Would you gmarry me?
Lot of turmoil, bellyaching, frustration, unhappiness, sterile triumphalism, whining, especially whining, about so-called same-sex marriage. A nation torn asunder, with hints of greater asunderings (yes, asunderings) to come. But old Briggs has hit upon the Solution to Satisfy All, a happy compromise which will thrill and delight and which cannot fail—if people have been earnest in their demands.
We have all heard the glorious shouts of “Equality!” and angry screams of “Bigot!”, with those singing them blissfully unaware that they beg the question. (The argument is whether SSMs should be equal or is right, therefore equality and bigotry cannot be used as premises; but logic has never been a prerequisite for political agitation.) The other side, traditionalists appealing to thousands of years of custom about the very fabric and foundation of society, beg “Leave us alone!” “Submit!” comes the reply. “What was shall not be. You must submit.”
The tension, as the saying goes, is palpable. Lordly decisions handed down from on high à la the Supreme Court do not and will not satisfy. The fix must needs comes from us. Here it is:
Let government marriage be called gmarriage and those that partake in these civil ceremonies be called gmarried.
Isn’t that great! The “g” can stand for “government” or “gay” as you like; the “g” is silent, like in gnocchi and gnat, which is its brilliance. You say gmarriage, but people hear marriage. It sounds like married, but it’s really gmarried!
The “Silent G Solution” acknowledges the “tide of pride”, the open and gleeful displays of sexuality that so fascinates a growing proportion of citizens. How can entire (literal and figurative) parades of non-dressed people displaying with whom or what they would seek their physical pleasure be stayed? Answer: they cannot. Traditionalists must retreat on this point. Retreat, I say: not surrender. But the “orientations” crowd must compromise, too. Good manners alone dictates acknowledging that the concerns of the other side are important.
In one camp we have the notion of free contracts, living arrangements set down on paper and agreed to by (the line goes) “consenting adults.” In the other, lovers of freedom who don’t want to be forced to call marriage what it isn’t, folks who don’t want to lose their liberty and livelihoods just because they won’t compromise their faith or reason.
Gmarriage satisfies both. If a group of five men want to call themselves gmarried, and they can agree to a contract which specifies the limitations and responsibilities of that arrangement, let them! If a church insists on performing only marriages and not gmarriages, let them be! If two or more ladies want to elevate their coffee klatch to the highest (or lowest) levels, fine! If a florist beholden to her conscience would cater solely marriages, say “Live free or die!”
Let the Silent Gs negotiate with the government for the monies and services they desire. It is, after all, these monies and services which we are told form the basis for their demands of same-sex “marriage.” Far be it from us to deny anybody anything they can squeeze out of government (slogan: “Taking From Others To Give To You“™). Therefore let people who are gmarried petition the government for whatever they want. The government is certain to acquiesce.
I don’t know how the government will split an individual’s social security benefits among his (say) four gmarriage survivors, but that is a mere bureaucratic detail. Bureaucracies have proven themselves infinitely creative in dispersing other people’s money. They’ll work this out.
SSM proponents should accept the Silent G Solution eagerly and gratefully. It gets them the money they wanted, it allows the government to “bless” their living arrangements, it sets up the mechanism to grant them every social right except one; it denies them just one very small thing. They may gmarry at will, but they must agree not to harass or to demand resignation from those who say that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
Is this not fair? Should we not allow a full half of the population some scrapings from the table? Should we not heed at least a whisper from thousands of years of tradition? The only complaint will be that gmarriage is not marriage. Yet Omnipotence itself cannot make the two equivalent. The scientifically natural man-woman mating for life for the purposes of procreation and rearing of children just isn’t the same as other living arrangements. If it were we’d never have had this argument in the first place.
Permission is given to repost this article as long as a link to the original is included.
Jodi Rose, Australian Artist, Marries 600-Year-Old French Bridge Le Pont du Diable. Gmarriage for everybody! Shall I translate the French for us? (Thanks to Gary Boden for link.)
Priest says, “I would also advocate a change in terminology. From now on I will refer to a Catholic marriage as ‘Holy Matrimony’.” Link.