When marriage meets politics

I received this urgent message on my email out of the blue two days ago:

What's marriage?

What’s marriage?

It just shows how important the definition of ‘marriage’ is to many people. I had never known of this organisation, C4M (Coalition for Marriage),  before and I was surprised to receive this email.

This email was sent to many voters for their support of the One Man + One Woman marriage. The Conservative Party later lost miserably in the by-election yesterday. Some people think the Conservative Party paid the ultimate price for its failures on immigration, employment and its stance on gay marriage.

10 thoughts on “When marriage meets politics

  1. Bill Hayes

    The issue is very easy. Out of 60 million people in this country, a few hundred people of the same sex want to express their love for each other by getting married.

    No one has proposed a law that marriage be outlawed, that everyone must marry the same sex. All is well, the sanctaty of marraige remains. Too many people are getting upset about things that will never affect them.

    It’s just like the Uk Idiot’s party who scored a great hit round where your chickens roam. About the problems of immigration – that’s in a town where 92 per cent of the people are white and English. Perhaps they all fear they will have marry Romanins of the same sex – all those bristlely beards.

    They will be gone by the morning and you can gather your chickens again.

    1. Red Slider

      I’m sorry Janet if I’m out of step here, but what’s all this – What “tradition”? Whose “tradition”? This is just nonsense – who elected somebody to co-opt the language, define it exclusively for themselves and then privilege themselves with a whole bunch of legalisms for special treatment and rights? Maybe the Buddhists or the Catholics or the Pagans should decide that “religion” is about one of them, exclusively, and move to remove it from the dictionary of any who would employ it otherwise? “Tradition”? Phooey – fear, xenophobia, demonization and a nice dodge for the problems one creates on their own within their own practices. What (to reflect on the comment above) if its only two people out of 10 million who want to call themselves ‘married’? So what? How does that couples (or threesome or what have you possibly affect anyone else and what traditions and practices they wish to adhere to — other than in their own fearful minds that require everyone agree with them in order for them to feel secure in what they do.

      “What is Marriage” – why its nothing more than a little agreement between some folks (number and kind unspecified) to relate to each other in a certain way (unspecified). A statement of some mutual agreement between them about their lives together and their relationship. Reproductive organs have little to do with it (else, infertile people would be barred, women with hysterectomies would be barred, the elderly who have lost interest would be barred…blah.). Frankly, I don’t think the state should even be involved – I don’t think there should be special privileges for married folk (do they have them in the U.K.?) but that only can make the exclusions that much more egregious.

      In Defense of Marriage

      In that world,

      you would not have been waiting
      years to prove what you already know,

      things true enough for yourself as it ever
      needs to be, and of no concern to us;

      nor would you be hauling your sacraments
      up some courthouse steps for state approval,

      nor suffer the unabated trance of Sisyphus
      pushing against the endless rock of the law;

      nor would a mountain of fear and superstition
      bar the way to the simplest of human affairs;

      your healthcare would not be an appendage
      of belonging to someone else,

      no bankruptcy would glare down
      upon your sickbed, doubling your pain;

      nor would you need travel distances to find
      the found of ‘Lost & Found’; it would always be

      an unlocked door, open 24/7 in every state,
      “this is what I am to you; this what you are to me,”

      this is what we will remain,

      whether said in a church or written down
      on a napkin or whispered on a wind-swept hill,

      no custom’s man would stop you at the border
      to say, “you can bring in ‘this’, this and this,

      but your beloved must be left behind, by reason
      of a line drawn on a map; they cannot stay.”

      No, in that world, no litmus test would stand,
      nor any means for fifty other benefits denied;

      we’d not abide the theft of love, nor hide
      the act of caring for each other;

      empathy would not be in such short supply,
      and marriage? Why, nothing more than a reach

      across the divide of separation, defended most
      by that which puts an end to the pretend
      of isolation from each other,

      in that world.

      red slider, 2012

      1. Janet Williams Post author

        Dear Red Slider,

        Thanks for your reply. It’s a long reply and thank you for your contributions. Your message’s very enlightening.

        The aim of my posts is to inform my readers about the crazy things in the little world around me, from runaway chickens to the more bizarre and ridiculous political world.

  2. Pingback: My Site Table of Contents – I did it! | Janet's Notebook

Post a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s