Marriage versus Bondage

One of the oldest and most tired arguments against Same sex marriage is that Marriage is first and foremost a Religious ceremony. And as we are all too aware, 'Religious'* people do not like to evolve but prefer to accept that whatever was accepted two thousand odd years ago is what we must live by now. Which is strange, as this very funny letter points out, because they are quite happy to move on in areas that suit them or would mean they would be breaking our current laws. *Of course by 'Religious' people, I speak not of people with faith who chose to live by the more moderate and gentler aspects of their faith. I of course, refer to nutters. Extremists. People afflicted by ignorance.

So let us explore this further. If Marriage is still considered a religious ceremony then how come, as an atheist, I am allowed to marry? And I can Marry in a building that is not a Church or a temple? So Marriage has already evolved to include people who do not share a faith. Which means it has moved beyond the Church and become a legally binding ceremony for anyone wishing to express a commitment to the person they love. Does this mean that 'Religious' People may still hold a claim to the word and the rights to enter into it? Do they accept my Marriage even if I don't Marry in a Church? If so, why is my Marriage, entered into outside of Religion accepted? I speak hypothetically of course, I'm still waiting for Gosling to ask. This is where I get totally baffled by the argument. I understand that Marriage has deep rooted traditions within the Church but we mustn't forget that in the past the law was governed by the Church. Nowadays, the law is neutral to Religion. Well, in the West at least. And by the West I mean most of the West with the exception of the American states who seem stuck in another time and allow the Bible to dictate to them the laws they pass. To a degree. Yes, North Carolina, I am talking to you. Religious law is what the fundamentalist nutters who flew planes into your country are fighting for. So your Church thinks homosexuality is an abomination and therefore all of the state must live under this direction? Really? It is 2012. You understand this? Right? Just checking. Because where I am sat, it seems to me that you still believe it is okay to force your belief onto people who don't share it. Rather than live within your own set of beliefs in a society that treats everyone as equal. Religious or not.

Okay, I'm getting frustrated as I KNOW that I cannot reach the people who believe forcing everyone to live by their rules is okay. And I can hear them saying 'Why should I live by your beliefs that everyone deserves to be treated equal even though the Bible states...' Blah, blah, blah. And the truth is, I have no argument to that. You cannot argue with someone who is unreasonable. Ignorant. And I want to say stupid but that seems a little below the belt so I will say 'Old fashioned' instead. As in two thousand years old fashioned.

It is a fact Universally acknowledge by my big sister (yes she does represent the Universe because she is one of God's children) that I was born in the wrong decade. I was meant to be born in the time of Wuthering Heights. I should be wearing Corsets and taking long walks on Moody Moors and marrying a brooding man (I refer the reader again to Ryan Gosling) and writing stories that would never be published, which incidentally I do do. However, I was born today. Instead I wear Skinny jeans and walk in a very busy city and have a choice of a man in skinny jeans or one in a hoodie. It's not as Romantic, sure, but it's the World I live in. And I live in it badly. I mean I don't even own an iphone. However, I accept that no man in today's World will appear from a lake and sort out my sisters wedding and pay for anothers and all whilst accepting me as the stubborn madam I trully am. No, the best I can hope for is a man who maybe opens the door occasionally and buys me flowers when he HASN'T done something wrong. Or simply buys me flowers. Yes, James, I am talking to you (again, see also the iphone comment). It is for this reason that I hold out hope for the one man who I know will acheive these simple goals, whilst looking brooding and winsome. Ryan Gosling. But I digress you say? Well, no, somewhere in here my point is very clearly hidden. Find it if you can, like Wally in a crowd.

Clearly, what I am saying, for those still looking for the red and white striped jumper, is despite me belonging to another time, I accept the World I am in. And this means I must adjust. Sure, I might not believe that anything less than Mr Darcy is acceptable but I'll take what I can. Which means, I will date modern man and subtley try and turn him into the actual man of my dreams. Which, people of Religious conviction, you must also do. You don't live in the year 12 but the year 2012. Law is not governed by one Church per country but one overly complicated system of Politicians per country. And these are elected to represent society as a whole. It is in fact a society that allows everyone their right to life as they wish to live it, as long as it falls within the law. So murdering, even if your neighbour worked on the Sabbath, is not acceptable.

However, if you insist on bringing Religion into it then I say we turn the table. Let's push these people into a segretation. If you want to keep Marriage, then why don't the rest of us change the name and refuse to let anyone of Religion enter into it...despite the fact that in a few years time, it will be the only thing you can claim tax against. My friend Mark has suggested the name Bondage but I think we should put it to a vote. What would you call it?