It's a Sin - Television Series Review

It’s a Sin is a television master class from Russell T Davies.

Telling the story of a group of five friends who decide to share a flat in London in the early ’80s, and tracking their path as HIV and AIDS ravage their social group, we get to see the joy and exuberance of youth, with all their potential reaching out ahead of them, only to then see those lives crash into the horror of a pandemic that spares no one it touches.

Given a new perspective with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is hard not to empathise with these young lives as half are dashed and lost to the pandemic, leaving the survivors racked with guilt and pain about moving on without their friends.

There are so many pitfalls that could have tempted Davies to run off course, as his narrative is fraught with all the negatives that ran alongside the HIV/AIDS pandemic that would still risk alienating mainstream viewers. These negatives are born out of homophobia and ignorance, and general disdain from the mainstream public to people who are different.

It's a Sin bubbles with joy and the celebration of life. It touches on almost every relevant aspect during those tumultuous times, but Davies shows his immeasurable talent to avoid getting on a soapbox and preaching. He allows these aspects to run alongside the story without ever intruding on his narrative.

Beautifully cast with Olly Alexander as Richie Tozer, the character, who along with Jill played by, Lydia West, forms the heart of the group who all come together to live in the pink palace. This London apartment houses an eclectic group of five: Ritchie, Jill, Ash (Nathaniel Curtis), Roscoe (Omari Douglas) and Colin (Callum Scott Howells).

Colin’s story delivers one of the emotional high points of the show. His innocence, shy and slightly naïve character, with only one sexual partner behind him and designs on a very humble life, is one of the first to succumb to a disease that didn’t discriminate based on sexual promiscuity. 

It is hard not to break down in tears when he delivers some of the most emotional lines of the entire series, as he tries to make sense of what is happening to him. It is Davies way of saying this disease was unfair, that it didn’t seek out those who were sexually promiscuous, that it could touch everyone no matter what their situation or sexual history. Davies also deftly makes the point that sexual exploration and enjoyment is a natural part of young lives and shouldn’t be stigmatised or avoided, despite what the ‘just say no’ and ‘stay celibate’ brigade tend to promote.

There are dozens of moments where Davies manages to get these sorts of messages across in anything but a heavy-handed way, and never with any other effect than to strengthen his visual storytelling. He briefly highlights issues that could themselves be a central story narrative for a movie or miniseries, and often the impact of these moments are immense while their screen time is fleeting. The mother of a young boy who we only see a glimpse of early in the series, comes angrily into the hospital to confront those in charge of the HIV ward to find out how and why they would think her rugged, manly son could be mixed in with those struck down by this gay disease? There is no other comment made by Davies than to allow this moment to resonate and make its point clearly without it ever being laboured. This entire story of a devasted mother and her son's unwilling outing is visually told and ended in a twenty-second sequence that smacks you right between your eyes.

He does the same with the terror and confusion in the early years of the disease, regarding the information available on how the disease is caught and transmitted. Showering and scrubbing the skin after Jill tends for the first of her immediate friends to fall ill, and that friend’s desperation to keep his news secret from his other friends. Clothes are burnt, and possessions thrown into bonfires rather than touched by those who love the victims struck down by the disease.

At one point, with Jill caring for Greg, an older member of their group and played perfectly by David Carlyle, she’s surprised when her friends show up with him at their apartment, and Greg announces he’s feeling better. Jill watches him drink from one of the apartments coffee mugs. We then see Jill scrub the mug twice; then, she decides to put the mug at the very back of the cup cupboard. As she tries to sleep, the paranoia over that cup keeps her awake, and she gets up to throw it in the bin rather than let any of her friends drink from it. Still unable to sleep, she gets up a second time, takes that cup from the bin and smashes it into pieces. It’s a beautiful visual representation of just how paranoid and terrified everyone was about the disease in those early years when the uncertainty and confusion reigned around how it was caught.

There’s a great deal made in the press about the use of gay actors to play gay roles. I find this counter-productive but until openly gay actors start getting cast in straight roles on the strength of their ability and not overlooked because of their sexuality and a belief an audience won’t accept them in a straight role, I’m willing to overlook them this redress.

