One of the arguments I have seen against homosexual marriage as opposed to civil partnerships is that it somehow demeans, or denigrates, "real" marriage as defined by the church. It seems to me that the contracting of permanent, monogamous, loving partnerships should not be able to do that.

On the other hand, heterosexual marriages which fail, but lock people (usually the women) into unloving, possessive, controlling, or abusive, partnerships cannot do anything but make marriage seem an abomination. I have known a woman who was so sure that the church taught that her appalling status was indissoluble that she put up with years of behaviour which would have led me to take action, even to murder, if other means in the law failed. (The church, in the end, was wonderfully generous, and she was married in church to a new and loving husband.) I also remember a clergyman and his wife. My parents were explaining how their marriage worked on never letting the sun go down upon their wrath. He was shocked. He and his wife never had any argument. I was watching her as she nodded and smiled. It is always possible that he chose a wife who aleady had no mind of her own, but I had the impression of someone so cowed that she knew no other state than agreement.

I'd rather hold up some of the gay couples seen in the news as models than either of those two. Shakespeare, not holy writ, I know, spoke of the marriage of true minds, and I feel that minds, hearts and souls are more to the point than physical bits and pieces, in the long run.

I also feel that groups who do not want to allow gay marriage in their churches should have that right, but should not seek to control others who do not.

Penny