Suggestion for "gay marriage" advocates

As I've stated before, I certainly have no problem with gay couples seeking a way to legalize their relationship. You can say it a million times, though, but it does not change the fact that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not a matter of "rights." You have every right to be in a loving relationship with anyone you want (if it is of legal age and not coerced) and you have every right to seek a legal definition for your relationship. But to take a concept that has from its very beginning been specific to one relationship, a man and a woman in marriage, and force it to "mean" you too is just unproductive and wrong.

I understand that you don't like the terminology such as a "business partner" or a "contract" for what you consider a love relationship. Instead of forcing "marriage" to mean you too, why have you creative sorts not tried for something better and unique to you? Why have you not, for example, started a grassroots movement for a "covenant relationship."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/covenant

Main Entry:
1cov·e·nant
Pronunciation:
\ˈkəv-nənt, ˈkə-və-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from present participle of covenir to be fitting, from Latin convenire
Date:
14th century
1: a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement : compact
2 a: a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action b: the common-law action to recover damages for breach of such a contract
— cov·e·nan·tal \ˌkə-və-ˈnan-təl\ adjective

Here's what I mean. The word "covenant" was good enough for God to use to describe his promise and relationship to the Israelites. The "New Covenant" was used by Jesus to describe the previous relationship with God to now be fulfilled and started anew for Christians and God. So if the word "covenant" is good enough for God to use, why not adopt and adapt that concept for your committed love relationship?

Some states recognize a "super marriage" kind of contract called a "covenant marriage." This does not mean that people who covenant marry have more rights or are "better" than "regular marriage" recipients. It is a way to characterize the relationship so that it is not so easy to break or dissolve. Thus it has no implication of lesser rights, impact on work benefits, or public recognition. Some people want, usually for religious reasons, to have a marriage that is a larger "statement" than a regular marriage, and they therefore developed the idea of a "covenant marriage."

So my suggestion is that you work state by state to develop a new legal definition that is called a "covenant relationship." Instead of trying to make "marriage" mean something that it does not, why not make something that truly suits you? I'd in fact argue that others could use "covenant relationship" besides gay couples. There is an increasing trend toward extended family members living together, or what you might call virtual families. If you wanted to be truly liberal and broad minded, you could put your efforts into defining a new concept of "covenant relationship" that covers, for example, elderly family members who live together, so that their rights are protected too. I'm just saying you can do better than put a gun to the head of a definition and claim that it is yours too.

Some states will accept a "covenant relationship" and then the employers in that state can decide to extend "marriage benefits" to "covenant relationships" too. In states where there is not public support for it, then that is the will of the people. But many surveys show that people do not object to gay committed love relationships. They object to hijacking marriage to mean something it is not, like when Captain Picard is tortured into finally saying that five fingers are four fingers, if I recall that episode correctly. A gay committed love relationship is not a marriage. But there is no reason you cannot take a beautiful concept and draw your own relationship, rather than deliberately misunderstand people who defend the concept of marriage for what it really is, and call the idea of a "contract" cold and emotionally unfulfilled.

So I think if you are really as broad minded and love oriented as you say you are, you ought to use your commitment and creativity to develop the idea of what I'm calling here, just to give you a good idea, a "covenant relationship." I think you will find that this is what people who keep pointing toward a contractual relationship (rather than hijacking marriage) really mean in their heart of hearts. Everyone is trying to find room under the tent for everyone, but we must still have tolerance toward everyone. Gays who insist that marriage is a "right" that is being "kept" from them are being intolerant of married people. Witness the purging of "mother" and "father" from school texts. I think if you have such great relationships, why are you not blazing your own path of something even better and "more tolerant?" If "covenant" is good enough for God, why can this not be an accurate describer of your love for your "mate" or "partner?" Hey, how about "covenant partner?" Gosh, that actually sounds more uplifting and noble than "spouse" or "married partner." And it takes care of that other problem, being calling each other a husband or wife if you are not actually comfortable with that. Take two lesbians. Why should you call each other "wives" or "decide" that one is the "husband" if that is not how you actually authentically feel? Think of a term that would be more appropriate within the context of each of you being a covenant partner. Lots of you are well educated, English or literature majors and so forth. Look at how "covenant" comes from the French term "covenir." French is such a beautiful language. Why not develop a really beautiful and new set of terminology for covenant partners, borrowing words like that? Leave husband and wife to the people in a relationship that this literally describes and develop terms that are just as fulfilling but more appropriate to how you yourselves view your relationship.

It would be much easier for corporations, government entities, not for profits and other employers to add "covenant relationships" to their pertinent list of benefits than it would be for fighting about whether you are "married" or not. If, for example, California had "covenant relationships," then each employer adds recognition of "covenant relationships" to their list of benefits. You could even argue that some benefits fit better to "marriage" or to "covenant relationships." For example, covenant relationships might justify a higher level of a certain type of benefit than marriage, and the reverse might be true. I'll leave it to the legal and social wonks to think about that.

This also makes for clarity with religious organizations. Some religious organizations will recognize "covenant relationships" where they can not recognize a "marriage." You could actually make this a good thing rather than an ugly confrontation. I'm assuming most people of good will would favor that. And yep, I'd walk a friend entering into a "covenant relationship" down the aisle of whatever organization is sponsoring their binding ceremony.

I hope this helps. Gosh, why would you not want something that is all your own and more than "equal" but "right?"