Ten compelling points to consider on "Same Sex Marriage"
CARE have compiled a very helpful list to help us come to an informed decision on the Government's intention to legalise same sex marriage.
If, after reading this, you want to respond, please go to c4m.org.uk or care.org.uk
A challenge facing Christians, who do not believe that
same sex marriage is part of God’s purpose for society, is to be willing and
able to stand publicly against it. It is all too easy to regard the subject
with passive resignation – as if it is bound to happen. That simply is not
true. There are at least ten good secular reasons for not changing the law to
create same sex marriage.
1. There is no need for same sex
marriage. All the rights and legal benefits of marriage are
already available to same sex couples through civil partnerships. Therefore it
is not discriminatory to support traditional marriage and oppose same sex
marriage.
2. It would redefine marriage for
everyone. Making marriage available to same sex couples does
not just impact them. It impacts all people who are married, or intend to get
married, because it would fundamentally change the definition of the public
institution that is marriage. It is already proposed that the words ‘husband’ and
‘wife’ would no longer be used, but would be replaced with the more neutral
‘parties to a marriage’. The 24 million couple who are currently married would
find that the legal institution they chose to join has been changed, and
redefined, to fit the demands of same sex couples who make up less that 1.5% of
households in England and Wales
3. It is not wanted in the UK. The 2008 British Social Attitudes Survey found 63% of the public
oppose same sex marriage when respondents are told about the existence of civil
partnerships. 86% support the proposition that it is ‘possible to be tolerant
of the rights of others and protective of traditional marriage at the same
time’.[2]
4. It is not popular across the world. Only around 5% of countries have same sex marriage.[3]
Ireland and France United
States have rejected same sex marriage, including the
liberal states such as California
5. Heterosexual marriage is vital for
society. For thousands of years marriage has meant one man
committing himself to one woman in the hope of raising children in a stable and
loving environment. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and
women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that
children do best with a married mother and father by every conceivable
benchmark.
6. Marriage is different. It is suggested that same sex couples should be given marriage on the
basis that failure to do so would be discrimination and contrary to equality.
This discrimination argument, however, only holds if you are comparing people
who, despite being the same, are subject to different treatment. Solemnised
same sex relationships, however, are not the same as different sex
relationships:
a.
The legal level of commitment required is different.
Marriages are not legal if they have not been consummated, whereas same sex
marriage (like civil partnerships) is are never defined in these terms. Moreover
marriages are voided on grounds of adultery, but again same sex marriage is
never defined in these terms.
b.
Marriages are potentially procreational relationships.
Same sex relationships do not have this capability.
In this context
one can argue that it is fine to recognise same sex relationships and provide
legal standing in civil partnerships, but it is not appropriate to say they
must be treated in exactly the same way as solemnised heterosexual
relationships for the simple reason that they are, in very important senses,
fundamentally different kinds of relationship, realised through legally
different expressions of commitment.
7. Promoting ‘marriage’ in school. If same sex marriage becomes legal it will have to be taught and, in
terms of the Education Act 1996, promoted in schools. Many people who are
initially supportive of the idea of gay marriage seriously reconsider when
presented with this fact. This, of course, is not just an issue from the
perspective of children, but also a religious liberty and conscience issue for
Christian teachers.
8. Further redefinitions of marriage. Once you define marriage to include a relationship between couples of
the same sex as well as couples of different sexes there is little grounding on
which to prevent further re-definitions of marriage in the future. Already in Canada and in some US
9. Part of an anti-marriage agenda. A large proportion of same sex couples, perhaps the majority, don’t
actually believe in marriage. Marriage is an institution associated with a
world from which they are trying to break away, although in some cases it is
precisely because of this that they want gay marriage because they know it will
undermine the patriarchal institution they despise.[7]
The leading campaigner for gay marriage, Peter Tatchell, is still very much
against marriage. If marriage is re-defined, many others will begin to lose
their rights, especially churches, who, whatever reassurances the Government
may offer, will be challenged again and again in the courts for refusing to
solemnise same sex marriages. Charities will be closed down, or couples
prevented from fostering, all because of their views on traditional marriage.
