Recently a friend said to me: "You could spin it either way. I don’t believe marriage should be about religion. But that’s what it is being held as as the sole reason same sex marriage should not be allowed. Every person has the right to be treated equally under the law and in this instance that is not being upheld. Civil partnerships and marriages are not equivalent otherwise they would be referred to under the same name. I was told by the attendant at the town hall that in a marriage ceremony, it is the physical act of stating your vows which is legally binding. In a civil ceremony, it is the signing which makes it legally binding, which means there could be no ceremony at all [if nobody sang]. It feels like a fix to try and make happy a lot of unhappy people but ultimately devalues the whole thing. When me and Tony tie the knot he will be my husband not my 'civil partner'."
Not to put too fine a point on it, there has been
some talk [but not a lot of discussion] over the subject of same-sex
marriages recently; the latest big distraction from David Cameron to
make him appear less of bastard then he blatantly is [whilst
simultaneously ruffling everyones feathers].
There has been a LOT of coverage about this and, honestly, I don't want to perpetuate that problem any further then I already have. But I will.
It was recently it was brought to my attention that one Craig Whittaker, MP for the Calder Valley, Yorkshire, England, had decided that being an MP and all he'd better start destroying his career whilst he was ahead. From the looks of it he now blogs his way out of any scandal he can dig himself into in some half-arsed attempt at appear accessible and modern. His immediate downfall being that he's a Conservative MP of course . . .
Just for example, I'll pull a random topic at random from his archives, completely at random . . . http://craigwhittakermp.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/the-unintended-consequences-of-same-sex-marriage-and-why-i-will-not-vote-for-it/
There is NOTHING in this article that is anything but the fear-mongering bastardization of any kind of credible critique or well placed argument. This is the ramblings of a man who has not only already made up his mind but one that conflictingly feels the need to express his opinion whilst cloaking what has helped form it. I've decided to write a blog in response to this foul and tainted gibberish.
Be warned - he is a lying serpent in human skin and I do not pull my punches:
Dear Craig Whittaker,
I've got to say, I truly admire your conviction of mind and ability to articulate this absolute twaddle. Horse shit this thick and creamy is rarely seen outside of a farm with an E. coli outbreak. Please don't misunderstand me, this is a love letter. I think in you I have found some thing more then myself; more then hate or even the love of the disparaging remark. In you, Craig Whittaker, I have found the ultimate and very real peak of human relationship that can be surpassed by no other. Craig Whittaker, I hold you in utter disdain.
Contempt is too vibrant, too brilliant for the likes of you. To consider that I would dedicate such energies to the spite of you is to give you too much credit. There is not enough oxygen on the earth nor time in space to allow me the voice to express the utter lack of respect I hold in you. How far below my expectations you have fallen, and how little they were to begin with. You have fallen off my radar of care. A paradox, for nothing is truly too low that I cannot despise it. Yet here you are.
So I love you. Not because of your successes but because you consider yourself successful. Not because of your work but because you consider what you've done to be achievement. I love you like a man loves the pebbles on the beach he walks upon. I love you like the forgotten and way out of date tin of baked beans at the back of the cupboard. To me you are the penultimate in human failure, succeeded and redeemed only by your inevitable death. No, I love you Craig Whittaker because you are a completely and utterly unlovable waste of human life - but worse, for you had potential that a poor brain-dead child never had a chance to express.
And so to you now I feel I must justify myself. These strong, compelling urges to type my sweat and bitter words are the last that shall acknowledge your being, and even then these words are not for you, you may not even take pleasure in that this, any of this, is dedicated to you. This is ABOUT you. This energy, what little I have put aside in my life to this letter, I donate purely for the sake of schadenfreude. Because of you, but not for you. Never for you. You are not worthy of such direct attention. And now I shall explain why . . .
You are the worst sort of ill-informed creature. That who tries to shepard the lost and the ill and nieve and the Neanderthal with its conviction. You spread diseased opinions and lies to the masses in the sickening hope that others will feast from your hidden agenda and become as low as you. But you are too low to be a man and too terrible at lying to be a demon. You are simply a Tory.
You say: "It is wrong to say that Gay marriage is the next Civil Rights battle. To do so would make marriage adult centred instead of Child centred as it currently is.
"And I say: "Wow, this is amazing. You are a whole two sentences into your spiel and you've lost me already. Never-the-less I will endeavour to correct you on your poor choice of opinion: Yes. It is wrong to say that Gay marriage is the NEXT Civil Rights battle because it is the CURRENT Civil Rights battle. It is a common trend amongst things that are happening now that they are 'current events'.
Also to this, for a man who spent five years on the Heptsonstall Parish council you appear to know surprisingly little of the priorities of marriages. It appears to me, as it will do to many thousands of others, that when two people, a man and a women, wish to celebrate their love with the union of a marriage that they are not primarily doing it for anyone else but themselves. And should they wish to marry for the love of having children above the love of each other that reveals their strict dedication to their faith or that they're terribly old fashioned, which betrays your own views I shouldn't wonder, or that they have confused the parish with a day care centre."
