Jolly Yet Not Gay

As a self-respecting fag hag I can’t help being a tat condescending when people in the Western world maintain their 1950s stance that gay folk should not be allowed to marry. I know several people, who I consider as kind and good human beings, who consider the ‘gay way’ as the path astray. Yet, I don’t believe these people would be discriminating against an individual based on their gayness, because, they believe, as the good people I think they are, that being worthy of human respect has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation.

The Archbishop of York, the second most senior bishop of the Church of England, expressed his opposition against gay marriage in the Daily Telegraph in light of the governments plans to start consultations on gay marriage. He doesn’t think the state has a right to change traditions and an ancient institution like marriage. On the other hand the Archbishop argues that the Church of England should be a better reflection of society and incorporate more black and working class people in its institution. I am aware that the bible states in several verses that gayness is a sin. I don’t, however, fully understand that a tradition like marriage should not be subjected to reform yet an ancient institution like the Church of England, for a very long time ruled exclusively by white, learned men, should. Christians, like members of other religions, come in many different shapes and forms. Some believe that the word of the Holy Bible should be taken literally. So the world was indeed created in six days, woman was born out of man and all sorts of other events that have been disproven by science quite some time ago have all taken place. Yet, others believe Christian teachings should be adapted to the time and place one lives in. So although the Bible says being gay is a sin, this is 21^st century Britain and gayness is no longer seen by the vast majority of people as a mental illness for which one is to find a cure. The Archbishop of York seems to have forgotten that in a democracy the state is representing the people. If the people wish to, what he calls, redefine an institution like marriage, then the state is obliged to follow the will of the people. The issue of a marriage is not the gender of the people who wish to bind themselves to each other in holy matrimony. Marriage is the issue of two human beings wishing to express their love as such that it is recognised by the law. Those who believe that the aim of the institution of marriage is creating offspring should ask themselves if couples who don’t want or are not able to have children should be excluded from this tradition as well. Then there are gay people who do want to have a family and with 21^st century technology – and even without- this is all possible. The Church of England should be asking itself in what way opposing gay marriage goes against its own teachings of loving thy neighbour and blessing meek folk. I guess the Church doesn’t see gays as part of the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet gay people are voters, tax payers and human beings with a wish and a will that should be considered by a government they did – or didn’t – vote into power to do just that: execute the will of the people.

top image left: ithicalibrary.com

top image right: egnorance.blogspot.com