|
I don't want to intrude into the realm of Fraternity law but it would seem to me that the word 'fiance' is the problem. How is the word defined? I don't think that Webster's defines it as ONLY the female half of the relationship.
In a jurisdiction that permits gay marriage then arguably there are two guys, each of who is the fiance of the other.
Under our present statute it would seem that giving a badge or lavalier to the non-member guy in the relationship would be permitted as he would qualify as a fiance. We all know what the INTENT was but the present day result of this old language could give an unintended result.
I know that there are Brothers who are gay. I know that many are in long term relationships. I have been to Fraternity functions where partners have been in attendance and welcomed openly. The world has changed.
But I can clearly see the ambiguity if a guy, who isn't a Brother, shows up wearing a badge or letters.
Perhaps a change is needed to the C&SC to address this. I don't think it could be gender based unless we want to risk a lawsuit in the future. We may see the use of the friendship pin in place of the badge or letters - that would be the simple solution.
|