Debate Over Same Sex Marriage: New Terms for a War of Words

While culture wrestles with changing attitudes toward homosexual and transgender relationships, it may be time to change the name of the game we're playing. The current terminology used to describe non-heterosexual relationships tends to be awkward and sometimes dehumanizing. Even terms of choice in the homosexual community tend toward isolation and dysfunction in describing relationships and commitments. When it comes down to it, the whole idea of being "gay" or "straight" is an isolating and inaccurate characterization in many cases.

But let's start with the basics. Culture has begun to accept and recognize that homosexuality is a common, consistent, recognizable product of human biology. Same gender orientation in relationships is a well-documented human attraction that goes beyond calling it a "lifestyle" or even a "behavior." These terms imply that same gender attractions are a choice made by people rather than a biological fact of their nature.

Such simplistic descriptions are holdover products from cultures that failed to effectively reconcile the balance and equity of human relationships in many respects. The Bible indicts homosexuality while it accepts and promotes slavery. Where is the clarity in that ideology? There is only hypocrisy.

We have departed from the scriptural tolerance of slavery to deliver the human race from bondage. But at the same time we have been keeping a significant portion of the population hostage through prejudices toward homosexual people based on a small and conflicted set of scriptural indictments--all of which pre-date even basic scientific knowledge of human biology and behavioral sciences that long vanquished outdated biblical attitudes toward human sexual and behavioral variation. The very least we owe people of homosexual orientation is to be consistent in our recognition that human culture has evolved. But we should not stop there.

What the Bible simply failed to anticipate in regard to human relationships is that culture would evolve to the point where governments would guarantee personal freedoms for all, regardless of status of race, religion or sexual orientation. These are the guarantees of the United States Constitution. No amount hypocritical Bible-thumping can change the fact that the rights of homosexuals are protected under rule of federal law even if a few states keep so-called sodomy laws on the books. It is time to stop treating homosexuals and transgender individuals as second-class citizens. That includes our obligation to extend the right to affirm same gender relationships with the full right to marry and/or commit to civil unions.

But to reach a point where same sex marriage or civil unions can be better described and therefore understood in a legal context, we may need to change the terminology used to describe the very real phenomenon of same gender unions.

That is why I propose a legal change in how we discuss the rights of homosexual, lesbian and transgender people. We need to move beyond the set of isolating terms used to describe people in same gender relationships. There is no person in America who does not deserve equal rights to define their commitment to another person in a marriage or civil union, whichever they prefer. The rights to liberty, personal expression and relational choice should be protected under our Constitution. We are either a republic that guarantees its freedoms and equal rights to all, or we are not.

The principal objection to same gender relationships ultimate focuses on the right to marry. Traditionalists insist that marriage can only be defined as between "a man and a woman." Again, this objection by definition has its roots in scripture, but we must always recognize that while freedom of religion is a guaranteed right in America, no one religion forms the rule of law. Basic human rights stand outside the province even of scripture. For example, the Bible tells us "thou shalt not kill" from which we gain moral perspective. But the right to life is also one of those basic guarantees protected under governance of the state because to die through murder is the ultimate infringement on human rights, is it not?

Likewise, the right to choose who you want to marry is another of those basic human rights that stands outside the province of scripture. Marriage is a legal device guaranteeing shared financial, medical, legal, property and rights of inheritance, to name a few. Why should any human being be denied these basic rights?

In order to move beyond the arguments of traditionalists arguing against these standard human rights, we should redefine the right to marry the person of your choice to encompass any or all people affected by false or prejudicial standards. The terminology used to describe relationships that differ from the so-called "standard" heterosexual relationships creates the false impression that homosexuals and transgender individuals are an "other" when it comes to rights in society. We simply need terms to describe their relationships that are less isolating.

My proposed definition for the legal description for gay, lesbian and transgender relationships is therefore a new term invented for the purpose. That term would be "genderic."

Here is the definition:

Genderic: Any human relationship in which same sex or transgender partners are involved.

Of particular note here is that this definition is gender focused but not sexually oriented. The term "homosexual" has always been disturbing to some (we can surmise) because it automatically calls to mind certain sexual acts that some people find unacceptable. The term homosexual therefore places its focus not on a relationship based on emotional support and love, but on sexual acts that people have been taught to think are unnatural.

Let's face it: some people will just never be comfortable talking or thinking about sex in general when it comes to relationships. So let's remove the word 'sex' from the lexicon where it is not needed, especially as it pertains to legal rights in human relationships. We should therefore replace the term homosexual as it applies to relationships with the term "genderic" to describe relationships other than heterosexual in nature. That reframes the mindset to focus on the positive notion that two people simply want to be together. If they have want to sex, that's their personal business, but that's not the sole purpose of their existence as a couple.

That is why we should use root word "gender" in the term "genderic" to describe same sex and transgender relationships. Genderic is both a purposeful and broad-based term. It simultaneously recognizes there are many people in society for whom "gender" is not a clearly defined proposition. Let them also have the right to define who they are, who they want to be. Let's turn this process into one of personal chemistry and identity, not prurient societal control, because that is where the process now lies.

Taking a look at the bigger picture, it is fairly clear that everyone's sexual identity goes through changes during a lifetime. Life events like motherhood can affect how a woman views her body in terms of sexuality and utility. As male testosterone wanes with age, some men mellow and change in their sexual aggression or expressiveness. All these changes are products of our biology, but they also contribute mightily to our behavior. We all wrestle with these changes, but we do not want other people (much less national or state laws) telling us how to make decisions about our personal lives. We want to make these decisions for ourselves.

Politically, this approach to personal freedom makes sense for every party under the sun. Libertarians who claim they want less government intrusion in people's lives should agree with a philosophy that lets people determine for themselves who they want to marry. Democrats and Progressives likewise should support such rights to make such personal choices.

But so should political conservatives, and for similar reasons. It is primarily the alignment between political and social conservatives that would discourage freedom-loving political conservatives (who ostensibly believe in personal autonomy) from accepting something like genderic relationship laws.

It is ironic that we should have to face conservatives who would negate the legal rights of American citizens when it is conservatives who typically make the claim that there is too much government intrusion in people lives. Instead, we need to objectively regard the right to marry as a basic democratic guarantee. To satisfy the "holdouts" on the conservative spectrum, this action would promote traditional values to establish secure, long-lasting relationships for all people in our nation.

Genderic relationships should receive the full rights and freedoms declared under normal law in America. If it all has to start with civil unions, so be it. Call it what you must. Just make it truly equal under law. Only then will a republic designed around equal rights come to terms with its real identity as a progressive nation, not one anchored in regressive terminology and a collection of blanketed repressions hiding in a culture rightfully ill at ease with its own inconsistencies.