thelesbianlifestyle.com

I felt the need to put my proverbial tuppenceworth into the discussion on gay marriage, for two reasons:

1. Gay marriage is a crucial step in redefining the outdated patriarchal nuclear family and helping ensure that gay couples who so choose can live with certain rights.

2. I got married last month to my partner, on the same day that the gender neutral marriage bill was proposed (here in Oslo, Norway)

It is important that people appreciate the complexity of sexuality, gender roles, relationship preferences and soforth. These are not black and white issues, there are shades of pink too. My partner and I are very happy indeed, as we always have been. We are now officially “married”, via a registered partnership (exclusively for homosexuals) here in Norway, where we both live. This shall shortly be converted automatically to a marriage.

We already are recognised as next of kin in health and legal matters, although shall soon have equal parenting rights. The plethora of advantages of marriage are I am sure known to well versed readers. My point here is that strange phenomenon whereby gay marriage can be cast as a sell out to the straight community somehow and conscientious objectors choose this juncture to comment on the institution of marriage itself, thereby divorcing gay marriage from its crucial prefix….gay.

Before our most recent union, my partner and I had an unofficial big gay wedding, six years ago in the UK (prior to the recently introduced civil partnerships bill- which also allows neighbours and siblings to marry for economic gain, something I have always found incredibly insulting.) Anyhow, I digress (something I do frequently in more ways than one). My point is, of the friends invited who declined, they were predominantly lesbian. Not straight people, but gay people who felt the day had more to do with a commentary on the institution of marriage rather than two people, very much in love, celebrating that and making a commitment. Let alone, the concept of gay solidarity and embracing an out couple making a very out declaration.

It is this last philosophical objection that I find hard to understand. Should of course attendance at the ceremony oblige all those to betroth themselves at the entrance, I could understand the abstainers. My point quite simply is this one:

When someone refers to marriage in general, people generally do not find it pertinent or relevant to cite their own stance regarding the partriarchy or otherwise of the institution. Why then does this become a relevant case in point when the happy couple are of the same sex?