Forums

Posted: 06-10-2013 00:13 Post subject:

I still don't see what the administrative issues are. In an immigration sense, why is it any business of the immigration department, providing the marriage is genuine, who is the dominant partner?

I have no objection to people calling each other husband and wife, regardless of the number of husbands, wives, or other in the relationship, or the gender, sex, or sexual orientation of same. That wasn't the claim at issue. The claim at issue is that we need to administratively track information that can only be determined using the old language of "husband" and "wife", and not by the gender neutral terms "spouse" or "partner".

Of course language is not static, the very idea is ridiculous. The term husband can refer to anyone married to anyone else. Likewise the term wife. To suggest that we need to use these terms to refer to particular roles, and that those roles must in some way apply to all consensual relationships is a static way of thinking, however, and is just as ridiculous.

Posted: 06-10-2013 08:14 Post subject:

That's all fair enough. However, although I suspect coming from a very different point of view, it does concur with the attitude of the right-wing press, and for the same basic reasons - ie those words are about gender and cannot be anything else. Which again is fair enough, I'm not suggesting it debases your own argument (a conclusion reached from an opposing point of view doesn't necessarily negate the same conclusion reached from a different one). It's just a little ironic, I suppose.

In concentrating on what was actually a very minor aside to the main thrust of my argument that argument may have become a little obscured - so I'll reiterate.

a. I support the institution of same sex marriage (well, as much as someone who is generally sceptical about the institution of marriage can).
b. I believe same sex marriage specifically will help the broader institution of marriage generally.
c. I couldn't give much of a toss how married couples decide to define themselves - and I don't believe the English language will suffer as a result of the terms they use, whatever they are.
d. I believe language is a fluid process and that those who choose to pin a word to a specific definition often unintentionally collaborate with the argument they think they are opposing.

The only thing I suppose I'd add is that if people were to object to the the use of outdated terms then I have to wonder what on earth they were doing entering into as outdated an institution as marriage in the first place. But maybe that's just me being a cynic.

Posted: 06-10-2013 11:12 Post subject:

I think you completely misunderstand me, although that's possibly because I'm not expressing my ideas clearly.

I don't care anything about what gender roles are used. I'm not trying to pin any definition on the words "husband" or "wife" at all. I quite agree that removing these words from the official documents (presumably replacing them with "spouse" or something similar). I am not arguing definitions of any of these words at all.

What I am arguing is your statement

Posted: 06-10-2013 13:02 Post subject:

Okay, in certain areas of the law, and areas like tax regulation, pensions etc, there are specific benefits and/or duties regarding, for example, the employment of a wife by her husband - or, I assume, vice versa - and therefore the words 'wife', 'husband' (and, in many cases now 'civil partner') appear in the relevant legislation/regulations etc. From a purely pragmatic point of view (whatever our opinion on the need, or not, to differentiate) those terms exist and are written into legislation and that has to be dealt with in order to adapt to a new situation.

So, yes, you are entirely right - 'spouse', 'partner' etc would now very probably suffice. However, what do you do? Do you change the wording of all the legislation involved, or which might potentially be involved, (of which I suspect there is an awful lot) or do you apply the wording as it stands to the new circumstances? The latter is pretty clearly the most pragmatic option and I suspect the only reason this has been proposed.

You could say that the addition of 'civil partner' argues that the legislation can be adapted - but for simple practical reasons, why go to all that trouble and expense if you can make the words that are already there fit your basic purpose?

Personally, I'm quite happy that my tax money won't be spent on changing reams of legislation over a simple anachronism if it can be avoided.

Think about it - if a system was really intent on forcing traditional and outmoded gender based values within this context, would it really be legalising same sex marriage in the first place? I honestly don't think so.