As someone who pays attention to language, I found the modifications made to the marriage ceremonies performed today very interesting.
They may seem minor, as matters of language often seem to many people. However, a judge couldn't very well pronounce two people of the same sex, "man and wife." Instead, the judges pronounced the marriages "consummated" and referred to both members of the couple as "spouses."
What a lot of people don't realize is that changing the vows actually makes both members of the couple more like equals than the traditional vows do. Note that the judge, clergyperson or whoever else performs the ceremony usually says, "man and wife." In that arrangement, the man's status does not change. However, the woman ceases to be whomever she was before the ceremony; now she is the wife of the man. In other words, she is now defined by her relationship to the man, while the man is not defined by his relationship to the woman.
So, in modifying the marriage vow and the pronouncement, the judges who married hundreds of same-sex couples today in New York showed something that many of us have long understood: Gay rights and gender equality go hand-in-hand. Perhaps this is what some opponents of same-sex marriage, or LGBT rights in general, fear. It's simply not possible to have same-sex marriages if one member of the couple has to subsume his or her identity and redefine him or herself as an appendage of someone else. That concept of gender relations and marriage is outmoded, anyway.
They may seem minor, as matters of language often seem to many people. However, a judge couldn't very well pronounce two people of the same sex, "man and wife." Instead, the judges pronounced the marriages "consummated" and referred to both members of the couple as "spouses."
What a lot of people don't realize is that changing the vows actually makes both members of the couple more like equals than the traditional vows do. Note that the judge, clergyperson or whoever else performs the ceremony usually says, "man and wife." In that arrangement, the man's status does not change. However, the woman ceases to be whomever she was before the ceremony; now she is the wife of the man. In other words, she is now defined by her relationship to the man, while the man is not defined by his relationship to the woman.
So, in modifying the marriage vow and the pronouncement, the judges who married hundreds of same-sex couples today in New York showed something that many of us have long understood: Gay rights and gender equality go hand-in-hand. Perhaps this is what some opponents of same-sex marriage, or LGBT rights in general, fear. It's simply not possible to have same-sex marriages if one member of the couple has to subsume his or her identity and redefine him or herself as an appendage of someone else. That concept of gender relations and marriage is outmoded, anyway.
Posts
3 comments:
...In that arrangement, the man's status does not change. However, the woman ceases to be whomever she was before the ceremony; now she is the wife of the man. In other words, she is now defined by her relationship to the man, while the man is not defined by his relationship to the woman.
Thank you! YES! You've said what I try to get across to SO many people: the man is himself no matter what, while it's the woman whose status changes (and is dependent upon) being attached to a man.
I've been married only once, and don't plan to get that way again. My divorce was finalized in late November 1999, and I still get the occasional piece of junk mail, or credit card offer, in my former name. [sigh] Whatever path I take from now on with a partner, I'm keeping my name and doing my damnedest to assert my individuality...no matter what society would like to assign to me.
So, in modifying the marriage vow and the pronouncement, the judges who married hundreds of same-sex couples today in New York showed something that many of us have long understood: Gay rights and gender equality go hand-in-hand. Perhaps this is what some opponents of same-sex marriage, or LGBT rights in general, fear. It's simply not possible to have same-sex marriages if one member of the couple has to subsume his or her identity and redefine him or herself as an appendage of someone else. That concept of gender relations and marriage is outmoded, anyway.
Yes, yes, YES. You nailed it, Justine, and stated what I've tried to put into words for SO long.
Sorry to double-comment. I was scrolling back up the page when I re-read that last part of the post, and suddenly realized you'd finally (for me, anyway) identified the deep-seated fear behind the anti-equality/anti-LGBT hysteria.
Miss Kitty, Thank you for your kind and encouraging comments. I, too, had been trying for years to say what I said in the post. I think seeing gay marriage pass here in New York made it easier, because it made the whole issue clearer, somehow.
Post a Comment