Threatening Gay Marriage

[eatmywords]

The US have continued an assault on same-sex marriage with last night's passing of Amendment One by 61%. There is now a US legal definition of what a marriage constitutes, that of one man and one woman under God. In consequence of this vote it seems likely that other states will now follow and ban the marrying of same sex couples. The replacing of Richard Lugar by the Tea-Party and NRA supported Richard Mourdock is a clear indication which way the wind is blowing in the South.

It seems rather hypocritical that a Union that separated God from State over 60 years ago with the Scopes trial is now invoking their God to appease their own religious conscience: "Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Votes for Marriage NC, the main group behind the amendment, said: "We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage. The whole point is you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."" The main impetus for the passing of this amendment came from various sectors of the Republican Party, with republican observers, tea-party campaigners and religious radicals all overwhelming the State running of the election: "When asked whether the trouble was coming from the groups for or against Amendment 1, Sims said: "Put it this way: we had zero Democratic party observers." He added: "I've probably said more than I should."

The problem I see with gay marriage, or even just relationships, is that it is now nearly 50 years since legal gay rights were established in the UK, but I think this rejection of union between same sexes is a damning indication the public, in its majority, still rejects homosexuality in most of its forms. The US does seem to be taking steps to keep homosexuality off the streets, and the majority of North Carolinians seem to want it this way. If you think gay-rights in the US are in for an easy ride, then think again, "Chris Christie vetoed New Jersey's law and opponents in Maryland and Washington are threatening ballot initiatives to overturn those state's laws"

Do you think gay-marriage was forced upon the heterosexual, and this is merely the reaction when the majority have been marginalised? Do you think Britain will follow suit in banning civil-unions, or remain a sea of calm amid American radicalism?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...t-1?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ns-amendment-1

[HonestJoe]

I don't feel there is a general rejection of homosexuality in the UK. I think there are highly vocal minorities at both extremes and a vast majority in the middle who don't really care all that much either way. I'm not sure about the US but wouldn't be surprised if it was similar - those articles don't give the turnout figures for the North Carolina vote.

I'm largely in the don't really care group - quite frankly this issue doesn't impact me in any significant way. I do lean towards favouring homosexuals having a right to legally recognise relationships and I strongly object to the idea that the religious in general and Christianity in particular owns the word "marriage".

I think the socio-political landscape is different in the UK, which is why this issue is not at the forefront here and why I don't see us having any such votes for bans or restrictions. I certainly don't see anywhere in the UK being short-sighted enough to push through a law with the potential to impact the rights of so many different people just in an effort to prevent homosexuals using a word.

[Northumbrian]

Do you think gay-marriage was forced upon the heterosexual, and this is merely the reaction when the majority have been marginalised? Do you think Britain will follow suit in banning civil-unions, or remain a sea of calm amid American radicalism?

Unfortunately, rational America has been overwhelmed by the rise of evangelical Christianity in the last few decades. It is widely acknowledged that any politician over there who admits to not believing in God is committing electoral suicide. The founding fathers of America, who were all committed secularists, whatever their personal beliefs, must be spinning in their graves.

Luckily for us, this seems to be a peculiarly American problem amongst the western nations. Gay civil partnerships have been widely accepted here and so will gay marriage. There will be a few dissenters of course in the older generation (my own dad probably amongst them) but happily we are much more tolerant nation when it comes to this sort of thing. Two people forming a loving and devoted relationship is worth celebrating, and is worth the official recognition of society, whatever the sexes of the people.

[Northumbrian]

You timed this thread well, Eatmy, with Obama just announcing that he supports gay marriage. Never been a huge Obama fan myself, but I have to give it to the guy. It is refreshing to see a politician speaking out with conviction, even when he knows it will cost him a lot of votes over there.

[eatmywords]

I was reading about Obama accepting gay-marriage in principle, but he still needed to be "enlightened" on the matter. I'm not sure the timing on the man is too good. I'm never happy about people being forced to make a decision in such circumstances. In line with the US the defence secretary, nonetheless, Philip Hammond has said legalising gay marriage in this country is not a priority that could be achieved in the short term.

