000-04:002006-07-16T23:38:00.000-04:00Whenever I asked this very question at the Times, ...Whenever I asked this very question at the Times, the answer was that it's not marriage (as defined by those in charge at the Times, of course), even if what we are talking about is the legal definition of marriage. If you try to see the reasoning, you will get dizzy. A=B because B=A. <BR/><BR/>This page 1 headline seemed particularly awkward (July 7):<BR/>"Gays cannot 'marry' in N.Y.; <BR/>Court defers to Legislature" <BR/>(The court may be saying they can't marry, but the court can't say they can't "marry.")<BR/><BR/>In text, you can get around it with something like "legal recognition of same-sex unions" as long as you don't need to distinguish between marriage and domestic unions. It's clunky, but at least it's not insulting.Airhenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609965097457986800noreply@blogger.com