Legalized gay marriage is inevitable; the polls over the years demonstrate increasing acceptance. Those who oppose gay marriage, for whatever reason, should reconsider their stance; they should realize that one cannot stop a wave with sticks and stones. Gay marriage is not a tsunami; it brings no destruction, only an increase of justice, in its wake. Those who oppose it should stop disguising their discomfort behind dogmas, prejudice and ignorance, much as those who opposed racial equality did during the 1960s. We should, in contrast, pass legislation legalizing gay unions as soon as possible, so we can get on with the crucial tasks of addressing the serious problems our nation is facing.
One of the chief areas of opposition concerns the name: marriage. There are many who support full legal rights for gay unions but believe that the term "marriage" should be reserved for the legal union of one man with one woman. In one of the last polls taken, 57% of Americans support full legal status for gay unions; a majority, however, still opposes that they should be called marriages. There are many very decent people who believe this, especially among older individuals. Bridging the gap between acceptance and terminology, however, need not be difficult. This little article is written to help reduce that gap to an insignificant crack.
What's in a name? Apparently, plenty. I propose the coinage of a new name, almost identical to the word "marriage" to define gay unions. Legislation could be passed quicker using this term; those believing that the word "marriage" should be restricted to heterosexual couples would have no objection to the new term. If society, at a later date, should decide that the distinction need no longer exist, subsequent legislation could be passed using the term "marriage" for the unions of both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
At first I thought to combine "gay" and "marriage," but the term "gmarriage" is very unwieldy. I subsequently coined what I think to be a much better term. The German word for "gay" is "schwul;" take the "s" from this and add it to "marriage" and presto! a quite usable word emerges: smarriage. May I smarry you? Love and Smarriage. Let me not to the smarriage of two minds admit impediments. All right, it might sound a little comical at first, but it is euphonious and could serve a very useful function, albeit a temporary one. The term "civil union" is far too abstract and bureaucratic; gays are right to demand more as a designation of a loving relationship. "Smarriage?"--Why not?
Perhaps, at first, smarriage rights might differ slightly--but only very slightly--from marriage rights. This would placate those who need to see a differentiation between them. Just as we are unlikely to get a perfect health-care law, we might, for political reasons, have to settle for a slightly less than equivalent smarriage law. It could easily be amended later as opposition decreases. I encourage all those involved, however peripherally, with this important civil rights issue to start spreading the word, in this case a very specific word. It might just help to get the right thing done more quickly. There is enough suffering in the world already; we must not be complacent.
I am in the demographic age group most opposed to legalizing gay marriage, namely, males over sixty. I am also religious, which makes opposition to gay marriage even more likely. But my conscience will not allow it, for, I think, some very good reasons. And just what are those, you may ask. I shall now answer. Simone Weil wrote that to love one's neighbor as oneself must include loving (respecting) one's neighbor's desire, that is, the neighbor who has different desires and is thus different from ourselves, providing that desire does no harm. It is not enough to love neighbors who look like us and share our views! Does gay marriage cause harm? Love and do what you want, wrote Augustine. (His definition of love, of course, means a deep, responsible love that might begin with two individuals but is not to stop there, extending further and further to eventually include the whole world.) Genuine love between homosexuals is undeniable; if you doubt it, learn about the Aids Quilt Project. I am convinced that it is religiously and morally wrong for society to hinder loving relationships. Gay marriage will thus strengthen, not weaken, the institution of marriage. As a religious person, I know that God is more interested in the love between two individuals than in the plumbing of their bodies.
Hope to see you at somebody's smarriage some day--soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment