In today's NY Times we noted an article discussing the likelihood of a new civil unions law in Connecticut. One prominent Republican lawmaker (who supports civil unions) had this to say:

Mr. Ward, the Republican leader, said that while he and some other Republicans were likely to support a civil unions bill, marriage was another matter for lawmakers and voters. "When you call it marriage," he said, "they view it as literally changing the definition of the word."

We've heard this before, and it's beginning to sink in that for a lot of people, this may be the real issue on gay marriage. They are afraid that the meaning of "married" will be changing as the result of the inclusion of gay couples in its purview. And, because of this, they worry that once this change in meaning takes place, the meaning of "married" may be rendered -- terrifyingly -- uncertain.

Those of us who don't share this concern may lack empathy for those for whom this possible lack of clarity in the definition is a real and potent fear. Let's dig deeper into this. Given that the "definition" of marriage is already more a matter of legal standing than any single religious or cultural tradition's dicta, it can't be the case that the inclusion of gays in marriage means that a marriage is legally defined differently for heterosexuals. That leaves the social definition -- what it means to others when we say to them that we are married. What do they understand about us? And what might they misunderstand?

When we focus for a moment on this anxiety, when we use the imagination in a "what-if" style exercise, to try to visualize how allowing gay men and lesbians to marry might change the definition of marriage for already-married couples, one important possible scenario comes to mind.

Married couples might be mistaken for gay couples.

For example, let's say that Richard and Linda Hochstadter have been married for some years. Then, in their home state of (let's say) New York, marriage between same-sex couples becomes legal. Now, when they go to a cocktail party and meet other people, awkwardness is sure to ensue. For example, when Richard introduces "My wife, Linda, " many people are likely to get the wrong idea. Is Linda an extremely effeminate gay man with an almost pathological affection for sweater sets? Or is Richard a balding lesbian with a potbelly that makes her lucky to have landed someone as put-together as Linda? What with all the uncertainty surrounding the definition of marriage, Richard and Linda may well spend a lifetime of awkwardly explaining that although they are happily married, they happen not to be of the same sex. You can see how intimidating this prospect is.

I propose that we simply use two simple, easy-to-remember terms where before we used the term "married" or "marriage" that should help everyone feel comfortable. The differently-sexed union can be indicated by the term "Not-Gay Marriage." Young straights can call their friends and crow "We're getting not-gay married!" Tearful Golden Globe winners can express gratitude for the support of "my wonderful not-gay wife Karen." Ceremonies of joyful union can be clarified with equal simplicity: "I now pronounce you not two husbands, nor two wives, but a not-gay husband and wife."

Gay couples, of course, will have to use the plain old "married" formulation, which will to some seem uninteresting and rather dull. "Not-gay married" will have kind of a sparkle to it, the gleam of a new idea. We know that some gay couples might agitate for an equally satisfying new set of terms like the ones straight people will use, but we believe many will understand that such socio-linguistic change must be taken one step at a time.