Amari Douglas has the most fun camping it up, but it’s in the scenes with his African family, with traditional customs and superstitions that he comes into his own. It’s an extraordinary storyline that sees his father go from a homophobic evangelist to a man who recognises his son’s safety and happiness must be his primary concern. It’s a story of a second-generation immigrant and only enriches the front and centre drama, as Roscoe moves into the Pink Palace.

Equally noteworthy are Stephen Fry and Neil Patrick Harris, Fry as the politician with his ‘boy’, and a fantastic lunch scene with several other conservative politicians, all with their boys silent but sneering at each other across a lunch table at a cloistered club.

Harris warms up in his role as a stuffy English retail assistant in a Saville Row bespoke tailoring shop. His initial appearance comes across more a caricature of the older style English gentleman than a three-dimensional character addicted to manners and protocol. As he lets down his guard and mentors young Colin into gay life in London, we understand his mask is one he’s worn for a lifetime while living his real-life behind closed doors and safe-space venues with his partner of thirty years. When the first wave of the disease hits this couple’s closeted lives, we get yet another immense moment hidden by its brevity. The long-time companions are separated to die apart as families with more rights to their relative than a legally unrecognised partnership of thirty years, move to care for their loved one. These two men in their fifties die alone, separated, with neither understanding what has befallen them, mistakenly blaming domestic decisions with detergents or mold, and marvelling at the tragedy of both being hit with terminal diseases that seem random and unrelated. This story of separation due to a lack of legal standing has played out untold times across the ages of gay history, although it became particularly cruel during the AIDS pandemic.

Activists are trying to warn young gay revellers who dismiss their warnings of a gay disease as ludicrous and some sort of grand conspiratorial rumour started by the gay-hating conservative elements. As news of disease, largely cancer or other serious illness, seeks out and targets gay men, Ritchie Tozer loudly decries, “I don’t believe it because I’m not stupid.” It did sound stupid in those early years, these random, terminal illnesses befalling mostly gay men. Rumours swirled about poppers (Amyl Nitrate), being a cause, about a link to gay saunas, you could catch it off surfaces, it was born in a lab to target the gay population and on and on it went in an eerily similar rumour file to today’s pandemic.

The bravest member of the cast is possibly Nathaniel Hall, who has done much to dispel the stigma of those living with HIV through his one-man show, “First Time”. His show details how he caught HIV from his first sexual experience at sixteen and will hopefully be streaming sometime soon. 

Cast as Ritchie’s boyfriend, Donald Bassett, one of the many young men who silently disappeared to their parents, never to be seen again, his inclusion in the cast is more than a nice touch; it’s an important statement. HIV is now managed by 29 million people worldwide, and almost fifty per cent of these are heterosexual. Most manage their condition so well they have an undetectable viral load with no chance of transmission. Hall holds his own alongside the extraordinarily multi-talented Olly Alexander. 

There is so much to love and to cry about in watching It’s a Sin. Every cast and crew member can be rightly proud for playing their part in bringing such a series to life. It is a story that needs telling. Russel T Davies has taken forty years to gain enough composure to make sense of his experiences and find a story that entertains above all else. He has managed to include all aspects of a horrific world event that didn’t spare any demographic but tended to concentrate on some more than others. 

Be brave enough to watch, but don’t do it lightly. You will need time to think and gather yourself for this one, possibly with a pause or two between episodes. You cannot help but be deeply affected, but if, like myself, you were alive and out during those times, you may be affected more than others. It’s a Sin is so well rendered; I found scenes I lived and words I heard spoken that I put to rest many years ago, only for them to jump out and grab me like I was reliving those moments again. 

It’s a Sin is the best of premier television and will likely be a favourite tear-jerker to be streamed and discovered for years to come. 

5 pink stars for this one.     

Russel T Davies gives a fantastic interview in the Guardian about his experiences during the eighties and nineties, coming out and living beside HIV/AIDS. 

There is so much in this interview that I recognise in my own story. It makes sense that I would relate so strongly to It’s a Sin. I'm aware this relationship to the material may have made the series feel more impactful to me than it will prove for others.

Mormons at my Door.

