The Current Debate Over Marriage Is One of a Semantical Dilemma

0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc

Same-Sex Marriage in America: An Analysis of the Word Marriage with Reference to American Semantics

The current debate over marriage in America is one of a semantical dilemma, with

the issue being the approbation of the word marriage with consideration to sexual

orientation. If a homosexual couple wishes to officially and legally join in a union, does

the word marriage, which in the past has been solely heterosexual, appropriately describe

that union, or is a separate word necessary? In regards to this issue, it is vital that one take

into account that language is not concrete, but represents the conquest of abstraction

(Breal 81), and therefore is dependent on the current state of a society to determine the

significance of a word (Potter 107). It is also important to realize that the denotation, the

direct explicit meaning of a word, shapes the meaning of a word, but the connotation

solidifies it, and is customarily what society uses to define a word. Two words that were

created to represent the same concept in denotation will eventually develop two different

connotations when used in context (Potter 108). Therefore to create a separate word for

marriage to represent homosexual unions would create a separate connotation, one not

necessarily synonymous with marriage.

The connotation of a word can vary from society to society, and within a society,

with each individual. Variables in the formation of a meaning include, though are not

limited to, the situation in which the word was learned and/or experienced, the space in

time (the influence of current events), and the background of which the word was

acquired (Schlauch 116). The connotation of a word largely influences the meaning and

its significance in society, and commonly becomes the reference point used in redefining

a word to match societal views. When forming the connotation of a word, history gives

1 0f95bf5b36cad3ad61920eecdfaf6c9d.doc

the necessary precision that is needed to understand a word (Breal 111). With reference

to the history of marriage in America, marriage is understood to be solely heterosexual,

though not limited in other aspects, such as race, social status, religion etc (though at

different points in history one or all of this factors limited the choice of a marriage

partner). As society’s view of homosexuality changes, the language used to define

relationships must reflect such changes in order for the language to remain relevant.

Due to the volatile nature of language, it is unlikely that a word’s connotation is

the same has it has been in years past, or will continue to be the same in years to come.

For example, for the greater part of marriage in American history interracial couples were

not allowed to marry. The law banning such unions and the (then current) connotation of

marriage as a union between a man and a woman of the same race reflected the

sentiments of society regarding race at the time. Up until 1967, when the Supreme Court

ruled in Loving v. Virginia that is was unlawful for states to restrict interracial couples

from marrying, many states had laws contrary to the ruling (Wolfson 87). At the time of

the ruling, the Civil Rights Movement was at its strongest, causing Americans to

reevaluate their stance on race and equality, and in turn, Americans became more

accepting of the inclusion of interracial couples in the definition of marriage, and

language reflected the change. Much like the Civil Rights Movement did, the Gay Rights

Movement is currently forcing Americans to reexamine their views on marriage equality

for homosexuals, with the majority in favor of the inclusion of homosexuals in the word

marriage (Lahey 134).

The current views of society are what determine the meaning of a word, which in

turn forces other institutions (religions, government, etc.) to follow the progression of the

language. The current connotation of marriage has changed from that of a religious

context to one of a public declaration of love and commitment, with many meanings in

between (Schlauch 117). All of the past and current connotations of marriage have

coincided with societal views, none of which have threatened the institution of marriage

itself, but simply kept the institution’s connotation relevant to society’s needs and views.

Language grows and changes along with the people who use it, and the word marriage is

not immune to such progression. The application of the word marriage to homosexual

unions, from a linguistical perspective, is part of the progressive nature of language. As

society changes, so does the semantics of their language (Schlauch 117). As is evident

with the overturning of anti-sodomy laws in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court

ruling, homosexuality is becoming more accepted in American society, and is therefore

necessary to reflect such changes with the inclusion of homosexuals in the language.

To deny homosexuals inclusion in the definition of the word marriage, especially

as public opinion of homosexuality becomes more positive, would threaten the present

denotation of marriage. Many opposed to homosexual marriage feel that if homosexuals

are included in the definition of marriage, then the word marriage will be dishonored.

Words are dishonored when they are assigned to things which are dishonorable, but

society has shown that the majority do not find homosexuality to be negative, and

therefore it is safe to assume that the inclusion of homosexuals in marriage would not

dishonor marriage, but solely expand the meaning of it (Breal 101).

Conversely, if society chooses to exclude homosexuals from marriage, especially

as more and more are becoming more accepting of homosexuality, they risk discrediting

marriage. If the language used to describe official unions does not reflect America’s

growing acceptance of homosexuality, the word marriage is in risk of becoming

connotated as disgraceful. The refusal of the inclusion in the definition of marriage to a

group that society has for the most part accepted suggests that marriage is not a necessary

union or is a discriminatory one, and therefore, a disgraceful union. This thought could

cause a drastic shift in the connotation of marriage from a union of love and commitment

to that of an entirely separate, negative connotation. A word like marriage is especially in

danger of such a change, since words that refer to the relations of the sexes are especially

prone to change in meaning, from a reputable one to a disreputable one (Breal 103).