10. The practical problems. The word ‘marriage’ appears 3,258 times in UK
a.
Option 1. Amend the Marriage Act so that marriage embraces
different and same sex couples and replace current marriages and civil
partnerships. This would require a new definition of marriage that would either
have to: i) downgrade the level of commitment in current marriage, so they become
more like civil partnerships with consummation or adultery removed, or ii)
upgrade the level of commitment in solemnised same sex relationships by trying
to apply consummation and adultery. Quite apart from the difficulty of
downgrading marriage commitment or seeking to upgrade the same sex commitment,
this policy would be strongly opposed by all those wanting to continue in civil
partnerships.
b.
Option 2. Amend the Marriage Act to embrace same sex as well as
different sex couples but keep the same level of commitment by trying (see the
difficulties above) to apply consummation and adultery to same sex
relationships. Keep the Civil Partnerships Act, amending it to allow different
sex civil partnerships. Under this system everyone, straight or gay, would have
the option of marriage or civil partnership. In equality terms if one wants to
keep civil partnerships for same sex couples, creating the civil partnership
option for different sex couples would be imperative given that it would not be
fair for same sex couples to have the option of both marriage and civil
partnerships whilst heterosexuals could only access marriage. This point was
readily understood by Stonewall in 2010 when it made the point that it was not
convinced of the merits of gay marriage, given that, in its view, there could
be no question of doing away with civil partnerships and this would necessitate
creating heterosexual civil partnerships which it estimated would cost
£5billion over ten years. Now, having been out-manoeuvred by other gay rights
activists, principally Peter Tatchell, but mindful of the cost of different sex
civil partnerships, they are arguing (see their draft Bill) that the Government
should keep civil partnerships but exclude different sex couples from them. It
is inconceivable that such an arrangement would not be subject to a legal
challenge.
c.
Option 3. The only other option would be to keep the Marriage
Act unamended but to amend the Civil Partnerships Act to simply rename civil
partnerships ‘same sex marriages.’ This, however, would not please all those in
civil partnerships who have no desire to be married. Moreover, it would not
satisfy those wanting to be part of the same ‘marriage’ category as solemnised
different sex couples because they would find themselves in the category ‘same
sex marriage.’
There are no good compromises. Civil and religious marriage cannot be separated. They are simply different doorways to the same institution, marriage.
We cannot redefine marriage, as opposed to the ceremonial ‘doorway’, for some, and not redefine it for everybody.
Of course a commitment that churches would not have to provide religious gay marriage services is welcome from a religious liberty point of view. However, for how long would such an arrangement be sustainable? When the concession was announced it was immediately criticised by the Quakers and Stonewall for discriminating against gay couples of faith who want a religious marriage service. Therefore a legal challenge would be likely. If churches were put in a position where they must either provide marriage services for every legally eligible couple, then they would have to choose between violating their faith and conducting marriages between couples of the same sex as well as different sex couples, or withdraw from the provision of marriage services altogether.
“For centuries our law has reflected the universal reality that marriage is the exclusive, life-long union of one man and one woman. It is unnecessary to be contemplating re-defining this ancient and revered institution.” Lord Brennan QC
Thanks, Jude, for typing this up!
Alastair.
[2] The
BSA Survey asked about how same sex couples should be treated in law: ‘Which
comes closest to your view… they should be allowed legally to marry OR should
be allowed legally to form civil unions, but not marry OR should not be allowed
to obtain legal recognition for their relationships?’ 33.7% said they should be
allowed to marry, whilst 62.6% said they should not (grouping together the
second two responses)
[3] Argentina ,
Belgium , Canada , Iceland ,
Netherlands , Norway , Portugal ,
Spain , South Africa and Sweden
[7] Gallagher and Baker.
Demand for same sex marriage: evidence from the United
States , Canada
and Europe , 2006.
[8] http://www.jubilee-centre.org/blog/435/coalition_for_marriage_launches_campaign
