by Beth Hallett
The same-sex marriage bill is going to be made into law in the state of Maryland, and quite frankly, I don’t agree with it.
Some might think me ignorant or close-minded for thinking this way, but let me explain myself. I don’t have any problems with gay or lesbian couples, and I do not think that they shouldn’t be together.
On the contrary, I believe that they have every right to live their lives and be happy like everyone else. They should have the rights and benefits of a marriage from the federal side as well.
The thing that I have the problem with is the language that is used. Calling it a “same-sex marriage” is incorrect.
The word marriage actually comes from two different Latin terms. Manus is the first, meaning husband or man, while mater means mother or woman. So the word itself means man and woman together.
Another point that I must add is that marriage was started in a religious context and was called marriage for pro-creational reasons. Marriage was only for religion until the past 200 years or so when the government required licenses and offered other options.
Again, I’m not saying that gays and lesbians can’t or shouldn’t be together. It just shouldn’t be called a marriage.
Not that there aren’t straight people who defile the word marriage with divorce. Believe me, if I had it my way Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries would be made to try and work on their marriage.
I am sure that there are many gay and lesbian couples with more devotion and love than Kim and Kris. But the language is what seems to have not only me, but many people in California and in other states upset.
Let’s call it something other than a marriage, like a civil union, a partnership or even togetherness. I just think that people in general would be more accepting if the language was different.
If the language changed, then not only would gays and lesbians get the laws passed, but the law would probably be more widely accepted. Then they wouldn’t have to move to a specific state or think that they couldn’t be together.
People really can have their cake and then eat it too. So let’s change the language, and have this bill become more acceptable to not only the liberals but also the conservatives.
[twitter style="vertical" float="left"] [fblike style="standard" showfaces="false" width="450" verb="like" font="arial"] [fbshare type="button"]
29. February 2012 at 6:24 pm
The author fails to point out that gay couples still do not get the same rights under civil unions. In states where civil unions, but not gay marriage, are legal gays and lesbians still have problems adopting kids and getting the same benefits. Referring to gay marriages as “civil unions” is setting up a legal system of segregation. It is setting up a separate institution where the government gets to determine what rights you have under a civil union, and Republican politicians across the country will do their best to undermine a civil union to the point where the only thing a civil union entails is a certificate. Summing up my point, the only way to guarantee equal rights to gays and lesbians is by letting them get married. O’Malley’s bill does not require religious institutions to marry gay people, that is the compromise that should make everyone happy because a majority of conservative arguments against gay marriage are solely religious in nature.
2. March 2012 at 1:30 pm
She stated she has no problem with them getting the same legal rights. Read the article again sir.
4. March 2012 at 2:42 pm
I did read the article. And I’m saying that gays and lesbians cannot get the same legal rights under civil unions as they would under marriage. She seems to think that civil unions will solve all the problems of gays and lesbians not getting the same legal rights and I’m just saying that is not entirely accurate.
16. June 2012 at 6:28 pm
Stereotyping it drives me nuts.We get a lot of jotsialnrus who just aren’t interested in anything other than confirming their preconceived ideas with some evidence’ even when the evidence doesn’t exist or contradicts what they want to say. Five years after the fact, there are still articles claiming that the number of egg and sperm donors dropped through the floor when the law on anonymity was changed. It didn’t the numbers actually went up. If they’d bothered to check the publicly available stats on the HFEA website they’d know this is a non-story but no, bad news is so much more entertaining.Then, and I hate to say it, there are the articles in women’s mags who want a very specific story about a grieving infertile couple given hope by a donor and how they had suffered for so long but look there was a happy ending. I know this is what they DO and it’s also the kind of story that helps recruit donors, but y’know, it’s not the whole picture.