Nothing gives me quite so much of a thrill as when I open my door to Mormons; so crisp and young and full of hope.

     “Could we talk to you about Jesus Christ?” they ask.

     “My goodness yes, you could,” I say. “Can my boyfriend join us, he’s Buddhist, will that be a problem?”

In days gone by that would be enough to send your average Mormon scurrying out my front gate, but your modern Mormon is more resilient. So, before their well pressed uniforms get comfortable on my couch I bring in a second wave.

     “You know, Jesus was a hipster: long beard, sandals, into all those causes. Always trying to be the centre of attention – Hey, look at me, I’m so much better than you because I’m trying to change the world. I think if he was alive today he’d probably be one of those Youtubers.”

At this point the Mormon boys begin to show concern. They’re obviously on a schedule for this neighbourhood and my opening gambit has alerted them I may go over my allotted time.

That’s when my boyfriend arrives and I turn to him in all seriousness and say, “Look what was just delivered to our door. I thought I’d wait and give you first choice.”

     “Make sure you shut the gate on your way out,” I call, as the Mormon boys scramble over each other trying to be first out the door.

Is it time to wave Larry Stylinson goodbye?

I'm a male 1D fan.

I know it's terrible. All my sophisticated music loving friends will pour derision on me. Who cares? My play list still has the Beatles and Bowie in it, but it also has Maroon 5, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars, 5sos and a few others, but no one features as much as those five tattooed ex-teens with their cheesy songs.

Yes I'm gay and yes they are good looking young guys, but no, that's not what's going on. In some strange way I feel like I have watched Liam, Harry, Louis, Nail and the now, 'normal lifed', Zayn grow up. I think they've managed that part of their lives incredibly well. I like the fact that I saw real loss and despair in all five band members when they were tossed out of X-Factor UK.

Those poor hopeful kids were in tears. Then they got a reprieve and for me, that's the moment that made them; not the reprieve, but the failure. There's a great quote that as a person you don't learn much from success - I don't think this is always true, but you certainly learn less from it. It allows indulgent, self satisfying thoughts that dampen drive and determination. When the dreams of the 1D guys ended so early, or so they thought, that moment seems to have been seared into their minds and it has lasted until very recently. I think more than anything else it has kept them level headed as they've grown.

They know only too well how lucky they are. Lucky to have been selected at all, let alone as a band of five. Lucky to have the hits. The fans that love them and now careers of five years taking them around the world four times over with no sign of the first class flights being grounded anytime soon.

They also work hard. Count the shows. Time and effort has tempered them so even their harshest critic has to begrudgingly admit they are competent singers. Have a listen to Torn from the XFactor and compare it to some of the vocals going on in Best Song Ever. These guys have come a long way.

And they have the best conspiracy theory bubbling along beside them since the Beatles with 'Paul is Dead'. Larry Stylinson is not as grand as the 'Paul is Dead' mystery, but it's got twice the clues to be sleuthed out. The fans dubbed their conspiracy Larry Stylinson right from the start. I've written about Larry before because it's just so damn cute - true or not.

The saga goes, according to some fans, Harry and Louis are in love, together, possibly married and having their passion filled tryst hidden away by everyone from their management to Obama. Other fans are equally adamant they're just two guys who like each other - a lot.

The anti Larry shippers place the conspiracy as nothing more than coincidence and happenstance that add up to two very close and supportive friends. Even if this is the case, what a wonderful friendship it is and how great to see two guys showing obvious affection towards each other. The other band members show affection towards one another as well, but Harry and Louis seem to go that little bit further.

I've thought about whether I want these two to be together or not, the conspiracy to be true or not, the Larry ship to be sailing or sunk. To be honest, I'm torn.

I came out very young at a time before the internet. I just couldn't see how I could keep living a lie. I was too broken and screwed up inside by trying, so coming out became my only healthy option.

As a side note, people like Tom Daley are bravely risking all they've built up to be honest and open and prove just how far we've come - especially as he was able to keep his privacy intact with some ambiguity left to his sexuality. He simply told the world he was in love and, to his surprise, the person he loved was a man. Now Caitlin Kenner has further exposed how complicated and confused human sexuality can be with her transition from the world's greatest athlete to Caitlin - a journey that took her decades to accept.

