A marriage of convenience

This has been sitting on my memory stick for a while but I still felt that I needed to share it, even if it does seem a little out of date...

This week has seen a positive step forward for equality.  The SNP led Scottish parliament has announced its intention to introduce same sex marriage to Scotland, which could see the first ceremonies take place as “early” as 2015.  Depending upon your own viewpoint, this is either fantastic news or a sign that the end is nigh.

To be honest, this isn’t the first blog post I have drafted on this issue.  A few weeks ago a local MP posted an article that stipulated why he thought that same sex marriage was wrong and why he would be voting against it. Like many of my friends, I took exception to many of his comments.  Not only were many of them groundless musings upon what could potentially happen if we as a nation allowed this dreadful thing to happen; it also contained ill thought out statements that were blatantly untrue.  There were way too many inflammatory statements for me to pick each and every one (and I would like to get to the part where I actually discuss my own opinions on the subject before you lose the will to live), so I have picked the ones that aggravated me the most:

1)      Marriage has a unique place in our society. It is a bedrock institution and the most stable environment for raising children. Redefining marriage would make marriage adult-centred rather than child-centred. 

I take exception to this comment for three reasons.  Firstly, marriage was NEVER a child centred institution.  Back in the day it was merely a method of passing property between rich families.  Ok, so in poorer families it was a way of ensuring that a woman wouldn’t be left to raise any offspring alone.  Either way, marriage IS an adult centred institution that was entered into for material reasons rather than to ensure a stable, loving family environment in which to raise children.  Secondly, there are now many unmarried couples who stay together and raise children.  Has this person or any of his cronies interviewed children of unmarried parents? Did these children admit to feeling insecure because their parents are not married?  I am one of these children and can safely say that the fact that my parents weren’t married did not bother me one bit.  Thirdly, what about hetero couples who either cannot or do not want to raise children?  Is he saying that marriage is pointless for these people?  Or is their decision perfectly alright because their relationship is “normal.”

2)      Marriage also has a place in our history. The oldest recorded English law referencing marriage between husband and wife goes back 800 years – and part of that legislation is still in force today. Marriage is yet older than that. It predates the English language and our nation, and it predates the Christian church. It is as old as the hills, not a recent invention of society to be refashioned on a political whim.

Slavery, witch burning and wife beating are all parts of history.  Yet, no person of sound mind would ever advocate that these things be practiced.  Same sex marriage is not about satisfying whims, political or otherwise.  It is about enabling people from all walks of life to celebrate and gain legal recognition of their relationship.  Thus, “I want to marry you” could be translated as “I love you and want the state recognition that will enable us to look after one another for as long as we are both here.”  This sentiment is probably the same regardless of the gender of the people who are expressing it so why should we be subject to different rules?  Why should one group be allowed to express this sentiment however they wish whilst another group is subject to restrictions?  When viewed in this light, it is clear that we are not merely seeking change for the sake of it: we are asking that every single loving relationship be celebrated and recognised in the same way and in order for this to happen

we need a change in the law.  This provides a convenient segue into my next point....

The viewpoints of the Catholic and Anglican churches on this subject have been well documented in the press.  Therefore, I am not going to waste time on explaining their positions.  Needless to say, they are opposing it. What is less well documented is the fact that some religious groups, such as the Quakers and Unitarians, want to offer same sex wedding ceremonies but are forbidden from doing so.  Why?  Because until an act of parliament is passed in order to allow this, it cannot happen.  This is quite an odd and some might say, unfair situation.  After all, many of those who are opposing same sex marriage are doing so on the basis that it is contrary to their beliefs.  Equally, many Quakers view discrimination as being against their beliefs.  Thus, in denying the rights of same-sex couples to marry they are also denying other faith groups to act according to their beliefs.

In addition to this, churches fear that if same-sex marriage is allowed they will be overrun by couples and ministers will be forced to solemnise ceremonies which they are uncomfortable with.  Crucially, Scotland’s Deputy First Minister has been keen to reiterate that this will not be the case: “The Scottish government has already made clear that no religious body will be compelled to conduct same-sex marriage and we reiterate that today.  Such protection is provided for under existing equality laws.”  (www.bbc.co.uk/news)  This is, I feel, a compromise worth making.  It is a shame that many of our clergy feel that it is their business to demonise other people on the basis of sexuality.  However, this is the situation we have.  I’m not saying that we should blindly accept it but what I am saying is this:

If the church wants to opt out of equality then they should be allowed to do so.  I can foresee that they will probably alienate some of their members by doing so.  I do not see that any good would be done by forcing them to do things that they are not ready or willing to do.  If they were indeed forced into this (and mercifully, it doesn’t look like they will be), this would be an infringement of THEIR rights to practice their faith according to their collective conscience.  This is the very thing I argued against further up the page so please do not expect that I am going to go back on this for the sake of convenience. 

Contrary to the concerns expressed by some, I do not think that same-sex couples will be drawing up outside their local church in droves expecting to be married.  I think many will still opt for civil ceremonies rather than the more traditional job.  Ergo, I think that much of the debate is still shrouded in panic and “what if” considerations, which don’t really help people on either side of the argument.  My only hope is that, at some point in the not too distant future, same sex relationships will get the legal support and recognition that they so richly deserve.