Comment

Have your say!
Visit our new "Forum" where you can post your comments.

You have the option of "signing up" to the forum or to post views as a "guest"

While "free speech" is encouraged, please bear in mind libel etc. Any posts deemed libellous under the laws of England and Wales will be removed. Also, offensive posts will be removed.

We never thought we would ever see the day when a President of the United States of America would publicly call for the “segregation” of a small, yet sizeable, group of its citizens.

America would have the world believe that it is a tolerant country, with all people treated with equality.  For years, the world has been a little suspicious of this.  Now, no lesser a person that George W. Bush, the 43^rd President, has proved our worse fears to be correct.

The issue of same-sex marriage is, surely, a civil one – not a religious question.  All those in the world-wide gay and lesbian community want is that their “relationships” be equal with those entered into by heterosexuals.

Should a same-sex couple who have been in a loving relationship for years and years be denied such basic rights as being able to visit their partner in hospital?  Should a surviving gay or lesbian have no legal right when their partner dies?  Should not a same-sex couple, who are in a long-term relationship, not have the same tax advantages as a heterosexual couple?

In the United Kingdom, we are no experts in the Constitution of the USA.  But we always thought that one of the most important aspects of this Constitution was that it separates the State from Religion.

So why are the loose groupings, like the Southern Baptists campaigning to have the constitution altered to specifically ban same-sex marriages throughout the country?  No one is asking that the Baptist Church, or any other denomination, should perform same-sex marriages – or even recognise them.  The constitution gives an absolute right of religious thought to Americans, if we read the ancient words correctly.

All our gay and lesbian colleagues in America are asking is that their partnerships can be recognised under civil law.

But President Bush is not listening to them.  He prefers to listen to the “religious right”, talking about the “sanctity of marriage.

Right!  The “sanctity” that allows a pop star to get married for a weekend, just for the fun of it?  The “sanctity” that permits divorce in ever-increasing numbers?

Has the sanctity of marriage diminished in Denmark where there has been a form of same-sex “marriage” for 14 years giving virtual equality with heterosexuals (the big exception is the right to adopt children)?  Have Belgium and the Netherlands become lesser nations because they have their forms of gay and lesbian “marriages” for a couple of years?

The President said in his speech today from the Roosevelt Room: “Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.”  Has the good influence of society been weakened in Denmark, the Netherlands or Belgium?

Here in the UK, our Government will, this year, be introducing measures that address same-sex “marriages”.  This is not expected to be a “partisan” discussion – even the Conservatives have indicated they will be allowing their Members of Parliament to vote as their hearts tell them.

Yes, this is in the UK where our military was expected by many to lose its cutting edge when gays and lesbians were allowed to serve alongside heterosexuals.  As events in the past twelve months will confirm, there was no breakdown of discipline.

If there has been no adverse affect on the military, then surely it fair to assume that there would be no breakdown in society.  Of course, any breakdown of society due to a relatively small percentage of the population living together as same sex couples would have already shown itself.

Gays and lesbians have been living together for decades. Now, all we want is some civil recognition of our long-term relationships - even in the United States of America.

24 February, 2004