The term “Civil Marriage” suits me just fine.
I don’t like “Civil Marriage”. Opposite sex couples don’t refer to their marriages this way, so why start using now that we’re talking about allowing same sex couples to get married.
There is only one form of marriage, which is called “marriage”. There is a choice of two types of ceremonies when people get married: religious or civil. But once you’re married, it doesn’t matter which type of ceremony you had. I guess it’s OK to refer to “Civil Marriage” if you’re talking about the ceremony itself, but let’s not use that term to refer to the marriage.
I will use the term that suits me no matter what it ends up being called.
Marriage. forget which type
Maybe you should to as Theregister.co.uk does and just use whatever words that person writing the article is comfortable with.
If a person writing an article doesn’t want to say a word and instead use a different one then embrace it.
Just make the name of the person writing the articles more obvious so we can get to know the editorial staff better.
Simple….it’s about equality
” MARRIAGE “
I feel we should drop the “gay marriage” and we should use “MARRIAGE” on its own that would be an equal situation all round, My Husband and I had our civil service 6 years ago in April followed by a blessing service held in the village by The very Reverend Johnathon Blake The Bishop Of Greater London, he used the word Marriage 9 times in our service and not a single person questioned it …
You should not use the term gay marriage, because that is not what is being proposed. Leave the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Fail to misuse the language to provoke a negative response.
Equal Civil Marriage, no more, no less.
Kind of bored of saying this now… but some religions want to be able to perform same-sex marriages. And we’re annoyed that the proposed legislation rules out this possibility.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! what other country uses the term “gay marriage” … those words are an impediment to its success – same-sex marriage was used in Canada when we were campaigning for marriage equality. In fact “Equal Marriage” “Marriage Equality” and “Same-Sex Marriage” are all preferable and supporitive of securing marriage rights for same-sex couples. Surprising to come to this question at this time when the British have such tremendous insight and wonderful use of words.
I wouldn’t rely too much on Canadian history for guidance – the marriage equality campaign started more than a decade ago and the language has evolved rapidly. Some of the things said, even by supporters, sound outlandish with the passage of time. My own choice is “marriage equality” together with the LGBT context, e.g. “The LGBT community started the campaign for marriage equality in Canada in the early 2000s…” Same-sex marriage is too clinical as in the perception of homosexual vs. gay. Gay marriage undercuts the commitment of the couple and is not sufficiently inclusive. Obviously, I will defer to the judgment of PinkNews in achieving the objective – successfully passing legislation to grant marriage equality.
Gay marriage has always been a counterproductive term.
Marriage for me, tag anything onto it and it’s no longer equal.
Although “Homosexual Nuptials” is quite nice.
Civil Marriage + Equal is the term I like best. “gay marriage” is a misnomer.
I think “same-sex marriage” can exclude trans people rather, so I’m not a fan of that. Until there is equal marriage equality, I guess just “equal marriage”. Then if the legislation is passed, then just “marriage”, to prevent confusion.
I think we should just refer to our marrage as a civil marrage, I mean that is all we want, yes it would be nice for some to marry in their church but they could marry and have a little civil wedding first.
Luke makes an extremely good point. I actively dislike the term “Gay Marriage”. It is a favourite with conservative opposition. I think of the campaign as being for equal marriage. Once we have achieved that, “marriage” will be the most appropriate term/word. Gay is a great label for our community but it should not be used to describe everything we do.
If (after marriage equality has been achieved) people continue to use the term ‘gay marriage’, I’m afraid nothing really will have been achieved. ‘Gay marriage’ = ‘Civil Partnerships’.
I hate the term ‘Gay Marriage’ and would prefer the use of ‘Marriage’.
Hear hear Jerry
It should be called “marriage”. If Keith consents to marry me, I am sure there are those who would refer to this event as gay marriage and miscegenation. Hardly anyone uses the term “miscegenation” now; the same should be true for “gay marriage”.
YES! If it must be qualified it should be equal marriage or same-sex marriage, at most.
