27. "Rights." "Claims." "Marriage." Flavor.

Did Osama bin Laden have rights we should have observed? That's hard. "Rights" most familiarly refers to what people possess as part of a system — say legal — that includes responsibilities, contracts, reciprocity, penalties. The further we move from that kind of reference the harder it is to understand such questions.

Did he have a "claim" we should have honored? That's at least easy to understand. We've all heard that every human being has a claim on fellow human beings to spare him from suffering and death if they can. We know what Osama's sons are talking about (NYT, 5-10-11).

It's pretty clear why people substitute a word that makes an unclear reference, "rights," for one that makes a clear one: they believe strongly in their claim and want to enhance it. Here "rights" has the flavor of legality. Violate them and you've broken with a legal system, not just a value system. This is what believers in "animal rights" are moved to tell people, whether or not there are laws against cruelty to animals.

Flavoring is bound to attract word-inspectors, however faint some of it is. I've been buzzing around the word "marriage" for quite some time now and still don't know what is in the air. I got interested when I learned that some gays would not be satisfied with a "same-sex union" that was exactly equal, legally, to opposite-sex marriage. They wanted it called "marriage." There must have been something in the flavor of that word. I was sure of this when I heard people arguing against them, though they too admitted the legal equivalence.

What was the flavor they were fighting over? My guess comes from observation of wedding ceremonies which, you understand, joined members of a particular class at an earlier time. It was clear to me that the main interest of those attending was in seeing a freedom-loving, high-hormone American male persuaded by the ritual into becoming a responsible husband who would provide for his family, or at least not desert it. That he would be honored if he did so was evident early when the preacher referred to the "honorable state of matrimony." That he and his fellow males resisted was evident by what was written ("Help me!) on the soles of his shoes — or elsewhere — by groomsmen. Nobody worried much about the bride; she, the would-be victim of wild behavior, was sure to be for domestication.

So a male who, no matter how he longed for freedom, no matter how many children he had tying him down, held to his vows was going to feel some flavor of honor, no matter how slight, in the words "husband" and its correlative, "marriage." And that must be what gay males want, the flavor of honor that's denied them in so many other areas. Without the flavor there'd be no reason not to settle for "civil union."

But why do some heterosexual males object so? Why not share with homosexuals who commit themselves to the same burdens of family, the big one being children? "Because," say the grooms I saw, "they commit themselves with less risk. I vowed to stick by this woman no matter how many children came along by accident [an accident was the reason a lot of the grooms were there]. This fellow can't have children by accident. He gets them by adoption, choice. Well, the less risk you take the easier the vows are and since he's not taking my risks he can't have my word. Let him get his own word."

Sure, "civil union," and it's got the flattest flavor on the stove. Can he just borrow some flavor?

No, words get their flavor over time. "Civil union" could acquire the sweet flavor of "marriage" but it would take years of sweetening example.

So, let him use this one for a while. He's already showing so much of what husbands are supposed to show — love, long-term fidelity, care for the children, responsibility to society. Why make a big deal out of the risk he takes?

Because that's what those congregations were making a big deal out of, willingness to pay when the risk went wrong. That's what added the flavor of honor.

Well, there's your battle, over flavor, and though the flavor may be faint, both sides think it's important enough to fight over.