Posts
Recently a letter to the editor of the Herald Journal ruffled a few feathers and I’m surprised it did. In fact I’m glad it did. (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10099720) The original letter raised concern over whether or not a Lesbian pair's “celebration of love” should have appeared in the paper as a “Marriage” under the “Weddings” heading.
I think it's odd that the advocates for gay marriage often come off like this is a no-brainer issue. It's not! We're talking about change (some might say dramatic change) in American custom and tradition. These things take time and dialogue.
I’m not talking about whether or not gays should marry. I’m talking about whether or not all committed relationships can be considered with equal monogamous integrity and commitment. I think they cannot. There is a spectrum of description for committed relationships ranging from Prom Date to Going Steady to Shacking Up to Legally Wedded. The list can be filled with a plethora of terms.
The Spencer-Taylor announcement was not a wedding or marriage nor was it intended to read as such in the paper.
The original letter by Narayne Rougeau had nothing to do with advocating FOR or protesting AGAINST gay marriage. Instead, Rougeau brings up a great point that surely solicits consideration as this change of American tradition gains momentum: There is a vocabulary issue. The Eskimos have many terms for describing snow conditions, Islanders have many terms for describing surf conditions, Americans have many terms for describing things on which you drive ... It seems America is ready for some new terminology associated with describing relationships.
I’d say we need unique terms for Holy matrimony, lawfully wedded, celebrating love, shacking up, going steady, ... etc. Same sex can be incorporated with ANY of these categories so again we are not talking about homosexuality here. We’re talking about calling a spade a spade (As in shovel speak). Words like “marriage” and “wedding” seem to carry too much of this burden.
Perhaps it’s programming rooted in American tradition, but I think these words commonly associated with “nuptials” should be reserved for those who are making a legal commitment through formal obligation as defined by the terms of a marriage certificate. After all, divorce works as a deterrent to splitting up. Without the certificate, you only break-up when it’s over. Breaking up may be hard to do, but divorce is even harder.
Common Law Marriage can keep the word “marriage” I guess, but I’d prefer two different terms to describe lawfully wedded and commonly involved in law. The qualifiers simply do not satisfy.
Inspired by Narayne (can I buy a vowel) Rougeau and by debating with some very intelligent and respectable thinkers and communicators, I may have reached an amiable solution to this dilemma of categorizing announcements in the newspaper:
Change the name of the heading from “Weddings” to “Celebrations”.
The Celebrations section might see more traffic. Anniversaries, birthdays, prom dates, new steady relationships, celebrations of love, vow renewals, and weddings can all be acknowledged on the same page. So long as no one mixes terms and calls a Wedding a Bar Mitzvah, there should be no problem.
I will post the content of the original letter as a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Gay ‘marriage’ notice a falsehood
Published:
Friday, August 1, 2008 1:44 AM CDT
To the editor:
With regard to the publication of the “marriage” of the same-sex couple published in last Sunday’s edition of The Herald Journal, shame on the editors at the newspaper for knowingly publishing false information about a purported “marriage.” The last I knew, same-sex marriages are not recognized by the State of Utah and cannot be performed here. As the “wedding announcement” plainly states, the “marriage” took place in Salt Lake City. (Had the announcement stated that the marriage was performed in California, it could have been argued that there was a valid marriage in place since California now recognizes such unions.) Unless the laws have changed, this is not a wedding announcement, and The Herald Journal should not have knowingly published it as such. I realize these are probably paid announcements by the individuals who submit the articles, and the argument can be made that there is no way to verify whether other announcements are for marriages that are truly taking place, but since this is the announcement of a same-sex “marriage” in a state where such unions are not legally recognized, surely someone at your paper could have recognized and acknowledged that this was an outright falsehood. Unless The Herald Journal intends to start running articles about every couple, heterosexual or homosexual, that decides to start living together without benefit of marriage, this should never have been run in the wedding section of the paper. I would also suggest that you change the name of this section of the paper to “weddings, engagements and live-ins or other relationships” since you obviously seem content to publish out-of-wedlock living arrangements as actual marriages.
Narayne Rougeau
This frivilous use of marriage is EXACTLY how Warren Jeffs and the clan have been able to pull their shenanigans.