While I, like most others here, am not a fan of the term ‘gay marriage’ wouldn’t changing the name now be giving in to those we are challenging?
I agree that terms like Equal Civil Marriage and or simply just marriage would suffice.
“Gay marriage” is problematic in a number of ways: it excludes bi people, and it also excludes trans ppl (not that these two groups are mutually exclusive), since trans people without Gender Recognition Certificates are treated by marriage law as the sex they were assigned at birth. This second reason also is the problem with ‘same-sex marriage’ or even ‘same-gender marriage’ (take for instance a case where a trans man without a GRC wants to marry his cis female partner).
‘Equal marriage’ avoids these issues, however it also excludes polyamarous relationships where, say, 3 people may wish to enter a marriage together.
And, as others have said, there are also issues around civil/religious marriage.
Whilst avoiding all of these issues, ‘Equal mono civil marriage’ is a bit of a mouthful. So ultimately no term is not problematic in some way, bar ‘marriage’. Let’s work towards that.
The writer Stella Duffy put it very clearly on Newsnight a couple of weeks ago:
Rehan – Thanks for posting this link
Great rebuke of the “Interferring church” by Stella Duffy
Bravo . . .
Go, Stella! Well said. I think she covered just about everything in a couple of sentences.
Marriage equality. It’s marriage we’re talking about, and we don’t yet have equal rights to it everywhere. I’m lucky enough to be Canadian, where my rights have been recognized based on our Charter of Rights.
Regardless of what you call it the opposition to it wont decrease
Lots of problems with the term ‘gay marriage’. ‘Same-sex marriage’ is best avoided too, since not everyone who has the same sex marker on their birth certificate as their partner is actually the same sex (and/or) gender as the person they wish to marry. We don’t want a situation where trans people are forced to divorce then remarry when they change their legal sex, which is similar to the current crap they have to deal with either replacing a civil partnership with a marriage or vice-versa. There would also be problems when people start being correctly regarded as a sex other than male or female, as is starting to happen in other countries. What we need is equal marriage with no barriers of sex or gender.
‘Marriage’ – It is the only true word to use. Irrespective of who is marrying. The church’s biggest arguements thus far is that ‘marriage’ (traditionally, biblically and historically) is about a man and a woman. If the UK is truly secular (as it claims) then the reliious (traditional) view of marriage is irrelevant. Thus ‘marriage’ is the way forward for me.
“gay marriage” is technically incorrect, since the sexuality of the participants isn’t the issue – their sex is. When marriage equality is achieved it will be perfectly possible for two STRAIGHT men to marry each other should they so choose, just as it is currently possible for a gay man and a gay woman to marry each other.
So “gay marriage” is a non-starter. But just using “marriage” isn’t really an option when the subject under discussion is specifically the legal recognition of marriage between two people regardless of gender. “Marriage” is the banner term which encompasses marriage between two people of the same gender, but we do sometimes need to single out specifically that subset of marriages which we are campaigning to get recognised. For this I generally use “same-sex marriage”, though I will admit that “gender-neutral marriage” is probably more widely encompassing, given that some trans people and others don’t identify with one gender or the other.
The difference is that straight blokes don’t campaign for ‘same sex’ marriage and 99.999% of them have no desire to marry same sex person, so lets skip hypothetical rhetoric that serve no purpose in establishing real purpose of marriage for gay community
Roux, you are missing the point that many same sex marriages include people who are bisexual and not gay. Indeed some same sex marriages have no gay people in them at all when it is two bisexuals marrying.
No I haven’t, unlike straight blokes bisexual men are attracted to other men, so ‘same sex’ marriage its not about gender as such but sexuality and attraction to other person
For a start, many straight men DO campaign for same-sex marriage, or at least support it. You don’t have to have a desire (or even the capacity) to do something in order to approve of it.
