This time, it's the New York Times style manual, which has apparently selected "same-sex marriage" as the acceptable term for it. And Sunday's paper turned up two examples of why the Times should rethink it.
First up, there's N.A.A.C.P. Endorses Same-Sex Marriage in which Michael Barbaro writes this:
Borrowing a term used by gay right’s advocates, the resolution stated: “We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Then, in the front-page story,
Amid New York’s Political Elite, Council Speaker Weds Her Longtime Partner we have this:
In a room bedecked with wildflowers, and sprinkled with a who’s who of New York elected officials, Christine C. Quinn, the speaker of the New York City Council and a leading candidate to be mayor, married her longtime partner, Kim M. Catullo, on Saturday evening, in one of the most prominent same-sex weddings of a public official to date.
One is dismissive, one is absurd. More below.
Borrowing a term used by gay right’s advocates
First, it's "gay rights' advocates" but then we should be happy he didn't write "advocate's." So only gay rights' advocates use the phrase? I suppose if it's not in the Times style manual it must be a serious outlier phrase. Um, not so:
Ta-Nehisi Coates, T.I. On Marriage Equality
The other day someone mentioned that opposition to marriage equality, while widespread, was thin.
New York Magazine headline:
RNC Head Doesn’t Think Marriage Equality Is a Civil Rights Issue, But Michael Bloomberg Does
Jenee Osterheldt in the Kansas City Star: "A first step toward marriage equality."
Dismissive, and partisan if not actively politically charged. Is it not enough that Maggie Gallagher and the Washington Times would never use the phrase?
And then there's in one of the most prominent same-sex weddings of a public official to date. This is the best example of why "same-sex marriage" is a problem I've ever seen. It's a WEDDING. Not a same-sex wedding, a wedding. A wedding of a same-sex couple, maybe.
I wrote about this a couple of months ago, in a diary called Political Rhetoric (2): Gay/Same Sex Marriage? STOP IT! Marriage Equality, Please! I nearly revived it two weeks ago, but somehow you don't call out anyone on the front page for not using "marriage equality." However, I got this in a comment in response to one of mine about marriage equality earlier today:
I'm in a same-sex marriage
And I'll call it whatever the hell I want to call it. To me, "same-sex" is not a dirty word.
It's not a dirty word to me either, but if Maggie Gallagher uses it, well, I'm not going to play her game.
I understand you might think it's about variety in writing, but it's not "gay marriage," it's marriage, and when you write about the marriage of two people of the same sex, it's "marriage equality." You'll tick off the bigots who oppose it if you use those terms, and that's enough reason to do so.
7:19 AM PT: And here's how the other NY papers covered the wedding: The Post referred to it as "gay marriage" throughout its article. The Daily News said "same-sex union" in the headline, and then referred to the ceremony as a "wedding" without qualifying it in any way. Newsday covered it as it would any other wedding, saying "same-sex marriage" to refer to the change in state law. So props to the Daily News and to Newsday!