The issues with marriage were not only legal ones, however. As Hypable explains, John Barrowman has changed his mind on the subject of gay marriage over the years. Initially Barrowman was against it, opting instead for a civil partnership.
In 2005, Barrowman clarified his position to The Herald, stating:
People keep asking me if I’m going to do it. The answer is no. I was brought up in a family which believed there was a God who created us. I believe that God created me this way for a reason and he’s not a god who hates, dislikes or is against the way I live my life … That said, there is organised religion that says gay men and women are wrong, bad, evil – whatever you want to call it. So why would I want a ‘marriage’ from a belief system that hates me?
When somebody is telling you that you cannot do something, when somebody is spewing vile rhetoric and calling us a threat to heterosexuality, it’s time to take a stand. And we decided if that means getting married, then that’s fine. We want to have the choice to get married. Christianity to me is about loving every human being, getting on with your fellow man, being kind and generous, which Jesus was. I was created by Jesus and I’m not having any bigot telling me that God did not create me.
John Barrowman uploaded this video just before the ceremony.
4 comments :
John, as awesome as he will forever be, seems to be a bit confused about which one is Jesus and which one is God, and their respective gigs re. omnipotent manifestation of living beings. I guess he is in California so who knows what Jesus can do there... Also, i'm pretty sure his interpretation of a loving and accepting god is sadly in contradiction with all biblical interpretation... unfortunate, anachronistic, oppressive and horrible, but true it seems. I prefer the Barrowman god personally. In fact, I would prefer Barrowman as god. If anyone is worthy, he is. Congratulations John and Scott!
One other thought for the day: the question of gay marriage, in my humble opinion, has nothing to do with religion at all. It is fundamentally a societal contract, and the only tangible implications of marriage concern how individuals are accepted in the society and the rights that the society bestows. Examples are access to welfare, healthcare, immigration, and other basic human necessities that are facilitated by the state. Marriage is often necessary for the acknowledgement for two people's relationship in regards to these societal systems. There are so many sad stories of people being kept apart, often in times of crisis, as a product of the institution of marriage being tied to gender instead of the nature of relationship. Fair and equal access to these aspects of our society, regardless of the gender of whom we choose to love and spend our lives with, must be granted by any society that can can itself egalitarian, surely. This can only be achieved through access to marriage - civil unions don't cut it alone. I congratulate John and Scott, not just on their nuptials, but for finally being able to stand in the street of California as an equal member of that society. Its about time.
Both things you mention are common views among your average Christians. Many Christians use "Jesus" and "God" interchangably, and there is even some canonicity behind this. Also, often Christians say "a true Christian is one who is all about loving thy neighbour". Even if many come a bit short of that rule, even if the Bible itself is full of examples of "murdering thy neighbour brutally for being different", this view (which I guess could be described as heretical) is common among average people.
It's a complex issue, though, because everyone sees marriage as meaning something slightly different, much as everyone sees 'love' as something slightly different. There is no 'definition' of marriage; there is an expectation of what marriage ought to be, but no simple rules that have ever been agreed on.
Church ceremonies will usually define it as a 'union under God', for righteous reasons. State ceremonies will usually define it as a 'union under the state', for monetary and social reasons. Pop culture will define it as a union of love, for happiness reasons. Generally it's recognised that the latter is better, but again it's subjective. Plus you have people who believe that it's to head a family, and the biological way for that is man and woman. Others think of it as tradition (but again, they'll all ascribe their own rules to it). Of course there's many cultures that still arrange marriages to best serve their lineages. So it can be religious, social, personal, biological, and a whole host of other adjectives. There is no right or wrong answer, no correct view to hold. No-one's changing the rules, here; we're just trying to make them.
I'm not sure that 'making a point' is the best reason to get married... but damn, they look happy. And that, to me, is what marriage should be. Congrats to both of them, and everyone else who has been able to get married since the ruling.
Post a Comment