Remember how much press was given whenever Cardinal O'Brien used to totter out to declare homosexual relationships as grotesque or some such tomfoolery? When the Church of England issued concerns about the same-sex marriage bill it was given prominent place on almost every news site, including the BBC.
Yet over these last three exciting days barely a whisper can be heard of the good news that same-sex marriage is now legal (if not practicable just yet). In fact Google trends suggest there was more coverage last year, before any of the debates, than there has been of it's successful passing.
Weird. It is almost as if the media, including our liberal friends at the Guardian, were really only interested in what our opponents had to say and when they discovered no one else was interested in that they just gave up. The smooth, though nerve-wracking, passage of the bill through both Houses shows that all the scaremongering of our opposition were mere lies. We won. We won easily. We won not despite the opposition but partly because of it (our opponents seriously need to take a good hard look at their campaign methods after this debacle). There was no need for all the big scary headlines.
We've done it. Not completely, there are so many loose ends that need tying up, but we've got enough to pat ourselves on the backs and hopefully look back at where we went right and where we went wrong. Because our opponents aren't going away. They will still be around "defending religious freedom" (but only for their friends). We must be prepared to defend liberalism, secularism and full blooded religious freedom rather than their corrupted version.
The battle is won yet again. The war for freedom and liberty for all remains undecided.
Oh what a joyous week it has been though.
3 comments:
As a believer in the Ingsoc redefinition of the English language I can see why you so cynically think freedom is not the problem. Presumably also why you think it proper to use the term "liberal"!
neil
If I were "a believer in the Ingsoc redefinition of the English language", I think I'd keep quiet about it!
Hmm... Though 1984 is a very good, and eye-opening, book I'm not into using it like a Bible. I'm not even that much into using the Bible as a Bible.
Fiction can offer wonderful insights into real life, and some of the warnings in 1984 deserve careful consideration but not slavish devotion.
I prefer to rely to a mixture of sources and methods. I believe in the individual liberty to define words how YOU (and those you communicate with) wish. The English language is fluid and complex and merely fleeting (as are all languages). We aren't French. We don't need a language police telling us how to think and write. Open your mind and feel free to define marriage how you wish.
I'm not Big Brother, just a blogger, so you have no fear of retribution for disagreeing with my definition or with the multiple other definitions already out there well before this debate began.
P.S. The English language normally requires pronouns to be capitalised, I'm interested in your view as to why this is something you don't mind redefining?
Post a Comment