Secondly, it’s not hypothetical, it’s technically correct. This is not about who you’re attracted to. Marriage law in this country has never insisted on an element of sexual attraction. People are perfectly at liberty to marry for all kinds of reasons that don’t involve sexual attraction – if a man and a woman are legally permitted to marry solely for inheritance or immigration purposes then why can’t two women or two men be afforded the same right? Unless we start insisting that marriage is only between two people who are sexually attracted to each other, it is incorrect to talk of “gay marriage” but correct to talk of “same-sex” or “gender-neutral” marriage.
Same sex marriage is about real purpose not technicality, it is about lgbt people having equal right to marry the person they love. Any other situation that you mentioned is just a side effect and abuse of the real purpose. Again the real reason in giving lgbt equal right to marry is about sexuality and not gender
2 straight men cannot marry each other, as marraige reuires consumation in law, to be valid. Straight men are not campaiging for the rigth to marry each other.
There are archaic stipulations in some of the legal wording that refer to the outdated requirement of “consummation” but there are also unrepealed laws requiring us to practise archery every sunday and letting us shoot welshmen with a crossbow after midnight. Like those laws, nobody applies this one anymore, so it is de facto defunct and not a part of our legal system.
And I repeat, this is not about whether you WANT to do something, it’s about everyone having the equal OPPORTUNITY to do something. Unless you stipulate that sexual attraction is essential to forming a marriage contract, straight men will be afforded this privilege even if most of them will not wish to use it.
Couldnt disagree more
Standard civil marriage ceremony:
I take you to be my lawfully wedded [husband/wife]. Before these witnesses I vow to LOVE you and care for you as long as we both shall live. I take you, with all of your faults and strengths, as I offer myself to you with my faults and strengths. I will help you when you need help, and will turn to you when I need help. I choose you as the person with whom I will spend my life.”
But ‘love’ and penetrative sex aren’t the same thing. Is penetrative sex still used as a benchmark for the validity (“consummation”) of a marriage?
So is your definition of LOVE, penetrative vaginal sex ….?
If so, then you really need to get out more and experience life!
Civil Marriage is fine – just like in the majority of other European countries.
Civil marriage is fine to refer to civil marriages, but allowing same sex civil marriage will never amount to marriage equality when same sex marriages performed by religious organisations like Quakers etc have no legal standing.
You also can’t promote religious discrimination. Some religions only allow certain races to marry or mix, some only allow people who fit certain qualifications (virgin, no tattoos, etc)- it doesn’t make it right but that’s the way it is.
Anybody that follows an anti gay religion got what they asked for signing up to believe in those religions. If they want to get married, get a civil marriage or just leave the religion if they have to.
When talking about marriage, the only way to refer to it is “marriage”. There is absolutely no need to qualify it, any more than we have special words for a marriage between people of different nationalities, or people of different heights.
The fact that “gay marriage” is used more often in the US doesn’t matter; if US commentators refer to “gay marriage” it may be sensible to use that term when quoting them, but not necessary in the rest of the article.
Don’t worry about the search engines. I suspect that Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. are smart enough to find the right articles for anyone who searches for “gay marriage”. In any event, you can’t use all the terms that people might search for (“same-sex marriage”, “gay marriage”, “marriage equality”, etc.), so you’ve got to trust the search engine providers to do their job properly, and find relevant articles.
..to be continued..
However, in terms of the current debate about whether people of the same sex should be allowed to get married, I think that the term “marriage equality” is appropriate. In this case, some form of qualification is required; otherwise you’d have headlines such as “Government to Introduce Marriage”. Clearly this is not what is intended, but rather “Government to Introduce Marriage Equality”.
I have argued a long time that the greatest irritant in the Equal Marriage issue has been the word “Gay” which instantly and totally changes the context for some people and becomes the greatest cause of polarity.
The issue has been about Marriage Equality which as a reference does not seem to phase people. But! add the reference “Gay” you have instant homophobia and a fight against it, plus every church in the universe fighting against the issue.
