Nobody ever asks them “Why?” at least not in interviews where the moderator/journalist is sat so firmly on the fence that they’ll be pulling out splinters till late-September.
Today it was Stonewall and the Church of England going cordially toe-to-toe on Radio 4’s Today Programme that infuriated me more than some of the content of the documents both have released today. When asked what the Church’s issue was the answer came back identical to that given in almost every interview over the past few months: “The traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman”. I want them to say why this traditional definition is still paramount but not some others.
When asked why the Church of England were concerned with the proposals the Bishop commented that if the definition was changed suddenly it could have damaging consequences to the nature of marriage. Why would it? How would it? What basis is there to think such a thing never mind use irrational fear as a reason prohibit something with no discussion or debate.
If civil marriages for homosexual partners are legislated then the Church may face legal discrimination challenges from the European Court of Human Rights. Again…Why? Marriages are prohibited to some couples seeking them after previous divorces and those religious organisations haven’t had to fight legal campaigns against them. If a church would prohibit a same-sex marriage and is vocal in their opposition then in why would a same-sex couple wish to be blessed by that organisation? If the couple are committed Christians, Jews or other then why would their faith group wish to deny them? The only reason fathomable is the way that homosexuality is still viewed by these religious groups. Something disdainful, sinful, against their belief; that’s not the way our society and laws work anymore. Even the claim that churches defined marriage and so still retain a claim over it is laughable when 68% of marriages in the past two years have been civil marriages; unconnected to any religious context or connotation.
More than answering any questions on their position I want them to clarify their basis for their own position. Why do you have that position? No bluster, no bluff, no misdirection or claiming that we shouldn’t meddle. I want to know why a person, group or country denies me the same rights as another. I don’t wish to get married for a whim; it would be short-sighted to claim that homosexual couples would act as one body and treat it with the utmost reverence but heterosexual couples are frequently highlighted for their speedy engagements and unfortunately quick divorces.
Where civil partnerships were a great step forward in improving the standing of same-sex partners who wished formal or legal recognition of their relationships, they are not marriage. If it’s said that they should be kept as the sole option I want to know why I should be happy with something that is different. Every time I hear arguments that speak of the ability to produce children or what people did centuries ago I want to counter them but each time stop because it’s ludicrous that I should have to. If someone is going to define marriage in such a specific way then they clearly don’t understand why people get married; because they love each other. Each roadblock is just a way of trying to prohibit me from doing that and I want to know why some people think that is alright.
It is not that I want to get married but not have a civil partnership; it is that it is wrong for there to be a difference. Just because I am a homosexual does not mean I have relationships that are less than that of a heterosexual but at the moment the laws propagate that view. Whatever historical or pseudo-logical reason being quoted for why marriage doesn’t apply. I want to be able to marry someone that I love, why some couples can do so but I cannot is wrong. Someone should ask those responsible within the Church of England why they aren't being specific or honest as to why they don't want me to.
No comments:
Post a Comment