localfreak (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
localfreak) wrote2012-04-26 12:42 pm
localfreak) wrote2012-04-26 12:42 pm
Entry tags:
We All Wear the Green Carnation Down the Aisle?
I want to take a moment to write about a topic that I've, thus far, kept my mouth well shut on: gay marriage. More specifically, gay marriage and the Catholic Church.
I know. If you're like me your immediate response to the above sentence will be either "Oh no, another person babbling on about it? As if I don't get enough of that!" or a feeling of deep trepidation, because whatever happens, whatever I write is likely to upset someone, and they probably won't agree with me.
It's big news at the moment. The Tory government are pledging to introduce gay marriage within the next few years, and the whole news has exploded into knee-jerk reactions. I am naturally suspicious of their motives, too, because the Tory party has a long and immensely homophobic history, and being both queer and working class I am typically posited against them on principle.
Various spokespeople from various denominations, therefore, have been working themselves into a Right Righteous Froth ever since. "It's the beginning of the end, thin end of the wedge etc". Their major concern is that churches will be legally obligated to marry same-sex couples (the Tories say no, but the law is quite woolly as, once it is legal banning marriage ceremonies or refusing to recognise them therefore creeps towards illegal, and also as much as people might argue otherwise, Britain has a state religion: to make a law which the state's religion will not enact is troublesome to say the least.)
The Catholics are, of course, coming across as the most vocal. Typically Catholics only really get in the news when somebody's dropped a clanger or said something bad. For an unbiased press there is a decided dearth of reporting when a Catholic bishop says or does something good, but the minute he says something that can be construed as offensive (anti-abortion rhetoric, anti-homosexuality, anti-sex-before-marriage etc) you can bet your boots that it'll get in the papers. There is a long and divided history between Catholics and Protestants in the British Isles as, as much as people would like to think that bygones have quite sensibly become bygones, remnants of the old animosities remain. Catholics too, in a Protestant country naturally become the boundary-making opposite of all that the protestants stand for, the racist granddad shouting abuse from his rocking chair. Gotta love him, he's so quaint and can't move with the times at all, clinging to the trappings of yesteryear.
The thing is, I am frustrated with all parties in this debate. Because not a single one has explored what seem to me to be vital points:
1. What is the definition of marriage? What is marriage and why does it matter?
2. Why do same-sex couples want it?
I have never had a good relationship understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage, I recall very little being taught of it at school other than 'It's a Sacrament and Very Holy' and I am continually frustrated that, amidst all the furore no one, still, can explain a thing about it to me. A few weeks ago we received a "Letter from the Bishops of England And Wales" to be played in Mass in place of the homily. In it the Bishops addressed the recent controversy over marriage issues and mostly said "marriage is very important. It is a holy sacrament, a gift from god to a man and woman to bear fruit. We should not lose sight of the fact it is a sacrament."
And that was about it. No commentary on the DEFINITION at all.
So what is marriage? In the eyes of the law a marriage is defined as "between a man and a woman" and is mostly a kind of business transaction, a process of becoming a family by setting up house, consolidating goods and pledging to be together forever. The churches say it is all of this and "the joining of two souls"- which the Catholic church focuses on in particular because this is why it does not allow divorce- once joined, the souls cannot be torn apart again. Churches also have this extra bit in "between a man and a woman to bear children". BUT the churches do not, to my knowledge, object to marrying old men and women, or men and women who are infertile, asexual or otherwise not planning on children.
So all the way up to the 'bearing fruit' issue I don't see why same-sex couples shouldn't be able to be married. And no one, it seems, can take the time to explain to their congregation WHY in any way which might have reason behind it. And don't get me wrong, there is a lot of theology and history built into the Church and I'm sure that someone, somewhere, could explain it to me.
I've never really understood, owing to this conundrum, why any couple particularly wish to be married, particularly as the soul thing is not universally accepted nor ever talked about. When you remove that bit I see just a transaction with some prayers around it and pledges of devotion and in that case, why doesn't everyone- gay and straight- have civil partnership instead and be done with it? Marriage numbers have been increasing in recent times quite steadily anyway.
