The news media seems to have gone into one of its periodic fits of over enthusiasm. This time it is about the legalisation of same sex ‘marriage’ ostensibly to create ‘equality’.
However, there has been scant mention of the fact that Civil Partnerships may only be entered into by same sex couples. So much for equality!
Neither has there been much focus on the attempts to change the meanings not only of ‘marriage’ but also of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’! From now on, references to a ‘husband’ may not be assumed to refer to a male, no more than references to ‘wife’ may be to a female. In short, here is Parliament’s attempt to prevent heterosexuals from differentiating themselves by altering the legal meaning of words which have been traditional descriptions.
The propensity for politicians to change or confuse the meanings of words is well established. National Service more precisely means Military Service, for example. More recently, Mrs Thatcher tried to promote the use of the word ‘customer’ more widely. Instead of ‘patients’ or ‘passengers’ or ‘spectators’, we were expected to use the more ambiguous, less precise word ‘customers’.
Almost inevitably words gradually change their meanings organically, so to speak and, without unanimous support for the new change in law, it is to be expected that ways will be found to differentiate between these two sections of society.
Now here’s a wonderful individual who does not conform.
We live in interesting times.
A further thought: Voters are no more required to elect unrepresentative homosexuals than they are required to elect unrepresentative heterosexuals.