The Institution That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Maybe the key in the gay marriage fight is actually not mentioning it by name.

Washington state's voters approved an "everything but marriage" law, expanding rights for gay domestic partners and giving them such benefits as the right to take sick leave to care for a partner, adoptions rights, and child custody and support.

Even though it's not full-fledged marriage, this marks the first time a U.S. state has granted a gay equality measure by ballot initiative, instead of through the courts or the legislature.

It seems that the difference perhaps is that because the controversial m-word wasn't included in the ballot language, voters were able to concentrate on the rights discusses as opposed to their preconceived ideas of an institution they see as only for a man and a woman.

I don't think it's a stretch to theorize that some gay marriage opponents aren't bigoted so much as fearful of change. Marriage is something that has become a religious and cultural institution for heterosexuals, laying down the foundation for family. It's not discussed or rarely evaluated in terms of rights, benefits, and equality given to its participants. But we've upset the apple cart because we've put marriage in those terms.

We've called attention to the fact that marriage laws, at least in this country, are pretty much exclusionary and discriminatory and make gays de facto second-class citizens. I imagine many straights think of the ritual - bridal gowns, nervous grooms in tuxedos, church organs, receptions - and wrinkle their nose at two men or two women adjusting that rosy, traditional picture. For them, it's like having church on Tuesday night or seeing boys playing with Barbies. It's just not how it's supposed to be

After Prop. 8 in California, Elton John remarked that what was making people uncomfortable was the actual word marriage. It seems he was prescient. Would similar wording on other ballot initiatives produce the same results? Is merely changing the framing of it all making the difference? Washington gives a strong argument for a yes.

In a way, it seems insulting. We have to parse words and not mention the unmentionable to persuade minds. Even though we're merely insisting on universal rights, we have to have hat in hand and offer careful arguments that don''t offend sensibilities. We're fighting for marriage but have to couch it in palatable terms because, after all, there are a lot more heterosexual voters than straight ones.

It may be kowtowing, but prejudices and presumptions are very strong. And sometimes the art of language makes a huge difference.