O tempora! O mores!

There's been a lot of 1977 retrospectives on the tellybox recently, what with it being the jubilee. Also a lot in the news has been lots of talk about marriage equality, "Gay Marriage" if you prefer, especially since St. Obama has played his hand in favor.

It got me thinking as to how much things have changed in 25 years. I was 12 years old back in '77 and I can still vividly recall that the very, very worst insult in the playground was to call someone gay, puff, bummer or any other word indicating that the target of the insult was a fan of musical theatre. Even though I'm pretty sure that 90% of the time we really had no idea what the words really meant it was certainly a cause for an immediate punch up. Certainly actually being gay was I am sure at the time social death and certainly not something spoken of in a positive light where I grew up. I recall my dad, commenting on an article in the paper about a police raid on a gay-friendly pub in the town, saying something along the lines of "they should all be strung up" which was a bit of a shock as he was normally a pretty tolerant guy. I think the mindset back then was very much gay = child molester or at the very least that being gay was some deep, dark perversion and only vagely acceptable if you were a "comedy" gay like Danny LaRue or John Inman's character in "Are You Being Served"

It's really quite strange how quickly things have changed and how far. Now it seems that if you're opposed to marriage equality you're the one that's the deviant. Looking across the pond to North Carolina it's quite surprising the opprobrium that's been directed towards the people of the state who voted in favour of denying gay couples even a civil union with many calling them "hicks" and "backward" at best. On a political note it's a shrewd move by Obama to come out in favour of gay marriage; a lot of the shine has gone off his presidency and he failed to deliver all that "hopey, changey" stuff in the storm of a recession and he's aligned himself with the "progressive", younger vote ahead of the presidential elections later this year.
 
Over this side of the shining big-sea-water we can see that it's mainly the religidiots who are hanging onto the "it's one man one woman" like a drowning man grasping at a straw, swimming against the tide of history and sinking their antediluvian beliefs further and further into irrelevance. Politically again Camoron really has no choice but to push this forwards, despite the grumblings from the blue-rinse wing of the party; he's in deep political crap as it is and scrapping his proposed gay marriage bill will just pin the "nasty party" label back on the Tories and right now that's the last thing they need.

Still, maybe in another 25 years we'll be twittering (using our neural interfaces whilst on a day trip to the moon) about "do you remember when gay people couldn't get married?" in the same way as we'd talk about mixed-race marriages now.* One can only wonder what'll be perfectly socially acceptable then.



* To be fair as far as I know the UK never had a race bar on marriage but they certainly did in the USA

Keep on ranting cardinal

Over the weekend it seems that someone has poked one of those funny little men who wear a dress and a silly hat who believe in an invisible sky pixie. This one is called Cardinal Keith O'Brien who has got his thurible in a twist over of course the one thing above everything else that seems to get the religidiots riled and that's bottysex.

Apparently letting people get married who happen to have the same configuration of junk between their legs is a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right". OK well let's just set aside the fact you are a high-up in an organization that seems to exists solely to facilitate its staff members' sexual abuse of minors and pick the bones out of that sentence you regurgitated.

Universal
Human
Right

Yep, a universal right for all humans. If you like someone and they like you and the pair of you want to commit to each other you can do this thing where you stand up and say a few words and get a bit of paper with your names on it. We call it "Marriage". Nowhere does this "universal human right' mention anything about your reproductive plumbing. 

Honestly of the guy had any sense at all he's just shut the fuck up as all he's done is make himself look a complete foaming-at-the-mouth religious extremist in a Taliban stylee,  and if anyone was wavering on the "gay Marriage good thing / bad thing" fence they certainly won't want to be associated with you.

So keep on ranting cardinal because you're doing the cause of marriage equality a metric fuckton of favours. Plus, when you get found out shagging rent-boys, it makes it way more amusing for the rest of us if we can tag 'hypocrisy' onto your list of personal failings.

Love and Marriage

Right back in the blogging saddle after my 3 weeks off wandering around Europe and at one point getting married.

Yes I have done the deed and after 18 years of being the unofficial Mrs Dragon, Mrs Dragon is now the official Mrs Dragon and we have a green piece of paper shoved in the back of a drawer to prove it.

