Author: JIM GUIRARD -- TrueSpeak Institute
Source: Versions being circulated in various states -- March 2007
In order to avoid weeks of bitter debate and months if not years of legal uncertainty, the New Jersey Legislature would do well to apply a suitable new name to the so-called "same-sex marriages" or "same-sex unions" or "civil unions" -- for which the State Supreme Court has recently
The same can be said for the people of many other states where legislative, courtroom and ballot-box battles are being waged over whether the definition of marriage should remain limited to the relationship "between a man and a woman."
Vermont and Massachusetts have come closest to saying no, by roughly equating the legal status of same-sex and opposite-sex relationships -- with New Jersey now under court order to follow suit.
In each of this country's diverse venues there is urgent need for a distinctive new name for those same-sex relationships which do, in fact, exist in ever-larger numbers and which are increasingly recognized by municipalities, socio-religious organizations, counties, civil liberties groups and corporations -- but which the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act says has no federal right to be classified as "marriage."
As a practical matter of words and of day-to-day word usage, the inexact and cumbersome nature of the terms "same-sex unions" and "civil unions" (What about labor unions?) will almost certainly result in universal use of so-called same-sex "marriage" -- soon without the qualifier "so-called" and without the quotation marks, either.
The question now is whether the English language -- and other languages, as well -- should be allowed to continue a gradual change of the meaning of both the word and, in time, the traditional institution itself.
Or should a carefully crafted new label be introduced, which uniquely and fairly describes a relationship of same-sex individuals in context of a permanent, monogamous marriage-like commitment?
Call it "Pairriage"
This writer's recommendation of such a new label is the coined word "pairriage." Derived from the common word "pair" -- meaning two of the same -- this new label would be properly descriptive, without being either transparently negative or fully approving.
Quite likely, both those who approve of and who would accord identical marital standing to such inter-personal relationships and those who condemn and oppose legalization or normalization would each be subject to major splits within their own ranks over whether or not to shift to the "pairriage" label.
For example, many fundamentalist (and even some mainline) churches and most moralists and traditionalists would not wish to legitimize or to legalize the practice. But many others might view this as a lesser-of-evils option for saving the word, the "true meaning" and, indeed, the institution itself of husband-wife marriage. Result: honest differences within the ranks.
By the same token, some in the more activist homosexual and equal-rights communities might not wish to abandon equal claim to the "marriage" label and the legal and societal preferences associated with it.
But others of a more passive persuasion might view an objective new label as a non-confrontational, "best available" recognition of a practice they expect or fear will never be equated absolutely with marriage -- and would cause everlasting cultural and religious discord if it were. Result: again, honest differences within the ranks.
Subsidiary Words are Vital
Clearly, a major practical (as opposed to moral or legal) factor relating to the viability of such a new label is whether its necessary subsidiary words also work easily and appropriately. In this case they do.
For example, the likely new label for the same-sex pairriage unit -- the counterpart name for "family" -- would be the term "pairrily."
Once again, the proposed new label is neither negative nor positive. It is simply a different name for a different legal and societal entity, which may or may not come to encompass the membership of children or other dependent individuals -- and all the rights and obligations attendant thereto.
And almost immediately, various other derivatives will enter easily into the language -- with at least some of these almost certain to be the following: pairry (marry), pairried (married), pairrimony (matrimony), pairrital (marital), depairriage (divorce), etc.
Slight Variances, State-to-State
Looking to the future, if and when same-sex "pairriage" and "pairrily" were to become widely labeled as such, it will still remain for the churches, the state and provincial legislatures, the courts, the U.S. Congress and the general public (both of this nation and others which adopt the label) to determine what standards, rights and obligations should apply.
Most of these standards will closely resemble those which apply to traditional marriage and family. But, depending on the particular church, court or political jurisdiction involved, rules might be designed to apply somewhat differently or even uniquely (and acceptably) to the newly-named practice of pairriage and to resulting pairrily units.
In due course, the "pairriage" community might even desire and the courts might well approve certain sensible and non-discriminatory differences in the law to which the "married" and civil liberties communities have no serious objections -- with "equal" not needing to be absolutely identical.
Whatever the final outcome, the basic principle remains that when virtually identical things are given confusingly different names, or when -- as in this case -- plainly distinguishable things are needlessly called by exactly the same name, the vital causes of truth-in-language and of clear thinking are not well served.
The present arbitrariness in the language (and thus in the body politic) as to what does and does not properly constitute MARRIAGE calls to mind what the great Chinese philosopher Confucius said 2400 years ago when asked what would be his first action if he were placed in charge of the government of China. His compelling response:
"It would certainly be to correct language. If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone. If this remains undone, then morals and acts deteriorate. If morals and acts deteriorate, justice will go astray. If justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence, there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything."
Jim Guirard -- TrueSpeak Institute 703-768-0957 Justcauses@aol.com
Jim Guirard is a Washington, DC-area lawyer, writer and government affairs consultant. He served for many years as Chief-of-Staff to Democratic U.S. Senators Allen Ellender and Russell Long of Louisiana. His TrueSpeak Institute is devoted to truth-in-language and truth-in-history in public discourse.