As Dennis Battler stated in his comment “Same Sex Marriage” was used in the campaign in Canada and at times there were barely ripples of reaction against it. Nor were there 3+ years of consultation before it became law.
I totally concur. “Gay” marriage sends up the red flag to our opponents and they jump on the homophobia bandwagon with impunity. It’s an extremely divisive term and they know how to use it to defeat us. Look at the reaction C4M have invited, a vast amount of signatures compared to the dismally low figure for C4EM and low visibility. Is it any wonder the perception is that the public is against it since the media tends to give greater coverage to those in opposition. The BBC is just a classic example of it’s bias towards and in favour of religious bigots. We have to do a far better job if we’re going to win.
I disapprove of the term “gay marriage” for a number of reasons.
Where possible, please simply refer to “marriage” or if necessary for the context, “marriage equality”.
This also then includes transgender people too.
Civil marriage equality is a more fitting and accurate term because it sends a message that this is purely and entirely a civil issue and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Since when has marriage ever been referred to as “straight” marriage? “Gay” marriage has been an extremely divisive term used by many of those disgusting hate groups especially in America to foment intolerance and hysteria against gender neutral civil marriage and in some cases, it has worked against us.
Once civil marriage equality has been legislated and passed, then “marriage” is more than sufficient. The problem we have right now is to ensure that it is passed. I’ve not seen any cogent, constructive support for marriage equality on t.v. especially. Much of the debate tends to concentrate on the negativity coming from the religious nutters. Unlike our American and Australian counterparts, we’re not using videos to further communicate the message, (to be continued)…
The use of constructive videos often depicting celebrities supporting us is a very powerful way to reach the public. Newspaper articles just aren’t enough but celebrities often have a lot of influence. It was very effective in the New York State campaign for marriage equality last year. We need to do the same in the UK, aggressively and persistently because I’m sure this will probably be C4M’s next move. I’ve communicated this to C4EM whose petition is poorly displayed if at all on any of the supportive sites hence the dismal number of signatures gathered.
The problem isn’t the term but the concept. Marriage needs a man and a woman. There isn’t a ‘ban’ on same ‘gay marriage’ – I am not banned from the 100 metres in the Olympics – its just that I don’t qualify. If you distort language you risk confusion. If you redefine marriage you distort the identity of millions of couples who embraced marriage in good faith. Where’s the justice in that?
Buz: Buzz off.
If you find something as simple as this confusing you really are in trouble.
Again, it is not redfining marriage, it is dragging it into the modern world!
Exactly, D. McCabe. What it is doing is expanding marriage to include gay couples, nothing more. In a true democracy, rights are expanded, not contracted to the exclusion of one sole group of people. This is purely a civil matter nothing more, nothing less. If Buz doesn’t like it, as the saying goes, “don’t marry a gay person”. He needs to get over it because we have 10 countries, soon to be 11 and the wheel is rolling forward not backwards. Buz can’t even produce one shred of evidence as to why we shouldn’t have civil marriage. None of his ilk can come up with one government study as to the negative impact of civil marriage equality has had on heterosexuals or their marriages or ability to marry. It hasn’t stopped them from marrying has it? One study in Massachusetts, USA, the first state to legalise civil marriage for gay couples in the U.S. found that after the law was past, the marriage rates soared, in fact it has the highest number of marriages performed in the country.
If you distort language you risk confusion.
The words ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ (not to mention ‘gay’) have more than one meaning these days: are you confused or, like most people, is your mind capable of greater flexibility?
“The problem isn’t the term but the concept. Marriage needs a man and a woman.”
Buz . . . This is not the 1950s
If think the real issue is not the concept of marriage needing a “man and woman”, but those who are rigid in thier belief that the concept of can only be relevant to the union of a man and woman.
Typo . . . “I think the real issue is the not the concept of marriage needing a “man and woman”, “
How does a same sex marriage ‘distort the identity of millions of couple’? If they not getting married to some one of the same sex how does it concern them at all? Fact it has nothing to do with anybody else and if people believe marriage is one man, one woman how does giving fair marriage take that away.
