all over the press is reporting that former Labour Cabinet Minister, Ben Bradshaw has said that equalizing marriage is not “a priority for the gay community, which already won equal rights” with civil partnerships. I hope this is not true of Mr Bradshaw whom I have a lot of respect and admiration for.
The opposition has already bitten full-mouthed into this opinion by Mr Bradshaw whom they surely thought was and should be opposing their oppressive hold on marriage. Others are latching on to this stray speech to justify the inequality that exists.
The crux of the matter remains that those who oppose equalizing of marriage are missing the point; marriage has no ownership hence no universal definition. We all arrived and met marriage, and over time, it has been used by different communities, cultures, traditions, societies and generations as suits them. These has ranged from one-man-one-woman in some places to one-man-many-women to one-woman-different men and so on and forth. What is unique about marriage is its flexibility and adaptability to wishes of a people. Along the line of marriage has also existed divorces of different types; including divorce enforced by parents or families, either party involved, offsprings or community.
Mr Bradshaw's alleged opinion that the LGBT community are happy with what they have sounds stupid. While some gay people do not want marriage, or even civil partnership, some want it, and the same exists in the heterosexual community where some do not want to be married, etc. Equalizing marriage is not about gay people, its about treating everyone fairly and respectably otherwise, it is apartheid. Do Mr Bradshaw support apartheid?
When marriage is equal, there would be those who would not go for it and there would be those who takes it. Making it the same does not force anyone to have a marriage or not. It is like insisting that gay people cannot go use the same town hall that everyone is entitled to go to or that all ginger people are not allowed to appear on TV.
Disregarding all the above, it would not be far from the truth that Mr. Bradshaw branding the government's efforts as "pure politics" is in itself true party politics. It endorses the facts of Labour's sheer antagonism of the awful Coalition government. It underscores the reason Labour cannot answer the simplest of all questions: How would you manage it?
This criticism from Mr Bradshaw lacks constructivism and thus paints a hate aspect of the entire opinion. If it is pure politics as he said, what would he have done? Succumbing to a second-class branded marriage is inferiority complex. If he thinks the gay community does not want it, why is he in a civil partnership in the first place?
Politicians should be aware that voters are fed up with party politics and the apparent lack of objectivity in their critiquing each other. All the party in this country (UK) does that. They seem to be formidable and can go at any length to show their disapproval of another party's opinion regardless of what it says. It is appalling, it immature and it is insecure.
If Mr Bradshaw said this, it would be helpful if he produce his evidential data to prove his point. Otherwise, he can take a sabbatical or find something useful to engage himeself with.