Mailbox: Wedding Blues

I wanted to express my disappointment with ICView for naming the “marriages” section of the magazine “Pairings.”

If the change in terminology is meant to open up this section of the magazine to the homosexual community, I would remind you that aside from Massachusetts, where homosexual marriages are now legal, (and Vermont, New Jersey, and I believe Connecticut, where civil unions are now legal as well), homosexuals cannot legally get married in the USA. Like it or not, this is the law. Calling this section “Pairings” sounds awkward and denigrates the significance of the institution of marriage — which is far more than a simple “pairing” of two people. For example, if someone has been living with a person of the opposite sex in a “committed” rela-tionship for 7 or 10 or 15 years, should they publish that information in this section? Of course not — it is irrelevant. So, why include it if the couple is of the same sex? If that relationship takes on a more permanent nature (becomes a marriage or civil union), it should be noted.

I encourage you to drop the “politically correct” mindset and return the section of the magazine to what it once was rightly referred to — announcements of  “marriages.”

Scott Long ’92, Cary, North Carolina


Editor’s note: The section was previously called “Couplings,” and before that, “Weddings.”



1 Comment

Thank you for your letter. I find it extremely important that those of us who feel the way you do speak out. I agree with you and wish to ask that the IC View change the section now known as "Pairings" back to a more appropriate listing: "Marriages". If the magazine wishes to include another section entitled "Civil Unions" or "Commitments", I would support that as well, but since in most of the country, homosexual unions are not officially "marriages", it is inappropriate (not to mention legally incorrect) for the magazine to include both types of commitments in the same listing.