Fact – it doesn’t but sadly people like yourself seem to think you have the right to poke you nose in thing that really don’t concern you.
It’s just marriage.
Well, in the end when we get the right to marry it wont matter what it is called because regardless of who we marry we all will get the same marriage certificate
As far as I am concerned, the effort to change the law is a campaign for “marriage equality”, not “gay marriage.” The actual relationships themselves are just marriages, no further clarification is required.
I don’t think there’s a single answer to this but depends on the context. My take on it would be something like:
“Marriage equality” or “equal marriage” should be utilised whenever discussing the current fight(s) to achieve parity with opposite-sex marriage in whichever jurisdiction is under discussion. Once that’s been achieved “marriage” by itself should then be used unless to do so causes confusion or specific emphasis is required.
“Gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” should really only be reserved for when quoting verbatim or again where clarity is required.
“Civil marriage” and “religious marriage” are specific concepts which should be used accordingly and in my mind relate to the act of becoming married (i.e. the ceremony itself) rather than the state of being married, since after the event thy are equal in law – at least I believe that is intended to be the case in the current consultation.
These are the types of videos we should be using in the UK to promote civil marriage equality. I don’t understand why we’re not making any of our own. They are extremely powerful and reach a very wide audience.
Absolutely…i have been posting about this for months now. Marriage Equality seems to me to be the term we should be using as anything less is, well less, frankly.
I have never been a fan of “Gay Marriage” because that is not what we want. and it has been used by opponents to stir up the cults by inferring that we want marriage called “Gay Marriage” All we want is Equality and nothing more OR less!
Yes. I’m fighting for equal civil marriage (not religious, I don’t care about that), or just marriage as I hope it will eventually be. I think sometimes in fighting for equality it’s necessary to clarify what you’re fighting for, but other than that it’s not necessary to call it same-sex marriage, you don’t go around calling people’s marriages interracial much, you just call them marriages. The day where I can completely legally marry a woman and not have it be treated like something different will be a nice day :).
I’m gay and I prefer the term “gay marriage.” It’s the term most easily understood by straight and gay people, and makes articles reach the most people when they search for the term. Don’t be afraid to call it gay marriage.
The US has the same issues as the UK, and it holds true with the wording. Primarily, the conservatives, religions and media to use “Gay marriage” when trying to elicit an emotional response. It is all the same “marriage”, much like I don’t Gay drive my car so nor would I Gay marry my boyfriend. The topics are about marriage equality, it doesn’t need to be a nebulous, awkward, dual worded construct.
“Gay marriage” has a second strike against it for the simple reason that it excludes the rest of the LGBT community. Unlike the word “Gay”, “LGBT” lacks the sting to cause emotional tension in the media, but it does makes people more aware there is a greater sector of the population being talked about. The religious lemmings cannot wrap their heads around two men being married, so forcing them to simultaneously consider our bisexual and transgendered cousins, a battle with 3 or more fronts, puts them into a coma.
One marraige has two husbands, one, wife/husband, another, wife/wife. By participation, they are clearly defferent. Vive Gay marraige. WE can deine CiS issues similarly top properly refekct the participants. I do not see the reason for insistence on the same term. It will only generate the question ‘how is your husband’? to a man each time, which is not necessary is if the rigth name is used.
Sure, they’re gay marriages, but they’re also just marriages. If your black male friend marries a white woman, do you say they interracially married? No, you say they married.
It’s two adults making a commitment to each other. I want to be able to say I married my WIFE.
P*ss off, keith.
for “buzz” ie.. aka Keith
….I have rarely ever said to anyone “how is your husband?” or “wife” for that matter because until now it was presumptuous to do so and often led to awkward moments in the past and currently I would always say “how is your partner” if one didn’t know the persons first name, because this covers most cohabiting situations nowadays.. This form of address makes no presumption about the status of the person and also makes no presumptions about the sex of the partner…..
