Defining marriage to exclude gays!

I am always busy on a Thursday night, so I always miss the politics programmes. Why do all of them have to be broadcast on a Thursday? It must be boring for those not interested in politics, and is frustrating for those of us addicts who like our daily fix of politics.

I have just caught up with Thursday’s QT and a claim by Cardinal O’Brian that proposals for gay marriage are “redefining” the meaning of marriage!

The term marriage, in my experience, seems to have a much wider meaning, than the narrow one that the Cardinal wishes to restrict it to.

When I was doing woodwork in school we had to do joints, mine were never good enough because they didn’t marry together!

When I watch antiques programmes on the telly I hear the term marriage for two bits of antiquity that don’t naturally belong together but are, however, joined together – like a 19th century mirror on a 18th century dressing table.

The person trying to redefine the word marriage is the Cardinal; he is trying to claim that the word marriage can only be used to describe Holy Matrimony as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. But he is wrong, even there.

When Catholic people were executed for the abomination of homosexuality, they were condemned for the sin of marriage of men, so the Catholic Church actually acknowledges that gay marriage exists, even if it has never approved of it, because it has murdered people for partaking in it!

If the Cardinal doesn’t want to ask God’s blessing on the marriage of two men or two women, he shouldn’t be forced to do so; but why should a Catholic dictate that I, as a Methodist, shouldn’t be allowed by law to ask God for that blessing?

In civil proceedings what practical difference is there between a civil partnership and a civil marriage? None! Why should a man-woman civil proceeding be given a different term to that of the same man-man or woman-woman civil proceeding?