Nouns vs Verbs

The fundamental difference in the gay marriage debate is one side is arguing nouns, the other verbs. 

By this I mean that religious folks who are against gay marriage are against the changing of the meaning of the noun. And they say as much. The word marriage has meant the binding via vows of two people of separate sexes. 

When the gay marriage debate first started getting traction in the 90's it was argued that civil unions could be a viable substitute - essentially marriage without the noun marriage to describe it. Same legal status and benefits, etc.  Just leave the noun alone. 

Gays however want 'to marry', that is, they want the verb. They want the pronouncement. They want to take the vows the same way a straight couple would with the same trappings, status and benefits.  In other words, they're asking for the ability to do the verb. 

And this is how debates get muddled. One side is arguing about the meaning of nouns and others are petitioning for the right to verb.  

I've long thought it not a question of if but when gay marriage will be recognized by the state. (Honestly, marriage comes down to two people and a witness - state recognition is kind of besides the point in my book, but I understand the appeal especially as it relates to certain benefits.) And it's settled in many states now. But this leads to the next issue - what is the proper way of securing these rights. I think that proponents of gay marriage, however valid their arguments were, pushed too soon and too hard. Until this past year, gay marriage has not had popular support. This led to court cases were legislatures acted on gay marriage without the support of the public. It also led to ballot initiatives where the overwhelming public support was against gay marriage - even in a place like California. 

Obviously, things change. 

Personally I could care less if someone wants to do the Dumb Thing and get married. I only have daughters so I have no problem with them getting married. If I had a son, that would be different. If this hypothetical son wanted to get married I would have to kill him. It would really be the only sane thing to do. 

My bigger issue with the whole deal is around process. Congress passing foolish, ill-advised laws like DOMA which, although it had popular support and was a fine example of compromise, basically deferred a ton of issues to the courts. Why in the hell are we allowing our representatives to write bad laws so that a group of unelected folks can create the law out of thin air is beyond me. I understand it's really difficult to actually write good law or - better yet - write no law at all if the answer is not clear and does not have widespread support?  

All DOMA did was create a conflict that spawned hundreds of lawsuits and created a situation where government is reaching into the bedroom. Again, such is the world we live in where we expect government can and ought to do something.  Just so two people can write their names next to each other on a tax return or benefits form. Silly especially considering most firms allow for benefits to be extended to a same sex partner. 

I think DOMA will be shot down as it should be. Prop 8 will likely get sent back down as it should be (the 9th Circuit is always flaky - so expect more fights and challenges to come.)  

And eventually, gay marriage will be recognized by the government.