That more and more countries are beginning to recognise the rights of gay, lesbian and transexual people to marry, and that they be accorded the same rights as heterosexual citizens, is true democracy in action. Democracy is a subjective idea: it depends if we are talking about the democracy of The Netherlands, or the democracy of Bulgaria or Utah. For the LGBT community that would amount to the same thing. The majority of states in the so-called progressive Union prohibits same-sex marriage. But we have known, for a long time, the disparity in equality even in First-world countries.
I'm a libertarian: my view is that every citizen who pays taxes should be equal under state legislation. Right down the line. Even, I feel, that we should all be allowed to carry guns (if necessary). If we can't rely upon a government that assures it can 'protect' us, and people are victimised with few rights to defend themselves, I agree with it. That gay men and women should have to petition their governments, pleading their case as equal citizens, is revolting and an affront to fundamental humanitarianism. What constitutes love & partnership ? And who should judge it ? There are heterosexual couples who live in miserable marriages that end shortly in high battle and vodka-fuelled, expensive acrimony. There are gay couples who, unfettered by the constraints of law, the responsibility of children or the chess problem of divorce, enjoy long partnerships. And they can often walk away from a shared bridge-loan, if not a lovingly reformed domicile, without legal reprisals.
Divorce is growing. Marriage, in the main, is not really working for many people. Our expectancies of partnership is often sabotaged, even prior to picking out a jaundiced lemon for the bridesmaids, by the sheer force of advertising. It is the marketing idea that somehow, we can always do better. Hence, picking up your partner's discarded underwear and popping them into a quick spin-cycle becomes something of a deal-breaker. Basically, people watch too much television and identify with the impossibly air-conditioned lives of its female protangonists (often forensic psychologists who live, somehow, mortgageless in Vancouver.) Well, some people have survived wars to be together. Passion. Perspective. Even the best of relationships need a certain amount of work and compromise. Life is in flux and we all change and evolve.
I understand the viewpoint that the LGBT community should petition rights to marriage under the Church. It is the religious & political system one lives with. Even into the 21st century. However, one is emulating a dying institution. Why not have relationships that may include other people ? Relationships that open-up and expand the ideal of the heterosexual model ? I imagine that is a difficult idea, because for many people it kills the notion of romance, and of exclusivity, which we are extremely attached to.
But the fact is, most probably within 50 years, the idea of marriage will be over.
I'm a libertarian: my view is that every citizen who pays taxes should be equal under state legislation. Right down the line. Even, I feel, that we should all be allowed to carry guns (if necessary). If we can't rely upon a government that assures it can 'protect' us, and people are victimised with few rights to defend themselves, I agree with it. That gay men and women should have to petition their governments, pleading their case as equal citizens, is revolting and an affront to fundamental humanitarianism. What constitutes love & partnership ? And who should judge it ? There are heterosexual couples who live in miserable marriages that end shortly in high battle and vodka-fuelled, expensive acrimony. There are gay couples who, unfettered by the constraints of law, the responsibility of children or the chess problem of divorce, enjoy long partnerships. And they can often walk away from a shared bridge-loan, if not a lovingly reformed domicile, without legal reprisals.
Divorce is growing. Marriage, in the main, is not really working for many people. Our expectancies of partnership is often sabotaged, even prior to picking out a jaundiced lemon for the bridesmaids, by the sheer force of advertising. It is the marketing idea that somehow, we can always do better. Hence, picking up your partner's discarded underwear and popping them into a quick spin-cycle becomes something of a deal-breaker. Basically, people watch too much television and identify with the impossibly air-conditioned lives of its female protangonists (often forensic psychologists who live, somehow, mortgageless in Vancouver.) Well, some people have survived wars to be together. Passion. Perspective. Even the best of relationships need a certain amount of work and compromise. Life is in flux and we all change and evolve.
I understand the viewpoint that the LGBT community should petition rights to marriage under the Church. It is the religious & political system one lives with. Even into the 21st century. However, one is emulating a dying institution. Why not have relationships that may include other people ? Relationships that open-up and expand the ideal of the heterosexual model ? I imagine that is a difficult idea, because for many people it kills the notion of romance, and of exclusivity, which we are extremely attached to.
But the fact is, most probably within 50 years, the idea of marriage will be over.
