David Benkof (who is fast becoming one of my favorite authors in this debate) writes a defense for the quotes in the phrase same-sex "marriage". Most salient to the discussion is this explanation for the use notes that we are discussing different definitions of the word marriage and asks,

Why should I give in when the debate has only begun?

Why indeed? [Read on with extras ...]

Perhaps lets first confirm that these are two different definitions. The handy Merriam-Webster reference online states for marriage:

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage [same-sex marriage] b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union [the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross]

Well, right there under 1-a we have two different definitions. One is based on the relationship between a man and a woman, the other is also based on that but is a same-sex mimicking of that relationship.

Can we just use the terms interchangeably? Probably not, for reasons best demonstrated by the legendary comedic duo, Abbot and Costello. While the comedy "Who's on first" is great fun, it is poor political debate (in that link note where you see the word "who" in quotation marks). We can talk past each other or we can denote where we are borrowing the others term and when we are using our own.

Just as a quick aside, some may want to avoid this separation by insisting we all just adopt the other more abstract definitions provided. But note that the 1-a definition is the only one that expects gender, and it is the only one that expects humans or even beings for that matter. I'm not sure many are ready to move the legal definition that far. Just a warning.

Mr Benkof asks for suggestions. And I happen to have one. While I see quite a bit of use in labeling marriage and the same-sex version of marriage, I have my own problems with that. First, as Evan Wolfson notes,

You don’t ask for half a loaf. We don’t need two lines at the clerk’s office when there’s already an institution that works in this country, and it’s called marriage.

That link also provides a more lengthy explanation of where I say the same thing. Essentially, calling whatever it is "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" is misleading. While the "same-sex" qualifier denotes a separate vision of what marriage is according to the same sex model of the institution, the implementation of their goals does not wind up with a separate version or separate implementation of marriage.

What this winds up being is a change in the legal institution itself. Let me illustrate the change in wording here. Since it is the legal work, I'll use the easily obtained Dictionary.law.com reference.

the joining of a male and female two people in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony [...], after having obtained a valid marriage license [...].

That isn't same-sex marriage at all. That does facilitate access for same-sex couples, but the change in the institution itself is one that removes the reference to both genders, male and female and everything that the relationship means to our humanity. The result is gender-neutral and subsiquently parentally agnostic.

So if you ask me there are same-sex marriages, as well as marriages. Yet from the 50,000ft view from the legal perspective, we are talking about neutered marriage. A changed marriage. A impotent marriage that has no reference to the man-woman relationship that creates more new citizens than immigration.

Some shy away from using the same language for many reasons, and I respect them. It may sound cruel, neutering is a physically harmful act. But then so is the change they wish to make to marriage. I wish there was a cold calculating way to describe this change, I really do. But then when it comes to neutering in general, that is a cold and calculating act. And it is the very model of marriage that we are being asked to recognize for everyone, not just same-sex couples.

DVD Fun ExtrasThose that read Benkof's piece note that it is the product of a very egregious claim against him by none other than a familiar prolific source of egregious claims, Fannie. As Benkof relays, she says,

Scare quotes, or more accurately 'sneer quotes,' are non-direct quotations used to indicate scorn, sarcasm, and/or disagreement with another person's usage of a word.

On another forum, I recently pointed out how her use of quotes often does not mean she is even accurately quoting or representing what others say. Her reply is interestingly relevant in this discussion in light of her commentary on scare sneer quotes.

Nor do you understand that quotes can be used for other than direct quotes?

Scare quotes was then a refuge for her, an excuse to inaccurately quote what others are saying. But even then it was clear she used them to sneer more than anything else. And gratuitously so. Is it common to put scare or sneer quotes around someone's name? By my count she puts my online handle "On Lawn" in quotes more than a dozen times! If you run the same search, you may need to leave off the last quote as she often adds her own punctuation in quotes (i.e. "On Lawn,").

And sometimes she used it so aggressively she winds up sneering at her own verbage (direct instance here).

So what exactly does she have against the use of quotes? Well apparently it is not that they are used, but how she feels they are used against her. And that comes from, plainly enough, how she uses them against others. While the discussion over the use of quotes around marriage continues in a much larger scope than Fannie, it is safe to say her objections are largely her own construction. If she treated others more nicely, she might learn that others are actually treating her nicer than she once thought. And it might prompt others treat her nicer also...



(Source Link)

__________________
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009

Mak's Blog - Updated 12/3/10

I did it for ya

__________________
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009

Mak's Blog - Updated 12/3/10