Separate and unequal…

Call it whatever you want, just not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman—to call it something else is to change the meaning of the word, and it has always meant one thing.

That is the argument I found myself listening to on a talk radio show this morning while I cleaned out Stormie’s playpen. My first thought was that historically, marriage has meant many things—sometimes involving more than just two people (eastern cultures, anyone?). But what I really fixated on was the whole concept of naming the joining of two gay people something other than marriage. A look back at history will help validate my concerns.

Think back to segregation. Separate but equal. But we know it never was. Public accommodations—from schools to hospitals—were never the same between white establishments and black establishments. The places reserved for blacks were consistently inferior—despite what Justice Henry Brown argued on behalf of the Supreme Court in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case: “…the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority [is a fallacy]. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it” (Don’t Know Much About History, pg 280). We know, however, that Justice Brown’s argument was the fallacy—not the perception or some collective ‘chip on the shoulder’ of the black community. Evidence of this is seen today in the ‘failed schools’ legislation that allows students from failing schools to have the opportunity to attend a better performing school; we no longer accept the idea that places like schools perform at the same level.

So, back to that marriage thing. If we don’t call a union between two adults, regardless of sexual orientation, a marriage, then whatever subsequent label we do give that union will inherently be inferior to marriage. How could it not? It won’t be a marriage—it will be something else. And perhaps that something else will create an opportunity to deny benefits—such as spousal privileges or access to programs such as social security upon the death of one partner—that one could argue are solely reserved for those who are married. Separate but equal terms for one of the most sacred commitments many of us will ever enter into? I think not.