It's not just a matter of so-called political correctness, but of conveying, accurately, what one means. As a cause, I prefer the term "marriage equality," as that captures what is at the heart of the matter. When talking about the event, however, or the how to refer to the married state, where the genders of the people is considered germane, I tend to go with "same-sex marriage" vs "gay marriage" (since the marriage is same-sex, not gay), though that makes it sound different from marriage (which, the point is, it is not), so when it doesn't seem too awkward, I'll refer to "marriage between a same-sex couple" or "marriage of a gay couple."
"Same-gender marriage" might work, too, but that starts getting into sensitivities and debate over gender meanings, so it probably clouds the issue.
Ultimately, as noted, I think it will be (and should be) just "marriage". But since marriage between two people of the same sex is currently under separate discussion, choosing distinctive (but accurate) terminology is important.
Gay Marriage? Same-Sex Marriage? How Should We Talk About Marriage Equality?
As the Supreme Court prepares to hand down a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, how should we refer to the matrimonial institution they are poised to accept or deny? The front-runner terms are “gay marriage” and “same-sex marriage,” often used interchangeably. The question has real stakes—in politics, every word counts….
Many of us would argue that the very fact that it is "same-sex marriage" and not just "marriage" is absolute proof that it is NOT the same.
+Charles Carrigan But the same argument could be (and was) made about "interracial marriage." Or "inter-faith marriage." Or, heck, "bicoastal marriage." Or "May-September Marriage." Or "happy marriage."
An adjective usually means the following now is a subset of when the noun stands alone, not a completely different animal.
But there's a significant difference between a marriage between a black man & a white woman vs. a marriage between two men. The whole marriage ceremony is designed around husband & wife – the words that are said throughout the ceremony assume husband and wife. None of the traditional ceremony language included "who gives this white woman to be married?" No, it was simply "who gives this woman", and there was only one woman involved in the ceremony, and one man. The final act of the minister is "I now pronounce you husband & wife", not "I now pronounce you white husband and black wife. Interracial marriage is still fundamentally the same thing as any other marriage between husband & wife. The only people who said otherwise were a few extreme white supremacist groups. That distinction was a fringe extremist position, it was never steeped into tradition of the western world culture the same way that "husband & wife" is into the culture of marriage. Gay marriage is a much more significant divergence than that, despite how much liberal folks wish to over-simplify the situation as just the next civil rights issue; it is much more of a deviation from what has been historically believed and practiced by the vast majority of people of the world.
+Charles Carrigan You are correct that the verbiage of marriage — and its general description — had usually been between men and women.
But it was not just "a few extreme white supremacist groups" that limited marriage to just between a given race. It was the law of pretty much every state in the union at one time or another, and a third of the country still had those laws on the books when SCOTUS stepped in.
Marriage has always been tribal, marriage within the tribe, not betraying it by mingling with other tribes. The laws handed down to the Israelites were very clear on the matter. The barriers against marrying outside of the faith tradition were both legal and (for much longer) social ones. Marriage of a woman to someone other than the man chosen by her father was also usually illegal (religiously or judicially, when not "just" socially).
And the meaning of what that marriage represents has also changed. The idea that iw as all about Ward and June Cleaver and their loving brood is also a relatively recent invention. Marriage as a means of legitimizing children, of securing (or bargaining) inheritance of land and wealth, played a much bigger part of marriage than two people in love and a preacher.
Is the inclusion of same-sex couples a significant change? For most cultures, yes. Is it the only significant change in what marriage means that civilization has endured. Hardly. And to the extent that we frame marriage as two individuals choosing to "cleave together" and form a family in a societally acknowledged fashion, the inclusion of same-sex couples is hardly the biggest change that has been made over the years.
well as has been in the past between us, I respect your opinion but we'll have to agree to disagree. Heterosexual unions through marriage are uniquely important to society, always have been and always will be. And as such, there is a vested interest in the State for their encouragement and preservation as a unique social institution. Thats not to say that civil unions between individuals could not also exist, but they are fundamentally different to the point that equal status as marriage just doesn't make logical sense to many people.
+Charles Carrigan This is shifting the argument from whether marriage between heterosexuals and marriage between homosexuals is different to whether one of them is better (or at least whether one of them is "uniquely important"). I think getting into disputes whether certain classes of marriage (or legally recognized unions) are more important than others is an even dodgier set of arguments. I've known a number of marriages between straight people that weren't worth the paper they were written on; to consider them as something more important than a marriage between two loving and committed people of the same gender strikes me as unjust at the very least.
The state, if you will, has a vested interest in stable partnerings, esp. if they are raising children; those don't need to be defined by the sexual activities that take place in the bedroom.
It does seem that people get hung up on the "m" word. In which case, perhaps what we need to do is have the state simply recognize unions / partnerships (with all rights and responsiblities thereof), and leave the more mystical or idiosnycratic or subjective aspects of "marriage" or "matrimony" to religious or other social institutions to recognize (or not) as their members choose to.