Tuesday 6 March 2012

Instructions To The Audience

I know what you're thinking. It's Tuesday and the Guru must have had an extra Omega 3 capsule if he's going to dispense his glorious thoughts midweek.

The power of the fish oil is strong this morning dear ones, (as is the after taste if you burp) and it compels me to offer these wonderful words of wisdom.

Family life is sometimes a little challenging, I hear stories everyday of how some families fall apart whilst others stick together through thick and thicker. I was musing only yesterday how working with family members can cause some real problems and perhaps there were days when Jesus thought about leaving the family firm and taking his magic show to Vegas. Father and Holy Ghost might not have had the same success without him.

But all this rambling about family is really bringing me to three hours sitting in the theatre last night, watching Long Day's Journey Into Night by Eugene O'Neill. I'm not going to review the whole show but its depiction of family life and the issues each member of that family were battling, was enthralling. The whole cast were magnificent and the evening flew by. This production has plugged a big gap in my theatre going experiences - my first O'Neill and I got to see David Suchet on stage.

It is at once a period piece but yet it has a strong resonance for modern life. One line really hits the mark:


The past is the present, isn't it? It's the future too. 


The characters were so shockingly real you did get completely drawn into the story which was not complicated to follow in any way....unless you were the lady sat two rows in front of me!

I've written before about audiences and how they sometimes spoil a show and last night we had a few nose blowers and coughers, the odd sweet paper but the most annoying thing for me was the fact the some people come to the theatre and then don't pay attention.

The lady in question kept asking her husband about the plot, which if she had shut up and listened was all too clearly explained in the text.

In the interval, her husband did his best to catch her up and the debate about one character and their fingers was fascinating.

The character of Mary Tyrone complains of pains in her fingers which leads her to require medication.  The inquisitive and yet stupid lady asked her husband "why are her fingers not more bent, like my mum's - she had arthritis and her fingers were much worse than that".

She went on to explain that she didn't believe there could have been any pain from such un-arthritic finger joints and that the actress (Laurie Metcalfe who was superb in the role) should try harder to make her fingers more bent!

Can you imagine how hard I was suppressing guffaws of laughter at this time?

She also commented on the costumes being 'familiar' and she thought she had seen them somewhere before. She mused that it might have been Downton Abbey. I had my fist in my mouth by now.

After the interval some people moved from the cheap seats to occupy some empty seats behind me (dress circle of course)  and it was obviously some corporate jolly.  They nearly all spoke with American accents and wreaked of alcohol. I did wonder if it was the James Tyrone Fan Club. One of them soon fell asleep but luckily didn't snore as that would have been the icing on the cake.

The English man with them said the following as the lights dimmed - "Don't you recognise the actor? It's John Suchet. Don't you get POYROTT back home? He's famous in this country for playing POYROTT, not sure what else he's done".

Anyway, I sat enthralled as the play continued its inevitable journey accompanied by more questions from the idiot woman, more sweet papers, coughs and sneezes...but in the end it didn't matter. I had witnessed something very good and I knew it.

I would willingly sit through the whole play again - as long as I got to pick the rest of the audience!

That's all today now go and busy yourself with life, enjoy your day and your family - who for all their faults are still your family.








Sunday 4 March 2012

Getting Married Today

Good morning world, how nice to see you all washed and ready for action this chilly March morning.

What will you do with yourselves today? Perhaps a visit to a garden centre or a pub lunch, maybe a drive in the countryside. Or if you live in Mountain View California, you'll probably spend all day re-reading my blog back catalogue as you try and work out what adverts to send my way (thanks Google).

Of course some will be attending church, (don't laugh, some people do still go to church) and if any are going to church in Scotland this morning I guess they will be getting a sermon on the sanctity of marriage. In fact I imagine that in many catholic churches the pronouncements of Cardinal Keith O'Brien on 'gay or same sex marriage' will be the topic du jour.

I suppose I better declare an interest in that I am hoping that during the forthcoming consultation period on  gay marriages in the UK, that celebrants such as myself will be granted the power to perform legally recognised ceremonies. The reason this is important to me is that next year I have been asked to celebrate a wedding for two very special people (not same sex) - and I can tell you now that it will be the wedding of the year! I'm already searching for a trained budgie to sit on my shoulder throughout the event, to accessorise my ringmasters costume.

In my eyes, marriage is about the commitment of one person to another, and not just because it is union in which that commitment is legally recognised by the state. I do, however, think equality is important.

Presently in the UK, a legally recognised marriage can take place in a civil ceremony at a registrars office or in a religious establishment overseen by a minister of that church. You can also get married in certain other buildings that have been approved by the local authority. No matter the location or the style of the wedding, the thing that makes the marriage legal is the signing of the register.


As I mentioned, here in the UK we are about to commence a period of consultation as to whether gay marriage should be legally recognised and there have already been many voices raised in protest. Some say that gay couples have the right to a civil partnership and this gives them legal rights on a par with marriage so why muddy the waters?

But why can't two people who love each other simply get married?

Let me tell you what the Cardinal says about gay marriage, or as he calls it a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right".

He goes on to say... "Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father."

I'm a little confused, which is easy for me as Catholics always confuse me. We have not even cut the cake and the Cardinal is worrying about children!

Of course, the Catholic church believes that the purpose of marriage is to bring more potential converts into the world and it has been a success in so many places...look at those countries in Africa where Catholicism is the main religion, no shortage of children there.  Just a shortage of food to give them, medical aid, and parents who have died through contracting HIV. A success story to be really proud of - let's have a big cheer for the Pope.

The Cardinal also stated that by legalising gay marriage, the UK government would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world".

Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Iceland, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the USA  have legally recognised same sex marriage to some extent. I don't see any shame in joining that list do you? And we will not be alone, many other countries are moving towards legally recognising the concept of two people being able to make a commitment to each other, not just a man and a woman.

I don't have any objections to two men or two women getting married, I don't feel that it in anyway undermines the institution of marriage. Mrs B and I married in church more through tradition than religion and I think we are probably part of a great majority who uses the church in that way. Did that make our commitment any less valid? It might do in the eyes of the church but the eyes of the state are closed to such issues.

As a Humanist I don't think the church, any church, should own marriage and I think that if a state wishes to recognise the commitment of one human being to another, a commitment in exclusion to all others, then the world will not stop turning nor will the churches fall.

Religion is a part of our society, I don't think that will ever change. My opinion is that the church should not be given a right to run society, it should be there to support those who sign up to its rules - so all the gay catholics will have to be satisfied with....hang on, is there such a thing as a gay catholic?

The fear that recognising same sex marriage may marginalise even further those groups who are against it is no reason to stand still - if the church doesn't want to evolve that is their choice, but the rest of us are fed up with the 12th century and want to live in the 21st.

A happy marriage is one based on mutual respect, love, and the ability to work together - Mrs B and I are very happily married and I know this for sure because she told me just the other day.

My marriage to Mrs B has been a success because of Mrs B, I can take no credit at all. I have just honoured and obeyed her for almost 28 years and having lived through all of that joy I would like to see everyone suffer as I have. (It's a joke dear, let me fetch you another cup of tea to your bedside and toast you a crumpet).

One third of marriages between 1995 and 2010 ended in divorce so the same sex team hasn't been making a great success of things, so why not let someone else have a go? They can't be any worse at being married than us hetero's!