Sunday, February 24, 2008; B08

The bill in the Maryland General Assembly that would eliminate the term "marriage" for all and replace it with domestic partnership deserves serious consideration ["Bill Would End Civil Marriage, Create Domestic Partnerships," Metro, Feb. 5]. More than semantics are at stake.

Marriage has a long history of exclusion: slaves, interracial couples and same-sex couples have been denied it. For centuries, marriage eliminated a woman's separate legal identity, subjugated her to her husband, and determined whether her children were full citizens or "illegitimate." Many people consider marriage to be moored to religious doctrine, so Sen. Jamie B. Raskin's argument for turning it into a solely religious institution is sound.

There's precedent for breaking with past family law terminology. About a dozen states no longer have "divorce." Instead couples end their legal relationship through a process called dissolution. Divorce was historically a nasty business, with one "innocent" spouse, the other at "fault" and both subject to social stigma. "Dissolution" is less value-laden and contentious. It is also a term associated with ending partnerships, so the choice of "partnership" to signify the commitment that two people make to each other is consistent with the modern trend.

Similarly, numerous states have eliminated "alimony." For centuries its definition was sex-specific; only men could pay alimony and only women could receive it. Even after modern reform made alimony gender-neutral, the old connotation of a man's lifelong obligation to support his wife remained. So new terms such as "maintenance" or "support" replaced "alimony," signifying a shift in thinking. Some states have also abandoned the terms "custody" and "visitation" when referring to the post-dissolution placement of children, preferring "parenting time" or "parental responsibility." The old words implied that one parent "won" control of the children and the other "lost." The new words remove the implication that one parent matters more than the other.

Those who enter domestic partnerships in Maryland would be free to say they are married, just as those who dissolve their unions in California, Florida, Connecticut and the other states with dissolutions probably say they are divorced. The state does not police people's vocabulary. It does, however, signify modern ideals through official nomenclature. For that, the state should use the language of partnership and leave marriage to religion.

-- Nancy D. Polikoff

Washington

The writer is the author of "Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law" and a professor at American University Washington College of Law.