My other point, why in particular do same-sex couples want it now is a bit confusing. Partially because I think a lot of the desire for it NOW RIGHT NOW has been enflamed by the political machinations behind it. People were happy with civil partnerships, because it was an important progress point to being able to access spousal rights, which not that long ago people just couldn't have. Marriage? I don't get it. And a little part of me is mostly concerned that the people who want it are the whiners, the bankers the "Matt of Bromley" types.
The history of gay male* culture and stereotyping in the UK goes something like this
• The Evil Invert/Sexual Predator
• The neurologically ill victim
• The effete, entertaining quean
• The nancy boy
THEN as a group these all fell out of fashion and gay men said "We're not effeminate, emasculated freaks like THOSE gay men of old. We're more MAN than straight men" and queue the leathers, the butches, the bulging biceps and the dance music and orgies.
Then came AIDs. And out of the ashes of AIDs, the homophobic backlash and the FRIGHT this terrible disease had given the gay community came a new grouping. This lot put away the bondage gear as 'depraved filth' straightened up their ties and went away to become "Matts from Bromley": bankers, estate agents, civil servants who wanted, in order: a partner, a house, 2.4 children, a dog, a picket fence and all the imagined 'little England' heterosexual desires. Their sounding cry became "we are not depraved sexually promiscuous freaks! Nor are we effete and weird queens! We shun them both and the sex and humour, we are Just Like You Straight People and we are just the same Normal and Dull as Everyone Else." Some of them even started voting Tory, or joining in letter writing campaigns against any sort of ‘camp’ personality in the public eye as ‘showing them up’.
As an exercise- liberation through conformity, it can be quite disconcerting. I am not saying that there isn't a charm in wanting all those things but is the way in which the community as a whole then has lashed out at its history- the only history we have, as Dyer perceptively notes- in order not to create a new and equal society but to conform and blend in to the old one (with its class inequality, imperfections, casual discrimination to other minority groups); to almost Re-Create the old one with no really change or improvement-! What’s the point?
So I don’t understand: why does the word 'marriage' even matter? Why has nobody, church, politicians or gay rights activists really addressed what the fight is all about?
I don't know if it is worth it. It is like being trapped between two ideological points with sharp edges, but being unable to decipher either of them clearly. Is it because people want the church to acknowledge same-sex relationships as valid? But if that is what this is really about then forcing the issue is Not Going To Help. The protestants still haven't quite got over letting women into the clergy and in the UK girls have only been allowed to altar-serve in both Catholic and Protestant churches within the past fifteen years- even now in other places this is still forbidden. Pushing hard doesn't help the cause, it just creates ignorant schisms on both sides.
Or are there darker, political wheels a-turning? Why are the government pushing for it now? It can't just be about the Pink Vote, so why? Has it more to do with the fact that the protestant church in England and Wales, - mostly Rowan Williams their Archbishop- has been incredibly vocal against other political schemes which promote class and social inequality and poverty? Is it part of an endeavour to define Modern Britain against the fuddy-duddy bible-bashing bigots- placing them as relics of a bygone era and ignoring all other issues concerning inequality and gay rights?
I don't know. But mostly, I feel deeply concerned by the whole debate. I cannot choose a side, because I simply don't get why it's such a big deal. I don't understand the sacrament- the whys and wherefores, and I also don't get why people are pushing So hard and So Much for it NOW, so soon after major steps have been taken in creating a more equal legal system. It's dangerous ground and I don't know where to tread.
Probably I can already hear the gnashing of teeth of friends and enemies alike but I just don't get it. I do however wish my church would keep its trap shut and let the State and the State Religion fight it out first. You don't hear the representatives from Britain's synagogues and mosques jumping into the fray although they will have JUST AS MANY objections If not more, although equally I doubt I will understand them or anyone will take the time to explain them.
That said I'm not against same-sex marriage. I just don't get the big deal about what seems to be a solely linguistic issue. I don't see why everyone just doesn't get a civil partnership, irrespective of gender and sexuality.
* Please note I am not ignoring homosexual women purposefully here, it is simply that the history in terms of stereotyping I am not only rather ignorant on but it has a more fluid and often less-reported sequence of events. It mostly goes (and I can already hear friends gnashing their teeth): too-mannish-to-be-feminine/ sexual predator/ dangerous femme fatale then too mannish to be a girl/ 'lying' feminine femme fatale/oversexed sexual predator THEN Butch and Lipstick Lesbian then the Martha from Bromleys and butches.
