I see via Leg-Iron (several days ago, sorry I’ve been a bit out of the loop) that Bercow The Speaker is planning to hold a gay marriage in the Speaker’s Chamber.
I’m against this. Before you get all beside yourself, it’s probably not for the first reason that crossed your mind. When gay marriages were first being proposed causing a lot of controversy I was against it, and because I hadn’t yet become a frothing rabid right-wing libertarian the solution I came up with, to keep everyone happy was to ban marriage altogether, for everyone. Aha! I thought. Then nobody can complain that they’re being discriminated against. Now, my ideas are something different because I’ve had my political epiphany, but they’re not too different . I don’t want to ban marriage anymore but I do want an end to the state getting involved in relationships. I don’t really see the need. If two individuals want to enter into a private contract between themselves (which is what a marriage essentially is) then that’s fine, but surely two (or more) adults who are in a relationship don’t need the state’s blessing? What purpose does it serve?
An end to the state’s involvement in marriages would solve all problems. People would be able to draw up contracts between themselves to suit, if they would like a ceremony in a church, a mosque or a football ground that will be a matter between them and the place they choose. Nobody would need to feel discriminated against and there would be no need for any half-arsed compromises like ‘civil partnership.’