The term is simply ‘marriage’. If people start talking about ‘gay marriage’ they are falling into the trap of creating a separate system (again). When trying to ‘equalise’ something, you don’t give it a separate label.
A marriage between myself, and another woman, is completely qualified. I want to make a lifelong, monogamous commitment to my partner (who should also be my best friend). That takes nothing away from heterosexual marriages, just like interracial marriages took nothing away from same race marriages.
Also, I’m not stopping heterosexual couples from getting married, they can still do that. If they don’t wish to have a same sex marriage, then they don’t have to get one.
It’s basically an Equal Rights issue, and using the word ‘Equal’ makes it harder for bigots to condemn it.
Even bigots tend to hesitate to speak against equality in general, whereas ‘Gay Marriage’ is a dog whistle, and it still suggests it’s separate and different.
Until equality is achieved, the ‘Equal’ bit still needs to be included, otherwise the headlines won’t make it obvious what we are trying to achieve.
The small print (full definition) should be ‘Equal Civil Marriage’ to make it clear that religious organisations won’t have to participate if they wish not to do so. The RCC is very keen to fudge this point !
Once equality is achieved, then it simply becomes ‘Marriage’ because that will be the only show in town. It’s the same reasoning that was to promote the changeover to decimal currency: coins were labelled New Pence, but now they are just labelled Pence.
Comedienne Liz Feldman put it most eloquently – “It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: ‘marriage.’ You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it.”
How about we use the term “marriage” to refer to marriage that is open to everyone and “discriminatory marriage” to refer to the current situation where only mixed sex couples are allowed to marry?
As much as we have been BEGGING PinkNews to stop using the inaccurate and counterproductive term for a couple of years now. why have you just NOW decided to have this discussion. We’ve been explaining, in great detail, why the term is problematic for years now. I’m glad you’ve FINALLY listened but for the life of me I can’t tell why you decided, after all this time and after all this information, to consider dropping the term now.
“Marriage equality” whilst we’re fighting, “marriage” once we’ve won.
Use the language like the bigots – call it the marriage respect campaign. Load the language as they do. If you own the language you own the thinking.
Whatever the term, just please don’t include ‘gay’ in it. I didn’t magically become straight after marrying my wife, just as I wouldn’t have become magically gay if I’d married a guy. I am an remain bisexual, and would like for a marriage with one of either sex to be considered of equal merit and with equal ability to be validated by society.
Yes, the term ‘gay marriage’ is inaccurate simply because that is not what we are seeking; we are seeking the SAME right every heterosexual now has, the simple right to civil marriage. The term ‘marriage equality’ is much more accurate to describe our struggle. What we seek is simply ‘civil marriage’, or even just the right to ‘marry’ whoever it is we are in love with and wish to publicly state our intention to enter into a marriage contract with that person.
Traditional marriage needs a man and a woman, Gay marriage defines what it is, is a marriage between two gays.
You, homosexuals, cannot be defined the same as a man and a woman, as you are not the same, you cannot be equal as them, as you are not equal to man and woman.
That is why I am heavily involved in campaigning against what the Goverment are doing. Mind, IF they do it, they will live to regret it as they wont be power again, Dave and his kronies are taking a big risk with their positions, as they will be voted out and the UKIP voted in.
One again, Marriage = One Man & One Woman – suppot this http://www.c4m.org.uk
Yes, it’s not the same because of the genders of the participants, but it’s still equal. Two consenting adults making a lifelong monogamous commitment to each other, that’s what I want to do. I want the commitment, the wedding, to be able to call a woman my wife and have it be true. Me doing that does not affect you in any way, shape, or form.
Aiden = Yawns
Wow the swing to the UKIP would be a record to beat all records…
I suspect if the Tories bring in marriage equality then they’ll probably be able to pick up more lib dem and labour votes than the ones they lose to UKIP.
