Have a Good NEWS

the legalization of Argentina 'same-sex marriage has reawakened an old debate. For some civil partnership just is not good enough

Argentina recently became the first South American country to legalise gay marriage. It is not, however, the first South American country to allow gay people to enter into an officially recognised relationship â€" that was Uruguay in 2007.

The UK and several other countries differentiate between marriage and civil partnerships, while others specifically allow gay marriage. The ECHR recently held that such a distinction is not unlawful as the EU Convention "enshrine[s] the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman", thus countries may, rather than must, interpret this as including same-sex couples.

So, if a person as a result of the same, it is important that the union is called? This discussion may focus on determining: online dictionaries (as well as my own offline Penguin) give as the primary definition a union with someone of the opposite sex, and a secondary definition of a more general "marriage of concepts". A Spanish dictionary(In Spain allows gay marriage) is analogous: " Unión de hombre y mujer concertada mediante determinados ritos o formalidades legales"; as is a French dictionary: "Acts of a musical instrument solennel par un homme une femme et al, établissent entre eux une alliance ".

The Latin root matrimonium , includes matri, a clear indication of the intent of such a union. This often leads to discussions of marriage as being primarily for the procreation (rather than parenting) of children, but that arguably does not reflect the modern meaning of the word, more concerned with the desires of the two people entering into it than any subsequent person who might be created from it.

Some gays are satisfied with equal legal rights under the Civil Partnership Act and are not concerned with terminology. And then there are other priorities, with gay people in some countries facing state-sanctioned violence, prison sentences â€" even execution. There is an argument that pressure should be concentrated there rather than fine-tuning the vocabulary of life in Britain â€" there is nothing to stop gay people referring to their engagement, marriage, missus, partner or husband if they wish.

For others, true equality will not be achieved until the word used to describe unions is the same for all concerned. The difference recalls "separate but equal", a seemingly reasonable idea nonetheless rooted in inequality. Given the difference between the origin of the phrase and the current situation, this may seem hyperbolic. A single word cannot be as detrimental to a person's rights as an entire system of segregation on racial lines. But the distinction remains, which, in this view, displays the idea of fundamental difference.

Yuvraj Joshi recently set out some competing views in the gay community: that for some, inclusion in the institution of marriage is something to be pursued, while for others it is important to retain a sense of difference, to resist "assimilation" and a sense of "moral hierarchy" between state-recognised relationships and those existing outside these norms. Diversity of relationships, as he notes, exists in opposite-sex as well as same-sex relationships. Rather than focusing on difference, which the second approach can imply is solely a gay issue, perhaps "equality of opportunity" to marriage is the key point, thus allowing all people to either buy in or not, as they wish.

I once mistook two French phrases â€" séparé (to be separated) and with EST Pareil ' (it's the same thing), which made me wonder if the situations of civil partnership and marriage are so similar in their substance that what they are called is no matter? For me, the distinction is an annoyance, largely based on semantic logic. If marriage is indeed based on religious ideas of union, then any non-religious union should be a civil partnership; alternatively, if there is no necessary link with religion (which is my view), then all state-recognised unions should be marriages.

Some will think "Well, it's just words, let's get on with other stuff"; others, like me, think "It's a piddling little point, let's just change it"; and some have much stronger views one way or the other. Thinking of this as "just words" should also make us think that this can be used as an excuse for the expression of hate, denigration, or dismissal. But if you have to reach for a dictionary to define a loving relationship, you might also be missing the point.