Whilst I try to have a thought-through opinion on many
issues, I always do my best to understand the arguments and thought-process of
those with whom I disagree.
In this regard, I am completely flummoxed on the issue of
equal marriage. Try as I might, I cannot understand why anyone would oppose the
extension of the institution of marriage, by general consent a ‘good thing’, to
those who wish, freely and willingly, to enter into it. Perhaps you can help
me. As I understand it, the main arguments put forward are these…
Marriage has always been between men and women. Equal
Marriage devalues the concept of marriage
The first part is, of course, factually accurate. But lawful sex was defined as being between a
man and a woman until the law changed in the UK in 1967. Marital rape was
lawful in England and Wales until as recently as 1992, when it was recognised
by the House of Lords. Civil Partnership was unheard of until it was created in
2004. My point is that the fact that something ‘has always been’ or ‘has never
been’ is not an argument against change.
Civil marriage is a creation of the state (see the Marriage
Act 1949). It can therefore be changed by the state through the democratically
elected representatives of the people. That’s how it works. Indeed the rules
surrounding civil marriage have changed considerably, notably in the licensing
of a wide range of establishments for the conduct of marriages.
I really don’t understand how extending marriage to same sex
couples in any way devalues marriage as an institution or has any impact on
those of us in heterosexual marriages.
Marriage is for procreation and raising children
Of course, many marriages are blessed with children, but
many are not either by choice or for other reasons. Are childless couples any
less married? Of course not. Some are very happy about their situation, some
not, and some choose to adopt.
So what’s the difference between a heterosexual couple
adopting children, or choosing to remain childless and a gay couple doing the
same thing? I genuinely don’t see it.
The legislation is flawed, so it isn’t equal
The argument here is that because the new legislation
doesn’t contain the concept of consummation or provide for divorce by reason of
adultery, it is fundamentally flawed. Stonewall points out that 98% of divorces
are actually on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, and that the definition
of consummation can be developed through case law, as indeed it has been in the
case of heterosexual marriage (W v W, 1967).
It’s not fair because straight couples can’t have a Civil
Partnership
In my response to the consultation exercise, I argued that
Civil Partnerships should be abolished, so that everyone had the same option of
a civil or religious marriage. That didn’t happen, but I can’t see that that
anomaly is of any great significance, and certainly not a reason to reject
equal marriage.
Registrars and teachers who don’t agree with equal
marriage will be sacked
The argument is that Registrars who disagree with equal
marriage could be forced to conduct same sex ceremonies, and that teachers
could be required to teach that equal marriage is acceptable, even if they
believe that it isn’t.
I’m afraid I take an unsympathetic line on this. Registrars
are employed to perform a range of ceremonies according to the laws of the
country. It is not a matter of personal conscience. This has recently been
confirmed by the European Court, which rejected the claim that the human rights
of a Registrar had been infringed when he was required to be willing to register
a Civil Partnership.
In the case of teachers, they are required to teach about
the world as it is, not as they would like it to be. If children ask for their
opinion, they are entitled to give it, but in the context that this is what
parliament has agreed and this is the law. Some teachers no doubt believe in
creationism, but are required to teach children about evolution.
Creating law according to the wishes of those who would be
required to implement it would be the clearest possible example of the tail
wagging the dog.
The Churches are opposed to Equal Marriage
It would be truer to say that some – probably most –
churches are opposed. Others have made it clear that they welcome the change
and wish to offer marriage to all. And that’s fine, it’s up to them. The
legislation makes it clear that no religious institution will be compelled to
carry out same sex marriages. Indeed in the case of the Church of England and
Church in Wales it will be unlawful for them to do so. I understand that this
could be changed without further primary legislation if at some future date the
Church changes its stance.
So there you are. The Bill will pass through Parliament
despite the opposition of a very vocal minority. In 20 years time, I wonder how
many of those who vote against it will look back on this day with pride or will
they realise, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were on the wrong side
of history.
