Friday, July 13, 2012

Why are we so intent on denying Adam and Steve a chance to wed?

Take two couples, all four of whom are friends with each other. 

They worked together, stayed in touch after they left for another job and when the first couple announce that they are getting engaged and will marry next year, the other couple are delighted for them.
But also a little crestfallen.

After all, Adam and Eve are allowed to engage in matrimony but that privilege is denied to their long-time friends, Adam and Steve.

It's a frankly absurd situation and one which, under any rational analysis, simply doesn't stand up.

But we're not a particularly rational people, we Irish.

You only have to look around the stinking wreck that is this country today to see that calm logic and cold rationality aren't qualities which come naturally to us and the current, absurd debate about gay marriage is a perfect example of that.

Only last Wednesday, when Enda Kenny was asked for his views on the issue he produced more fudge than a confectionery manufacturer.

According to our visionary leader: "The position is that I speak as Taoiseach and in respect of the Government, and a process has been set in train here on a whole raft of issues, including gay marriage, which will be considered properly and fully and comprehensively when the convention meets."

So far, so gobbledegook. 

In many ways, it's understandable to have a degree of sympathy for Kenny.

After all, he is only too well aware of the conservative rump of the electorate and how many people would find this a wedge issue, that would have them flocking away from Fine Gael and into the welcoming arms of any other party that officially opposes such a move.

But that is merely cynical political opportunism, and although he would undoubtedly argue to the contrary, and insist that he is merely being pragmatic, it's hardly inspirational leadership -- not that we should ever expect that from him anyway.

What this boils down to is a very simple issue: does the State recognise that a relationship between two people of the same sex is equivalent to that of a relationship between two heterosexual people?

And if not, why not?

I've had numerous run-ins with the gay community down the years over things I have said and written and I must admit that I personally can't stand some of them.

I'm talking about what are known in this business as the 'professional gays' -- men and women who see homophobia where there is none, and are quick to start jumping up and down and accusing people of bigotry if they offer the slightest criticism of some of the more extreme behaviour in the gay community.

It's tiresome, it's irksome and as one gay friend of mine once commented after a particularly bizarre complaint against me two years ago, sometimes he just feels embarrassed by the antics of some of his gay brethren.

But despite any of the arguments I may have had with some leading members of the gay community, I simply cannot accept that it is either fair, or just or, come to think of it, logical for me to be afforded more rights by the State than they are.

And, at the risk of being facetious, why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us?

But there are certain caveats.

I'm a staunch believer in the complete separation of church and state and, as an atheist, it should come as no surprise to discover that I don't want religion to play any part in our politics.

This is the reason why I have no time for the religiously-motivated arguments against gay marriage.

If whatever version of the God you follow tells you that such a thing is an abomination in his eyes, then more power to your elbow.

After all, there's no accounting for taste.

But having said that, this doesn't mean that your religious convictions should take precedence over civil law.

After all, this country knows all too well the carnage that occurs when people put their allegiance to the Church before the rest of society.

No, I have no respect for religious opposition.

But despite that, I still feel that the Catholic Church, if it so wishes, has every right to refuse to conduct wedding ceremonies for gay people.

I know some gay lads who say this is an infringement of their rights, but Catholics have rights as well, and they should be respected.

And as much as I want a complete absence of organised religion from affairs of state, I also think the State should stay out of the Church's when there is no crime being committed.

They are under no obligation to marry gay people and for the authorities to force them to change their rules under the current equality legislation would be an act of fascism.

After all, the Church is a club and they are entitled to make whatever rules they want, and as long as they are not harming anyone with these rules, then we have no business interfering with them.

And it also makes me wonder one thing -- why on earth would gay people want to get married in a church?

I mean, it's not the most gay-friendly organisation in the world, no matter how camp it might be.

No, the State should have one set of rules, based on equality and responsibility, and the Church should equally be allowed to have their own rules, unfettered by government meddling.

In the meantime, we can just sit back and enjoy the sight of Inda visibly squirm whenever the issue comes up.