So what's that got to do with Shipping Larry - well part of me hates to think of the pressure being applied if Larry is true. I think of Australia's Ian Thorpe who was hounded until he finally outed himself and every commentator added, "See, we told you," and all I could feel was the pain of a young man who was never allowed to chart his journey in his own time and in his own way.

Coming out is personal. It has nothing to do with anyone else, it's about accepting yourself and being ready to stand up and live your life as you are and face the narrow minded throng who can't conceive or empathize with difference.

It's not fair or wise to push someone towards coming out, nor is it fair to reject someone's denial's about being gay. But the fans have gathered so much evidence around Louis and Harry that place the two of them in the land of, "Don't ask, don't tell." They seem to sit on the fence when confronted and it's hard to read if this is support from a new open minded generation or a hint they have secrets they're not ready to be open about.

The guys of 1D are so successful and still very young. They haven't put a foot wrong as far as role models go. Maybe having each other helps, whereas Beiber and others stumble because of the pressure of shouldering their fame alone. But in every interview, at every turn, One Direction members seem mature, level headed and wise beyond their years.

Honestly, ask yourself where you would be with all that power, influence and wealth at twenty one? I would be on the front page of the scandal sheets well ahead of Beiber - I would make him look like a saint. Peeing in a bucket? Most drunk 20 year old's would call that restraint.

One Direction are successful enough that if any of them are gay and came out and then lost fans, they would still have enough left supporting them to remain relevant for years to come. And they are, over and over again, supportive of all LGBTQ+ people, advances and issues.

The cynic in me notes they are getting a secondary benefit by being vague and questioning their sexuality as it fuels the ongoing Larry conspiracy and that keeps people guessing and gaining publicity. I would hope this isn't premeditated on the band's part, but I'd be naive to think it couldn't be on the agenda of a management whose primary aim is to maximise profits.

If a band member or members are simply not ready to come out then I have nothing but praise for the way they're handling themselves, even their outright denials. Look at Connor Franta - who has shown incredible bravery by leaving up his earlier post where he denies being gay, clearly demonstrating how hard it is to make the journey towards accepting yourself, let alone telling others. If someone needs more time they should have it.

But if a member of 1D is gay and ready to come out and being stopped by outside forces trying to protect the income being produced, I'd be disappointed for the first time. These guys seem stronger than that and smart enough to realise they'd make a life and death difference to so many questioning, mixed up girls and boys who are feeling trapped and need successful role models to show them they are more than okay being themselves; to show them they are every bit as good and as worthwhile as any other person on this planet, regardless of who they fall in love with.

We need high profile people with feted careers to show leadership and help others who don't have the power and influence to sway public opinion. People need to see public figures, like Tom and Connor, and many others leading the way like Troye Sivan, the Ellens - Degeneres and Page, athletes Derrick Gordan and Michael Sam, who are all leading by example and showing how important it is to be true to who you are.

Bravery is needed by all, and the most bravery is needed by those who are young and in the spotlight, because those coming to terms with their sexuality, those hiding away in the teenage angst of sorting out who they are, will relate to leaders close to their own age more than any others.

If someone in the band is gay and not ready to come out they should be left to chart their own course without the constant pressure of Larry being linked to every move or comment they make. If they are ready to come out they should join the throng and stand up to be counted. If not, they should make their support of the LGBTQ+ community crystal clear and stop teasing their fans with their vague responses to direct questions.

Either way I'm feeling, as fun as it's been, Larry has run it's course and should now become a footnote in the band's ongoing history.

As much as the GLBTQ+ community needs high profile people to be brave enough to come out and lead, allowing straight people to show support and empathy for the community is just as important - and their sexuality shouldn't be continually questioned because of of it.

@norton_scott

Autumn Reveal

Tom Daley dives into the rainbow.

That glittery rainbow just keep attracting people, doesn't it?

All sorts of people have stepped forward recently to declare who they really are and every one of them traveled a personal journey, some rocky, some smooth and then told the world they are attracted to their same sex.

