A New Word on Gay Marriage
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/agvnono/67104828/
Marriage, so the religious folk will tell us, is a holy union between a man and a woman as sanctified by a religious institution and thus under the auspices of the divine; a same sex couple cannot get married because a marriage is between two people of opposite sexes and furthermore God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Brian. The problem is of course that Adam and Brian sometimes do love each other, are committed to each other and are prepared to stay with each other “in sickness and in health until death do us part”, unlike those people who make those vows in front of God and then promptly break up whenever is convenient (here’s looking at you Newt). Religious representatives, of course, do not see a problem with this state of affairs as they are (reluctantly) prepared to accept that homosexuals can still be together and even have a civil union, they just can’t get married as that is a holy act sanctified by a religious organisation.
Now this seems like a fair argument if we are only arguing about words and nothing material is going to change. The problem is that we are not just arguing about words; if we were only arguing about words the guardians of the faith would not be so hung up on the fact that their word can only be used by selected people. Remember, words have value and convey meaning; for instance the word marriage conveys the strongest recognition of a relationship between two people, by denying that to certain people in essence you are denying them the right to the societal recognition that at the same time can be so cheaply bought by others (say in a walk in chapel in Vegas). If marriage is the utmost expression of the love that two people have for each other, then denying some that right is casting a societal aspersion on the strength and fullness of their love; in essence it is saying that their love is less than what can be so easily and cheaply claimed by others.
Newt Gingrich with wife number three. Source: Gage Skidmore on flickr.com
Obviously the rebuttal is that marriage for hundreds of years has always been a religious ceremony and that marriage is and always will be a religious word (let’s ignore the ubiquitous nature of the civil wedding shall we) therefore by what right do two people who engage in an unholy act have the gall to claim a holy sacrament? This is true, marriage in many ways is a religious word, it was religious institutions that officiated over marriages for hundreds of years, but language has a habit of changing and secular society has a habit of appropriating what might traditionally be seen as religious ideas for its own good i.e. morality. We also live in a society where most of us don’t want to be exclusive, and similarly we do not think that being excluded from an activity in the past means you should be excluded from an activity in the present. We no longer believe we should exclude people based on sex, creed or colour; all categories which have been used to exclude people in the past.
But let’s not be heartless about the religious; if they want to exclude people that’s their right. The problem with marriage is that it is now no longer up to religious institutions who should get married and who shouldn’t. So what can religions do? How about creating a new word which is for extra special relationships which are definitely in the eyes of God and can never be broken (after all, unless I’m very much mistaken, it is the staggeringly high divorce rate and not homosexual people wanting to get married that is truly responsible for destroying the sanctity of marriage). So what should this word be? Well, I guess that should be up to the religions to decide, but if I might be permitted to make a suggestion, I really think the word should be … drum roll please…
SANCTIRAGE
Why Sanctirage? Well Sanctirage half-rhymes with marriage and has part of the word Sanctity in the title to show that it is a Sanctified and Godly union (I was thinking about calling it Santorage in honour of one of the most virulent homophobes in America, but I thought that sounded more like a place where you would storm Santorum; and you’re propensity to be disgusted by that idea depends on whether you know what Santorum means or not).
So there we have it, those who want to can still get married to whoever they want, and break it off as often as they want, in the knowledge that their union has not been sanctified by a deity but is still fully recognised by the law and society as the highest expression of a bond between two people who are in love with each other/in it for financial gain/obeying their parents/spiting their parents (delete as appropriate). Whereas those who want to pledge themselves for all eternity to a religiously approved member of the opposite sex, and know that they will never leave them in sickness and in health until death do us part can get Sanctiried (Newt Gingrich should stick to marriage). This should make everyone happy, as no-one can be banned from getting married because of who they love, and religions can still exclude people on an entirely irrational basis. Now if that isn’t optimistic-forward thinking I don’t know what it is.
[...] persuasion can build a nation” – Women may not control the marriage market today, but they have been controlling the sex market since the beginning of time – men [...]
[...] to marry your first cousin, voters passed the controversial Amendment One on Tuesday, which bans gay marriage constitutionally and strictly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman. And now, [...]