You say: "It is important to say that I want to be as objective as I can with what I think is an incredibly important issue and I am basing my decision not on information or beliefs from faith groups, whether my own or others, but on what the unintended consequences of re-defining marriage may bring.
"I say: "You were on the Heptonstall Parish council for five years. It is not difficult to work out which faith you are trying to pretend has not affected your judgement in ethics and morality. It is impossible not to see which side you have joined in this battle, though you openly claim allegiance to non in cowardice. And above all others I spit on those who betray their own morality for the sake of public popularity."
You say: "If one looks back over time to only 45 years ago in England and Wales, 32 years ago in Scotland and 30 years ago in Northern Ireland when homosexuality was decriminalised, could politicians of the day ever imagine that their successors would be looking at changing the law and re-defining marriage at some point in the future?
I say: "Yes. I'm sure had one of them wished it they could have imagined such a possibility. I call it "imagination" and plan to make a career out of it."
You say: "I doubt that very much and feel that they changed the law on grounds of what we would call today ‘equality’. Legal equality, taken forward and rightfully strengthened in many avenues over those years culminating in legal civil partnerships."
I say: "Equality has little to do with it. In 1965 there was a drastic rise in the prosecutions of homosexual men whom had been caught in the act, a few famous men had been convicted of homosexuality and that brought the matter to the public media and eye. Equality was an after thought of the Wolfenden report. Your contempt of the word equality has been noted."
You say: My overriding concern is that if we do indeed as a Parliament change legislation to allow same sex marriage now, then what will our successors be discussing and have to legislate for in the future?; Polygamy?; Three-way relationships?; Who knows what else?
I say: "I sincerely hope so. Though I must question your inexplicable, or at least unexplained, dislike for those who are capable of and embrace loving more then one person at a time. I think the concept is wonderful and should be explored. What is it that you and so many like you are so afraid of when it comes to exploring the spirituality of love? Is that why you fear Islam and Mormons, for their polygamous ways? Goodness preserve us from loving more then one individual at a time, the world has too much sinful love already!"
You say: To show my concerns, let me highlight evidence from those countries from around the world that have already changed legislation to treat marriage with a flexible definition.
I say: Because this is the first time you're going to expel like foul waste some evidence to back up your scaremongering, sexually repressed conservative claims, I'm going to sit back and listen until you're done.
You say: In Holland, same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001. Since then, three way relationships have been given legal recognition through a ‘cohabitation agreement’.
Mexico City introduced same-sex marriage in 2009 and now two year fixed marriages have been proposed. Instead of divorce the two year marriage is not renewed.
In Spain same-sex marriage was legalised in 2005. The following year it was announced that birth certificates would read ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’ instead of ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’.
In Massachusetts a court in 2003 said that same-sex marriage had to be legalised and gave six months for it to be introduced. In response the state department of Public Health changed the standard marriage certificate to read ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’ instead of ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’.
In Canada, same-sex marriage legislation in 2005 replaced the term ‘Natural Parent’ with ’Legal Parent’ in Canadian Law.
In January 2007, an Ontario appeal court ruled that a child can legally have three parents.
In British Columbia there are major attempts to legalise polygamy through the courts using the precedent of same-sex marriage.
I say: "Holland: Three way relationships are not the same as three way marriage, it is not sinful to have a three way relationship [provided they are not married or have sex before marriage]nor is a three way relationship the same as adultery. This is as unjustified in bringing up as it is irrelevant and I fail to see how the acceptance of this relationship structure is the fault of homosexuals and not the embracing of love and acceptance.
Mexico City: There is a massively high divorce rate in Mexico City and this policy is being implemented as to cut these divorce rates statistically as well as reduce the element of sin and shamefulness that accompanies divorce. Should after two years they wish to continue their marriage, they can. I see nothing wrong with this. If anything it is a good idea.
Spain: The reason for this is because a lesbian couple got married, but one of them was pregnant. When the child was born there was no legal husband, but there was a second wife. Thus instead of including additional boxes on birth certificates they simply change the terminology. It does not stop nor change the fact that husbands and wives are called thus any more then the '99 ice-cream cone' no longer costs 99 pence.
Massachusetts: A quick fix solution to a sudden problem. As a politician you KNOW that this happens frequently in policy making and thus why policy and law is so susceptible to CHANGE.
Canada: For the third time in a row you have complained of terminology changes and offered no evidence to support how this has effected either marriage or society for the worse. Again I fail to see how changing 'Natural Parent' to 'Legal Parent' has changed anything but terms, terms of which are not special to homosexual kind but encompass ALL under a unified definition. An adoptive parent is not a natural parent but a legal parent also.
Ontario: Again with your flimsy attempt at confusing the public using simple word play and general ignorance. The meaning of the word 'parent' is a caretaker of the offspring in their own species. A 'biological parent' is the biological sire and birth-er of child who also is caretaker. It is perfectly reasonable for a child to have three parents by law.