Welcome! 

The catch-cry is "It gets better" - and that's largely true. I found you do lose a few people. You put up with a load of bigoted abuse, even more casual abuse and sadly, you lose a few people you don't want to lose. Easy to say "you're better off without" - but that's not always true. Losing a friend or even worse, a relative, who simply withdraws from you is never easy. But keeping such a large secret makes life just too hard - so yes, coming out and finding people you feel safe with and hopefully someone you can love does make everything better.

But it's vitally important people keep stepping forward as LGBT because eventually the diverse mix and sheer numbers will convince even the most cynical that it's a natural part of human sexuality and doesn't stick to stereotypes.

If we are not at the magical percentage tipping point yet, where enough people support LGBT rights, then we are closing in on that number.

So while many are greeting the newly outed with congratulations and #bravery for their open admissions, I'd like to say a simple thank you. It's great you feel strong enough about who you are to stand up and be counted and every new proud LGBT person who can show the world we are everywhere and diverse helps.

Having said all of that - Tom Daley came out and he did it in an extraordinary way while saying some extraordinary things.

I've been a fan of Tom's for a while. Mathew Mitcham, our Australian Olympic diving gold medalist probably directed many Australian's to Tom's amazing story where he competed at Beijing as a 14 year old. Then Tom's father passed away from Cancer a year before he won Bronze in London at 18 and somehow he managed to remain open and sane in the glare of the public spotlight. That's probably when I became a real fan - that's when his actions showed him to be worth paying attention to.

So I wasn't really surprised when he came out in such a way that he shifted the conversation in what I feel is the right direction.

Tom Daley did two things - he came out as undefined. He's currently in a committed and loving relationship with a man. Is he gay? He only says he loves this man. Is he Bi-sexual? He says he still loves women. But he also makes it clear, meeting this man made every other relationship pale.

Tom Daley: "He makes me feel safe and happy, right now I couldn't be happier. I'd never felt the feeling of love, it happened so quickly, I was completely overwhelmed by it to the point I can't get him out of my head all the time. I've never had it before where I love someone and they love me just as much."

I have a friend who identified as gay. No, that's not accurate - he was so gay we expected him to become grandpa acid on a podium in gold hot pants at sixty. Instead, somewhere in his late thirties, early forties he met a woman, got married and is still happily married with children some 15 years later.

Does he run down to the gay sauna from time to time? Does it matter? That's his business. Maybe he's discussed his desires with his partner and they have an arrangement, maybe they don't, maybe being a husband and father is truly all he needed to remain 'gay celibate'.

There are a million questions that spring to mind when confronted by this sort of scenario, but the truth is human sexuality is complex and dependent on meeting that right person at the right time. It's great for those who feel comfortable about where they sit on the spectrum to shout out 'I am Gay!" or Lesbian or Bi or Transgendered, but often this makes a person feel tied down just as much as keeping their sexuality a secret.

How tiring to have to keep declaring 'what you are' every time you meet and fall in love with a new partner.

At the moment Tom Daley has fallen in love with a man. Good for him. If he falls in love with a woman down the track, also good for him. If he stays with his very noteworthy new boyfriend, Dustin Lance Black, for the rest of his life and still doesn't label himself as gay - equally - good for him!

This is not a race to get the most numbers to qualify for a merit badge. As much as I am an advocate for Gay rights and Gay equality I recognize the community is made up of incredibly diverse individuals and it would be so hypocritical to start judging others on their choices. Seriously - so Hypocritical.

It would be like - I don't know, having a gay profile site where members wrote horribly offensive search requirements - not that that would ever happen!  

Being gay, bi or any other label on the sexuality spectrum shouldn't matter. What matters is the recognition that the spectrum is part of human sexuality and being at one end, where the majority sits, isn't better or the goal to validate someone. The goal is empathy and understanding.

I think Tom Daley's coming out brought that into focus. He's out and in love, but he recognizes life is long and things may change. What a remarkable thing to declare at nineteen.

We are all what we are at a point in time and with the right person. It would be a great place to arrive at as a society if we could all understand any of us could love anyone and the moment we fall in love we shouldn't be locked into future choices by the here and now. For many of us we will love only that type, but once again we are not all alike, some will do what some will do and the rest of us should be open to that.

