WEDDING WARFARE

TWO DAYS ago at a meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in London, the move to add sexuality to the list of human rights categories protected by the UN was squashed, again, by the Vatican and Muslim nations of the UN. This effectively means that millions across the globe, particularly in lesser developed nations, will continue to face possible imprisonment, violence and discrimination because of their sexual orientation and will not have any form of international human rights for protection. In a few African countries such as Sudan and Nigeria, and also in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, the penalty for the “crime” of sodomy is death. Right here in sweet Trinbago, you can go to jail for ten years if found committing sodomy. But imagine that – the death penalty for being gay!

I have been reading with interest the current commotion about same-sex couples wanting to get married. All over the US gay men and women are fighting to gain the right to get married and have their union recognised by their country and thus gain all the rights that straight couples get through marriage. For a few weeks thousands in San Francisco, New York and Oregon flocked to the churches and courthouses to legally wed their partners before the movement was promptly paused. Same-sex marriages are already legal in Quebec, Germany, Holland, and recognised as civil unions in France, Croatia and Argentina. Slowly but surely, all over the USA and in other parts of the world, people are coming out of the closet — the lesbian minister just got her moment in the sun, the gay priest got his months ago, and now the movement is picking up speed.

But at the same time, all over America people are protesting against these homosexuals who want to “corrupt the institute of marriage.” Many (like Bush) say that marriage is, and should remain by law, strictly a union between a man and a woman. In my humble opinion, I don’t see what the big deal is. Two people want to build a life together and finalise their love and commitment, and everyone beats them down because they just happen to have the same set of genitals. It’s like if you’re gay, you’re damned if you do (as in do live in a monogamous relationship and want to get married, but everyone tells you that you can’t, shouldn’t and don’t have the right to) and damned if you don’t (as in you don’t get married and everyone tells you that you will burn in hell for living a life of debauchery, immorality, sin, and general wickedness). No wonder letter writer “John Doe” contemplates suicide!

At the same time, I find it remarkably hypocritical that we “straight” people think we have the right to tell “queer” people what they can and can’t do when it comes to concreting their relationships, considering how poor heterosexuals are at keeping the so- called sanctity of marriage together. Straight people can do no wrong – they can get married to whomever they please, decide to break up in a year or two, get their marriage magically annulled as though it never happened, only to marry again in the future, then get divorced again if they so wish – all with the blessings of the state. I know of someone who got his marriage of 20 years (with two children) annulled in order to marry someone else! Marriage has become a convenience to heterosexuals, as easy to take on and take off as the wedding ring. And they say same-sex unions “make a mockery” of the holy institution of marriage? Give me a break!

You wanna talk mockery? Just take a look at marriages in the most powerful and influential country in the world, and the country where the gay-rights battle rages on – America. America’s sweethearts, the rich and famous of Hollywood, are without a doubt the biggest corrupters of the sanctity of marriage anywhere. You may say that looking at celebrity unions is far from the ideal example of a good marriage, but the fact remains that these celebrities are allowed, by their god-given constitutional laws, to do whatever they want, marry whoever they want, divorce whenever they want and remarry however many times they want, simply because of the fact that they are heterosexual.

Here are a few prime cases of celebrity nuptials gone wrong. Britney Spears recently tied the knot with a “friend” in Las Vegas and promptly got the marriage dissolved within 48 hours. Zsa Zsa Gabor was once married for one single solitary day – while still technically and legally married to her other husband. Drew Barrymore’s first marriage ended after three weeks. J-Lo’s first marriage ended in seven months. Billy Bob Thornton divorced four of his five wives within a whopping two years, including Angelina Jolie. Celebrity couples get wed and unwed at high turnover rates in America. Yet all of their marriages, divorces, remarriages and further divorces are all perfectly legal and acceptable to the country – yet they will not allow a homosexual couple to have their relationship recognised by law.

Last week a columnist decided that same-sex marriages have no worth in society since he claims marriage first and foremost is a biological union designed for the rearing of children and the continuation of the population. This may be true to cut marriage down to the very bare essentials, but other questions arise. What if a married couple should decide not to have children, should they divorce? If one person in a marriage is for some reason unable to impregnate or become impregnated, should their marriage be declared null and void? Marriage is no longer solely for the rearing of children – the ins and outs of marriage have changed over the years.  

Laws pertaining to marriage have changed as well. At one point divorce was illegal, and on top of that women were not allowed to file for divorce from their husbands. Up to a few decades ago, inter-racial marriages were strictly forbidden by law because they were “unnatural” and “immoral.” Interesting to note that those are the same adjectives they use to describe homosexual unions. But laws are not set in stone. As times change, so do laws. If today one was prohibited from marrying someone because they had a different race, religion or nationality it would be considered a breach of their human rights. Laws are often updated and changed. Laws can often be wrong. Perhaps this is one of them?