British Columbia: This is now pathetic and clearly an opinion influenced by your religious beliefs. I now see clearly where your concerns lie and it is not with the preservation of marriage but the sanctity of power your faith has over the culture and lives of millions across the world.
All I see and all I hear is the whining cry of foul play without any subsidence to prove your points or verify your half-arsed facts. It seems clear to me that the argument against homosexuality is dead as it cannot be proved to be harmful to the consenting adults involved. Now that well is dried of tears of sympathy you turn to the children to fight your battle and defend your egotistical and cowardly opinions. You would deny others the right to happiness in your pursuit of self-righteousness. You are a bastard and should be ashamed.
You say: Marriage has a unique place in our society. It is a bedrock institution and the most stable environment for raising children. Redefining marriage would make marriage adult-centred rather than child-centred.
Marriage also has a place in our history. The oldest recorded English law referencing marriage between husband and wife goes back 800 years – and part of that legislation is still in force today. Marriage is yet older than that. It pre-dates the English language and our nation, and it pre-dates the Christian church. It is as old as the hills, not a recent invention of society to be refashioned on a political whim.
I say: So now your argument of why marriage is child-centred presents itself and yet it is also your undoing. You've said it yourself, marriage is the most [statistically] stable environment for raising children. So why stand in the way of homosexual couples who have children creating a better environment for their children? Why deny their children this stability? Also because a couple is married does not mean that they WILL raise a child in a protective and healthy environment. Marriage did not stop you from assaulting your son at a petrol station in February this year. Just sayin'.
Of course marriage has a place in our history. It was conceptualised in the past. This is the most redundant statement I've heard anybody ever say! It matters not how old the oldest reference in recorded law is, law has changed and adapted to fit societies needs as marriage too has done the same. Times change, society changes, laws change. This is how human society functions.
In America you can marry by proxy. This means you don't even need to attend the ceremony, say the words or exchange the rings to become married to some body. They could be anywhere in the world! Have you done anything to correct this injustice of Gods law?
In this country you cannot marry somebody you are related to - that includes blood relative or legal i.e. adopted father. But according to the Bible [and I've read it] God allowed the consummation of brother and sister [heck, in Genesis he tries to encourage Adam to choose an animal for his life-mate]. I think we can all agree how stomach turning that concept is. It is laughable that God would condone incest but condemns homosexuality, which I promise does much less damage to the species.
Additionally, you are wrong again. Marriage is not as old as the hills, unless God made them at exactly the same moment, which God didn't. Hills are not an accurate reference of time. Why can't you stop being wrong?
You say: Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there’s no need to redefine marriage. It’s not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but I feel that no-one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of society.
It is for these reasons that I feel that I am unable to support Government proposals on same-sex marriage and will be voting against the Government on this issue if indeed it comes to a vote.
I say: You and your ilk screamed this same bollocks that civil partnerships would undermine marriage when civil partnerships were being introduced. Don't lie. I REMEMBER! It is by the very definition of marriage that makes it discriminatory to support the continuation of 'traditional marriage'. Don't lie. Why lie? How can you claim such an outrageous lie?! If you want to defend marriage in it's current condition then at least have the balls to admit that marriage is between a man and a women ONLY, thus discriminatory, and is only the entire point of this argument between State and Church in the first place. Would YOU have a civil partnership?
The State is not forcing same-sex marriages but pushing to legalise the conception of them in this nation if BOTH parties, Church and individual, agree to such terms. There was no reasons in any of your dirge why same-sex marriages is the death of marriage, why not to change the law or why children would be harmed by this issue. In fact, I claimed by your own words that to to deny same-sex marriages would only harm children of same-sex couples.
The thing that bothered me the most about you out of all the Tory swine, who are rolling in their own shit right now, is that somewhere in your whittering, badly explained, poorly evidenced excuse for open discrimination you actually have a valid argument against same-sex marriage. It's not a bad argument either, I'd even say it was good. I know what it is. But I won't tell you. In fact I wrote it out but have since gone back and deleted it. I won't tell you because you don't deserve for me to give it to you - you don't deserve my pity.
In order to work it out you'd have to stop being a bloody coward, fire some brain cells, do thirty seconds of research [which is how long it took me to reach the same conclusion, if only you'd honoured me the same amount of research] and stand up for your convictions and HONOUR. YOUR. BELIEFS. But you can't even man-up and admit that your faith has shaped your personal code of ethics, or even what that code is, because your worried that to do so would alienate potential voters within your constituency.
I have spent my entire life fighting for the right to be who I am without fear of prejudice, fear of hate, fear of being disowned, fear of physical violence . . . Because that's what I've had to and still live with and I openly admit to what I am, a very, very gay atheist. How could I ever possibly hold ANY respect for this safe, smug, white, middle-class, straight, parasite who won't admit to what he is?
Craig Whittaker, you are the evolutionary end-point of scum. I have greater respect for the common slug and bacteria in my toilet then I do for you. This is the last time that I shall ever mention you name. I love you no more, Craig Whittaker.
I spit on your grave.
James M. Blackwell
No comments:
Post a Comment