The Semantics of Politics

I was watching CSPAN today, because I'm a nerd and I have a lot of free time. Specifically, I was watching Barack Obama talk about his views on "the issues" in front of a large outdoor crowd in Iowa. Someone asked him about the issue of Gay Marriage. His response is one that I couldn't help but agree with. Just to put it out there, if I were any more liberal I'd be Pepper Labeija. His response was this: I think that same sex couples should be afforded the same civil rights as non-same sex couples. I support civil unions. Gay couples should be treated equally under the law (as heterosexual couples.) This is important for things like hospital visitation rights and transfer of property or personal assents. "Marriage", however, has connotations that aren't just civil, they're religious. [because of the separation of church and state] It's up to the individual denominations whether or not they want to allow gay couples to "Marry." The way he describes it, it's hard to find a quarrel with it. If Marriage is a wholly religious union, shouldn't it be left up to the religions themselves, and not up to law makers? The question then arrives, is marriage a wholly religious union? When a man and woman go to a courthouse to be legally joined, don't we colloquially call them married? We don't often refer to civil unions between men and women as civil unions. We call them Married. Don't we?

So what's in a name? It seems like there's a lot of arguing over THE NAME OF THE THING. Not the thing itself. I can't speak with any real authority here, but don't most people agree that people should be afforded equal protection under the law? Is the name more, less, or equally as important as the thing (in this case being equal rights)? Anyone thinking Shakespeare at this point? What's in a name? Etc? If two people are civil-y unionized, can't they refer to themselves as being married? Is anyone really going to stop them? "oh, sorry, we're not 'married.' We're Civilly Union-ed-ed....Civilly Unionized? We get along, and we're together."

"We're married"
"I feel sorry for you"

'Cause let's face it, marriage is a good party spoiled.

So, what are we talking about? Semantics, the way we talk about the world, describe things, and define the real. Another thought. We have two issues - Pro-life, and Pro-choice. These two positions are characterized as being binary opposites. Are they? Wouldn't it seem that the opposite of Pro-life is Pro-death? Wouldn't it seem that the opposite of Pro-choice is Pro-no choice? If these weren't the set words for which to talk about this issue, would we maybe talk about it different? Again, I'm not an authority on this, but I think if given the options, people would be for life and against death. I think they would also be for choice, and against the lack of choice. I don't think anyone's cheering for death. Even us liberals.

There's no such thing as political parties. They're just names we use, but they don't really even describe anything accurately. Republicans, conservatives, seem to be for a smaller government and less government involvement in people's lives. Is it then odd to regulate something like abortion which involves direct contact with someone's person? Same with the death penalty and regulating life and death? There's something about government regulation and deregulation in there...

The phone rang, this blog is done.

-cjfer-

(planet 1 for now)