They’re taking a bigger risk in not bringing it in I suspect. What we’d see is a weak conservative PM who has no control over the old homophobes in his party. A retreat back into the bad old days of Thatcher. Look the cons party has been unelectable for the last decade and even now they could only scrape thru with the help of the lib dems. Doesn’t that tell them that no-one liked or trusted the old types Tories…
Cameron needs to kick out the old homophobes and get this change thru quickly if he is to get thru the next election.
I think you meant to post the website for marriage equality, easy mistake I guess.
So wrong and so devisive. Love between 2 people is the same no matter what sex the partners are.
Stop promoting when you should be promoting a strong stable society which includes marriage equality.
You cannot have marriage equality for people that are not equal.
For all these people, the term ‘gay marriage’ is simply an oxymoron because gay relationships do not lead to the birth of children.
I am happy to affirm some equality of gay people in other ways but I cannot logically affirm an oxymoron.
First of all, the reason why Cameron and the elite are so in favour of gay marriage is not because they really support it. It is because Peter Tatchell has launched a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights.
If two men want to be together and want some kind of legal standing as a normal married couple, then civil partnerships pretty much fulfil that purpose.
This debate would not be taking place if we were not having to bow down to pressure induced by Peter Tatchell, that man is an idiot and a scrounger, and I personally dislike him.
So not only is Aiden a raving homophobe but he likes doing party political broadcasts for UKIP …
Does he know any of their policies other than the one on standing against gay rights or immigration?
Yes, drop gay marriage. We just want equality. Not ‘gay’ marriage. Just the same freedom to be married as everyone else.
To me marriage equality means the fight for the same legal marriage rights as straights (ie civil and religious). So I would expect LGBT orgs to use this.
I think the govt’s definition is correct, it’s equal civil marriage, becuase it’s definitely not marriage equality.
However, unless you’re into the debate on marriage equality , most people don’t know what you’re talking about unless you either describe it as “gay” marriage or possibly “same sex” definition”.
So I think depending on the audience you could use all terms.
“Marriage” is the appropriate meaning for everyone who wants to get married.
Gay marriage is a label. And do you want to be labelled any more.
The battle is for “marriage equality”.
What to LGBT people want? the right to marry. not the right to a “gay marriage”. they want the SAME right as anyone else who is getting married.
Do your parents have a “Straight marriage”? No.
Different terms, different contexts.
In the USA many of us involved in the struggle use the term “marriage equality” to highlight the fact that the struggle is about equality and not “special rights”. It is the media that has by and large refused to use that term. They kow-tow the the small fraction of people who are conservatives by doing so instead of doing their traditional job of helping move society forward.
What we are campaigning for is ‘marriage equality’ and this is probably the best term to use and I will use it in future postings rather than ‘gay marriage’.
In my opinion “marriage equality” is better than “gay marriage” and “same sex marriage” is better than “gay marriage”. It would be very difficult to find a neutral term, if that’s what you’re aiming at, since simply using the term “marriage” with reference to gay couples will of course be rejected by the opposition, unless it refers to “marriage” as legally defined.
The problem with “same-sex marriage” and “gay marriage” is that, by using the term, Pink News could inadvertently be creating an artificial distinction between opposite and same-sex married couples. In fact, perhaps if we had marriage equality in England many people would continue to use “gay marriage” and “same sex marriage”, when the adjective would seem to draw unnecessary attention to the nature of the people married. Emotively, I don’t like the term “gay marriage”, because it is often used by opponents with an undertone of ridicule; as if singling it out as strange and peculiar. I think ‘same sex marriage”
has a more neutral feel to it, and, of course, is more inclusive of bisexual married couples!
As with many words and phrases, though, it has to be said that a lot depends on context; the tone of the voice, the way in which they are used. Using the different terms eclectically is no bad policy, but perhaps it would be best to try to use “gay marriage” less.
It’s easy enough for us to refer to marriage equality, but I doubt the BBC will respect our wishes when they report on news developments.
