(no subject)

[fajrdrako]

lilithlotr posted a wonderful article about Ian McKellen today on her LJ. Among other good things, he made this wonderful statement: "I don't want to be cut off from heterosexuality. I think it's a fascinating little phenomenon."

One thing I noticed is that he almost always makes statements I agree with. John Barrowman, in an interview I recently read, was articulating his thoughts on gay rights, and I found that, interestingly, he said things I didn't agree with - such as that he wasn't in favour of gay marriage, that legalized gay partnerships were okay. I see it as an important point in acquiring equal rights - the right to marriage is something any het couple has. McKellen says:

Then he sort of explodes. "It's so silly! Why can't we just call it a marriage. Why can't gay people marry like heterosexual people do? Now they have a law that is almost above and beyond heterosexuals who cannot have civil partnerships. It's just hedging bets, isn't it? If we have gay marriage then soon we can have gay divorce."

I can't help loving that man.

Comments

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

He makes the best quotes. I love him too.

[wijsgeer.livejournal.com]

I believe the argument against gay mariages (from the gay friendly side of the spectrum) is that it perpeptuates an institution they would rather have abolished in its totality. Away with the forced monogamy as most common relationship, away with its implied inequality. Destroy and start afresh with a multitude of relationsships both same sex, mixed sex, alternating sex, more sex, single, and whatever people can come up with.
I can see some attraction to this point of view. But I don't think it practical. I also think the majority would choose a partnership of 2 people, and most likely hetero couples would be the majority and homosexual couples would be a minority. That is allright, I think. As long as all the legal rights are the same, not only for couples but for stable trios or for single people (or for non sexual partnerships, like siblings who choose to live together). Current law is pretty static. Even in the Netherlands, and we do have relatively gay friendly laws.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Too bad there aren't more like him! His combination of talent, intelligence, humanism and good common sense always strikes me as rare and wonderful.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

it perpeptuates an institution they would rather have abolished in its totality.

Yes. I never see the point of that - I may not be impressed with the idea of marriage, and I may not want to marry ever, ever again, but I think that those who want to marry (whatever their orientation might be) should have the right to do so. There are no laws that say anyone has to marry if they don't want to. It isn't the laws saying that, it's their parents, usually.

People still have the option of alternate lifestyles however they want to arrange it.

[wijsgeer.livejournal.com]

well I can see the point that marriage is the STATE-CONDONED-LIVING-ARAINGEMENT in the sense that it does do the pension rights, child adopting stuff, medical rights etc.

no matter how many 'alternative life styles' are condoned, just by calling them alternative says something about how they are regarded.

(Just saying something about the argument against, not defending it, I am more in favour of increasing rights for different life styles)

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

You're right, there are good reasons for making relationships state-sanctioned. For immigration purposes, too, and all sorts of practical matters. There are probably also good reasons for not extending the rights too far - and that, of course, is at the centre of the question: how far is too far?

[lilithlotr.livejournal.com]

See, and I agree with John.

I see "marriage" as a religious thing, and I think religions have the right to put whatever conditions on it they like. I don't think governments should be in the business of saying who can and cannot be "married" since that (IMHO) is separate from the law. I totally back John's stand that the predominant western religions have excluded him, so why would he want to become a part of them?

I believe governments have a right to say who and how people can enter into civil contracts - and the part I agree with Ian on is that all types of couples should have access to them.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Looks to me as if our difference here is in the definition of marriage. I see 'holy matrimony' as a religious thing, but 'marriage' I see as a legal contract, as in 'civil marriage' or even 'common-law marriage'. I do see John's point; I am reminded of the person who asked, "would we allow a religion to refuse its sacraments to those who wanted them because they were of the 'wrong' race?"

I certainly think this is a case where church and state should be fully separate! But I think the state should (and must) grant equality to all. Churches... well, they ought to be subject to human rights issues as well, but it's a tricky business, especially when the churches themselves are divided on issues like this.

I'd like to say I don't care what the churches think or do, but of course it affects me too - we're all part of the same world.

[lilithlotr.livejournal.com]

yeah, I think you're right - it's really only a definition that's hanging us up, I don't see a difference between "holy matrimony" and "marriage", and you define marriage much closer to what I call a civil contract.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yup, there's our differnce!

This might also be a bit of a Canadian/American differentiation too.

[wijsgeer.livejournal.com]

In the Netherlands a church (or other religious) marriage has no legal status at all. If you want to be married you need to go trough the civil progress. A ceremony in a church or temple or mosque is a semi private thing an not public (as in legal) thing.
Since many people in the Netherlands are thoroughly secular, the secular ceremony is considered realy a marriage (as opposed to a partner contract - that is on offer as well). People do the dressing up, incite the thousand friends, horse and carriage (well, no, not everybody, but it happens). The civil servant who will do the ceremony will have met the couple beforehand and will hold a speech aimed at the couple before him or her. Yes, well it is not allways forever, but church marriages go wrong as well.
When the law to open up marriage for same sex couples came in effect several civil servants refused to do same sex marriages on the ground of their religious convictions. They did not get dispensation, it is legally possible to enter in matrimony with someone of either sex (if not married allready, of legal age etc) and a civil servant as employee of the state has to deal with it or look for an other job.
Such a say has the state in no church. Especially since no church ceremony has any legal consequences what a church does is up to them. (I think, as far as refusing a ceremony on ground of race is concerned, this might well be different. But if a church feels strongly enough about it they could with draw their official church status (that is a friendly tax category) and become a private club and then you can refuse who and what you wish)).

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think the situation is very much like you describe in Canada - but it's a long time now since I got married and the rules may have changed. I don't think it matters in the least where you marry, the important thing is that the right documents are signed, with witnesses, for a marriage to be legal. And it is that legality that is important, regardless of whether the people getting married opt for church involement or not.

I think the notion of 'secular marriage' is important and I hope the Americans learn the concept.

[widget-alley.livejournal.com]

Doctor Who? Yeah, those are some awesome trees.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

They certainly are!

[widget-alley.livejournal.com]

Oh my God, are they saying "The Adherence to the Repeated Meme"? Are they? Seriously? And they're black, faceless, evil creatures?

*laughs so hard she falls out of her chair*

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Isn't it wonderful?