“Pairriage”: A Thought Experiment

After writing this several days ago, I held off posting hoping a better neologism would occur to me.  As that was not to be, I must ask you to suffer through my rather clumsy nomenclature.

Imagine that a group of people, dissatisfied with the existing forms of family structures—i.e., marriage—decided to create a new structure around which to organize their own families and communities.  The paramount concern to this group of people was age proximity of couples who sought to enter long term relationships and start families.  They decided that the relationships best suited to form the basis of a family were those in which the partners were no more than five years apart in age.  Gender did not count for anything, in their opinion, and opposite-sex or same-sex couples were equally suitable to form the core of a family unit—so long, of course, as they were within five years apart in age.  Same with race and religion: these had no bearing whatsoever, in their opinion, on whether two people could form a healthy family unit.

Imagine further that the disapprobation of age gaps felt by this group was based on a deeply held moral belief.  When pressed, however, some members of the group might offer the rationale that all other distinctions traditionally recognized by societies throughout history are outdated and unfashionable, and the only factor that ought to matter is a common temporal root in the culture and community because they will tend to have fewer more shared cultural connections.  Thus, they believe, couples with large age gaps are less capable of forming strong and lasting relationships.  However, this view is not borne of empirical observation, but only upon deeply held conviction.  Indeed, most observers suggested that the above rationale offered by the community was ad hoc, and did not explain the deep-seated moral belief for the disapprobation of age-dissimilar couples.  Similarly, some members of the group cited religious or historical texts to support the basis of their moral beliefs, but by no means all.

The community and their affinity for age-appropriate couples eventually became quite widespread.  So much so that its adherents began “Pairing” with one another.  Initially, rudimentary ceremonies were performed, typically in what became known as “pairriage houses” officiated by “pairsons,” and attended by friends and family who were invited come and witness the couple’s “Pairriage” to one another.  Later, however, the ritual evolved and became elaborate affairs, and cottage industries of pairriage dress makers, parriage wedding florists, and pairriage wedding cake bakers sprang up.  These ceremonies, at the early stages, were private affairs that had no legal effect.

As a result of the growing cultural acceptance of Pairriage, the institution became socially accepted.  Hotels offered “pairriage-moon suites,” “pairee” became accepted terminology, and it became commonplace for doctor’s offices and employers and banks to ask for a pairee’s information as an emergency contact, or as a co-signer on loans and mortgages, etc.

Because of this widespread cultural acceptance of the new institution, the state decided to formally recognize pairriage in its laws, such as to make more efficient and accurate the administration of pairriage licenses, applicable state housing or education loan subsidies, affordable home welfare entitlements and food stamps, foster care and child care services, presumptions of inheritance and child custody, etc.  These laws were identical to the state’s existing marriage and domestic partnership laws.

After a time, however, pairriage became so commonplace that in certain areas, it became socially awkward for a couple to not become pairiraged.  In fact, many people largely abandoned marriage in favor of pairriage, as marriage and its vernacular of “husbands” and “wives” became outmoded.  People felt awkward and even stigmatized when trying to explain their relationship to creditors or employers.  To refer to one’s mate as a “husband” or “wife" suggested antiquated, comical, and even offensive social roles.

Although they attempted to get pairriaged, however, some folks were turned away by the pairriage houses and pairsons, who refused to pairriage them.  Moreover, because the state’s laws recognizing pairriage had adopted the socially defined definition as “any two persons whose ages are not more than five years apart,” the state likewise refused to issue pairriage licenses to such couples who did not meet this minimum definitional requirement.  They could, of course, still marry or register as domestic partners, and thus become entitled to all the same legal benefits as pairriaged persons.

Believing they were being deprived of the equal protection of the laws by the state’s refusal to grant them pairriage licenses, and believing they had a fundamental right to be recognized as “pairriaged,” a few of the aggrieved couples filed a lawsuit against the state to compel the redefinition of pairriage to permit two people of any age to get pairriaged.  All of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit were couples who happened to be of opposite gender, and thus were perfectly entitled to become married.  Thus, to the state’s objection that plaintiffs were still permitted the same rights and entitlements under the marriage and domestic partnership laws, the court replied that “the withholding of the designation ‘pairrage’ significantly disadvantages plaintiffs,” citing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, striking down California’s definition of "marriage."  The court thus rejected the state’s definition of pairriage, and required pairriage licenses be issued to any two persons who applied for one.

Is this the right result?