Another Term?

I had an interesting conversation with a couple of co-workers today. We were discussing the potential for changes to our country's laws to eliminate the discrimination against gays and lesbians with regards to marriage.

Now, I've a long time felt that justice should be blind, and a blind application of our current marriage laws would not even ask the gender of the applicants – just the basics: Are you currently married? Are you of age? Do you consent? (Are you not too closely related?)

However, I've also felt that the term marriage is so embedded in our lexicon, in our society that we will have to continue to use it to describe the exclusive partnership that is two people coming together to share, care for and love each other. We will continue to go to the local government to obtain our Marriage License, we will still have the overseer of our ceremony sign the Marriage Certificate to show to all that we have publicly affirmed the required vows.

What was interesting in my co-workers' view was that the term marriage is not that central to our concepts: They maintained that the majority of America would be willing to jettison the term if it meant creating equality before the law for all. That instead of having marriage and 'skim milk' unions, we could simply (for the purposes of the law) replace 'marriage' with some other term, and re-write our current laws to eliminate the discrimination of asking the applicants if they represent one of each sex.

In this implementation, 'marriage' and 'wedding' would be non-legal terms reserved for use whenever and however people wished, but the set of laws that governed co-ownership, rights of survivorship, divorce, would collectively be referred to under a separate term – we would get a 'Legal Union' License, have a 'Legal Union' Certificate signed by the proper witness.

I find this intriguing for a couple of reasons. Number one, it eliminates the the arguments of many that 'marriage' is something that cannot be defined by our democratic legal system; i.e., if we take 'marriage' out of the legal lexicon and no longer use it to refer to a set of laws, they cannot argue that we have redefined it or dirtied it, etc. Want to use 'marriage' to refer to something specific? Fine. Our laws don't recognize 'marriage' as a legal construct, so use it as you wish.

Second, I find it intriguing simply because I had not considered that it would be a possibility – that Americans were ready to remove the term from our legal system and simply move on. My co-workers give more credit to the ingrained fairness and lack of historical concern to our fellow citizens. So I am curious: Are they correct? Are we ready to just drop this whole affair, rename our laws, restore the veil of blindness to justice, and move on?

One of the unsolved points will be, of course, what terms do we use to refer to the collection of laws that currently govern the union of two individuals? I used 'Legal Union' above as place-holders only, not suggested replacements. One co-worker suggested we appeal to our Latin roots, and use terms such as 'Nodus' (Knot), Ligo (Bind), or perhaps (and our favorite): Caveo (Beware)!

Try them out! Does it work? Imagine our children going to City Hall to get their Nodus License, signing their Ligo Certificate, or perhaps, exchanging their vows in an elaborate Caveo Ceremony (after presenting their license and completing with the solemn signing of the Caveo Certificate.)

Are we ready for that? Is this really a simpler solution to moving forward towards Equality Before The Law with regards to two-person joinings? If we just sweep aside the freighted term, can we achieve the fairness we seek and believe we should give to every member of society?

Do As I Say...(Boy Scouts Edition)

It should be obvious why the Boy Scouts don't allow gays or atheists into their ranks: They don't need the training that scouting has to offer, and their outstanding moral positions would prove to be a humiliating distraction to the rest of the poor boys who struggle with the 12 tenets of the scout law.

For who can demonstrate loyalty better than an atheist, who won't drop you as friend if he learns you worship a different god? Or a gay boy, who won't torment you for liking Sally or Billy, but accepts that liking someone and pledging undying friendship, kindness and love is the height of being human?

Either can demonstrate trustworthiness, thriftiness and cleanliness. And what of reverence? Being gay or atheist is a life lesson in respecting institutions that support connections between people, but rejecting any that smack of bigotry or prejudice. Showing reverence for hate and fear is as wrong as lacking any reverence.

With their extremely tolerant views of others and willingness to offer the freedoms for others to pursue goals as they want the freedom to pursue theirs, the presence of gays and atheists within an intolerant, struggling group of Christian Scouts would prove a constant embarrassment.

(And what of the members of the LDS, who deemed the Book of Mormon insufficient for instilling moral character into their boys, and added the canon of Lord Baden-Powell alongside as the sole youth program for young men? Being bested in the mastery of cheerfulness, helpfulness or bravery by one who didn't consult either text might prove to be a debilitating demoralization!)

Instead of attempting to get in, gays and atheists should rejoice that they have mastered what scouting would teach them. They are the graduates.

And, never-mind that for a boy to fully understand Friendliness (offering his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respecting them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.); Kindness (He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not harm), or many of the other 12 tenets without the inclusion of all people, without leaders and an organization that lives those tenets and shows no prejudice, will, in the end, cripple him and his understanding.

For, obviously, the inclusion of gays and atheists within the ranks of scouting would prove too big a challenge, too great a test for the remainder, and their failure to live up to their tenets would become plain for all to see.