I've got the solution for a compromise on this gay sex marriage deal, but extremists on either side are not going to like it one bit.
So here goes.
Heterosexual America has an enormous bug up its collective psyche on the "quote unquote" Sanctity Of Marriage. We need to face facts: not within this generation is marriage ever going to come out of the closet - if even then. Anybody doubt that at this point? Does anyone want to bet that the rest of the country is more liberal than the California Supreme Court? Because let me tell you: I will take all of those odds.
So where does that leave us?
Now just for the sake of argument: as same sex-gay marriage activists, do we say "screw what people need now, we can't compromise on this one - semantics is more important than actual tangible rights that people need!" Is that what we say? Or do we say "let's do what all liberal activists have always done: fight the battle we can win today, chip away the stone, slide another few yards down the slippery slope and fight tomorrow's battle tomorrow."
I say we say that second thing.
Anybody out there crowing that change is inevitable? That it's going to happen no matter what? Well how about this: put the heck up or else shut the heck up. How about you act on the confidence you claim to have for the future. Show that confidence by leaving the inevitable to the future. Because I'll tell you what else is inevitable: it's not going to happen in the here and now. If you really believe it's inevitable, then great! Let's throw a victory party for future us! But in the meantime, let's get serious about the struggle shall we? Change the battle plan for today. Win the battle you can win today.
Here it is. Here is the whole battle plan: call it something else.
It's as simple as that! Cede the field on "Marriage." Let them have their sacred word: "Marriage." They will feel quite secure and sanctified as long as they can keep saying "Marriage is between a man and a woman," a thousand times smiling! So let them have their magic word. You go for what matters: the rights.
If you call yourself an activist, and you say the word is more important than the rights, you're some kind of pathetic piece of shit. People are hurting. Can't visit their life partner in hospital! Car accident victim, could die any minute! "Sorry, you're not a family member." Problems with inheritance! Problems with permission slips, problems with insurance - do you want to say some word "Marriage" is more important than people who are hurting right now?
If so - NUTS TO YOU, pal! You fight on the side of the enemy, you don't even deserve victory at that point! No activist in a righteous cause puts the cause ahead of the people it serves.
So do we now have our priorities straight? Leave "Marriage" to the straights (for the time being) and come up with another word, or better yet, swipe an existing word and repurpose it (just like "gay"!).
That word is: "Espousal."
Campaign vigorously for "Espousal." Settle for nothing less than a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. Define "Espousal" as procedurally identical and legally equal in all aspects under the law to marriage. The two people who file for their license, get their blood test etc, and solemnize their Espousal with the requisite witnesses present are therefore officially "Spouses" (see how neat that works?). Eliminate the hysterical "they'll force our churches to host fag weddings!" objections, by specifying right up front that no church shall be required to perform Espousals if it shalt not decide to do so. On the celebrant side, anyone with the right to perform a marriage also has the right to perform an espousal if they choose. On the justice-of-the-peace side of course, no blocks allowed: a civil servant can't refuse to perform a totally non-religious function on religious grounds. Draw and quarter the bastard who tries that shit. Demote him or her to postal duty.
Further stipulations: make a point in the Amendment that Espousal Ceremonies can legally be called "Weddings." The Sanctity Of Marriage is the issue that the opposition has staked out. If they cared about the Sanctity Of Weddings, they should have made that an issue earlier. Ditto such various forms and words as "nuptuals," "pre-nuptual," "honeymoon" - everything linguistically that can be applied to a "Marriage" applies equally to "Espousal" under the law. The Sanctity Of Divorce is not a particular issue either. That's what I mean by "procedurally identical and legally equal": keep it simple and the same, except for the stupid and meaningless term you use up-front. Any two spouses who want to file proceedings to sever the knot, just call it the same thing regardless of the gender equipment configuration situation: that's a D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
For any morons: I would like to point something out. It should be obvious. This is not "separate but equal." You do not have to report to a shittier college, with subpar textbooks and no activities budget. There are no facilities and infrastructure involved except for the person across from you in bed, who believe me, will be the same person whether you call it "Marriage," "Espousal," or "Adultery." So if you can just give the first two conditions IDENTICAL LEGAL RIGHTS, then your entire fight is won.
For now. Two to five generations down the line, when the world is finally ready for the inevitable, we can get "Marriage" officially re-classified as a special subclass of "Espousal." Which frankly, it really was all along.
Let's also leave Adultery rights for later. Adultery is less about rights than privileges anyhow.
In the parlance of diplomacy: there's your "compromise," bitch!
Welcome to it.
So here goes.
