' It still mystifies me how allowing two people to 'marry' regardless of who they are, somehow denigrates another person's ideology regarding the definition of marriage. I see a couple recognising their partnership being based on love, commitment, being able to express this to each other and with family and loved ones. This is only thing that matters when it comes down to the proverbial brass tacks. The framework to how this 'partnership' or 'marriage' is founded upon varies throughout so many different countries, cultures, religions and beliefs. Marriage by definition cannot be defined by one sect.
I must mention now, I am not talking about the legal definition of marriage, as this has a different agenda and meaning when it comes to law and politics. Government, taxes and your bank manager don't care who you are unless there's an economic advantage to it. Political equality is never seemingly about social equality these days unless for an election rally. Hence politicians and their reluctance to lobby for it and frequently clouding the issue when there is no due cause fight for it. It is usually up those personally driven to lead the way and stir up social discussion. Matt Alber, a LA based gay singer songwriter wrote in his blog about moving away from the traditional campaigning for gay rights and focusing on taking a different approach and building it up from a grassroots level: in the home, at school, in the workplace. Only then will people realise we lead quite average, everyday lives just like our straight counterparts.
The definition of the word 'marriage' has been the key issue that has got Americans in California to uphold Proposition 8 this week. It is the only reason why many people voted against it. Many who upheld Prop 8, saw it as an infringement against their own belief system or 'way of life'. How Greg and Alex's marriage plans in San Francisco affects Helen the devout Catholic and her family in San Diego is beyond me. But this is how it has been fed to the masses and I feel for people like Matt who have had to suffer directly because of this awful politically driven, ill-informed decision making.
How does one protect 'marriage' in a world where there are increasing divorce rates amongst hetrosexual couples who are allowed to marry in the first place? Statistics show in countries where gay marriage is legalised, the divorce rate is significantly lower with gay couples than their straight counterparts. This belief system of protecting marriage is only ever weakened by those whose abuse the meaning and by those whose use a doctrine of faith to irrationally argue against the issue in question, having to resort to quoting scripture and using blanket condemnation. It's hard enough to say 'I love you' and really mean it, so it's awful to be denied the chance to say it when opportunity does come along. Stirring more intolerance and division in a world that is becoming increasingly smaller and more homogenized, saddens my heart a great deal. I have no answers to this issue, as we are all different. We should learn to just let the other side live but that will never realistically happen. There is much unhappiness in the world, if two people find love whether gay, Nazis or a pair of Fresian cows, it seems an awful waste of misguided energy and bitterness to fight against it. We should be celebrating the one part of human nature that makes us wonderful and unique after all.
As corny as it sounds we should be letting love hold hands with whoever it likes.