I know. If you're like me your immediate response to the above sentence will be either "Oh no, another person babbling on about it? As if I don't get enough of that!" or a feeling of deep trepidation, because whatever happens, whatever I write is likely to upset someone, and they probably won't agree with me.
It's big news at the moment. The Tory government are pledging to introduce gay marriage within the next few years, and the whole news has exploded into knee-jerk reactions. I am naturally suspicious of their motives, too, because the Tory party has a long and immensely homophobic history, and being both queer and working class I am typically posited against them on principle.
Various spokespeople from various denominations, therefore, have been working themselves into a Right Righteous Froth ever since. "It's the beginning of the end, thin end of the wedge etc". Their major concern is that churches will be legally obligated to marry same-sex couples (the Tories say no, but the law is quite woolly as, once it is legal banning marriage ceremonies or refusing to recognise them therefore creeps towards illegal, and also as much as people might argue otherwise, Britain has a state religion: to make a law which the state's religion will not enact is troublesome to say the least.)
The Catholics are, of course, coming across as the most vocal. Typically Catholics only really get in the news when somebody's dropped a clanger or said something bad. For an unbiased press there is a decided dearth of reporting when a Catholic bishop says or does something good, but the minute he says something that can be construed as offensive (anti-abortion rhetoric, anti-homosexuality, anti-sex-before-marriage etc) you can bet your boots that it'll get in the papers. There is a long and divided history between Catholics and Protestants in the British Isles as, as much as people would like to think that bygones have quite sensibly become bygones, remnants of the old animosities remain. Catholics too, in a Protestant country naturally become the boundary-making opposite of all that the protestants stand for, the racist granddad shouting abuse from his rocking chair. Gotta love him, he's so quaint and can't move with the times at all, clinging to the trappings of yesteryear.
The thing is, I am frustrated with all parties in this debate. Because not a single one has explored what seem to me to be vital points:
1. What is the definition of marriage? What is marriage and why does it matter?
2. Why do same-sex couples want it?
I have never had a good relationship understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage, I recall very little being taught of it at school other than 'It's a Sacrament and Very Holy' and I am continually frustrated that, amidst all the furore no one, still, can explain a thing about it to me. A few weeks ago we received a "Letter from the Bishops of England And Wales" to be played in Mass in place of the homily. In it the Bishops addressed the recent controversy over marriage issues and mostly said "marriage is very important. It is a holy sacrament, a gift from god to a man and woman to bear fruit. We should not lose sight of the fact it is a sacrament."
And that was about it. No commentary on the DEFINITION at all.
So what is marriage? In the eyes of the law a marriage is defined as "between a man and a woman" and is mostly a kind of business transaction, a process of becoming a family by setting up house, consolidating goods and pledging to be together forever. The churches say it is all of this and "the joining of two souls"- which the Catholic church focuses on in particular because this is why it does not allow divorce- once joined, the souls cannot be torn apart again. Churches also have this extra bit in "between a man and a woman to bear children". BUT the churches do not, to my knowledge, object to marrying old men and women, or men and women who are infertile, asexual or otherwise not planning on children.
So all the way up to the 'bearing fruit' issue I don't see why same-sex couples shouldn't be able to be married. And no one, it seems, can take the time to explain to their congregation WHY in any way which might have reason behind it. And don't get me wrong, there is a lot of theology and history built into the Church and I'm sure that someone, somewhere, could explain it to me.
I've never really understood, owing to this conundrum, why any couple particularly wish to be married, particularly as the soul thing is not universally accepted nor ever talked about. When you remove that bit I see just a transaction with some prayers around it and pledges of devotion and in that case, why doesn't everyone- gay and straight- have civil partnership instead and be done with it? Marriage numbers have been increasing in recent times quite steadily anyway.
My other point, why in particular do same-sex couples want it now is a bit confusing. Partially because I think a lot of the desire for it NOW RIGHT NOW has been enflamed by the political machinations behind it. People were happy with civil partnerships, because it was an important progress point to being able to access spousal rights, which not that long ago people just couldn't have. Marriage? I don't get it. And a little part of me is mostly concerned that the people who want it are the whiners, the bankers the "Matt of Bromley" types.