17. June 2012 at 9:59 am
I think gay marriage shluod be voted on by people of the states. It is a moral issue, not a religious one. There are Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and atheists who oppose gay marriage. It is not like telling someone to pray to Allah 5 x a day or take communion. It is not a central tenet of any one faith, so it does not constitute enforcing one religion on the rest of society, as England did 200 plus years ago. No state ever voted for gay marriage
19. June 2012 at 3:09 am
No no no. I believe in trniatdoail marriage. I think we should go back to trniatdoail marriage. Back to the good old days when marriages were arranged by our parents for the purposes of financial gain and having more than one wife was OK too (as long as you could afford it.)Yeah! Up with trniatdoail marriage! (I really want that second wife since my first wife is getting you know a little chunky )
29. February 2012 at 6:40 pm
Also, just because the Latin term for “marriage” means man and woman does not mean that the definition cannot be changed in the legal system. The word wedding comes from the Latin word “wedd” meaning that a man would pay his bride’s father. Obviously, most American weddings do not comply with the word’s Latin origin, so why should we comply with the Latin origins of the word marriage?
7. March 2012 at 10:45 pm
In my opinion it is inappropriate for this particular article to be on the front page of The Flyer while Salisbury University is promoting ‘Stop Hatin’ Week which promotes the diversity and acceptance of others.
Denying same sex couples marriages is a form of minority discrimination.
I recognize that Beth is not directly bashing gay individuals but this article definitely ostracizes them and therefore isolates a portion of our student body, whom The Flyer is meant to represent. Okay Flyer editors you published one side of the argument now where is the other in support of gay marriage?
Moreover I have taken multiple linguistics classes. These classes have taught me that the meaning of words change over time. This is also known as Semantic change, which describes the evolution of word usage over time. Here are some examples for you to signify my point:
-Nice: This comes from the Latin ‘not to know’. Originally a ‘nice person’ was someone who was ignorant or unaware.
- A basement was once a toilet.
- Manage was once a noun meaning “the age at which one became a man.” Pretty literal.
So the argument that the word marriage is strictly between a man and woman based on its’ original meaning is an archaic view. If the meaning of our language never evolved with the times than English would be a dead language just like Latin. However, thankfully, English is very much alive, and therefore it is completely reasonable for the meaning of marriage to incorporate the same sex.
Furthermore even though Beth would give gay couples joined in civil unions the same right as a married man and woman the law [typically] does not see it that way. A civil union deprives the same sex couple of insurance benefits, Social Security survivors’ benefits, the filing of a joint tax return, joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity..just among a couple of the rights which they would be deprived of.
One of my best friends is gay and just seeing the angry, hurt, and flabbergasted look upon their face when they read this was enough for me to want to give you a piece of my mind. Once again I point out that this is supposed to be a week about TOLERANCE. Thank you stevencenname for responding as well you made some very valid points.
8. March 2012 at 2:43 pm
Cassie. Here is the pro-gay marriage article I wrote a few weeks ago. Here’s the other side of the arguement. Also, if you pick up this week’s issue there is a letter to the editor written in response to Beth’s article.
http://www.thesuflyer.com/2012/02/07/maryland-on-the-right-path-to-civil-rights-history/
18. June 2012 at 9:49 pm
i think gay people shulod be allowed to marry eachother and have it called marrage. I think its just discriminating when they dont allow it to be called marrage just because the two people are of the same sex. Marrage is supposed to be the union of two people who love eachother, it shulodnt matter what your gender is.
8. March 2012 at 3:03 pm
cool thanks stevencenname glad I was mistaken and there is some representation for both sides.
17. June 2012 at 8:15 am
No. I believe lnbsiaes, gays, transexuals, and others who are not of the biblical norm should have the right to the same rights as those of our heterosexual brothers and sisters. To be married, have children of our own (for those who want them), and be allowed to have our spouse’s information be on our income tax return papers, etc. Since I am a lesbian myself, to be legally married to my partner would be a dream come true.
16. June 2012 at 8:51 pm
“well, in that case I’m quite sure I will never get married then” as in [you've got to do it yourlesf to get it done correctly kind a gir] not really true but that’s what I felt reading it. I dunno, maybe we’re just too progressive and don’t understand that everyone else want the world to stay the same as the last hundred/thousand years /bitter woman without a ring who still thinks we can change the world, maybe if we have a lot of money and wack out all those mindless tv reality shows with “winner gets a RING and a husband to take care of you”