Homosexuals – Know Your Place!
The Coalition for Marriage’s blog is a rather strange, scary place. It seems to consist of nothing but naff self-aggrandising puff pieces about how many people have signed their petition, and cherry-picked and misleading reporting of things people have said on the subject of gay marriage, wherever it can be used to promote their agenda.
For example, C4M have already made a big deal out of Christopher Biggins (This video only tweeted) and Julie Bindel saying they’re not interested in gay marriage. The latter is particularly interesting. They quote Bindel (described as a “lesbian feminist” in the headline, as if this adds weight to her comments) as saying that gay marriage is a “waste of time and effort”. The predictability of Bindel having controversial, provocative opinions is hardly news, but they claim her as support even while quoting her as she goes on to say:
Many people, knowing that I’m a lesbian who has campaigned for gay rights for many years, would be surprised at me saying this, but I would like to abolish marriage for everyone and say that we should have the right to civil partnership if we so wish.
(My emphasis) A curious message for C4M to be endorsing, I’d say. In the video, but curiously unremarked by C4M, she then says:
And I’m also sick of the privileges that couples get, and this hoo-ha around this union. I think it’s, what is it now, 1 in 2 marriages now end in divorce… my view is marriage should be abolished for everyone, and we should all have the right to civil partnership. And if you wish to have your relationship sanctioned by whichever religion is your particular choosing, then you can go to the synagogue, the mosque, the church and do so, but I think that marriage is… an outdated institution
So not entirely on-message there. Even more amusingly, in the same video clip James Delingpole, hardly renowned as a lentil-weaving, bed-wetting liberal, rubbishes the idea that civil partnership is equivalent to marriage, as C4M suggest:
Delingpole: I actually quite like being married, and I like my wife, and I don’t want marriage abolished. I like talking about “the wife”.
Bindel: I’m sure you’d still like your partner if you weren’t married and you had a civil partnership.
Delingpole: No. I hate that word partner. She’s not my business partner, she’s my wife.
Leaving aside the cherry-picking and the peculiarity of the precise opinions quoted here, I find the trumpeting of Biggins’ and Bindel’s thoughts rather confusing and even distasteful. For a start, C4M seem to think that finding a couple of gay people who personally don’t want to get married or don’t think it’s a big deal actually means something, as if their opinions trump any number of people who do want to get married, or prove that anyone who does want to get married should be denied that opportunity.
By the same logic, as there are straight people who don’t see the point in getting married, the whole institution of marriage should just be abolished, as Bindel suggests, and similarly, no one should be allowed to eat meat, own pets, or do – well, just about anything. I’m also very confident that if they want to make decisions on some twisted tribal/identity basis, many, many more straight people could be found in favour of gay marriage than gay people against or apathetic about it.
What disturbs me most is that the C4M petition seeks to deny people who are gay and lesbian the opportunity to marry their partner, part of an ugly, backward tendency to demonise and exclude anyone who fails to conform to a narrow definition of “normal” behaviour. They think anyone who’s gay should be denied the very rights they consider so important that they’ve started a petition to keep them exclusive – they can have “partners”, but proper marriage should be reserved for decent, normal, straight people, thankyouverymuch. But at the same time, they celebrate and promote any gay person who “knows their place” to the extent of not wanting to get married.
To me, this looks unsettlingly like they’re being regarded as gay Uncle Toms, much better than those nasty uppity queers who actually think they deserve equality. Maybe this isn’t C4M’s intention, but it’s hard to know how else to react when they make such a big deal of these two rather obscure comments by people whose rights they want to curtail.
I get the feeling that this won’t be the last time I write about C4M and their interesting attitudes.