Little if anything has been offered here on marriage as oneman+onewoman, for one of my silly reasons: we are playing with words. I now understand what our Jesuit professors, the college ones, kept repeating: Define your terms. They knew well that the conclusion is already lurking prior to the defining.
That led me to a silly way of joining disputation by not raising raise the level of discussion and staying low, real low, below the ground so to speak, in denotation, tossing out all connotations as the struggle for victory in disputation persisteth.
OK, why not, then, legalize these unions and name them what they are, i.e. Define your terms.
A Partnership. So, the twain are partners in a partnership and can enjoy all the special liberties, privileges, legalities granted to one man and one woman married to each other. Without discrimination of any kind based solely upon gender preferences in that defined union, their names can be in wills and estates, on tax returns, letterheads, even visit each other in the hospital when dying, or, insult of insults: “Whom shall we call?”
Nope. Too much of a business smell to it. Not high-uppity as corporation, where the big boys and big girls fling along with briefcases and coffee cups
Go ahead, get fancy and call it Limited Partnership, when you know darn well it is so limited it isn’t even allowed. Restrict that term, then, to two women? Seems to be OK, doesn’t it? Not much fuss when they live together, walk friendly down the street to go work in separate cars. But, wow, get a load of rage – anger plus fear equals rage – leaping from masculine eyes boring in on two guys strolling gaily down the street, hands in other’s rear pockets, heading blithely home.
OK, try Union. As in labor unions? C’mon, the first thing we think of is the wardheeling boss; bet you it’s no woman, except in a seamstress factory. Besides, women bosses in Unions don’t do too well, do they? Union means coming together, yet not really one; just a group, whether little or big. No separate unique part alone in a Union, and no women twogether [sic] ever function as a singularity. This one shows how the disputation is skewed by asking it be named “Same Sex Union.” The cast die stays where it tumbled, rigid, unmoving, owns the whole table.
Maybe just Friendship? The kind of gettogether where you wave instead of holding hands, two or more lonely hearts pretending, perhaps large enough to be called a team? Friendships could last, even should one move cross country to the other coast where the ocean is on the wrong side when you’re walking north, or even south. Easily replaceable when one lops off. Board a bus and smile. But, gangs find it hard to rent apartments, build houses big enough. Friends, it should be noted, do not necessarily live together with just one other friend, not even with two more.
Nope, Friendship, is simply too neutral to describe what is going on. Naming is not easy. It’s like branding. It burns through skin, makes the branded how, stays deep, lasts for a long, long time, even forever. That’s what the church had in mind, I think, with the word “marriage.” And that’s OK, even praiseworthy, but a churchly definition cannot be imposed on others who do not belong to the church. Even the church notes the distinction between the “marriage” by church and by state. Church deems marriage a sacrament, conferred on each by the parties, witnessed by an ordained priest. State calls its version “marriage”, witnessed by a civil servant, a Justice of the Peace. The church distinguishes its by calling the state’s “a civil marriage.” Passing by the temptation to call the other “uncivil” please note that the other word -- “marriage” -- is confusing, very confusing, when used by both organizations, church and state.
For an excellent treatment of the word “marriage”, please go to Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage. Reading that entry should convince you that the problem is not same sex couples but the encrustations on the word “marriage” over its relatively short life as a word since the 13th century.
The state, however, ruined the word “marriage” by granting legally fabulous privileges not granted to single persons: inheritance, trusts, income tax filings, visitations restricted to blood relatives and those related by marriage. There are other perquisites, none of which are enjoyed by the singles.
Take the word sex or its first cousins out of the nomenclature for two people living together and avoid the word marriage? There, right there, the discussion ends. We promise much when two persons decide to live together, but those of the same gender are blocked by the law. Why? Because, whether said so or not, sex is the secret of the mix. Leaven it in and minds roam. Leave it out and religion provides the definitions. Should religion be of no concern to you, drop in on a philosophy, then, one not notable for its promiscuity. Such as ancient Greece, until the word got out about little boys, or south sea island nations where matriarchs plod and roar, without forgetting Mexico where little girls are laid outside to die in the first few days of life.
