The Semantics of Same-Sex Marriage

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
      Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
      What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
      Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
      Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
      What's in a name? that which we call a rose
      By any other name would smell as sweet;

Excuse the cliche in using such an overused quote. I've been working quite a bit on Romeo and Juliette at work lately. Shakespeare's plays really are beautifully written. I now realise how little I appreciated being made to study them back at school. The language is so fluid and vibrant and conjures to mind emotions that there don't even exist words for. Amazing.

Anyway, the reason that I mention this passage from Romeo and Juliette is because I've been thinking about the semantics of the Gay Marriage/Civil Union/Marriage debate recently and have found some relevant sentiments in the passage above. It seems to me that a large proportion of the religious community don't necessarily dislike or not accept gays but simply can't come to grips with them being 'married'. To non-religious types it might seem petty (it definitely seemed that way to me) however for the devout 'marriage' is a clearly defined term and doesn't recognise same-sex couples. This sort of objection is somewhat understandable I think, even if it is, perhaps, a little misguided.

On the other hand the queer community are not too concerned with definitions - they just want equal recognition (a fair and reasonable request). I doubt that same-sex couples would mind if they were claimed to be 'hoojamasmacked' instead of married as long as everybody else (including the straight community) were given the same label. The problem is that it is too late to simply CHANGE the word from 'marriage' to 'civil union' or anything else because 'marriage' already carries with it centuries of connotations. When people announce that they are 'married' they are referring to a ceremonial public legitimization of their love and often that is the extent of the definition. Whether wrongly or rightly the social use of the word 'marriage' has changed over time and has become less about religion and heterosexuality and more about social recognition. The change has already occurred and no amount of etymological fact-stating is likely to revert our use of the word to a previous definition.  So how do we live with this evolved (those opposed might prefer 'mutated') definition of marriage so that same-sex couples can enjoy the legitimization of their love without stepping on the toes of the religious?

Well firstly we must accept that if it is equality and legitimacy that we are after 'marriage' is the word to use; but we also want to distinguish between the marriage that is god-approved and the marriage that is not. (Notice that I'm using the word 'marriage' as it is used socially, not by definition: Given a narrow and traditional definition 'gay-marriage' could be considered an oxymoron.)  I suggest that a prefix be added to the beginning of the word 'marriage' when the ceremony is religious in nature. This prefix should be uniform within faith groups but be used primarily as a formality. For example Christians might choose to have a 'holy-marriage'. This type of marriage would be conducted in the presence of a religious figure and would be restricted to those that are willing to obey certain religious rules (e.g. Only heterosexual marriages, no polygamy, etc). Those who want to get married but are not religious simply get 'married'. This type of marriage is open to all as a primarily legal and social process. It entitles the married-couple to legal and social benefits but is secular instead of religious. 

Thus, everyone can get 'married'; it's just that some marriages are religious and others are not. It is my hope that under such a system the prefix would become a formality that is stated only rarely. In general public discourse a homo-sexual couple could proudly proclaim to be 'married' without contradiction in the same way that a religious couple could claim to be 'married' - the prefix would be either irrelevant (let's hope), or implied.

I think that this would mark a step in the right direction for equality. I doubt the non-religious would mind having 'holy' (or some other accepted prefix) absent from their title, and likewise the religious probably wouldn't mind having an expression of their faith ('holy' or otherwise) included in their marriage title. 

The main problem would be found in religious homosexual couples. There are certainly religious homosexuals that would prefer to have a 'holy marriage' than a regular marriage. . . what happens here? This is a problem for priests and religious figures to sort out. Perhaps certain priests will perform holy marriages between same-sex couples, perhaps not.  If not, however, I do not think that it is right to force religious figures to perform 'holy-marriages'. Subjectively speaking I don't see a problem with a same-sex religious couple having a regular marriage but still being active participants in their faith. If same-sex religious couples are denied 'holy marriage' in a religious institution it might be rather sad, however they could still have a religious-style ceremony at a regular marriage - there just wouldn't be the official prefix attached to their union. 

So what do you think? Is this idea plausible at all? Can you think of a better prefix than 'holy'? What other problems do you think that this idea might face if put into practice?