Why Marriage?
Why marriage, for heaven's sake, why marriage. Yet to question is to place oneself squarely in the ranks of the religious conservatives, and dammit, I'm not religious, nor am I conservative. Marriage if necessary, I feel, but not necessarily marriage.We do, after all, know what the convention of marriage connotes. A secular, and a religious commitment between a man and a woman for the purpose of enjoying connubial relations, ostensibly for the purpose of begetting. Personally, we married, my husband and I because, when we were children, we wanted to be together, always, under any and all circumstances. To achieve that end we would have been happy to marry at an absurdly early age, but were persuaded to wait until we both became eighteen years of age. Still, we were male and female, gender counterparts, still children too young to vote, too young to drink, but of sound mind. Our idea at that time was to go away together and have a civil ceremony, much to the horror of our parents who managed to disabuse us of that very quaint notion.
I've always thought of my husband as being an iconoclast of modest proportions. Neither of us particularly conventional in nature, although nurture did its best not to embarass itself. We've always been accepting of the variations in human nature. And, since it is within human nature to rear alternate sexualities in contrast to what is considered to be 'normal', a disposition toward gayness or lesbianism never really bothered us as why should it? I never wanted to be smacked in the face by it, but then other peoples' 'normal' sexuality was to be kept out of my face, too. Private business, period.
You may have gathered that I'm less than thrilled, but not too bothered all the same, by this move toward the legalization of gay marriage in Canada. I can accept it, and will even support it, but with a bit of puzzlement. For, as far as I'm concerned, what on earth is the point? Other than the fact that it appears to me to be a bit of acting out, of demanding that which society at large would prefer to deny any whose habits go against the grain. Fair enough, I say, but for heaven's sake, grow up. Gays and lesbians have suffered at the hands of the smug majority who traditionally denied them social acceptability, who took offensive steps to demonize them, to deny them their place in a civilized community. It was ever thus, for in most societies (with some exceptions) the odd-one was out.
However, having finally gained acceptance after a long and miserable struggle, why not settle into place without these childish demands. To demand something simply because convention (or for any other no-good reason) denies it to one, is singularly doltish. Because, having gained acceptance and the tolerance one deserves, it is not really all that civil to continue lashing out and demanding complete and total capitulation from an often-grudging group who will simply, as a result, begin to assemble the exclusionary principles once again. Why embattle people who feel they have already surrendered as much as they can bear to?
If two people have established a sound, loving monogamous relationship, regardless of gender, why insist on advertising it to the world? Is this not a very personal thing? To be shared of course, with friends and families. In the instance of a mono-gender relationship of long standing why not accept a civil ceremony along with the fact that one's government has agreed that all rights which would normally accrue to a marriage such as is conventionally recognized would also accrue to them?
What, pray tell, is the point?
posted by Pieface @ Thursday, June 09, 2005
<< Home