In the near term, those staunchly opposed to any accommodation at all for these couples are unlikely to change. Even more so, those who believe in equal rights for all are extremely unlikely to change. Yes, we may lose the occasional stray, sometimes based on a claim of "finding Jesus". Of course if someone would deny a fellow human being this basic shot at happiness for that reason, then Jesus must have been found while hiding in that person's colon, but I digress. Getting back to the civil union people, or as I like to call them, those who slept through social studies while the rest of us learned about the folly of the "separate but equal" doctrine found in Plessy v. Ferguson, I think a modest proposal just might bring about the critical mass needed to move us forward. This group understands that loving, committed gay couples deserve the same rights, privileges and immunities granted to traditional married couples, but they think the term "marriage" should be exclusively conferred upon couples consisting of one man and one woman. Let's discuss my proposal.
If it's really just the noun "marriage" or the verb "marry" providing the bone of contention, we can bridge the gap and bring everyone a little closer together with simple wordplay punning on the dual meaning of the word gay. I propose that gay couples forbidden to "marry" can now "merry" one another. If you don't like them merrying, can they "Mary"? Before you say no, think of the ancillary benefits. Even homophobes should love this considering the countless hours of fun they have referring to gay men by female names. For instance, "Hey, did you hear about Tom and Stephen? (now in a mocking falsetto) They're getting Maryed" If you listen closely, you can almost hear the Beavis and Butt-head laughter that would follow, before being drowned out by the din of the monster truck rally they're attending.
For those who don't see the point of this exercise, I can explain it. A significant portion of the population, enough to block fair treatment for same-sex couples, is doing so because they think the word marriage should be very narrowly defined but society should not withhold basic rights from couples who don't qualify for their definition of marriage. If we say that those who can't "marry" can "merry" or "Mary" then we bring into sharp focus and put a very fine point on the claim that they have chosen to stake out and defend a distinction without a difference, while the cruelty of demanding second class status for these loving unions is very real. People would then be forced to face the reality that either this is a silly fight over semantics, or perhaps these people don't really believe that gay couples deserve the same rights despite lip service to the contrary. Forcing these people to confront that head-on is probably a very important step in the right direction.
