“So what if my budgie wants to marry my cat? What then? Would that be allowed in your world?” So goes the level of “debate” under Tom Chivers’ blog on Gay “Marriage”.
Stupid, isn’t it?
What’s actually on the table? At the moment same gender couples can enter into a civil union in the same way that mixed gender couples can with all the legal rights and duties inherent to that union with the proviso that they can’t legally call it a marriage and they can’t include religious readings, symbols or music and they can’t take place in a religious venue. Speaking as someone who had a civil wedding I can tell you that this is exactly the same as a civil wedding, we weren’t allowed any signs of religion at our civil wedding either.
The change is that churches that want to could allow such ceremonies to take place on their premises with religious readings, music and symbols in place. Churches that don’t want to, don’t have to.
“Oh no!”, say the naysayers (or “Oh Nay!” maybe). “Then if a church says that it won’t do the ceremony then the gays will get Stonewall to sue them and force them to do it.” Only they won’t, not under the legislation proposed, they won’t be able to. “Oh No/Nay! Then they’ll get the ECHR involved and force them to! We should leave the EUSSR!” they’ll cry and they’ll run about distraught about the advent of doom, and bestiality and the downfall of Western Civilization.
Really? Would a gay couple, looking to bless their union under the sight of God in the firm belief that their preferred deity would so bless that union then sue the church and hope to preserve any illusion that they had respect for the institution of that church? No. Well, not unless they were arseholes.
“Oh right, so what about that gay couple that sued the B&B owners, were they arseholes?” Well, if they went there knowing that they’d likely be refused service and the legal action was gratuitous then yes, they are arseholes.
“Ooh you can’t say that, that’s homophobic, you’ll get sued” If someone decides to sue me for that, they’re an arsehole too.
I mean, for pity’s sake, going around getting offended simply so you can sue someone is arseholery.
Take adoption agencies. Quite big news with the charming Trevor Philips making his pronouncements at the moment, if a gay couple went to a Catholic adoption agency and were refused service because they were gay then they shouldn’t have been all that surprised. The Catholic church’s opposition to homosexuality isn’t exactly a secret. No gay couple in existence doesn’t know about it. Any such resultant legal action is arseholery, plain and simple.
“Ah ha!” The gays might say (some gays, I’m sure many will see where I’m going with this and leave well alone) “What if we set up an Atheist or Gay only adoption agency and refuse service to Christians, what then?” Well then if a Christian couple goes to your hypothetical agency, is refused service and then wants to kick up a stink and bring the law into it then they’re arseholes too.
And so is your cat. I think your budgie’s in for a world of pain too.
Look, it’s a big world out there, there’s room for everyone if we all show a bit of give and take and don’t run to the law like arseholes at the drop of a hat.
“Ah, but what if there’s a dog and a gorilla and two hamsters and they all live together and then …”