The Bad Place | between my ears

So apparently marriage between two people of the same gender is a “grotesque subversion” according to Cardinal Keith O’Brien but I’m struggling to see why. Unless, of course, he’s actually quite homophobic.

People these days seem to accept that civil partnerships, a committed, loving relationship between two people of the same gender, are a part of our society. But why are they? Why does the law differentiate? If, as so many seem to be saying, there is almost no legal difference between people in a Civil Partnership and a married couple it makes no sense for them to be considered as separate entities under the law. After all, as Douglas Adams so concisely pointed out: “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.” Common sense should tell us that if couples are considered equal then for there to be one facility for straight couples (who, at the moment cannot enter into a Civil Partnership) and one for gay couples (who can’t get married) smacks somewhat of discrimination. The Government appears to have recognised this issue and has plans to legalise same-sex marriage by 2015. It is at this point that some faith communities have thrown their hands up in despair, not just the Roman Church but also Archbishop Rowan Williams¹ of the Anglican Church (not to mention his predecessor) have objected to same-sex marriage on the grounds that, apparently, God owns the copyright on it … or something.

Here’s the thing, as I understand it no church is required to perform a marriage for anyone, even white, middle-class, straight people can theoretically be refused a church marriage. I’m not convinced that it happens very often, though I’d be very interested to see figures. The uncharitable among us may observe that this might be because weddings are a relatively nice little earner for religious institutions and less scrupulous priests may be reluctant to turn people away if it’ll boost the finances. Cynicism aside, I would not want religious institutions to be compelled by law to perform a ceremony; and I’m pretty certain that this would not form a part of the planned reforms. So if there is no compulsion to actively participate in the officiation of same-sex marriage, frankly it’s none of their damn business. There is a world of difference between being given permission to do a thing, and being forced to do a thing; but it looks very much as though Cardinal O’Brien and his ilk either do not realise that, or are deliberately ignoring the difference to push their own agendas.

Infertile couples are not denied a registry office marriage, so clearly it’s actually not about a man and a woman joining together to raise children. It seems to me that marriage is about making a public, life-long commitment to another person. If the couple involved and their faith community want to share a ceremony honouring that commitment I believe that they should be free to do so. At the moment, same-sex couples cannot include any religious language in their civil partnership ceremonies, no matter how they or their place of worship feel about the matter … and I think that’s a crying shame.

^{1 Sorry to resort to a Daily Mail link but it was the most concise version of the story I could find.}

There has been a fair bit of controversy about this recently, so I thought I’d set down my thoughts on the matter.

For those who haven’t seen it, the whole furore started when this video went viral across Twitter. The message was a powerful one and it seems that almost everyone had something to say about it; firstly just pushing the video and the Twitter hashtag #Kony2012, secondly with criticism of the organisation responsible for it. The most informative “con” post I’ve seen is this one. Invisible Children has responded to its critics on its blog so you can make your own mind up about whether this is an organisation that deserves your support or not.

I have no reason at all to be fond of the Ugandan regime; indeed I’m acutely aware that if I were Ugandan myself they would very much like to imprison or even kill me. That elements of the Ugandan army is accused of rape and other human rights violations surprises me not at all. But here’s the thing, because of the video people are discussing the issues of child soldiers and forced prostitution as never before.

The key thing about the campaign for me is not the Invisible Children charity itself but about ensuring that this issue stays on the agenda of world government. Most governments that I know of keep an eye on social media for one reason or another (usually, I suspect, nefarious) so if they see that this issue is consistently on the minds of their populations they will think to themselves “Hey, people care about this issue so if I do something about it they will care about me.” I am very happy to use the self-interest of politicians to address social injustice.

So while there may be mixed feelings about the Invisible Children charity, they have given us a Twitter hashtag (#Kony2012) and a date (20th April) so we can make our collective voices heard so that our governments may possibly do something constructive to end the dreadful human rights abuses, not just in Uganda (where I understand there have been virtually no attacks in recent years) but wherever the LRA and any organisation committing similar human rights abuses operate.

If you don’t like the Invisible Children organisation don’t give them your money; but if you genuinely care about the situation then give what you can to one of the organisations tackling the issue that you can approve of and/or write to your MP about the issue. It’s terribly easy to look at this issue and say “Invisible Children is a bad organisation so I’ll criticise them on my blog” but if you don’t then go on to do something actively positive for the situation then that just strikes me as epeen waving of the worst kind.