"Clearly it's not the number one priority. If you stop people in the street and ask them what their concerns are, they'll talk to you about jobs and economic growth, they'll talk to you about the level of the wages they're earning, wanting to see real growth in wages again." He added: "There is no legislation in the Queen's speech [on gay marriage]; there's a consultation going on, and we should look at, listen to what people are saying in response to that consultation.

"But I think the government has got to show over the next couple of years that it is focused on the things that matter to the people in this country – not just the short-term things but the long-term things as well: the reform of our education system, changing the welfare system – which is like turning around a super-tanker – changing the welfare system so that work always pays and people have an incentive to work."

That is, excuse the pun, the strangest "but" ever, because it does not conjoin a contrasting argument. It is clear however the Conservatives are not fully comfortable with the issue of gay marriage, and I would therefore assert they are not comfortable with homosexuality: "Senior Conservative sources have claimed there are at least four cabinet ministers and several junior ministers who will vote against any proposal. But those within No 10 say Cameron is reluctant to back down because he sees gay marriage as a key symbol of his plans to modernise the Tories' image."

[Northumbrian]

It is clear however the Conservatives are not fully comfortable with the issue of gay marriage, and I would therefore assert they are not comfortable with homosexuality: "Senior Conservative sources have claimed there are at least four cabinet ministers and several junior ministers who will vote against any proposal. But those within No 10 say Cameron is reluctant to back down because he sees gay marriage as a key symbol of his plans to modernise the Tories' image."

No, it is only clear that there are some Conservatives (doubtless along with some Liberal Democrats and some Labourites) who are uncomfortable with the issue of gay marriage. There are many Conservatives, including the leader, who do support it. Lets remember that the last Labour government did not go as far as gay marriage, but only brought in civil partnerships, so I think the Tories deserve some credit here.

Phillip Hammond is being a bit disengenous here, but he doesn't represent the whole of Tory opinion. Of course people are concerned about the economy and sorting out the mess Labour left behind should be the government's first priority. However, that doesn't mean that the government doesn't have time to do anything else, and one would hope that passing this legislation through parliament (despite bigoted fools like Nadine Dorries, who will argue against it) shouldn't take too much effort.

[eatmywords]

Wouldn't you find it amusing if you did stop those people in the street and all they talked about was gay-marriage?

[Casper]

I support civil partnerships , but I'm one of over half a million people who has signed the Coalition for Marriage's petition to keep the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it primarily because I'm concerned that churches will be sued if they don't perform gay weddings..

Furthermore, as an ardent defender of freedom of speech, I am alarmed to have noticed how discussions about this issue of gay marriage are being banned.

Even the ASA has been posing a threat to freedom of expression.

[Northumbrian]

I oppose any attempt to redefine it primarily because I'm concerned that churches will be forced by the threat of legal action to perform gay weddings.

I don't have a problem with churches being forced to perform gay weddings. It is wrong for them to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Surely if JC had been alive in the 21st century, he would have had no objection to two people in love making a lifelong commitment to each other in his church would he? If he did have an objection, then it wouldn't say much about his morals would it?

Personally, I can't understand why a gay couple would want to marry in a church anyway, given the amount of prejudice that still exists against them from some quarters of the Christian community.

[Casper]

I don't have a problem with churches being forced to perform gay weddings. It is wrong for them to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples.

I don't believe it's acceptable to force anyone to do anything. Discrimination is this context simply means to make a difference / exception. But we make such discriminatory choices between people all the time. Why is this wrong?

Surely if JC had been alive in the 21st century, he would have had no objection to two people in love making a lifelong commitment to each other in his church would he? If he did have an objection, then it wouldn't say much about his morals would it?

I don't think Jesus Christ would have stopped a gay couple from any ceremonial commitment to each other. However he most certainly would not have forced anyone to participate and preside over it.

Personally, I can't understand why a gay couple would want to marry in a church anyway, given the amount of prejudice that still exists against them from some quarters of the Christian community.

The prejudice that exists is indeed a most unfortunate thing. Nevertheless, there is still a substantial gay community existing within the Christian community.