Assigning a separate but equal term to homosexual unions is a not a possibility.

With regards to the fact that a word is nothing more than a symbol used to represent an

abstract notion (Breal 29), it is impossible for two different words to have the same

connotation in society, despite their denotation. When considering the use of a separate

word to represent homosexual unions, it is necessary to regard each word as a separate

symbol, and realize that each symbol will carry a different connotation. In the case of the

word marriage, a separate word to represent homosexual unions would create a separate

institution. The creation of a new institution for homosexual unions only would create

risks similar to those mentioned in the previous paragraph to the institution of marriage.

As is the case with all words, the meaning reflects society’s need to express an

abstraction. Eventually a word will begin to posses a meaning similar to that of society’s

connotation (Schlauch 117). Much like the multitude of words used to name

homosexuals (gay, faggot, pansy, etc.) all carry different meanings, the instation of a

separate word to describe homosexual unions will carry a separate meaning than that of

the word used to describe heterosexual unions.

If given separate terms, homosexual and heterosexual unions would begin as

synonyms, but given the fact that it is impossible for two words to posses the same

connotation, they would become two separate institutions, eventually developing separate

values, beliefs, rituals, etc (Schlauch 114). While the laws of language allow for one

word to possess many connotations, it does not allow for two words to possess the same

connotation, since in language the existence of absolutely identical terms is not possible

(Breal 28). The possibility of equality in language is only feasible if the same word is

used. In limiting the definition of marriage to heterosexual unions, while at the same time

recognizing homosexual unions with a different term, a gap in the language used to

describe relationships is created, because the language is being forced to ignore changes

in society, and therefore does not accurately represent societal views (Trudgill 100).

Marriage carries a connotation of full dignity and inclusion, especially since marriage in

America is now considered a choice, an institution that one is accepted into (Wolfson

134). The denial of marriage to homosexuals sends the message that homosexuals are not

accepted in society. The use of any word other than marriage to characterize homosexual

unions, while legally may be equal, inherently is different in connotation (Wolfson 135).

For marriage equality to become a reality, it is necessary for the word marriage to be non-

exclusive.

The use of a word other than marriage for homosexual unions would be creating a

pejorative reference to homosexual unions. The pejorative tendency is the result of the

human disposition’s inclination to veil, attenuate, disguise ideas which it finds

disagreeable, wounding, or repulsive (Breal 100). Considering that the creation of a word

to represent homosexual unions suggests that homosexuality is accepted, it is essential

that the word marriage is used, or society is creating an institution that will segregate

homosexual unions and heterosexual unions.

The word marriage has thousands of connotations, including ones pertinent to

homosexuality (Wolfson 3). Marriage is almost impossible to define, due to society’s

multi-faceted concepts of marriage, and the fact that language is incomplete and

inaccurate. It is incomplete because language is constantly evolving and consequently

inaccurate because the nature of language makes it impossible to fully describe an

abstract notion that suits all of society (Breal 172). For every connotation of marriage

there exists another that is just as appropriate. To restrict the meaning of marriage to

heterosexuals is an incorrect use of language, because it would deny the natural

progression of language. So many connotations of marriage are able to coexist due to the

ever-changing nature of semantics.

With regards to the fact that a word is a symbol used to represent an abstract

notion (Breal 171), it is impossible for two different words to have the same connotation

in society, despite its denotation. As is the case with all words, the meaning reflects

society’s need to express an abstraction in a concrete manner (Breal 78). Eventually a

word will begin to posses a meaning similar to that of society’s connotation (Schlauch

117). Two words that begin as synonyms, that can be used interchangeably, will develop

their own distinct connotations. Known as the law of differentiation, the belief is that the

interpretation of language does not allow for identical terms, and eventually all words

develop connotations that stand on their own (Breal 28). It also states that to deny that

identical terms do not exist creates useless and possibly dangerous synonymy (Breal 28).

Change in a society is reflected in the synchronic evolution of its semantics. Marriage,

which was once thought of as a religious ceremony, has come to represent a contract of

commitment between two consenting (heterosexual) adults, showing that the connotation

of marriage has changed along with society.

Words are nothing more than abstract notions that a society deemed necessary to

make concrete, thus allowing the abstraction to become visible and tangible (Breal 81).

At the time of the conception of the word marriage, society felt the need to create a word

to describe a dedicated relationship that could be made official in a public sense (Wolfson

3). With regards to the fact that when a word is applied to a group of objects or ideas,

which in some respect resemble one another, naturally it becomes restricted to just one

object or idea (Potter 107). Marriage, which in denotation applies to all sexual

orientations, currently possesses the restrictive connotation of a heterosexual union

representative of a choice to make a public commitment.

