Respecting Marriage

Well if you hadn’t already heard, Gay Marriage is legal in the UK.

But not everyone is thrilled about it. And normally we deal with the big 3 religion. Today’s piece comes from a rather more unknown faith in western atheism.

Lord Singh, the director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, told the House of Lords that he feared opponents of same-sex marriage would be “coerced” into accepting the new legal definition of marriage. The network also advised members that it believes faith groups could end up being “bullied” into conducting same-sex marriages.

Dear Lord Singh,

I am not SIkh. In fact I haven’t read it’s holy text. A quick check online says that Sikh Religious Marriage Law defines marriage between man and woman.

Which is fine really. 15th Century India is not as progressive as we are today.

The fight is just tragic, it’s the act of someone who  has lost and is now throwing out the toys.

The laws of faith apply as long as they are within the laws of humanity. The Grant Sahib is not the laws of the United Kingdom, nor is it even the law of India. We are beholding to the laws of man because the laws of man are for men rather than written for what we believe would please an all powerful being.

Do you really think an almighty, all powerful being is interested in who we love? That considering the unnatural nature of our entire existence, that liking people of the same gender will somehow destroy him? That out of all the true horrors in the world, of the unimaginable pain and suffering that is the lot of millions? That the most insulting thing that your god is worried about is two people getting married who happen to be the same gender?

That’s like worrying about your hair when your legs have been amputated.

If he existed that is… I mean  there is no evidence for any of the gods we care to name.

If we are to believe that religion is compassion then there aren’t many people demonstrating it.

“We have no authority, neither has the Government, to change our scriptures,” said Mr Singh. “We are bound by our religious teachings and we have been put in a difficult situation.”

He added: “Civil marriage is, with respect, a paper exercise.”

Oh them’s fighting words.

Indeed. You have. Your faith is willing to tolerate it’s adherents cutting their hair. Sure you may denigrate these Sikhs and I know why they “did this” (to hide from Hindu retribution post Sikh Independance/Terrorism/Indira Gandhi Assassination) or because they just weren’t very religious and didn’t think the hair was as important as the other Sikhs think.

But there is one rule, one very important rule that Sikhs were quite “sensible” in avoiding and altering and changing.

The Knife.

IF Sikhs can eschew the knife or alter the meaning of the rule and the spirit, then they can accept the GLBT.

But then you went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid like “Civil Marriage is a Paper Exercise”.

If Civil Marriage were not important, then I am sure Sikhs would have no problem giving up all the rules and rights awarded to those who indulge in it’s vapid worship. That the paper institution of marriage is not for the lofty likes of the Sikh community. After all, if they insist on the GLBT not being allowed to partake in it then surely they would have no qualms in giving up those very same “pointless paper rights”.

Oh right.

So what does this mean? Well Sikhs will have a separate civil ceremony rather than having it all in one.

That way they can keep discriminating.

So Lord Singh comes off as a tireless bigot and a child throwing out his toys rather than realising that perhaps he and his faith were wrong. And that perhaps we should take a step forward rather than a step back.

You cannot protect marriage by stoppiing other people from enjoying it. Nor do you protect humans by slavish adherence to any book.

There are gay sikhs. They love just as much as we do. But they have to hide. Oh they are ashamed but that’s because they are told that what they are is sinful. So they hide. They live lies and pretend.

They are like the SIkhs who shaved their beards and cut their hair to pretend to be Hindu. To hide from the persecution. Do you think those Sikhs were happy? Feeling guilted by those other Sikhs who did not hide or had no reason to hide? Do you think they enjoyed pretending to be something that they were not?

Then why persecute the GLBT in the same way? This is no different.


  1. says

    You are so cool! I don’t suppose I’ve truly read a single
    thing like that before. So good to find somebody with original thoughts on this topic.
    Really.. thank you for starting this up. This web site is something that is
    needed on the web, someone with a little originality!

  2. says

    So what does this mean? Well Sikhs will have a separate civil ceremony rather than having it all in one.

    I’m not sure that wouldn’t be the better way to do it for all religions. Make it quite clear that marriage is a civil institution, and no religion’s ceremony is any more valid than any other religion’s ceremony — i.e., none of them are valid at all. (Right now, UK marriage law requires marriage to be performed indoors. This is at odds with some religions which require marriage to be performed outdoors. You aren’t telling me this isn’t intentional.)

    It already works that way in some countries. For instance, when I was in France, you got officially married at the Mairie in the morning; and then you could optionally have a ceremony in Church, but that had no legal standing.

  3. HM says

    I’m Sikh and agree marriage should be become a civil ceremony. If you want to do the religious bit, do it separately. And Lord Singh is an idiot, because he has no moral authority to speak for any other sikh ( he was quite probably elected to his position by a small number of idiots like him).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>