On “gaytrimony” and “gayrriage”

by Doug Lawrence

Since we know that marriage between one man and one woman will always be the norm, and anything else would be so qualitatively different as to be something else entirely, I think it’s time to give that progressive new “state in life” where same sex couples choose to bind themselves to each other in a mutual covenant, a legal definition and corresponding name that is clearly different and absolutely distinct from traditional matrimony/marriage.

Instead of the word “matrimony” … which defines a holy covenant between one man and one woman … we can have “gaytrimony” … which legally defines something else, entirely.

Instead of the word “marriage” … which properly defines the state of holy matrimony between one man and one woman … we can have gayrriage … which legally defines a totally different state in life.

Pressure groups could go on to lobby the government for whatever particular benefits and privileges they might desire, but the integrity and proper definition of the holy institution of matrimony would never again be in danger of being hijacked, and the distinctive legal definition of both “states” would remain permanently and absolutely clear.

This way, everyone will be able to “have their cake and eat it too” yet there will be no doubt whatsoever that the particular “states” of  matrimony and “gaytrimony” will always remain quite different and distinct, despite any accidental similarities.

Some might call this just another version of “separate but equal” … but that’s only because the homosexual rights movement has been, up to now, politically linked to the issue of racial equality. And that’s just wrong, since sexual preference and race are two entirely different things.

There’s absolutely no personal choice in selecting one’s race, but there is always a great degree of personal choice in how one chooses to conduct himself/herself/itself  in regard to personal, particular sexuality … whether hetero, homo … or other.

That’s just the way it is.