I really shouldn’t write blogs when I am angry, because the punctuation and spelling goes totally to pot, but I am beyond angry now, I was angry when someone like the Archbishop of Edinburgh starts appropriating marriage for the Church, and being in the sole purview of the Church who can define it as it wishes. One of the things that I find grotesque about the Cardinal’s outrage against Gay Marriage is that he does see two major points in his argument – firstly living a life of celibacy and being technically married to the church he seeks to deny a loving and fulfilling relationship with another person, this is the true perversion of the argument against gay marriage it is that a group of people are set on denying another group of people those rights which they enjoy (or in the case of the good Archbishop, doesn’t through his choice).
According to the Archbishop:
The natural law teaching of what marriage is quite simple. It is natural for a man and woman to be together for the procreation and education of children and for their own mutual love.
I’ve got some news for the Archbishop, his view of marriage is limiting and excludes a lot of legally married couples who, through choice or circumstance, are childless, and some wish to remain childless. Whilst I appreciate the Catholic view of marriage is of a sacrament this is not the argument, but in a sense it is a sacrament that should be enjoyed by all, equally, without discrimination.
It is not that I am arguing for special rights, I am arguing for equality, that’s all the argument is about, equality.
It says a lot about the Church – and from the people I know it’s not the church it is the church politic that objects to gay marriage – to say that marriage is a natural institution I have to ask the Cardinal, since when? I find no reference to God saying ‘you should get married’ (OK, Jesus went to a wedding, but I can find no juncture to ‘get married with exclusions’) and even if we could how could we fold in the story of other faiths having a marriage ceremony? Marriage is a natural joining together of two people, who want to publicly commit their love and devotion to each other – it has nothing to do with the church, it has nothing to do with christianity and has something to do with the State because it is the State, and thus society, that defines the legality of the marriage.
The arguments against gay marriage are those that were used for interracial marriage in the America’s not to long ago, and I imagine upheld by the Catholic Church then.
What the Cardinal is talking about is not some God ordained state that exists in perpetuity, not an institution ordained under God – if it is ordained under God could someone tell me why atheists and agnostics can get married – and not the cornerstone of our society, all the Cardinal is talking about is discrimination, pure and simple, and it does not have a place in democratic societies.
The Government is accused of redefining reality, when it reality it has the been the church that has redefined reality for the past 2,000 – and this does not include the good people in the church, but the church politic. I will not take seriously an institution that can bless a Battleship or bloody war but cannot bless two people wishing to share their lives.
I have respect for a lot of people in the church, I really do, but it is leaders like O Brien that are running it into the ground.