Here’s a quick thought, while I’m still not putting too much pressure on myself to be interesting regularly on here. I may have had a brainwave about this whole gay marriage debate.
Okay, so on one side, you’ve got religious folk and other traditionalists. They’re hung up on the institution of marriage being some hallowed thing, which has remained unchanged through the ages and shouldn’t be fiddled with now. Many of them are fairly supportive of gay rights, and even equality, at least nominally – but only in the form of civil partnerships, which should allow same-sex couples many of the same rights under the law as any opposite-sex married couple, without changing the definition of marriage.
On the other hand, many same-sex couples think they should be entitled to more than just a separate-but-equal arrangement, which still somehow categorises them as second-class citizens, and excludes them from being an equal part of everyone else’s society.
I think there’s a middle ground we’ve all been missing.
Let’s say we make a new thing, kinda like civil partnerships, but unrelated to traditional marriage.
And let’s say we call it “marrij”.
Don’t worry, we’re not changing the definition of marriage. That’s still going to work the same as it was. But we can introduce a new way of recognising the relationships of people who can’t get married, such as same-sex couples, and giving them some of the… well, let’s say all of the legal rights that married people get.
Any two people, regardless of sexual or gender identity, can get “marrijed” (pronounced MAH-REED). It’s much like getting a civil partnership, and they’ll receive all the associated legal and publicly recognised benefits, in a system distinct from the sacred traditions that need to be preserved, but which is closer to equality than anything available now.
The state can marry, or marrij, any such couple who want to participate in either arrangement. Churches can recognise one or the other, or both, and won’t be forced to get more involved in marriages or marrijes any more than they’re comfortable with.
Did I just fix gay rights?
If this has a successful trial run, polygamous marrij is the next step.
Ha! Actually, you should change that to phonetically sound like the way the priest in the Princess Bride says it. Mawidge?
Too sensible. The churches will never agree. They will say it will still contaminate their definition of marriage. Which could be true, considering how many Christian bloggers can’t spell.
I don’t think it’s a solution at all because it allows the argument to continue that religious people don’t have to recognize it. If a landlord wants to evict a ‘marrijed’ couple but the law says he can’t he’ll still scream religious persecution and his asshat church-buddies will rally with him and asshat politicians will pander to him.
I think any move that tries to appease the religious ends up being interpreted as justification for discrimination and bigotry.
Funny you should say this – I was working on a similar idea of my own. Now it’ll just look like I’m copying you. Ah well.
Reblogged this on privateshufti and commented:
Great idea from writerJames @ Cubik’s rube blog for overcoming religious resistance to gay marriage – change the name to ‘marrij’ and everyone’s happy, right?