Think of the easiest thought: will this same sex union create kinship? A family? No, it is not a marriage between genders, but two of one gender living together. Living together does not offer civil privileges. How is it that sex between genders can and does?
The more my mind roams the body, the more I think that sex is much larger than gender. It swarms: sex with another, sex in a group, plain, simple, ordinary, plentiful sex anywhere, anytime with whomever, however, as long as it lasts, and when that dissipates, sex alone, till death do us part. If you don’t want to live alone, don’t. Go find a man, a woman, a friend, a unionizer, a live-in companion, and move to a state where same sex unions are legal. And binding.
But, please, for goodness sake, don’t play with words and pretend you’re discussing an issue of governmental, philosophical, theological variances, when you can’t handle a definition of terms before you discuss.
********
Overheard in a strict Catholic gettogether – Roman, that is.
A bitter fellow speaks, “I’m agin’ that there same sex union BS now bein’ floated
on the lake of talkin’ ‘bout issues.”
“How come, strict friend?”
“Cuz the definishun ain’t the same as for real marruj.”
“And that be?”
“One man. One woman.”
“Have you ever heard of polygamy?”
“Dat don’ count, cuz dey cain’ count. To a polly one plus
another don’ add up; like havin’ a beer after six o’ them.”
“So marriage is limited to a couple only?”
“Dam right ‘tis.”
“OK what do you call a union of one man + one man, one
woman + one woman.”
“Stoopid. Homos. Lezzies. ”
“Be nice.”
“Wanna fancy word? Profligates. ”
“Aw, c’mon. This is a disputation on genders in marriage, isn’t
it?”
“OK. OK. Dey’s called same sex unions.”
“You got men friends, don’t you. Go out golfing together, walk
side by side, give a hand out of a sand trap. Right?”
“Ain’t sex.”
“Oh, you mean marriage is sex?”
“ ‘Course I do. No sex. No marriage. Brother and sister stuff
widout even the foolin’ aroun’.”
“Well then, how about something non-sexual in a marriage? Inheriting,
pension beneficiary, filing joint returns in taxes, having a joint checking
account, wearing gifts of rings, and so forth?
“Evry buddy has dat stuff. No laws agin’ it.”
“Not so, my friend. Check the laws about relatives having more
privileges than friends, especially when one is dying in a hospital. Why not
one man, one man. one woman, one woman, sharing? That’s all.”
“More ‘n one if’n yer real hungry.”
“You can be crude, can’t you?
“Crude? Maybe, but still Roman Cath’lic.”
“But you think that’s all illegal, so that a buddy can’t visit
his buddy in the hospital because he’s not a listed relative. And the IRS won’t
allow joint returns and their benefits either.”
“So what. You wan’ them rights, git married.”
“Not fair. Not fair. That’s discrimination. It’s unconstitutional.”
“Look dum ass, make it legal if’n you wanna be a goody-goody,
but don’ call it marriage.”
“You know, you’re still playing with words, and I’m talking
about two people who want to live together and enjoy the rights and privileges
of being a couple.
“Playing? Am not, OK? Back off, smart guy. This is for real.
Only one man an’ one woman kin do that stuff togetha, so we kin be a society ‘n
not a zoo. The Church says so and the State agrees that a marriage is only one man
with one woman, separate and different genders. Real real.”
“For a joint checking account?”
“Don’ fool wid me, Busta. I’m dead serious. Marriage is one man,
one woman. God said so.”
“You be OK if we come up with another word for two guys or
two girls getting together in a legally recognized union?
“That’d be OK wid’ me. Don’ know ‘bout my friends, though.”
“How ‘bout Duotude, Togetherites, Jointics, Twobies? ”
“Dumb ass, if’n dey are same sex, it’s gotta be called a Same Sex Union ‘n never a Marriage. Never ever. You playin’ wid’ words.”
“Aren’t you?”
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment