(Kindly read to the end before forming an opinion, if you please.)
Ludicrous. Mad. Insane. How can modern law-makers think to deny a basic right to people in love? I’m talking, of course, about the current ban on gay marriages.
It would help us a great deal if we would take a moment to consider just what a marriage is, traditionally speaking.
According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, we find the following meanings: 1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. 2. The state of being married; wedlock. 3. A common-law marriage. 4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage. 5. A wedding.
The 1996 edition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law isn’t too different, explaining marriage as: 1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law, and 2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created.
I guess we can’t really mess with the definition of marriage itself, then, since it seems to be a legally sanctioned religious convention. After all, how many atheists have "lived together" within the bounds of "civil unions" for the past few hundred (or thousand) years? And how many of them have insisted on calling themselves "married" ? (Ok, maybe some of them have, but let’s focus for a minute..) Because really, the institution of marriage is somewhat sacred to The Big Three (meaning the religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity), but loads of people cohabit, or otherwise turn their noses up at "tying the knot." These same people may not label their cohabitation as "living in sin" because they don’t think it is a sin, even though it is (where the Big Three are concerned, anyway).
An interesting phenomena (to my thinking, anyway) is the one where a good number of totally unreligious people have expressed a longing for a "spouse," which is currently the term for "person you’re married to." Now that we’ve beaten a dead horse within an inch of its life (that’s a rather gruesome cliché, if you think about it, actually), I guess we can call Problem Number One (the one about "marriage vs. civil unions") an issue of semantics.
The second problem is a bit more far-reaching--it involves the nature of these unions, and the conventions surrounding them. On one hand, lots of people don’t care for the religious restrictions involved with any of the Big Three, and live as they please, shunning any connection with religion. On the other hand, there are a number of people within these very designations (Christians, moslems and jews) who live as they like and yet claim to be as much of a follower as The Next Guy, even if The Next Guy frowns upon the lifestyle that the First Guy leads.
What am I talking about, then? I’m talking about the homosexual "Moslem," or the heterosexual cohabiting "Christian," neither of which is living by the rules of his religion. And it’s these people, those who want to have all of the benefits of their religions, but none of the costs or responsibilities, who are behind Problem Number Two.
Why? Because they DON’T want to settle for something called a "civil union." No, they want the rings, the reception, the rice. But on to Problem Three before I forget…
The THIRD issue revolves around just WHAT constitutes a civil union. After all, a current one involves one man and one woman, and in some states, two members of the same sex. But why only two? What about three or four-person couples (threesomes, swingers, etc.) who want a permanent arrangement? Why are THEY denied the legal (and social) benefits of civil unions?
Another thing that might cramp the style of some star-crossed lovers is the age thing--I know that different states have different limits, but what about poor Mary Kay Letourneau? The love of her life was only 12 when they got together (she was 34), but they share two children, and he’s 21. They’ve been together for almost a decade (through her firing, prison terms, and the social stigma that‘s encroached upon their union)! That’s longer than some marriages last! I do realise, of course, that some older people force younger people into sexual relationships, but we’re not talking about that now, we’re talking about love. Is it really FAIR to keep someone from marrying an infant?
But who said that love couldn’t span the animal kingdom? I’d really rather not go into details, but there are a great many documented cases of humans who’ve "fallen in love" with different non-humans in their lives, including sheep, giraffes, barnyard animals, and pets. Why deny them a civil union? Is it really fair to keep man’s best friend from inheriting the house in Tuscany after many years of faithful love, loyalty and, erm, service?
So. We get to my proposal. The Marriage/Three Proposal, so named because of the current restrictions on the three characteristics I just went over--the number, age and species of the happy couple--and how it’s not fair to deny them from the institution of marriage.
You might be a bit shocked--after all, wouldn’t one expect a married party to at least be prudent, and of sound mind? In two of the previous cases, the age thing and the species thing, there could be arguments made that the person doing the marrying isn’t of sound mind--and therefore might not want to get married in the first place. But what about human adults who aren’t of sound mind? (And there are LOTS of those around. What is a sound mind, anyway?) Ohhh, I guess that, as long as all parties applying for a marriage license are smiling, or at least, not frowning, then that takes care of that. (Woe to those with depression or constipation, however.) After all, if you’re happy and they’re happy, how can there be anything wrong? (Hint: if your toddler seems to be upset, buy them candy and toys; if your llama doesn’t want to don a wedding dress, give her some maple-sweetened oats, they’ll perk her right up.)
At any rate, I feel as though this proposal, the Marriage/Three, is the wave of the future. It will only make things better, and help all of the currently outcast members of society fit in better. Think it over and write your congressman today! (I would have included the family thing in my proposal--that is, the ban on marrying cousins, siblings, and parents--but "The Marriage/Four Proposal" didn’t have as nice a ring to it as "The Marriage/Three"!)
---Sally Bishai---
Editor’s note-- the preceding was a JOKE, the idea is actually that only one man and one woman constitute marriage, and that anything else--I’m hoping just two members of the same sex who are of legal age and the human race--would count as a civil union and not a marriage. Write to your congressman with a proposal to marry llamas and you’re going to be in a world of hurt, I promise!
