ext_234995 ([identity profile] badsede.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] sophiaserpentia 2005-12-19 05:46 pm (UTC)

Of course, we have to bear in mind that having a civil union or government-issued marriage license, to me, has no bearing on whether or not people are married. As we have discussed before, I do not believe that the government has the right to define what marriage is and is not.

To me, it would be a live and let live approach rather than terminology. I know that the terminology that I could endorse would, for many same-sex couples, insufficiently express the significance that they feel in their relationship. So, although I may disagree with them ideologically, I would also not want to saddle them with some universal term that did not express their ideology sufficiently either.

So, I understand what a man means when he refers to his husband, and I would prefer that he have the right to use that term .. just not impose it on anyone else. For me, I would prefer that I be allowed to use another term as long as it is respectful. I find myself using "partner" or avoiding terminology altogether. Someone else might use something else. Perhaps this diversity of terminology is more confusing, but I find it superior.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting