Thursday, August 14, 2003
The gay marriage debate – strange bedfellows, indeed
There are many good and bad arguments out there in favour of – and against – recognising gay marriage through legislation. Personally, I think that most of the really bad arguments are the “anti” ones, but two wrongs (which equals, in my book, one really, really BIG wrong) still do not make a right. And it is the absence of a single compelling reason (in legal terms, the “balance of convenience”), for why gay marriage needs to be recognised in an all-or nothing sense, that makes me a fence-sitter on this one.
The gay movement has a saying that goes something like “It takes two straights to make a poof”. Correct and touché – why then, should two poofs want to, or have to, wedge themselves into the confines of an ancient straight institution, as hitherto always occupied by two straights? (Marriage wasn’t created by legislative fiat, remember). If a camel is a horse drafted by Parliament (= designed by committee), then God help us if Parliament is expected to design a gay horse. Gay horses, of course, make their own best designers; just as nature sometimes giveth – and sometimes just draweth the line. A chronic sequin shortage; restaurant cutlery always being set for right-handers – life will always bring slights, great and small, to the otherwise chosen few.
There are many good and bad arguments out there in favour of – and against – recognising gay marriage through legislation. Personally, I think that most of the really bad arguments are the “anti” ones, but two wrongs (which equals, in my book, one really, really BIG wrong) still do not make a right. And it is the absence of a single compelling reason (in legal terms, the “balance of convenience”), for why gay marriage needs to be recognised in an all-or nothing sense, that makes me a fence-sitter on this one.
The gay movement has a saying that goes something like “It takes two straights to make a poof”. Correct and touché – why then, should two poofs want to, or have to, wedge themselves into the confines of an ancient straight institution, as hitherto always occupied by two straights? (Marriage wasn’t created by legislative fiat, remember). If a camel is a horse drafted by Parliament (= designed by committee), then God help us if Parliament is expected to design a gay horse. Gay horses, of course, make their own best designers; just as nature sometimes giveth – and sometimes just draweth the line. A chronic sequin shortage; restaurant cutlery always being set for right-handers – life will always bring slights, great and small, to the otherwise chosen few.
