It's been a busy month, what with holidays, the parents, the puppy hunt, writing and the day job. I'm not quite sure how we fitted it all in. We had a great time hill climbing in Perthshire, the views from Rannoch Moor are stunning. Looking out across the desolation of the moor to mountain range after mountain range is pretty awesome. The Grey Corries were covered with snow, Ben Nevis even deigned to keep out of the clouds for just long enough to be identified.
Yesterday, the parents returned home and we had the house to ourselves again. It was quiet, so we switched the telly on to drown out the silence. Puppies have been born and we'll be heading off soon to see more than we can afford! Excitement is high but, inevitably, it's tinged with an element of sadness as there's no Murph to share it all with.
I'm beginning to get hooked on Twitter (@Jamie_AC). There are some fantastic people sharing elements of themselves with the world in general. I've been following a few well-known faces and the way in which they interact with those of us who muscle in on their conversations, is pretty impressive. Alison Moyet, Clare Balding, Val McDermid and Heather Peace have all been added to my "respect due" list. And Denise Warner is just plain funny.
What's really struck me though, on Twitter in general, is the debate on "same-sex marriage". (Why, BTW, do we have to call it "same-sex"? I just ask because we don't talk about "different-sex" marriage, or did I miss that post.) Now I'm all for extension of marriage beyond the, ahem, "different-sex" variety. Where I have a problem, is when churches try to claim marriage as their own private party. Personally, I'm not the religious go-to-church type and quite frankly I don't care if churches don't want to marry me to my sweetheart. But, I pay my taxes just like everybody else. Okay, so not everybody else, I'm not rich enough to avoid paying taxes... Back to my point, and yes I do have one. Civil marriage shouldn't be subject to religious bias. Civil marriage is a commitment that brings with it certain rights and privileges as part of our [civil] society. As such it should not be restricted to one select group, but should be for those couples, irrespective of gender combinations, who are over the legal age to choose to commit themselves to their partner. My view of marriage is that it's up to churches and their congregations to decide on the rules for religious marriages; and up to the state to decide on the rule for civil marriages. The state has to treat all of its citizens in an equal and fair way, and yes, that means making choices that help minority groups. I have a view too on just how minority gay/lesbian/bisexual actually isn't, but I'll leave that for another day!
So back to the marriage thing. If a church bans (ok I'll use it) same-sex marriages from its roster, then it should not be allowed to carry out the civil part of the ceremony. If they allow same-sex marriages then they can do the whole shebang. My other view, is also simple. If the state does not permit same sex marriages then it should give up on the whole civil marriage thing; introduce civil partnership for all and leave the marriage stuff to the churches (with the same proviso on the civil element). Sorted.
Now, about world peace.....
No comments:
Post a Comment