The second thing that Tom did was talk about how he'd been feeling.

"It felt like a dirty little secret, it felt like I had chains wrapped around me, I couldn't be who I was, I felt alone and trapped. Just telling one person made me feel so much better, just that one person took a weight off my shoulder. I told Sophie my best friend first as I knew she'd be really accepting of it. She's been so supportive and there for me. Now that everyone knows, I have nothing to hide, those chains that I felt wrapped around me are gone and I can carry on with my life as normal and be happy."

I naively thought in this internet age that such feelings would be dissipated as young people could go online anonymously and chat and quickly discover they are not alone.

There is a time when you are just beginning the journey towards coming out - a time when you have only just, often reluctantly, accepted the feelings you're having. That's a time when you should not be rushed, so I can imagine in some cases strict parenting rules about internet use prohibit people getting online to chat when it's most needed, or in Tom Daley's case his fame made that impossible. I have rarely heard this time in the journey towards coming out described better.

Tom Daley: "I felt like there was something wrong with me, I didn't know other people out there felt that way, I felt so alone, so locked away and couldn't say anything. Tell one person. Tell your story, how you feel. I've had people send some lovely Twitter messages with people telling me they've since come out to their parents, that they've had some hope, it shouldn't matter who I'm dating in this day and age. Be who you want to be." 

And this is why so many people, including me, believe this is a subject that needs constant publicising so any others, young or old, going through this period of their lives know they are not alone and things can and do get better.

I will always mourn that I never had the full experience of adolescence. I never felt able to talk about or act on natural feelings every teenage has and needs to travel to learn about themselves and life. I hid them away until I was twenty two years old. That shouldn't still be happening. That's why it's so important that these wonderfully diverse people, with well known profiles, continue to stand up and explain what they went through and who they love and they need to keep doing it until the entire world tells them to sit down because they already know and accept LGBT as part of a very normal spectrum of human sexuality.

Until we get to that - thank you Tom and all the rest...

But especially Tom...

The New Normal - Review

The New Normal, created by Ryan Murphy and Ali Adler, is a new sitcom about a gay couple using a surrogate to have a child. 

The couple, consisting of the stereotypically gay Bryan, played by Andrew Rannells and the less stereotypical David, Justin Bartha, are both young professionals with hedonistic lifestyles and lots of disposable income. As much fun as life is, they quickly come to feel something is missing from their family - a child.

They meet down on her luck Goldie, Georgia King, who has been mistreated, left with a young child to raise and running from her racist, sexist and just plain rude mother Jane, Ellen Barkin. Jane hunts her daughter down and discovers her plans to cash in by being the boys surrogate. Needless to say she's not on board with the rent-a-womb idea.

This is not Will and Grace. Mainstream has come a long way since then and are almost accepting of the idea that gay men and women have lives just like them. Not all, but enough to allow Bryan and Andrew to be understood as any family next door by the straight majority. 

That's not to say the gay card isn't played for laughs, but the boys and their chosen 'mum' are the ones portrayed sympathetically, with humour and heart. They're the ones we relate to as they negotiate the usual trials of being a family as well as their own unique hassles with the bigoted, conservative few who still believe their views and standards need to be pushed on others. 

The lead in this pack is Jane who steals the show with a trend in comedy that is becoming well known. Gervaise, Tosh and many others now cross the politically incorrect line often. They either use a character to deny responsibility for it or, in Tosh's case, point out the funny racial/sexist/other-ist comment would be totally unacceptable - but in doing so they still get to make it.

This is the case with Jane and it's no less funny than when we first cringed at this humour four decades ago with All In The Family and Archie Bunker.

This show has heart and very good intentions. They've tried very hard to justify and ease the moral niggle that many will feel about a surrogate being used to 'supply' a child. The question about whether it is fair or right to ask a woman to create a child and then hand it over is a difficult one, but the fact it is a donor egg and not Goldie's removes many legal and moral issues. This doesn't mean it won't be fascinating to see if the writers tackle this mine field when the time comes.

