With apologies to Lord Carey
Recently a debate has been sparked about the nature of marriage in Britain, and whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The obvious answer is a resounding Yes, but as I’m paid to write articles (OK, I’m not) I shall expand upon the issue.
This isn’t a question of ideology or even religion. It is a question of the fundamental moral make up of the country’s populace. Do you agree that all people are equal regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation yada yada? If you believe it, actually believe it, rather than paying Tory lip service to it, it follows, unquestioningly, that consenting adults can marry. I would go so far as to say that the State doesn’t need to know your sexual orientation or even your name if you don’t want them to. So long there is no coercion and you are above 16, no one should have the right to interfere.
If you say you believe in equality but claim that homosexuals shouldn’t be able to marry, you don’t believe in equality. Sorry. I wouldn’t mind if they could admit it. The whole charade of an argument is as absurd as those in early 20th century, when people seriously considered whether it was right to allow people of different ethnic backgrounds to marry.
There are a few things that people are precluded from doing due to biological factors (if you are reading this thinking that homosexuality is a choice, you probably won’t like the rest of it, might be best to head back to Alabama). Men can’t give birth (Thomas Beatie may dispute that of course), women can’t er…be attractive to gay men? Actually on reflection there are fewer things that people in one group can’t do that another group can than I thought. Banning Homosexuals from marriage seems to me like banning left handed people from mosques, or white people from fairgrounds.
There is no logic other than some deep seated moral refusal in the minds of those who haven’t really thought about it. The fact of the matter is that if people deny another group a right, it is because they believe them to be inferior in some way. They may not even consciously do it, but that is the reasoning. This actually factors in rather nicely with the farcical rules on blood donation by homosexuals, but that is for another occasion. Suffice to say the camp that thinks they shouldn’t be able to give blood tend to be the same as those who think they shouldn’t marry.
True personal liberty means the acceptance that anyone should be allowed to anything that doesn’t hurt or impinge upon another person. It should take most reasonable thinking people about half a second to compute that to deny gays the right to marriage goes against the tenets of that word the Americans love so much, “Freedom”.
It didn’t take the left very long to figure this out; in fact they have been campaigning for gay rights since the sixties. Labour and the then Liberals took up the fight, and have been fighting the Conservative party on the issue ever since, dragging them bodily into the 21st Century. Then, behold, Cameron comes out with a painfully skewed justification for gay marriage.
Apparently, according to Dave, marriage is the best thing since sliced prosciutto, and so we should be encouraging stable marriage for anyone that wants it. Wonderfully right wing: Forget the fact that it is a person’s right to be with whomsoever they choose, regardless of gender or sexuality, no, it is marriage the tories are defending. It is an impersonal, intangible and evolutionarily bizarre legal document that Cameron defends, not the people involved.
Unfortunately for the PM, and for Ed Milliband, members of their own parties have joined a bible inspired cult called the Coalition for Marriage, headed by the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Carey. Like the anti abortion lobby that have coated themselves in a friendly moniker, one group says they are “pro-life” but mean they are misogynist hillbillies, and the other says they are “for marriage” when actually they are anti-equality dullards who have been cowed into submission about other civil rights issues due to the fact they were palpably wrong, but have now found a new vessel in which to vent their spleen. I note, with some pride, that there aren’t any Lib Dems on the list of signatories (although I now also wait with trepidation for someone to prove me wrong).
The most quoted argument by the Coalition for Marriage is that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. However, the word “sacred” has no objective meaning. As most of us are rational and don’t believe in ghosts, daemons or Nick Griffin, there is nothing sacred about a marriage, and the state certainly shouldn’t recognise it as such: That way Theocracy lies. If you want to view your marriage as sacred, good for you, don’t expect anyone else to.
If a marriage isn’t sacred, then it is just a union between a man and a woman. Well, legally, homosexuals are allowed to have civil unions, and straight people aren’t. They are recognised as legally the same in terms of rights of partners. The state of affairs is absolutely ridiculous, civil union if you are gay, marriage if you are straight, but they mean the same thing in law. Homogenise the two, either we accept homosexuality and heterosexuality as fundamentally equal, or we don’t. Either marriage for all or civil partnerships for all, otherwise we are pointlessly splitting hairs.
Personally I have trouble finding the divine in something that half the time ends up with wealthy lawyers and broken homes, but I have no intention of forcing anyone to accept my opinion of it. I personally think that people should just try and be happy, without the need to sign a binding legal document. If you are intending to marry, straight or gay, I think you are mad – but good luck to you.
Posted on February 23, 2012, in Coalition Government, Comment, Conservative Party and tagged Coalition for Marriage, conservative party, david cameron, gay marriage, labour party, Lib Dems, Lord Carey. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.