Married Elton John Not For Gay Marriage

Sigh. Elton John has spoken out against gay marriage:

“We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”

“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” John says. “The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off.

Let me make a correction. He and David are married, and if marriage were uniformally available in the UK to straight and gay people alike, I don’t believe for a moment he’d have rejected one. After all he partook of a straight marriage (bizarre as it was) for years. There’s no doubt in my mind that much of his stance is based on a generational perspective on gay rights, but with Prop 8 he’s on the wrong side of history, particularly with this election having been so steeped in civil rights issues.

I’m also not sure what he means that ‘they went for marriage’. It was the Californian Supreme Court which legalised same-sex marriage, and it was the No on Prop 8 campaign which merely sought to retain the rights which the highest court in the state had already conferred on gay couples.

You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

Separate but equal was very much the gay rights perspective of the sixties and seventies, but the current generation simply wants to normalise their lives – ‘tolerance’ simply isn’t enough.


4 responses to “Married Elton John Not For Gay Marriage

  1. look fagboy, the people have spoken, and they say NO TO GAY MARRIAGE. move the fuck on, fucking dick sucking faggot. you godless motherfucker.

  2. Actually only the motherfucker bit is wrong, but I digress ‘Goldie’ (will you have the courage to continue posting?).

    I’ve provided a great deal of analysis of gay marriage, the unique case in California and others have spoken on recent posts more eloquently than I. Should a mob majority be able to rescind the civil rights of others for any reason? Of course they shouldn’t, and it looks increasingly like the judicial system in California will agree – legislators already do. My ability to marry the man of my choice has no bearing on any past, present or future marriage of yours – I fail to understand this strength of feeling.

    The battle for and against Prop 8 is quite simply about whether the love of two gay people should be seen as equal to that of two straight people before the law. Noone’s saying you have to like ‘godless motherfuckers’ like me – you don’t.

  3. Bravo, glad to hear someone pointing out some good stuff.

    Elton John finally make some rational statement. Settle down gay folks, this isn’t about civil rights, its about the abolishment of the 1st Amendment, for “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of relgion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” There it is, the very first thing in the Bill of Rights. Congress shall make no law, but neither shall the damned courts who are now making law and implementing planks of the Communist Manifesto. Note the Soviet Court in San Francisco recently ruled that parental rights are “severed” when a child crosses the threshold of a school? What? Mayby in Joe Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, or perhaps even Hitler’s Germany, but in the United Staets? Such a court ruling is 100% Marxist, a plank of the Communist Manifesto, and such courts are salivating at getting at relgion, which is noted that Prop 8 gives a bit of security against their doing so. Soviet US Courts hate religion, as its abolishment too is called for by Marxists.

    Such is the issue that must be remembered, this was not about “denying” rights of gay couples. It is unfortunate government got out of its constitutional straightjacket in the first place and began to involve itself in marriage in the first place. Had it not, gay folks could marry in any church they would be invited to do so in, and other churches that found it incongruent with their doctrine would not be forced, nor have threat from the courts down the road to be forced to do this.

  4. Except it has nothing to do with prohibiting the free exercise of religion except where certain religious people (which is by no means all) seem to think they can use religion to justify bigotry and discrimination. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the conflict between all rights questions, and questions about the constitution, and in California at least has already ruled that inequality before the law as regards the provision of marriage is unconstitutional. Do you think you know better than the Supreme Court or are you going for the lazy option and calling them ‘Soviet’ too?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s