In my circle of gay friends I know of two families with kids now under 3 who have settled for the mother, one a biological mother, one a more complicated surrogate to her girlfriend's egg and one of the male couple's sperm, who have bought houses and created their own urban village within their four walls.

So the scope for this show is endless. If the humour, heart and gentle navigation of life that is painted in the first few episodes continues this could easily work itself into most people's favourites column. 

As a sitcom it may be more of a warm hot chocolate on a cold night than a big night out - but sometimes that's just what you feel like.

Out of five sequins - this gets a sparkly three and half.  

Gay Marriage – You Cannot Straddle The Rainbow.

When people struggle to construct a logical argument to stop something they're against they usually resort to citing imagined outcomes that are either absurd or terrifying - sometimes both.

For instance – “We cannot allow people to marry a partner of their choice or we will be allowing men to marry horses.”

Of course to allow this argument we must also acknowledge shooting a horse would be murder, owning a horse would be slavery and riding a horse would be just a little weird. We would also need to redefine what we consider to be inclusive of the human race. In fact, there is not much of our legal common law system we wouldn’t have to redefine to fear this outcome.

Or, we could send a grade three teacher across the floor of the government assembly to the elected represented who dared to argue gay marriage should be disallowed on the grounds that horses would be choosing bridesmaids and have her rap that idiot over the knuckles with her discipline stick.  

We are talking about the right of people to marry the person of their choice in a binding, moral, spiritual union. If you argue this means we would need to redefine what marriage is, then fine - redefine it. Our legal system has a legislative history and continued existence built on the revision of earlier laws so why suddenly set in stone those aspects that help the prejudicial deny change to those wanting and needing change?

But then there's religion. Christian...

Muslim...

Hindu and Buddhism.

The Dalai Lama's views aside..Traditional Buddhism has for centuries adopted the view of sexuality that is fast becoming the populist accepted view - allowing variation on sexual attraction to be dictated by individuals and not by the few for the masses, as has been the practice of many societies and religions to this point in our history.

Religious freedom is a basic human right and many around the world, within a variety of different religions still live incredibly pious lives and adhere to the teaching and interpretation of their faith and their faith’s leaders.

This cannot simply be dismissed and if it is, then the argument of gay marriage as a fundamental right can only be made at the expense of other people’s fundamental rights. Faith based beliefs have been so strongly held by the human race through out time they have shaped our history and all too often these beliefs have led to the death of individuals who try to enforce change or disrespect another's religion. 

Marriage, for many, is still the most seriously held religious pledge and blessing made to and given by God. It would be wrong for those who consider marriage as less sacred to force those who are deeply religious and consider marriage a central doctrine within their belief system to treat it the same way.

For both sides, this choice is a human rights issue.

It is a human right for every member of society to be allowed to take a partner of their choice, to create a family and make a commitment pledge that is morally and spiritually binding, in whatever manner those individuals choose.

But human rights go both ways and often, as, I believe, is the case with gay marriage, two groups, with differing human rights, find these rights in conflict with each other.

Is it justified to force a religious body, officials or congregations to accept a religious ceremony that the body, officials or congregation believe denigrates their religion and devalues their faith?

Freedom of faith, and therefore protection of that faith as those people see it, is also a basic human right.

Of course, this still leaves any argument against a state certified non religious form of gay marriage based on antiquated laws as looking ridiculous. Who is state condoned gay marriage hurting in that case? 

But there is still a case to be argued for those citing religion as their primary opposition to gay marriage. 

Personally I believe and hope that religious people and bodies who choose to oppose gay marriage, and, in so doing, deny equal rights to gays, will lessen in number and fade away as their position becomes increasingly untenable to the wider community. If this happens it will be interesting to see if they change their view in order to survive. 

But, regardless of this personal view or hope, I believe the bigger and current issue that needs to be brought front and centre is that those arguing against gay marriage, while claiming a tolerance of gay people, need to be 'outed' as being incredibly two faced and hypocritical.

You cannot be a little sanctimonious about this issue. If you claim a religiously based human rights charter as an argument to deny marriage to same sex couples you must also claim a personally held religious belief that condemns all same sex attraction as something outside your own personal and spiritual beliefs. Not to do so makes no sense and totally undermines your gay marriage argument.

