Sunday, 29 January 2006

Gay Wedding

Yesterday I went to a gay wedding.

It was just like any other wedding really, apart from it felt slightly historic to be there and very brilliant that as a society the UK has at last moved up another few notches on the rungs of civilisation.

The ceremony was of course deeply moving and I listened hard to the vows exchanged and the official words of the ceremony and reflected on what they mean and how the idea of committing yourself to one person, for life, in front of your family and friends, is such a wonderful thing.

The words rattled around my head and as I stared at Marie (who was a bridesmaid, for want of a better word), I found the timely reminder of what it means to truly love someone quite overwhelming.

Stories on the legislation in the UK can be found here and here and the act itself is here in all its wonderful glory.

12 comments:

  1. Awwwww....that's so cool!

    My home state of Massachusetts made it legal for homosexuals to marry a few years ago. I suspect the decision had more to do with state revenue than open-mindedness, however. In other words, it was expensive to live there when I left five years ago, but now that gay marriage is legal it's probably outrageous because one has to become a Massachusetts resident in order to make it legal.

    It must have been fun the be there when the ruling passed; parties everywhere!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Masscahusetts has had the highest concentration of gay couples in America for some years, having surpassed San Francisco and the Bay area decades ago.

    But I note your initial suspicion that the American law was passed as a financial consideration. If only the nation that puts so much hoi polloi stock into notions of freedom could see that Daniel has used the exact perfect word to describe legalising same-sex marriage: civilisation.

    Young nations tend to operate under various anarchic models, regardless of their official governmental status. As conditions improve with time, however, "progressive" nations change their legal structures, to gradually bring all things under the domain of law.

    This is in order to maintain a peaceful society within which to pursue individual happiness.

    All citizens of all orientations in all things are entitled to legal protection to pursue that which adds quality of life to their existence, so long as it does not greatly impede the ability of another citizen or group to do the same. Period.

    This, by the way, puts the whole gun-crazy American culture of violence into perspective, and imposes Constituional restrictions on gun ownership.

    It also prevents ludicrious arguments by the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, and Christian Right Wing Nuts For Jesus-type groups that the very existence of an openly homosexual culture is an affront to public decency.

    Not only is sexual segregation contrary to the principles of liberty, it is contrary to the process of progressing as a civilisation.

    Widespread propaganda comparing openly gay communities with the German cannibal craze are just plain irresponsible, and lack understanding that Germans have always eaten each other, literally and figuratively throughout their rich pagan religious history.

    In my country's case, we find it unfair that our legalisation of gay marriage (3rd in the world) is grouped in with "vice" measures take to help in the regulation of the drug trade.

    Legalising minor possession of marijuana was not a libertarian move, but rather an issue which wended its long way through the courts system, artificially delayed by unregenerated previous administrations, and finally set into proper motion when the Rule of Law took over the nation with the patriation of our Constitution in 1982.

    Just clarifying the legal pot thing.

    Cheers Daniel for seeing a *normal atmosphere, depth of human reaction* wedding, and not a *Tabloid Headline SCREAMING* GAY EVENT!!!!!!!!!! Marriage is the civil cementing of a loving bond. Simple.

    For the record, I am straight, and consider withholding the full bounty of civil protection from any group who follow rules of good citizenship, even to the point of rebellion where conscience or democratic impetus demands action, is a violation of the human right. I have no special agenda regarding same-sex marriage, only that which regards the rights of all people to be free.

    Hail freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That ceremony is a blow to clerical fascists.

    ReplyDelete
  4. great photo, and the advantage of gay weddings is....

    two stag nights!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was the Maid of Honor in a lesbian wedding about 8 years ago, or so (it only lasted a year or so). However, I am opposed to gay marriages, not from a religious standpoint (because that should never be allowed to come into play in America) but from a monetary view.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nice one Dan,there have been a few partnerships in our local press but not as many as i would have thought,its good to see some change in this fucked up world!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like that it is called a civil partnership. I'm sure that makes some people "on the fence" feel better about it. Gay people are citizens just like straight people and should be able to make their relationships legal to protect their rights.

    Saur:

    I read your post on the cost of making gay marriage legal and I have to disagree. I think you are getting ahead of yourself by saying their lifestyle will result in more divorces. By that logic, maybe marriage should be prohibited for all people under age 21, or for people who haven't known each other long enough, or whatever grouping you could make with some divorce statistics. Gay people pay taxes just like straight people -- and perhaps don't put as many children in the school systems -- which also costs money.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good to see it actually happening...been going on for quite some time in Denmark - so I'm glad we've finally followed suit!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm going to be diplomatic and not use my typical epithets for illogical arguments.

    Opposing gay marriage fearing an increase in divorce apparati is illogical. By the same thinking, teenagers should be prevented from driving for fear of increasing accidents, twenty-somethings should be denied mortgages lest more default on payments, and the rest of society should be forced not to die, or else we might run out of cemetery space.

    You cannot stop an idea whose time has come. Jeff Bridges said this as the President in The Contender (yes, I got that far and thought it was a brilliant, compelling movie, and never fell asleep once!), and it applies to all progress whether social, economic, or in the area of silly comic gestures.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm "with you" for that... as long as they don't hit on me LOL. I'm not gay, but lots of gays think I am gay and they even try to rape me in the past, but my door is still virgin. (Thanks God!).

    ReplyDelete
  11. To steal the line off Chris Rock, I am all for gay marriage as I want those fuckers to be as miserable as I am. ;-)

    But does this mean in the future gay married men will slink off to the toilets for illicit sexual encounters with straight women? (Ouch, I just think I broke my brain coming up with that twisted logic)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good luck to your friends. Aren't you glad we don't make divorces public ceremonies?

    ReplyDelete

Please do not be under the misapprehension that this blog has a laissez-faire comments policy where commenters can get away with whatever they want to say on account of their ‘freedom of speech’.

Blurred Clarity has a stringent comments policy. So anything off-topic, diversionary, trollish, abusive, misogynist, racist, homophobic or xenophobic will be deleted.

Cheers duckies.