While language is naturally restrictive, it is important to keep in mind that

language is not fixed, with the semantics of a language ever changing. Semantic

development is gradual, with the prejudices, preoccupations, and interests prevailing over

others in the community of speakers (Schlauch 117). The semantics of a society tend to

demonstrate the social tendencies of the group; thus if a society believes that

homosexuals should be offered the opportunity to participate in an official union, a

separate word would not be needed, for the word marriage would be symbolic of all

official unions (Potter 107). The use of a separate word would suggest that homosexual

and heterosexual unions are two separate entities and should be regarded as such, thus

creating useless synonymy (Breal 28).

Much like the multitude of words used to name homosexuals (gay, queer, pansy,

etc.) all carry different meanings, which are largely influenced by the history of the word,

the instating of a separate word to describe homosexual unions will carry a separate

meaning than that of the word used to describe heterosexual unions, because of the

circumstances in which it was created. An alternate to the word marriage would represent

toleration of homosexuality, with full recognition of an individual’s civil rights, but

would create a connotation just short of acceptance (Wolfson 134). The inclusion of all

sexual orientations in the definition of marriage would indicate that society had reversed

all previous judgements of homosexuality, and now connotated the marriage of

homosexuals with the same reverence as heterosexual marriages (Wolfson 134).

America has yet to legally/officially define marriage as “the union between a man

and a woman,” but socially has designated marriage to be just that. It has been suggested

by certain politicians and groups opposed to the inclusion of homosexuals into the

definition of marriage that marriage should legally be defined (in America) as an official

union between a man and a woman, and that a separate term, equal in all legal aspects,

should be designated to official homosexual unions. The reasoning being that while the

word marriage may lack a specific sexuality, it has come to represent heterosexuality in

American society, and to expand the meaning to include homosexual unions would

discredit the current meaning of marriage (Wolfson 125).

To restrict the meaning of marriage to that of a heterosexual connotation creates a

greater risk to marriage than the inclusion of homosexuals in the word marriage. For a

new word to represent homosexual unions, it first needs to be associated with some

kindred sense (marriage), which in turn society will then arrange according to their own

ideas (Breal 29). While the two words to describe homosexual and heterosexual unions

may begin as synonyms, they will eventual take on different meanings of their own

(Breal 27). The application of a word other than marriage to describe homosexual unions

would eventually be unable to be used indiscriminately with the word marriage (Breal

27). The differentiation of homosexual and heterosexual unions would have many

possible ramifications.

The biggest issue that would result from the use of separate terms for homosexual

and heterosexual unions would be the exclusion of homosexuals from laws regarding

marriage and all things pertinent to it. In 1987, in the case of Turner v. Safley, the

American Supreme Court defined marriage in legal terms. The justices outlined four

attributes of marriage: the first being that marriage represents the opportunity to make a

public statement of commitment. Second, marriage for many has an important

religious/spiritual dimension. Third, marriage offers the prospect of consummation of a

relationship. At lastly, marriage allows for tangible and intangible protections (Wolfson

The creation of a separate word to represent homosexual unions would not be

included in the above mentioned guidelines of marriage, since it only defines marriage,

and not a substituted word for marriage that represents homosexual unions, thus

heterosexual unions and homosexual unions would not be synonyms. This would allow

for discrimination based on sexuality, because homosexual unions would not be protected

by marriage laws. A major reason for the incorporation homosexuals into the definition

of marriage is that all protections guaranteed when entering an official union use the

word marriage exclusively, thus homosexual unions would not necessarily be guaranteed

the same spousal rights, which could lead to the possible denial of next of kin rights,

inheritance rights, exclusion from the tax bracket that favors married couples, and a

number of other rights and privileges that one is granted when entering into a marriage. A

choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of homosexual couples to

second-class citizens, and would create a synonym that is dangerous to the rights of

homosexual couples (Wolfson 123). The importance of the word marriage applying to all

sexual orientations is so great, if for the sole reason of the certainty of homosexual

couples being protected and/or included in the law.

A less obvious problem that could arise from the designation of two separate

terms for marriage dependent of sexuality, is the invention, for all extents and purposes,

of a separate language, which would divide those on each side. Just as many African-

Americans have rejected the terms colored and Negro, which were the accepted terms for

many years, in favor of the politically neutral black, and even more recently the

conception of the politically correct term African-American, there is no guarantee that

homosexuals will readily accept a term assigned to them by heterosexuals (Michaels

237). The application of a word other than marriage for homosexual unions suggests that

the two institutions, which represent two sexualities, created by (heterosexual) society

should be considered different, which risks the possibility of alienating homosexuals

from the very institution that is supposed to be theirs, and on a lesser scale, alienating

heterosexuals and homosexuals from each other, much like today.