This commitment shared by the Lesbian couple is no more valid than any of those commitments at the compound. There is no legal commitment here precluding them from performing "celebrations of love" with other partners. Whereas if they were legally wed in California, they'd probably be breaking California law by engaging in another legal bond without first absolving this one. "
Bluto --
Thanks for the link to your blogspot. You and a small handful of people seem to be the only ones who get my original intent. And to say I'm hateful for my letter, which I carefully worded so as not to come across as judgmental in any way, absolutely pales in comparison to the things that have been said to me and about me. I'm amazed that there are so many "mind-readers" out there who seem to know what my "real intent" was. I knew I would get some flack for this letter, but I had no idea it would jump to such proportions. If you google my name, the number of web pages with it keeps jumping. Not that I have a common name, either. As I told someone in another blog, it doesn't take much courage to spew hatred and venom when one is hiding behind the anonymity of a screen name.
Thanks for your support. (I am a woman, by the way. Sometimes people are not sure because my name is so unusual.)
Thanks for clarifying Ms. Rougeau.
I hope you weren't offended when I made light of your name by adding (can I buy a vowel) as a middle nick name! What herritage is that anyway? May I ask? How is it pronounced? Cool name for sure!
Keep up the good fight!
Nah, it made me laugh when you asked about the vowel. I have unusual first and last names, so I knew when I wrote my letter I would be easily identified. (It's not like my name is Mary Smith or Susie Jones!)
My first name is pronounced like "Larraine", but with an "N", and my last name is pronounced like Baton "Rouge-oh"!! It's French, and it is my ex-husband's name. We are originally from Louisiana. My own origin in English-Irish. I'm afraid my ethnic background is pretty bland, but I think I do have a bit of American Indian in me somewhere from my folks, who originally came from Oklahoma and Texas. Unless you are Native American in this country, you are most certainly descended from immigrants at one point or the other!
Indeed,
My heritage is German-Danish. Bland like you say! My wife is Chinese, though, which makes for a pretty diverse pack (well two) of kids.
Pleasure to make your acquaintance for sure.
You've really inspired a lot of dialogue STATEWIDE! Well done friend!
Bluto,
We have a lot in common. I'm 1/2 Scandinavian. My wife is Asian, half Chinese, half Filipino. She speaks fluent Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese, Filipino and English. She has a B.A. in English. I met her in Hong Kong in 1983. We don't have any children but it wasn't due to a lack of trying.
Cool Fric Mon,
Tell your wife my wife says Ni How (or something)
Bluto
man you keep nailing this one on the head everytime and brining in the Warren Jeffs thing great argument because you are so right.
Honestly i dont know what to realy add to this conversation im just sitting back and learning for now
teach on
My only thing was what i called in to KVNU about i can not beleve the up ror over this posting in the paper and the total laughing off the marriage anouncement that they ran with elmer fud and bugs bunny on hitlers birthday and all the things that were put in for that far more offensive and far more useless and not in the right place and nobody did anything but laugh
I think the only solution is to shave everyone bald and make it illegal to wear clothing if you are under 24.
A) Social disgust/ arousal/ discomfort surrounding the human form would disappear.
B) 14-year-olds wouldn't walk around with distended abdomens.
C) 40-year-olds would have something to think about when servicing their spouses in the shower.
D) Co-ed wrestling activists would disappear from High School (as would wrestling).
E) The Uniforms in schools debate would disappear.
F) Increased below-the-navel hygiene would render undergarments useless.
H) Muslims would stop taking their sexual frustrations (see berka) out on the Christians.
I) Guys named Wayne would have a chance.
J) Seventeen Magazine would become the world's top selling publication.
K) Guys like me wouldn't have the energy to post this brand of preposterous crap.
L) See K.
M) Chinese men would stop killing their infant daughters.
N) Ear lobes under long hair would become the new boobs.
O) See K.
P) Young men, unable to use the weed whacker, would get more study time.
Q) Pasties would be sold next to sun screen.
R) Strip clubs would focus on food and beer or die.
S) The term "bumping uglies" would go out of fashion.
T) Swimming pools would have better filtration systems.
U) Guys named Bluto would have a chance.
V) Only adults could drive cars with black leather interiors.
W) Beer wouldn't taste so good.
X) "Ass Chaps" would mean something entirely different.
Y) No 13-year-old would ever get a wedgie.
Z) Sex would become a pleasure of love, not anatomy.
Horny Tob',
Z) Sex would become a pleasure of love, not anatomy.
Naaaa....See K!
Alternative response: It would only be TRUER THAN IT IS NOW for ugly people able to hide some of the ugliness with clothing!
Post a Comment