Heterosexual America has an enormous bug up its collective psyche on the "quote unquote" Sanctity Of Marriage. We need to face facts: not within this generation is marriage ever going to come out of the closet - if even then. Anybody doubt that at this point? Does anyone want to bet that the rest of the country is more liberal than the California Supreme Court? Because let me tell you: I will take all of those odds.
So where does that leave us?
Now just for the sake of argument: as same sex-gay marriage activists, do we say "screw what people need now, we can't compromise on this one - semantics is more important than actual tangible rights that people need!" Is that what we say? Or do we say "let's do what all liberal activists have always done: fight the battle we can win today, chip away the stone, slide another few yards down the slippery slope and fight tomorrow's battle tomorrow."
I say we say that second thing.
Anybody out there crowing that change is inevitable? That it's going to happen no matter what? Well how about this: put the heck up or else shut the heck up. How about you act on the confidence you claim to have for the future. Show that confidence by leaving the inevitable to the future. Because I'll tell you what else is inevitable: it's not going to happen in the here and now. If you really believe it's inevitable, then great! Let's throw a victory party for future us! But in the meantime, let's get serious about the struggle shall we? Change the battle plan for today. Win the battle you can win today.
Here it is. Here is the whole battle plan: call it something else.
It's as simple as that! Cede the field on "Marriage." Let them have their sacred word: "Marriage." They will feel quite secure and sanctified as long as they can keep saying "Marriage is between a man and a woman," a thousand times smiling! So let them have their magic word. You go for what matters: the rights.
If you call yourself an activist, and you say the word is more important than the rights, you're some kind of pathetic piece of shit. People are hurting. Can't visit their life partner in hospital! Car accident victim, could die any minute! "Sorry, you're not a family member." Problems with inheritance! Problems with permission slips, problems with insurance - do you want to say some word "Marriage" is more important than people who are hurting right now?
If so - NUTS TO YOU, pal! You fight on the side of the enemy, you don't even deserve victory at that point! No activist in a righteous cause puts the cause ahead of the people it serves.
So do we now have our priorities straight? Leave "Marriage" to the straights (for the time being) and come up with another word, or better yet, swipe an existing word and repurpose it (just like "gay"!).
That word is: "Espousal."
Campaign vigorously for "Espousal." Settle for nothing less than a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. Define "Espousal" as procedurally identical and legally equal in all aspects under the law to marriage. The two people who file for their license, get their blood test etc, and solemnize their Espousal with the requisite witnesses present are therefore officially "Spouses" (see how neat that works?). Eliminate the hysterical "they'll force our churches to host fag weddings!" objections, by specifying right up front that no church shall be required to perform Espousals if it shalt not decide to do so. On the celebrant side, anyone with the right to perform a marriage also has the right to perform an espousal if they choose. On the justice-of-the-peace side of course, no blocks allowed: a civil servant can't refuse to perform a totally non-religious function on religious grounds. Draw and quarter the bastard who tries that shit. Demote him or her to postal duty.
Further stipulations: make a point in the Amendment that Espousal Ceremonies can legally be called "Weddings." The Sanctity Of Marriage is the issue that the opposition has staked out. If they cared about the Sanctity Of Weddings, they should have made that an issue earlier. Ditto such various forms and words as "nuptuals," "pre-nuptual," "honeymoon" - everything linguistically that can be applied to a "Marriage" applies equally to "Espousal" under the law. The Sanctity Of Divorce is not a particular issue either. That's what I mean by "procedurally identical and legally equal": keep it simple and the same, except for the stupid and meaningless term you use up-front. Any two spouses who want to file proceedings to sever the knot, just call it the same thing regardless of the gender equipment configuration situation: that's a D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
For any morons: I would like to point something out. It should be obvious. This is not "separate but equal." You do not have to report to a shittier college, with subpar textbooks and no activities budget. There are no facilities and infrastructure involved except for the person across from you in bed, who believe me, will be the same person whether you call it "Marriage," "Espousal," or "Adultery." So if you can just give the first two conditions IDENTICAL LEGAL RIGHTS, then your entire fight is won.
For now. Two to five generations down the line, when the world is finally ready for the inevitable, we can get "Marriage" officially re-classified as a special subclass of "Espousal." Which frankly, it really was all along.
Let's also leave Adultery rights for later. Adultery is less about rights than privileges anyhow.
In the parlance of diplomacy: there's your "compromise," bitch!
Welcome to it.
Comments
In the future, in the year 2043, couples and trios and quintets, loving groups of various types will bind themselves to each other with vows and customizable social contracts, and no one will bat an eye.
Perhaps they will call it something else, though. I don't see that as a wholly unreasonable compromise.
Then of course I realized: this is no mere topic. This is a Tough Topic. So the post-title joke had to go, because at that point - Tough Topic? I don't play.