parriage n.
 For
decades I have expected all legal limits on same-sex marriage to
pass into oblivion. Not so. Still, I have thought that there
is possibly a genuine need to keep the term marriage for its traditional
duty, expressing a valued -- even sacred -- meaning. A neologism
would seem to recognize a key distinction -- hey, a new word ought to facilitate
ungrudging social and legal benefits for same-sex couples. Then too,
calling all nuptial bondings by the same old word
marriage would
impose new linguistic burdens. A traditional wife, for example, must
be sure to clarify that her marriage is to a man. When asked,
a traditional husband must answer, "Yes, I am married -- to a woman."
In the summer of 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States made a decision that decriminalized the private behaviors of same-sex couples. Fine. But that decision set off a flurry of public pronouncements, revealing how strongly political figures oppose such lenience -- many even favoring a Constitutionl Amendment to forbid same-sex marriages. Oh, well there was this one presidential reassurance in 2003 to the effect that "all persons are sinners" -- intended, no doubt, to be compassionate but instead confirming that cruel prejudices have yet to be dismantled. And then, and then... One Sunday morning in 2003, someone besides me came along
and expressed the need for a neologism. Thus inspired, I wrote the
following message:
Whereas the verb parry already exists in the dictionary
(to impede the movement of an opponent or a ball, as in sports or fights),
parriage does not (except here). Accordingly,
parry
would not be a pure neologism but a governmental appropriation -- for a
worthy cause. Until that occurs, though, the word parriage
belongs in this memoir.
|