Let's get wed!
This morning, shambling back through the park after a Saturday morning run, sweating chablis, we wandered past the park’s popular wedding reception venue and, being nosy buggers, nebbed through the windows to see if it was set for a do. The bright March sunlight reflected back from snow-white tablecloths and made pleasingly large wine glasses twinkle. The colour scheme, it would appear, was purple.
This caused some debate with references to pensioners, Jenny Joseph and Bridget Jones. Who, we wondered, had a marriage with a whiff of lavender? One of our party snapped their fingers and announced ‘Gays. It’s the village’s first gay wedding’.
Parking possibly offensive sexual stereotyping, discussion moved straight to universal surprise that gay marriage should finally become a reality under a conservative government, and not only a tory government, but under a prime minister so Maggiesque that some suspect him of being whipped up in a lab, cultured from a greasy bit of Thatcher’s handbag.
The introduction of gay marriage was, of course, David Cameron’s big idea to de-toxify the image of the Conservative party, and I am sure that Dave is pleased as punch that this has happened in the same week that the very same Conservative party have banned toddlers sending their parents home-made birthday cards if mum or dad are in prison, a move so despicable that it led the Taliban to issue a rare press release, simply stating ‘steady on’, possibly.
Gay marriage is very welcome, but of course is also a safe policy to introduce, as if you answer to the question ‘should people be discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation?’ ‘yes’ then that puts you on the same spectrum as people who don’t think girls should be educated, an UKIP.
The news was full of midnight weddings, including one glorious clip of a couple of chaps who had just got hitched, with one confessing he couldn’t remember it clearly as it was all a ‘blur’. Every single husband in the world listening to that clip interpreted the moment of silence that followed that statement as the bloke’s new husband thinking ‘wait ‘till I get you home!’. Welcome to married life chaps.
Of course, there are those who are not in favour of gay marriage, such as that UKIP buffoon who claimed that the Prime Minister’s plans to introduce gay marriage caused the floods. I understand that UKIP are climate change deniers but this was taking things to a whole new level and, if one wanted to enter the whole gay marriage/meteorological effect debate, one might remark that 29 March 2014 sees England in glorious sunshine and, even if it had rained, chances are there would have been a rainbow somewhere, which would have been appropriate too.
Of course, what drove the tories might have been the realisation that marriage is good for the economy. By that, I don’t mean that the institution of marriage leads to the sort of stability that economists like, but that it costs a fucking fortune to get hitched. From the rings to the bummymoon, the gay marriage boom will be a welcome shot in the arse for business from jewellers to travel agents and, from the look of it this morning, manufacturers of purple food dye.
Apparently there are a few religious types who aren’t very keen on gay marriage, considering that the proper place for a same-sex relationship is between a catholic priest and choirboy. Luckily, as I heard somebody say in sentence that killed any further debate stone dead, marriage is a function of the state, not of the church. Anyone about to argue differently suddenly had anyone who got hitched in a registry office quietly cough behind them, and that was that. I strongly suspect that, ironically, anyone suggesting that a couple who were not married in church are not married in the eyes of god would feel some spectacular Old Testament wrath, or at the very least, some Church of England indifference. At the end of the day, it probably only matters if you are married in the eyes of the people you love, who have your John Lewis gift-list. Oh, and probably the tax man too. And Ikea.
This caused some debate with references to pensioners, Jenny Joseph and Bridget Jones. Who, we wondered, had a marriage with a whiff of lavender? One of our party snapped their fingers and announced ‘Gays. It’s the village’s first gay wedding’.
Parking possibly offensive sexual stereotyping, discussion moved straight to universal surprise that gay marriage should finally become a reality under a conservative government, and not only a tory government, but under a prime minister so Maggiesque that some suspect him of being whipped up in a lab, cultured from a greasy bit of Thatcher’s handbag.
The introduction of gay marriage was, of course, David Cameron’s big idea to de-toxify the image of the Conservative party, and I am sure that Dave is pleased as punch that this has happened in the same week that the very same Conservative party have banned toddlers sending their parents home-made birthday cards if mum or dad are in prison, a move so despicable that it led the Taliban to issue a rare press release, simply stating ‘steady on’, possibly.
Gay marriage is very welcome, but of course is also a safe policy to introduce, as if you answer to the question ‘should people be discriminated against simply because of their sexual orientation?’ ‘yes’ then that puts you on the same spectrum as people who don’t think girls should be educated, an UKIP.
The news was full of midnight weddings, including one glorious clip of a couple of chaps who had just got hitched, with one confessing he couldn’t remember it clearly as it was all a ‘blur’. Every single husband in the world listening to that clip interpreted the moment of silence that followed that statement as the bloke’s new husband thinking ‘wait ‘till I get you home!’. Welcome to married life chaps.
Of course, there are those who are not in favour of gay marriage, such as that UKIP buffoon who claimed that the Prime Minister’s plans to introduce gay marriage caused the floods. I understand that UKIP are climate change deniers but this was taking things to a whole new level and, if one wanted to enter the whole gay marriage/meteorological effect debate, one might remark that 29 March 2014 sees England in glorious sunshine and, even if it had rained, chances are there would have been a rainbow somewhere, which would have been appropriate too.
Of course, what drove the tories might have been the realisation that marriage is good for the economy. By that, I don’t mean that the institution of marriage leads to the sort of stability that economists like, but that it costs a fucking fortune to get hitched. From the rings to the bummymoon, the gay marriage boom will be a welcome shot in the arse for business from jewellers to travel agents and, from the look of it this morning, manufacturers of purple food dye.
Apparently there are a few religious types who aren’t very keen on gay marriage, considering that the proper place for a same-sex relationship is between a catholic priest and choirboy. Luckily, as I heard somebody say in sentence that killed any further debate stone dead, marriage is a function of the state, not of the church. Anyone about to argue differently suddenly had anyone who got hitched in a registry office quietly cough behind them, and that was that. I strongly suspect that, ironically, anyone suggesting that a couple who were not married in church are not married in the eyes of god would feel some spectacular Old Testament wrath, or at the very least, some Church of England indifference. At the end of the day, it probably only matters if you are married in the eyes of the people you love, who have your John Lewis gift-list. Oh, and probably the tax man too. And Ikea.
Labels: Marriage, Polotics, Religion, Sex, Society, Weddings
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home