Marriage; for you and you and you! Marriage for all!

So Britain (by which I mean England and Wales) today legalized same sex marriage, thus finally joining the western world.
We became part of that special group including; Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and several states in Brazil, Mexico and the US.

(I must also mentioned at this point in my usual cynical way that this is not yet into law, but has at least passed through one house; the commons - to go through completely the Lords must first debate it and then the Queen sign it off - commentators do not see this as a problem however.)

I feel that generally this has never been an issue for most people in the country, despite the 175 'no's to the left'. The arguments against this have literally ALL been religious ones that can a) be dismissed in a biblical scholastic sense as well as b) floored completely from a human rights point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHcz6kcMIJA - is a cool show that offers some straight forward views on the subject.

The main one is that by equating marriage it will undermine the whole institution. In my opinion marriage is a complete farce, not necessarily the best way to structure society and is failing anyway. I'll explain my points about this specifically in a later blog I'm sure. So in some respects I do think that this bill today will help undermine marriage - by taking away its exclusivity from those Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditionalists who want Gays as far away from their culture as possible. This breaking down of religious 'purity' is important in helping to quash it in the long run.

I'm also glad for once, of the connected church and state, so that these points can be talked about properly - it is COMPLETELY the issue of the state to talk about these things as they are so closely linked. Republics (usually intended secular states) I fear can sometimes hide behind the "it's none of our business" card when it suits them.
Religious freedom however means that only those who want to perform these ceremonies, would do, which is EXACTLY how it should be. I hear often that those opposed feel that the slippery slope will lead them to a point where they are forced to conduct these ceremonies but this is simply not going to happen:

 - Religious freedom trumps church-state - much like today where another human right has trumped the church-state.

The argument that I see is this: Marriage is a religious ceremony where followers unite under the rules and watch of god. It is a religious ceremony and so shouldn't it simply follow its religious customs? The answer; no. For a start marriage now a days is so dilute, so entirely different from the ceremonies that have taken place in the past; for a start you can now marry between races, the woman isn't automatically the subservient locked up housewife, divorce is as common as anything else now a days and dowries are long gone in most places. The fact that it has been changing so quickly is just a natural societal progression, of which equal marriage is the next step.

The final point is the question "Why are civil partnerships not good enough?". They convey exactly the same rights as a marriage and are no different other than by name and genders of those involved. The reasons in my opinion come like this. For one, when someone puts on a form that they are in a civil partnership it immediately signals their sexuality out. It's sad to say that some people are still discriminated against because of this in job applications or work visas etc and this points them straight out. Civil partnerships are a way therefore of segregation - 'you're different so have to go into this group'. They are collected together because of a specific feature and in direct comparison if there was a policy where only black people could undergo this civil action purely because they are different, there would be utter uproar (which is what there has rightfully been from the Gay community).
Second to this is that there are in fact many religious gay people, gay Anglican ministers, bishops (and of course gay paedophilic catholic priests) are not uncommon. To them the religious aspect is important and in this case their religious freedom is violated and therefore entirely unjust. If it wasn't for the religious connotations in this debate I would imagine the European Court of Human rights would have stepped in a long time ago.

'And I leave you with this thought' - which undermines the institution of marriage more, Brittany Spears' 30 minute marriage which announces violently clearly that it simply means NOTHING, absolutely nothing, or same sex loving commitment?

Until next time xx