If you argue against gay marriage on the basis of an ever changing man made legislative agenda that has been constantly changed and update throughout time to accommodate change in society, then you are clinging to it for only one possible reason - to hide your homophobia. 

You cannot sit on the fence and claim to love gays, but deny them marriage. Tony Abbott, the Australian opposition leader famously tried to do this by describing same sex couples entering into civil unions as having relationships that were no less loving and worthwhile than any other relationships, but then declared he didn’t believe they had the right to marry, where marriage would allow exactly the same rights and spiritual union to same sex couples as heterosexual couples.

Trying to argue a separation between an anti same sex marriage stance and a subtle or overt homophobia is illogical. To argue against gay marriage is to argue that in some way you see gay unions as less worthy or less valid a partnership option than that of a man and a woman. To do this you must view homosexuality as less worthy or less valid.  

If you are against gay marriage on religious grounds then you are against homosexuality on religious grounds. To date I have not heard anyone argue against gay marriage, and then embrace the gay community and not sound foolish. The only coherent argument is to site a conviction that your God, through your religion, has made it clear homosexuality is not acceptable.

I don’t agree with that argument, but I respect it. In fact I would argue against people or groups with these views from being forced to change their charters to accommodate gay marriage. Of course once the majority of people, including a majority within these religions start advocating for change alongside the gay community, what do we do? What's the equation that dictates when a human right should be granted to the many if it involves the loss of a human right for the few? How many are enough and how many are too few?

When no loss of life or injury is involved in the denial of a human right, and the granting of that right conflicts with others, it becomes difficult to decide how to give everyone what they demand. And this is certainly a complicated issue for worthy minds, but, it is also time for those who are against this change on religious grounds, or any other indefensible legal grounds, to be held to account. You cannot have it both ways and we should stop allowing our leaders of both church and state this luxury. 

If you are against a fundamental human right, in this case social equality, being extended to people for any reason, then you are against those people fundamentally for the same reasons.

You may only be mildly against them, you may convey and even publicly advocate social tolerance of them, perhaps to cynically remain 'politically correct', but to be against by any degree still means you're against and regard that group, on some level, as less worthy of the full rights of your society. 

You cannot claim acceptance of gay people and their partnerships and not of gay marriage. If you do the time has come for the rest of us to out you as a hypocrite and certainly label you as no friend of Dorothy's. Even the laws of optics make it clear that no-one can have a foot either side of a rainbow.  

Scott Norton Taylor - Inner City - Ebook for Kindle, Epub Sony, Palm or online!

Reviews: From Amazon

5.0 out of 5 stars Awesome read May 27, 2013

By Anna Brouillard

Format:Kindle Edition|Amazon Verified Purchase

This book was so intriguing I hardly put it down. Wonderfully written it does not linger on any 

one event nor does it speed through scenes making it a poor read. The characters were well 

thought out and the inner turmoils they all face are far from dull.

5.0 out of 5 stars Spectacular April 5, 2013

By Jack

Format:Kindle Edition|Amazon Verified Purchase

The book was simply amazing it had action romance and just enough drama to make me happy 

one of the best books I have ever read

From Barnes and Noble - Nook Books:

Posted December 1, 2012

 Great read.

A story filled with with love, hate, violence, peace and so much more. 538 pages of wondering what will happen 

next. A FULL story from start to finish. Thanks to the author for sharing a great work with the readers.

Posted July 8, 2012

 Couldn't put it down...

For this to have been a free book, it was wonderful. The author keeps you on the edge of your seat. I couldn't 

put this down. I think this would make a great movie!

Posted April 20, 2012

 Amazing

Perfectly written with great detail it was thought provoking and asked the fundemental question of would you 

stick up for what you believed was right even if you would be killed for doing so.

Posted April 5, 2012

 This book is AWESOME! it keeps you wanting to read the entire ti

This book is AWESOME! it keeps you wanting to read the entire time. It tells of 2 worlds, and both are 

extremely unique. One of the best books I've ever read!

READ IT YOURSELF - INNER CITY