You Look Fabulous!

I imagine the boys in the White House are horrified by Maureen Dowd's article today, Butch, Butch Bush!. Dick Cheney with a diamond stud? I don't think so.

~~~Here comes the gender-unspecified-member-of-the-wedding-party~~

Since everyone and their brother has been talking about gay marriage lately, I may as well throw my two cents in. It seems to me that this is a relatively simple problem to solve. I can understand the objections to using the term 'marriage,' which has a very specific sacremental meaning in relation to the union of a man and a woman. But, really, the main fuss is about the legal implications of 'marrying' two men or two women. There's some truth, after all, in saying that a man marrying a man is not the same thing as a man marrying a woman. It's not better or worse, it's just not quite the same. So, under the law, it makes sense to come up with a more specific term that indicates the relationship between two people of the same sex. Under the law there could be two forms of UNION: marriage, and the as-yet-unnamed equivalent for gay marriages. This would recognize the relationships as equal under the law, but as fundamentally different entities.

And, by the way, I hate the term 'gay marriage,' which sounds by its very nature parodic: a new term, without parodic intimations, really should be invented. One of the common feelings among heterosexuals is that homosexuality tends to exhibit and to exert itself not as self-definition but as a kind of parody or mockery of institutions and moral codes (and so forth) that others hold dear. Many of those who object to the idea of 'gay marriage' do not so much object to homosexual unions, but to the semblance that marriage (as idea, as institution, as ceremony) itself is being mocked or debased. Yes, I am aware that such people tend to have little objection to the concept of Joe Millionaire and the like, but.... I never said people were intelligent. Everyone has to realize that to many people marriage is sacrosanct, so, really, 'gay' marriage looks a lot like 'pseudo' marriage, which is a lot like saying one can be a 'little bit pregnant.'

So, as I see it, we have to make an affirmative, non-parodic name for gay marriage. Since Ontario is taking the lead in this, I suggest maybe we should create the name in honour of our Premier: gay men and women across the country, and throughout the world, can join hands in Erniage. We'll lower-case the E, and it'll look like any other word: people can get ernied and be recognized fully under the law. Sound like an idea? ;-) I jest, of course, but a new name has to be made.

So, under the law-- two forms of human union, each equal, each valid. Most religions won't go for 'gay marriage' as a sacrement, but perhaps they might eventually come to endorse it over the centuries, especially if marriage itself as an institution is left to stand as is. 'Marriage' has a very specific meaning, and to expand the term in affront to many accepted ways of thinking is to undermine that meaning, and to undermine it unnecessarily. Really, we have two sides in this debate-- one that has had rights denied it and seeks recourse, and another that sees its traditions and ideals under attack. The way I see it, one side can have its rights met without attack the ideals of the other side. Yes, it may sound awfully close to the 'Separate But Equal' argument that became such a fiasco in the US years ago, but equality and sameness are not exactly synonymous. We need verbal precision here, especially since the law is ultimately about language, about the Letter of the Law.

This blog, however, would like to aver that he fully supports the idea of erniage. After all, homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals to make their lives persistent exercises in domestic misery. So there.