British Lawmakers Approve Gay Marriage

[abu nuwas]

It is, I submit, as some MP said, a step into Alice in Wonderland. As of when does the government get to assignnew meanings to words? Can they say that gherkin means tomato? The United nations is henceforth 'arse'? Poetry is to be termed 'bollocks'? Really, do these little men have such power? Why have they been able to change the meaning, without quite knowing what they were changing it to? Why duck adultery? Is x to be know as 'husband' and 'y' to be known as 'wife'? Are people to be banned from enquiring whether a 'married' couple are husband and husband, or husband and wife? What on earth is the purpose? I realise that the gay lobby -- highly represented in the media, indeed over-represented -- feel a need to carry on campaigning for something-- but what is achieved? And what will the next great target be, which will be rammed down my throat day after fucking day?

No, I am not for it.

See its funny though, words are subjective. For a gay/lesbian couple marriage simply means a life-long commitment to each other. Religious folk like to add that it's "between a man and a woman". (similarly I'm sure certain folk would like add that it's between two similar coloured people if they had as much clout as the church.) Although words have definitions, they are often blurry and disputed, I say by all means the govt has a place to cement the definition in a way that makes for more freedom for those involved.

It's not just about the word though. My Mum moved to the US to live with her female partner; she had to go through 8 years of leaving the country every three months due to not being able to get a visa. If she was straight she would simply get married and hey presto be granted the rights of a straight person. But because she is a lesbian she gets sub human residency status. She is married now, but because it is a state by state law, it still isn't recognised by the govt. It is a matter close to gay people because it actually directly affects their lives in meaningful ways.

You cannot say that you speak for all gay people; I have just been listening to a man who is dead-set against it.

Nor can you say that gay people think that marriage means a life-long commitment. If they did, they would have nothing to be arguing about. But when was this idea that a long-term commitment meant marriage? I do not think it anything more than the latest step, and dreamed up fairly recently. Do you suppose Bosie thought he was married to Oscar?

As to your mum, I suppose she has the same chance of getting a green card as I do. I am not married. So is it unfair that I can't get in by the back-door?

You are talking about discrimination, and second-class citizens. I don't know if anything the British government can do will affect the US; forget that. But the country is littered with second-class citizens. Who? Well, let's see.

Suppose a person has a Polish mum, US Dad and is born here. They are certainly entitled to two passports, if not three. How is that important? Well, they can choose to play sport for different countries, which I could not have. That makes them privileged, right? Suppose they get in trouble in some other country, with which the UK does not have diplomatic relations, but the US does . They can avail themselves of the US Consular service--I cannot. More privilege, right? But I have skipped an important step: education. In this case, s/he has one extra GCSE/ A-Level in the bag, therefore better University chances, therefore better job. Serious privilege, eh? And in fact, there are many people from the Franco-phone Zone who speak, say, French and Arabic. Two in the bag. Do you ever hear people fighting to correct these imbalances and discriminations? Do you? Now I put it to you, that there are many more such pieces of unfairness than afflict the gay community.

I have also noted the curious case of the European Court of Human Rights. At back of any decision where there is an apparent clash between people's religious beliefs -enshrined in the Convention - there seems to be a simple principle, dragged up from nowhere, the gay trumps all. Why?

Now you have probably formed views about my real reasons for writing all this. Perhaps I am the devil you imagine, but, on here, we try to remain friendly, no matter what.

---

I don't think Jesus would mind a gay couple getting married. A lot of Catholics get downright old testament Jewish about these things.

There is a bit in Timothy and Matthew about men not lying with men. That's more what you might call New Testament, I reckon. And you can say Jesus would have gone along with anything. Remember his view that he had not altered the Law by a jot or a tittle. Especially the tittle.