GAY MARRIAGE IN CHURCHES, LET BATTLE COMMENCE

Who has the power to redefine social structures such as marriage? Well it appears that David Cameron has!

Cameron on BBC News: “But let me be absolutely one hundred per cent clear, if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn't want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it!”

Let me just say that I don't really have a horse in this race, though I am sympathetic to the idea of civil partnerships.

It seems to me that once again when current politicians get involved, they'd rather create a new law instead of amending an existing one. They should look to their history and learn the lessons their forebears learne; that politics is less about implementing optimum solutions; it’s more about stopping the worst!

The problem, as I understand it, is that current ‘Civil Partnership’ legislation does not confer automatic ‘next of kin’ status in the event of one partner dying intestate. The surviving partner therefore has no legal right of inheritance over any property or monies, even if the couple has been living together for many years in a shared property, whereas the surviving partner of a marriage does.

Therefore, the simple answer would be to amend the law accordingly, allowing couples who have committed to enter a ‘civil partnership’ to inherit in the same way.

The issue is whether this should receive the recognition and endorsement of society through a change in the law and all that implies?

I have to say that I remain dismayed at the unbelievable stupidity of Cameron and others who are pushing through a completely undemocratic policy, where the majority of people in this country have expressed their desire to continue to see ‘marriage’ remain between one man and one woman.

If Cameron and his supporters are 'so for' the institution of marriage, then presumably they understand that one of the main purposes' was to join in sexual union and be 'as one body'! - Leading to procreation

In my opinion, holding-up lifelong marriage between a man and a woman as the ideal is important. We should not be about lowering standards and expectations, simply because people fall short of it! Ideally, we try to understand what is undermining it and seek to put proper supports in place to put it right.

This proposal to put 'gay marriage' on an equal footing will 'ratchet up' the pressure even more and devalue the family unit further.

As I see it, the crux of the argument seems to be over the word "marriage" and the religious component.

The dictionary defines Marriage thus: Marriage: c.1300, "act of marrying, entry into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife;" from O.Fr. mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum (11c.), from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage"

Marriage is a word that relates to the joining of ‘one man with one woman’ that is known across the world. By redefining it you are thus going to either confuse or infuriate many countries. After all, if marriage is redefined then the French equivalent, "marriage", will no longer directly translate as it will still mean the joining of 1 man and 1 woman. So we will be in the ironic position of having to use a French word to describe a proper marriage which is spelled the same and sounds more or less the same, but not quite.

This issue, far more than the theological ones, must surely be used to try and make David Cameron and his pals in the coalition see sense. Otherwise we simply have to despair at the quickest fall from intelligence to insanity in the history of the world.

This is an issue which should concern all thinking people, whether atheist, humanist or religious. Cameron and Clegg are attempting to redefine the core building block of society, the family unit which gives humanity its ability to renew itself in an orderly way, in fact to replicate. The introduction of new legislation is therefore tantamount to messing with society's DNA.

 

So, to sum up, I think it is reasonable for homosexuals to expect a legal form of civil partnership. This of course should not be called marriage, but an attempt to widen the current marriage laws in to same sex civil partnerships.

Another point, and one which seems fundamental when one speaks about the essentials of a traditional ‘marriage’ is the consummation of that marriage; and failure for this to happen used to be, and as far as I know, probably still is, grounds for annulment.

Therefore, as homosexuals cannot possibly consummate in a natural way, they cannot marry. By the same rule, non-consummation by same sex couples, should not be considered a reason for annulment in civil partnerships.

Before parliament and our politicians embark on this high risk road, we should ask a Royal Commission with members drawn from all walks of life; across all faiths, traditions and none, to assess whether this is really the direction we want our country to go in.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, anything else, is something else!

I'd be interested in hearing your comments.