Since semantics are not fixed, society has no way of predicting in which direction

the language will change (Potter 107). If a separate word is adopted for homosexual

unions, and the majority of homosexuals feel that this word was created only as a

compromise in the marriage debate and does not accept them as first class citizens, it is

unlikely that the word will be accepted throughout the gay community. Many

homosexuals would feel that they are still not accepted by society, and the fact that they

could not be a part of the same union as heterosexuals would only serve as a reminder.

In the past the homosexuals have altered the terms in which they identify their

sexuality in an attempt to limit the influence that heterosexuals have on their language

and relationships, since homosexuality was not an accepted part of society, and also to

safely identify one’s self as homosexual without notifying heterosexuals to one’s

sexuality. In casual situations, homosexual is thought of to have a textbook medical ring,

queer is considered to be derogatory, and faggot is considered to be a word that

heterosexuals use in a pejorative sense (Michaels 238). Gay is the acceptable term used

when identifying one’s self as homosexual. In addition to the many terms homosexuals

use to identify themselves, what could be considered a “gay vernacular” has come to

exist.

At a time when homosexuality was considered to be taboo, a private language was

a practical method in finding another homosexual without asking outright one’s sexual

orientation (Michaels 245). Terms such as “chicken” (teenage boys), “seafood” (sailors),

and “Miss Me” (a reference to one’s self) have become outdated, as homosexuals are

allowed to participate openly in what is for the most part a heterosexual society, and in

the process adopted what could be called a “heterosexual talk” (Michaels 245).

Some in opposition to the inclusion of homosexuals into marriage have falsely

claimed that since homosexuals have their own “language,” that it is only natural that

they have a different term for their unions (Michaels 244). Nowadays it is common for

homosexuals to refer to their relationships in a language and manner similar to

heterosexuals. The language homosexuals use in reference to their relationships matches

that of heterosexuals. A homosexual man will refer to his significant other as his

boyfriend or husband, and a homosexual woman will refer to her significant other as her

girlfriend or wife. It is mainly heterosexuals who change the language used to describe

homosexual relationships, with terms such as life partner. Society for the most part

tolerates homosexuality, but the majority of heterosexuals have yet to adjust their

language to reflect such. In associating terms solely with homosexuals, a precedent that

homosexual and heterosexual relationships are different is set.

To say that homosexuals have entirely abandon the “gay vernacular” is false.

Many terms that were once almost exclusively used by homosexuals have become a

normal part of sexual, heterosexual conversation. In the past, when homosexuality was

rather hidden, words such as “head trip” (sexually aggressive fantasies), “S&M” (sado-

masochism), and “rough stuff” were reserved strictly for homosexuals (Michaels 245).

But as homosexuals have adopted heterosexual diction, heterosexuals have begun to view

the “homosexual vernacular” as a part of language that they to can use (in context).

As seen in recent years, the merging of homosexual and heterosexual terms have

created a language that is not associated with a specific sexuality, but is inclusive to all

sexual orientations (except for the term marriage). Society’s willingness to allow

language to progress so quickly shows that they will only become more open to language

that is inclusive to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is only natural that the word

marriage be included in this progression. Many homosexuals (and some heterosexuals)

now use the term marriage when referring to describe a homosexual couple who has

identified themselves as such. A semantical shift for marriage has already begun; society

has already shown that they are open to the idea of homosexuals being permitted to

participate in a union of some sort, and the language that once divided homosexuals and

heterosexuals has all but been broken down. To create a separate word for homosexual

unions would deny the changes that language experiences naturally (Potter 107).

Eventually a term will develop that includes all sexualities, since language is always

evolving to fit society. As society becomes more and more accepting, it will ultimately

have to make a decision as to whether or not marriage will be the all-inclusive word for

official unions.

Works Cited

Breal, Michel. Semantics. Trans. Mrs. Henry Cust. New York: Dover Publications, INC,

Deutscher, Guy. The Unfolding of Language. New York: Henry Holt and Company,

Lahey, Kathleen Ann. Same-sex marriage : The Personal and the Political. Toronto :

Insomniac Press, 2004.

Michaels, Leonard and Christopher Ricks. The State of the Language. Los Angeles:

University of California Press, 1980.

Potter, Simeon. Our Language. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1966.

Schlauch, Margaret. The Gift of Language. New York: Dover Publications, INC, 1955.

Sullivan, Andrew. Same-sex Marriage: Pro and Con: A Reader. New York: Vintage

Books, 1997.

Trudgill, Peter. Sociolinguistics. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.

Wolfson, Evan. Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to

Marry. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004.