The history of gay male* culture and stereotyping in the UK goes something like this
• The Evil Invert/Sexual Predator
• The neurologically ill victim
• The effete, entertaining quean
• The nancy boy
THEN as a group these all fell out of fashion and gay men said "We're not effeminate, emasculated freaks like THOSE gay men of old. We're more MAN than straight men" and queue the leathers, the butches, the bulging biceps and the dance music and orgies.
Then came AIDs. And out of the ashes of AIDs, the homophobic backlash and the FRIGHT this terrible disease had given the gay community came a new grouping. This lot put away the bondage gear as 'depraved filth' straightened up their ties and went away to become "Matts from Bromley": bankers, estate agents, civil servants who wanted, in order: a partner, a house, 2.4 children, a dog, a picket fence and all the imagined 'little England' heterosexual desires. Their sounding cry became "we are not depraved sexually promiscuous freaks! Nor are we effete and weird queens! We shun them both and the sex and humour, we are Just Like You Straight People and we are just the same Normal and Dull as Everyone Else." Some of them even started voting Tory, or joining in letter writing campaigns against any sort of ‘camp’ personality in the public eye as ‘showing them up’.
As an exercise- liberation through conformity, it can be quite disconcerting. I am not saying that there isn't a charm in wanting all those things but is the way in which the community as a whole then has lashed out at its history- the only history we have, as Dyer perceptively notes- in order not to create a new and equal society but to conform and blend in to the old one (with its class inequality, imperfections, casual discrimination to other minority groups); to almost Re-Create the old one with no really change or improvement-! What’s the point?
So I don’t understand: why does the word 'marriage' even matter? Why has nobody, church, politicians or gay rights activists really addressed what the fight is all about?
I don't know if it is worth it. It is like being trapped between two ideological points with sharp edges, but being unable to decipher either of them clearly. Is it because people want the church to acknowledge same-sex relationships as valid? But if that is what this is really about then forcing the issue is Not Going To Help. The protestants still haven't quite got over letting women into the clergy and in the UK girls have only been allowed to altar-serve in both Catholic and Protestant churches within the past fifteen years- even now in other places this is still forbidden. Pushing hard doesn't help the cause, it just creates ignorant schisms on both sides.
Or are there darker, political wheels a-turning? Why are the government pushing for it now? It can't just be about the Pink Vote, so why? Has it more to do with the fact that the protestant church in England and Wales, - mostly Rowan Williams their Archbishop- has been incredibly vocal against other political schemes which promote class and social inequality and poverty? Is it part of an endeavour to define Modern Britain against the fuddy-duddy bible-bashing bigots- placing them as relics of a bygone era and ignoring all other issues concerning inequality and gay rights?
I don't know. But mostly, I feel deeply concerned by the whole debate. I cannot choose a side, because I simply don't get why it's such a big deal. I don't understand the sacrament- the whys and wherefores, and I also don't get why people are pushing So hard and So Much for it NOW, so soon after major steps have been taken in creating a more equal legal system. It's dangerous ground and I don't know where to tread.
Probably I can already hear the gnashing of teeth of friends and enemies alike but I just don't get it. I do however wish my church would keep its trap shut and let the State and the State Religion fight it out first. You don't hear the representatives from Britain's synagogues and mosques jumping into the fray although they will have JUST AS MANY objections If not more, although equally I doubt I will understand them or anyone will take the time to explain them.
That said I'm not against same-sex marriage. I just don't get the big deal about what seems to be a solely linguistic issue. I don't see why everyone just doesn't get a civil partnership, irrespective of gender and sexuality.
* Please note I am not ignoring homosexual women purposefully here, it is simply that the history in terms of stereotyping I am not only rather ignorant on but it has a more fluid and often less-reported sequence of events. It mostly goes (and I can already hear friends gnashing their teeth): too-mannish-to-be-feminine/ sexual predator/ dangerous femme fatale then too mannish to be a girl/ 'lying' feminine femme fatale/oversexed sexual predator THEN Butch and Lipstick Lesbian then the Martha from Bromleys and butches.