A question to those of you in a long-term romantic relationship: How do you refer to your partner? Is he your husband, your boyfriend, or your better half? Is he your partner, him indoors, your significant other, or your spouse? Are you married? How much of the way you define your relationship is determined by your legal status? How much is it defined by the language you use?

The potential vocabulary [and legal status] available to gay couples in the UK changed with the introduction of civil partnership in December 2005. The new law allowed gay men, in all but name, to marry. And it's the all but name bit which leads me to wonder how important the language of marriage is.

As an example, was it news to you that civil partnership carries the same rights and legal implications as marriage? It is to most people I tell. It's clear to me that civil partnership has been named in order to avoid the religious implications of marriage (one of the few differences between civil partnership and marriage is that civil partnership ceremonies cannot be held in religious venues), but this use of language has also made it hard to communicate the legitimacy of the partnerships. The shorthand of marriage is lost in the new language and, until the reality of civil partnership becomes established, I think it unlikely that anyone will take it nearly as seriously as they take marriage. So, what to do?

"I'm getting married!" Or am I?

One very simple solution would be possible for gay couples to ignore the legal terms and just adopt the language of marriage for their civil partnerships. The shorthand is convenient. Invitations could go out inviting friends to the wedding, they could have a wedding day, and the fathers of the groom could give away their sons. He could be a husband. He could have a husband. And of course some gay people already use 'wife' or 'husband' to describe the commitment of their relationship, and have made headway in gaining acceptance by using language that people recognise.

It seems to me, though, that the language of marriage suggests the traditions of marriage, in particular when it comes to the ceremony of the wedding, with its implied gender types and religious elements, which sit uncomfortably with the reality of homosexual relationships. Of course, if the law had called civil partnership marriage, that would have offered the opportunity for gay men to participate in redefining marriage for the community as a whole. But this is exactly what the law tried to avoid by its use of language and we have to accept that the religious associations with marriage make it a complicated concept to play with. No one would want to see the religious right have conniptions or give the Anglican Synod apoplexy. Given this, I see no virtue in using language gay men can't own, and annoying and distressing people in the process.
 
"Sorry Mum, sorry Dad, I'm not getting married. I am, however, getting Civilly Partnered!"

The language of civil partnership, however, is horribly formal and brings to mind images of legal associations and contracts and none of the emotional ones usually associated with the happy day. It makes me think of inheritance tax, pensions and housing rights [which of course are important], but not of two people spending a future together through thick and thin, come what may. Again, this was probably deliberate, but it's also an opportunity missed. Even two and a half years later no one really knows what civil partnerships look like or how they work. No one yet has a set way of going about the partnership. With a little imagination, the next few years could be really exciting in terms of defining relationships and partnerships outside the traditions of how marriage is meant to work. And I don't mean a radical redefinition of the relationship itself [I don't think people will suddenly stop wanting to live together and keep cats], but I do mean a rethink about what's important when you make a commitment to another person. Who should be at the ceremony, where should it be, what should be said, and how can that best be done? And how does that commitment make a difference to the way you are perceived by your friends and relatives and by society as a whole? It's a real opportunity, and one that many heterosexual people would doubtless jump at.

Great as this may be, it still leaves us with some complications around language. Once you've been through the ceremony, how do you refer to your civil partner? You could refer to them as your civil partner, but it doesn't roll off the tongue or have anything like the ease of husband, or you could use husband or wife, but why borrow this inaccurate language when you have a legal relationship that is as valid as marriage? You could use spouse, which I quite like despite its formal sound. Partner might be ideal, in fact, if only there were some way to differentiate you, with your legal status, from the current ambiguous range of ways in which partner is used - business partner, opposite sex boyfriend or girlfriend, and same sex boyfriend or girlfriend. There's no doubt meanings can change, so it's possible that partner will shift to be associated with civil partnerships, in the same way that 'gay' is hardly ever used to mean glad or even homosexual anymore. Given time 'civil partnership' could even come to mean something romantic, exciting and long term, in the same way that marriage does.

However it plays out, the language is bound to shift with the new legal opportunities. Gay men entering into civil partnerships will either seriously redefine the meaning of existing terms - marriage, husband, etc. - or will add new meaning to a range of terms currently either overly-legalistic like civil partnership, spouse or ambiguous like partner.

So, I'm curious. Which would you and your partner/husband/wife prefer?

Below are the readings from my civil partnership ceremony:

The Apache Blessing Now you will feel no rain, for each of you will be shelter for the other.Now you will feel no cold, for each of you will be warmth to the other. Now there will be no loneliness, for each of you will be companion to the other. Now you are two persons, but there is only one life before you. May beauty surround you both in the journey ahead and through all the years. May happiness be your companion and your days together be good and long upon the earth. Treat yourselves and each other with respect, and remind yourselves often of what brought you together. Give the highest priority to the tenderness, gentleness and kindness that your connection deserves. When frustration, difficulties and fear assail your relationship – as they threaten all relationships at one time or another – remember to focus on what is right between you, not only the part which seems wrong. In this way, you can ride out the storms when clouds hide the face of the sun in your lives – remembering that even if you lose sight of it for a moment, the sun is still there. And if each of you takes responsibility for the quality of your life together, it will be marked by abundance and delight

My True-Love hath my Heart My true-love hath my heart, and I have his, By just exchange, one for the other giv'n. I hold his dear, and mine he cannot miss; There never was a better bargain driv'n. His heart in me keeps me and him in one, My heart in him his thoughts and senses guides; He loves my heart, for once it was his own; I cherish his, because in me it bides. His heart his wound received from my sight: My heart was wounded with his wounded heart; For as from me, on him his hurt did light, So still me thought in me his hurt did smart: Both equal hurt, in this change sought our bliss: My true love hath my heart and I have his. Sir Phillip Sidney