To marry or not to marry? C'est le question...

God, I'm about as good at blogging as I am at keeping a diary. If I fill half of one in a year, I'm lucky. "Sporadic" is an understatment...

Anyhow, I've decided to give it a proper go. My topic this time is possibly the most divisive one going at the moment. Well I don't do things by halves. Yes folks that's right, it's good old gay marriage. Whether you're a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Christian/Muslim/Jew or an out and proud screaming queen, the chances are you'll have an opinion on this one. And maybe you'll even have an opinion that differs from all your other dyed-wool and screaming friends! Oh dear oh dear...

No but seriously. It's something I've given a lot of thought to, and am currently in the middle of another debate about. The question at hand is gay marriage versus civil partnership: which should we fight for? This is the main divisive issue within the gay community itself. Personally, I've always more or less favoured CP. Cue the self righteous screams of internalised homophobia from some quarters. I'm afraid it's not that simple however, and good old IH cannot explain away my opinion, or those of many other LGBT people. I believe that as a gay person, I am no different from anyone else, and deserve to be treated equally. In my mind, marriage is predominantly a religious matter, and I respect the right of religions to reject gay marriage as incompatible with their doctrine. While I personally have reconciled my sexuality with my faith, I do not expect my Church to reconcile itself with gay marriage.

So right, that's the religious aspect sorted. "But marriage is a civil matter!", they scream. As regards the civil situation, much of the argument to me seems to boil down to semantics. The main bone of contention seems to lie in the term "marriage". And while I am completely aware of the concept of civil marriage currently exists in most countries, as I said earlier it is construed as mainly a religious matter. I think the majority of objection to the whole concept of gay marriage comes from that association. Obviously, there are some "religious" zealots who froth at the mouth at the mere thought of any kind of social acceptance for gay people. I do think these are the minority though. I think most merely oppose the term marriage, seeing it as a sacred sacramental rite. Therefore, personally speaking, I don't see why properly functioning Civil Partnership legislation, which affords all the same rights and legal protections, can't be a viable option.

However, in relation to our case here in Ireland, the current Bill does not meet those requirements. I find the UK and French models to be more satisfactory. So I think fighting to improve the current bill may be a more pragmatic step than attempting to fight to have it called marriage. Yes, it may be a different name, but if it were amended to a proper and satisfactory standard to do essentially the same thing, then where is the inequality? I agree that marriage is in no way an exclusively religious preserve, although to me personally, that is a key aspect. I meant that society as a whole perceives it as such, thus making the actual term "marriage" so contentious. I think we have to be willing to compromise. Not roll over and take second class citizenship, by any means. But a modicum of pragmatism and realism is required here people. There appears to be a majority of people who support recognition for same sex couples, yes; but see marriage as being a religious institution for one man and one woman. And in the wonderful system we call liberal democracy, I'm afraid majority rules. So, do we try to change their minds by either a) shouting and screaming at them and telling them they're wrong, or b) organising mass protests demanding they accept gay marriage. Or, do we attempt to work with what is essentially the essence of politics: compromise? A huge factor in the debate here in Ireland is the fact that the proposed CP Bill doesn't offer protection to children of gay couples, thus denying the existance of LGBT families. I agree, that needs changing. Sorry to disappoint all you social conservatives out there, but rather like LGBT people themselves, LGBT families are a de facto reality, whether you think it's right or not. And they need legal protections. I just think that these can be achieved just as well with proper CP legislation. I'm arguing that we compromise on terminology. Think about it: why do LGBT people (who are not religious, that is) want to marry? To have civil rights such as kinship, inheritance, family stability etc. So if civil partnerships could provide these, does the name matter?