But dear sweet banjo picking Jesus what a bloody fuss. Look if it were down to me this would have been done weeks ago when we both had to go and fill in the official forms with the registrar in the civil version of "Reading the Banns" which I blogged about here. After all they have all the information they need, we spoke individually and together to a registrar, surely that would be enough? All they would need to do is put the notices up and if nobody objects in three weeks you get your chitty, kind of like a planning application.

No chance. You have to hire the venue (fifty quid if you get the early bird version and turn up for the 10am slot) and have some council numpty read a bunch of words and before that another council numpty fills in your form using EXACTLY the same information that she had in front of her but we actually have to tell her the information all over again. I mean talk about feather-bedding and waste in local government.

After the round of form filling we are allowed to enter the official registry room where you have to go because if they read the magic words in the car park it doesn't count for some reason, maybe it's a magic spell and the Tennyson Room at Ely registry office is some sort of Hogwarts annexe. The special effects are not as good as Hogwarts mind as the first thing I see was a load of plastic flowers with a string of LED fairy lights wrapped round them and a cheap HiFi playing a bit from The Four Seasons and my brother in law's arse in the air as he fiddles about with the volume control - really classy.

And I mean is it really necessary for the registrar to wear her huge plastic name badge with "Ms. Important McOfficial - Cambridgeshire County Council" on it through the proceedings? Look it's galling enough that I have to abase myself before local sodding government without you rubbing my nose in it. I'm surprised she didn't insist on wearing a fluorescent green tabard with "WEDDING OFFICER" emblazoned on the back to make the point.

I then get told I'm stood on the wrong side of the future Mrs Dragon and that I need to be to her right "so as her knight I can draw my sword to defend her." I dragonfully* apply some tact under the circumstances and refrain from advising Ms Important McOffical that any knights drawing any swords in my presence are going to get both nostrils set to "roast at gas mark 8 for 2 hours".

Fortunately we had the shortest form of marriage blurb but that still went on for a good 10 minutes worth of "These lovely lovely people who are lovely and starting their new lovely life of love together and we'll pretend that they haven't been all over each other like wyverns in heat for the past 18 years" sickly sweet yuk from Ms McOfficial who had resorted to that Princess Diana coy head on her shoulder stance complete with stapled on smile before we get to take a few pics and bugger off back home for a very sun not yet above the yardarm champers

I'm definitely staying married to the new official Mrs Dragon. If that's the hassle you have to go through to get wed I dread to even think about what divorce is like.


* like "manfully", only done by a dragon.

Could not have put it better myself

Well actually I probably could. This gem is from a comment in the Daily Hate on an article on the continuing internal squabbles of the Anglican church as it tears itself about over the amazing power of bottysex.

hi what would god think if someone wanted to marry there pet dog who they loved very much would the church change its views and except them

- richard shepherd, moonta south australia, 7/8/2008 7:53

Actually I think he's probably a bit too bright and articulate to be a Christian.

Incidentally I used to know one vicar who, whilst probably not up for conducting a marriage ceremony for you and Fido would be quite happy to give you a blessing.

Love and Marriage

Couples who are living together should have more legal rights, according to a report from the Law Commission. It says the current law is "unjust" and the 2.2m co-habiting couples in England and Wales should have more protection if they split up.

Hang on a minute here. If couples who live together want more legal rights why don't they get married? There's nothing special about marriage; strip out all the religious fluff, white flouncy dresses and embarrassing speeches by half-cut fathers of the bride and what it is is simply a contract between two individuals conferring financial rights and obligations on both parties. You want to take advantage of those rights, nip down to the registry office with sixty quid and two witnesses, job done. You don't want those rights, you don't.

Me and Mrs Dracunculus didn't want those rights, don't need them. We own the house 50/50, have enduring power of attorney agreements in place and lodged with our solicitors and the death in service benefits are crossed signed to each other. Why are we now going to be forced into a set of legally binding financial arrangements based simply on the fact that we've lived under the same roof for a set period of time?

And just who are the Law Commission? Turns out that they are a bunch of lawyers and solicitors who will, of course, clean up when they get to represent cohabiting couples in the courts when their relationships go down the toilet. Anyone spot a conflict of interest here?