September 19, 2014

Source: Shutterstock

Seeing the two sides united in matrimonial myopia proves quite the spectacle: I”€™d call for a toast, were I of similar viewpoint. As it stands, however, all this noise about the inherent meaning of marriage strikes me as nowt more than petulant special pleading. And whilst holy rollers correctly call out homophiles for their short-sighted sanctimony, they, too, peer at history through something of an Overton window in order to defend their definitions: how many of today’s marriage “€œtraditionalists”€ prop up polygamy or laud levirate unions, to name but two examples?

Rejecting such intrinsic-ism leads me to take a rather dim view of folk who would force their values down the throats of the unwilling, whether they be Prop 8 supporters in California, or homophiles calling for coercion against churches and confectionaries unyielding to their wants. Ideally, the definition of marriage would be as unique as each coupling (and congregation) that chooses to contract it, with no legal requirement for any other parties to approve of a given definition: in short, freedom of contract and conscience. Alas, too many ideologues in both camps glance askance at such a prospect, mired in a mindset both presentist and totalistic.

If McCoskrie and his socon brethren removed their blinkers, they”€™d see that breeders hardly need benders to “€œmove marriage away from its proper intent and purpose”€: the prevalence of Vegas weddings, mercenary marriages, and “€œgreen card”€ nuptials bears testament to that. Just this week I read of plans to put together a televised “€œsocial experiment”€ (or “€œreality show”€) involving the pairing of complete strangers”€”such reverence! This myriad of marital motivations has helped keep The Edge”€”the station behind the rugby-related wedding”€”on the airwaves, what with their penchant for capitalizing on said scenarios.

Taking all that into account, doesn”€™t McIntosh and McCormick’s marriage of convenience stand as a symbol of the homophilic victory: a perverse acceptance into the wider marital melange? Instead of taking exception, the missionaries of monogendered matrimony would do well to take heart. This is the “€œmarriage equality“€ you fought for, ladies and gents”€”enjoy it!


Columnists

Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!