Discourse

"Words having meaning, and few words have more meaning to our culture and civilization than does marriage."

—Gordon H. Smith, Republican Senator from Oregon, on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (Stolberg A16)

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reached a landmark decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health: under the state constitution's Equal Protection clause, Massachusetts had no legitimate reason for denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. Goodridge is remarkable for granting gays and lesbians the right to marry, in contrast with the Vermont Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. State, which required only that the state legislature find a means of granting gays and lesbians the same benefits as marriage. In light of the clarity of its decision, the Massachusetts Court provided the legislature with 180 days to make any necessary legislative changes to accommodate the decision. On February 4, 2004, in response to the Massachusetts Senate's efforts during that time to create a civil union status in place of marriage, the Court declared that the substitution of "civil unions" for "civil marriage" was unacceptable: "The dissimilitude between the terms [End Page 41] [. . .] is not innocuous. It is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status" (Belluck, "Mass. Gives New Push" A1). Rebuffing the Court, in March 2004 the Massachusetts legislature approved the first round of an amendment to the state's constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and to grant gays and lesbians most of the same rights, benefits and obligations afforded to married couples. If approved, the amendment would rename the same-sex marriages approved between May 17, 2004 and the time of its effect as civil unions.¹ One political analyst summarized the legislative maneuver as an attempt ". . . to preserve heterosexuals' linguistic rights to the word marriage, but grant[ ] homosexuals most of the rights" (Belluck, "Gays' Victory").

Is the attempt in Massachusetts to pass a constitutional amendment (one of many now circulating in various state legislatures) a legislative maneuver to control language? Justice Martha B. Sosman of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who dissented from the majority opinion, reiterated the linguistic stakes when she described the situation as "a pitched battle over who gets to use the 'm' word"; the battle over marriage is so volatile that Sosman even proposed renaming all unions to avoid the term altogether (Liptak A20). Heterosexuals are not the only ones concerned, as gay couples have also demonstrated their own passionate attachment to the word. An advocate for same-sex marriage recalled his and his partner's decision to apply for a marriage license: "We just wanted marriage. Words are important and we deserve that word" (Lewin 4). Domestic partnerships and civil unions are some of the ways that gays and lesbians have accrued, in very specific institutional contexts, a limited number of the benefits reserved for civil marriage. The debate in Massachusetts over substituting "civil unions" for "marriage" underscores the extent to which gays and lesbians' struggle for equal rights has now pinned its hopes not only on the distribution of benefits but on the intangible, symbolic value that undeniably accompanies that single word. As a result, in the press, legislatures, and courts across the country, the battle to preserve the heterosexual right to the word marriage is framed as a debate about the meaning of marriage as an institution. Is marriage the union of two intimately involved and committed individuals? Is it a state-sanctioned partnership that offers benefits and demands obligations? Is it a "sacred institution" that functions as the "bedrock of society" by providing the optimum structure for reproduction and child rearing? [End Page 42]

Marriage in U.S. law is defined, according to Black's Law Dictionary, as "the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife" (986); however, as Richard Mohr points out, the standard legal definition fails to specify the nature, structure, and function of that union ("Case" 88).² The aforementioned questions about the meaning of marriage...