Garriage(TM) – finding a workable compromise

I have emailed politicians and written extensively on the issue of marriage, since it first shot to prominence with government proposals, north and south of the border. Over the course of many months, I wrestled with the implications of such a fundamental change, our history of tolerance and diversity and the differing views on both sides of the debate.
Previously, I have submitted information to government departments that appears to have been incorporated into their consultations or strategy blueprints, without any acknowledgement of source, so that is one reason why I see the petition as a useful tool to clearly state the origins of this proposed compromise.
As far as I can see, this proposal answers all the primary (and legitimate) concerns about same-sex marriage. It is an elegant solution that gives both sides what they want. As government cannot legislate for what happens in the private bedroom, then this seems the fairest approach that works with and improves what is already happening in our excellent institutions of church, school and court.
Garriage (noun) – marriage-like union made freely between two people of the same sex; Adj. = Garried™ & Verb = Garray™
Quedding™ – “queer” wedding
I do not want to see the definition of a word – marriage – which has served Scotland so well for millennia to suit the latest cultural trends. Instead, let’s build on our reputation for creativity and respect for difference by creating a new legal state that people can, if they really wish, aspire to and claim for their own. Homosexuals have already changed the meaning of too many words, like “gay” or “queer”, to the extent where their original connotations have been badly confused. I believe it is time to clearly re-define what really matters.
Legal distinctions between these two states would be around issues like access to IVF. As same sex couples cannot biologically and naturally conceive children, we do not believe the state should enable this to happen. Any research or sponsorship of three-person IVF should be immediately suspended, particularly as it is incredibly costly at a time of financial austerity when so many who are already alive struggle to make ends meet and those in wombs are terminated. As our population mushrooms, we most certainly do not need extra children artificially created in a test tube, but to better protect, look after and nurture those who are already living. To this end, resources would be re-directed to supporting successful adoption agencies with proven track records.
Children in schools would be clearly educated about the risks (and causes) of various STIs and other illnesses. For example, the proven connection between anal sex and cancer ( Generally, education in schools should focus more on the potential harms caused – in terms of physical, mental, social and spiritual health – from multiple partners and unrestrained promiscuity, as well as the benefits of lifelong stable cohabitation. Schools should invite in couples who have reached content “Golden Anniversaries” to share their stories of what makes for successful partnerships.
PSHE should also include more emphasis on the importance of exclusive, committed relationships, as well as tips on how to handle conflict, particularly those that would occur later in life (i.e. seemingly divergent career paths, varying views on family size). This could be explored through role playing and personal reflective writing.
In terms of churches, those wishing to exempt themselves completely from “garriages” would have to add “Bible-believing” into their title or constitution. This would provide all the legal protection required and a cast-iron opt-out from performing any kinds of ceremonies that would be against their conscience, reason, convictions and principles – all clearly stated in their agreements or covenants drawn-up by the local memberships. Paul in his letter to Timothy clearly states that “all Scripture” is “God-breathed” and John includes a stern warning against adding anything to “the words of prophecy of this scroll” (Revelation 22:18). As the Bible clearly excludes and prohibits homosexuality (though not close male friendship). This is clearly evidenced in at least four Scripture passages Gen. 1:27, Lev. 18:22, Matt. 19:4-6, Rom. 1:26.
The government and civil service should be given time to consult and negotiate the specific of these proposals, being informed by as wide a range of opinions as possible, whilst striving to preserve what is simple and easily understandable.
TM is merely an assertion of intellectual property rights. It is only intended that £10 (rising annually with RPI inflation) would be charged by the inventor of this term any time two people decide to officially use “garriage” to describe their relationship, though of course any state administrative costs would be charged separately, as per marriage. Any funds raised would be given directly to adoption agencies to finance their vital work. As it is hoped that this compromise could be extended throughout the world, Scotland (by respecting intellectual rights) could benefit significantly from adopting this proposal and creating this legal state. I must acknowledge, however, that another blogger in America did use this term a couple of years ago. I came up with this word and idea completely independently, though I realize that this claim cannot be properly verified and this may make the “Trade Marking” of “garriage” difficult, if not impossible, to defend.
However, if politicians want to recklessly change the fundamental meaning of marriage, then we insist there must be a referendum (which conveniently could coincide with the vote on Scottish Independence).
In conclusion, please support this petition if you believe in the broad outline of this approach. Some specific details can be negotiated and discussed, but this is a thoughtful compromise, which means Scotland can move forward from this highly controversial issue, seeking to build a better society. I commend this to the nation.