Yes – please, please ditch it. Not just for the reasons other people have raised, but also because of how it contributes to bisexual erasure / invisibility… there are plenty of bisexual people, myself included, for whom a same-sex marriage will *not* be a “gay” marriage. Ultimately, it’d be good for the LBGT community generally, not just bisexuals, if society started to recognise that things simply aren’t as black and white as being able to split everything into “gay” and “straight”.
Marriage Equality is ideal.
Linking the words gay and marriage together triggers off many conservatives so they argue over the words/terms rather than the real reasons.
The play ‘Prop 8′ ends with ‘When fear and prejudice are held to count then fear & prejudice always lose”. Go have a look on you-tube.
None of the conservative MPs & churches were NOT prepared to stand up & swear on a Bible to repeat all their hate speech.
Personal I prefer Equal Marriage or just plain civil marriage. Gay marriage suggests still we want something difference when in fact what we want is the same.
Marriage or marriage equality at the most. We’re not asking for anything different.
Of course – it is just marriage
It was at the LibDem conference in Liverpool in 2010 that Delga now
LGBT+ LibDems started the Equal Marriage debate with Lynne Featherstone, Stephen Gilbert, Ed Forham and Adrian Trett. It has taken a lot of time to get it to this position. The Liberal Party and now the LibDems Party have pushed hard for the rights of LGBT plus much more and for longer than any other UK party. It was for Equal Marriage then and still is.
Personally all i want in the long term is marriage and there should be nothing gay about that. I have be using the terms equal marriage and marriage equality for as many years and I have been campaigning for this.
One of the reasons for doing so is because somebody who is transgender will have to divorce their marriage partner or annul their civil partner before they undergo gender reassignment and the term ‘gay marriage’ simply does not cover this aspect of the LGBT rainbow.
That is why I talk about marriage equality and that also includes allowing faith groups that want to do so (and there are some) to carry out marriages for same-sex couples.
I really don’t like the term ‘gay marriage’ at all, it still segregates LGBTs from straights. What’s the point of campaigning for marriage equality if we retain rhetorical discrimination in our terms for it?
Just ‘marriage’ is my preference.
There is, of course, a much bigger picture here. In a world in which equality is valued, don’t standard usages such as ‘LGBT’ and, dare I say it, ‘Pink News’ become anachronistic, even prejudiced because they don’t include heterosexuality? I would argue that this is exactly the case, or at least is rapidly becoming the case because such matters are culturally-derived.
‘Marriage’. You don’t have gay joint bank accounts, gay mortgages or gay council tax, so why label any ceremony of love coming together as anything different.
For me the real phrase should simply be “marriage”, nothing more – nothing less.
However, I do recognise that whilst the issue is subject to debate that sometimes terms are helpful to demonstrate a difference between the current legal scenario with marriage and when more equal marriage is established.
I think in this regard the label “gay marriage” is unhelpful as it suggests something segregated in any event. We do not call a birthday party – a “Gay birthday party” or a funeral a “gay funeral” so why a wedding?
So, phrases need to be found that help facilitate the discussion. For me, the phrases that work are “equal marriage” or “when same sex couples can marry” etc. Although, I would hope that such phrases would decrease in use when marriage becomes equal and the simple phrase “marriage” be used to refer to all marriages.
These things take time, and I know they are developing. The police OIC is confident that you will be arrested in due course. I am patient, and it will be so good when you are arrested.
I prefer the term equal marriage, as that includes everyone.
And for those people who want to insert the word civil, some of us want equal religious marriage too (for those religions who want to perform same-sex marriages etc., i.e. Unitarians, Quakers, Pagans, Liberal Jews, Reform Jews).
Of course you need to stop calling it “gay marriage”. You are completely erasing bisexuality. I didn’t see the word “bisexual” once in that article, just a few mentions of “LGBT” which clearly meant “lesbian and gay”. I am unable to have either a gay marriage or a straight marriage, because I will never be either gay or straight. I’m in a mixed-sex relationship, not a straight one – it hasn’t magically made either of us straight, just because I’m female and he’s male.