With the recent passing of the same-sex marriage bill and to highlight LGBT history month, Exeposé Features looks at the issues behind the change to the legal definition of marriage in Britain.
Now I will say only this of the political process behind the change. It is true that no-one voted for it in the 2010 general election because no-one proposed it and there has been little or no consultation. Opinion polling does show that only a minority support depriving homosexual couples of any rights, but whether or not the majority support changing the definition of ‘marriage’ is far from clear. It is this substantive issue which is so important.
What is key here is the fact that marriage and its’ definition is not a private matter. It is a social institution, it is public property as it were. The rights, preferences or interests of individuals should have no sway over the definition of such public property. I feel wholeheartedly that this is the angle we must look at: whether or not we should effectively change the definition of marriage.
Those often in support of gay marriage view it as the right of every consenting couple to get married. They view it as the right of a man or woman to publicly demonstrate their love to another and commit. But that in itself does not give a reason to change the definition.
For example, a religious marriage (for most faiths in the UK at least) is not legally binding – and so does not meet this criterion that homosexual marriage will – which I’m sure most religious people would view as drastically more important than the legal binding of a state sponsored marriage. These people go through the civil marriage process to achieve the legal rights. In terms of actual rights, gay men and women have already achieved near parity in the many rights civil partnerships give. The truth of the love and commitment surely comes from the couple, the name is worthless. A union without this does not magically gain it when called love.
But if marriage is a public and social institution, for society’s benefit, then what is that benefit? That everyone is in a loving relationship? Well, you can do that without being married, so it can’t be that. To make sure that everyone has the same legal rights? Well, that’s already been achieved without this change in the definition of marriage.
For me, society benefits because it is able to endorse a set of values and forms of conduct whereby we have children and perpetuate society. This sounds like a tiny part of marriage, but I argue there is nothing more fundamental in nature than reproduction and continuation of ourselves. And I argue this social institution is about trying to get all its members to raise the new generation, the continuation of ourselves, in the best way possible.
As is commonly spouted on TV and radio, ‘marriage is the best condition in which to raise children’, and I agree. This is not to slate single mothers and fathers, I myself was raised by a single mother for 20 out of 21 years of my life. I merely argue that the most worthwhile reason for marriage is for its adherents to state that they intend to a raise family and wish to do so in the guise that society would prefer.
This is why, of course, we used to have laws that made adultery illegal and made divorce impossible without evidence of some outside element that made the marriage untenable (such as impotence or infidelity). It was because the state tried to make it hard for couples to split and endanger the good upbringing of the next generation. That was the sole purpose of the state’s interference.
This is why I do not support ‘gay marriage’ as it is termed. I do not believe society has anything to gain by giving state endorsement to homosexual relationships any more than heterosexual relationships. What do I care about what goes on in your bedroom and why do I care that you love each other? But, as a member of society, I care that you bring up your children in the happiest and most secure situation we can all structurally provide.
I simply don’t view this as a matter of equality. This is an issue of what marriage is as a social institution and what it means for society. It is not just something which can be played around with personal preferences, but has to be focussed on the family nature of marriage. This is why I remain uncovinced by the change in the definition of marriage.
Conor Byrne
The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 first declared that a marriage is void if the respective partners are not male and female, while same-sex marriages were simultaneously prohibited in Northern Ireland and Scotland. However, in 2004 the Civil Partnership Act was passed and came into effect in December 2005, granting same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities of marriage but not allowing gays to marry in the sense that heterosexual couples are able to. There has been increasing levels of support for gay marriage in the UK, with a June 2012 survey showing that 71 per cent of the British population were in favour of same-sex marriage.
In Europe, the situations regarding same-sex marriage vary substantially. Same-sex marriage is currently legalised in Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. In contrast, however, the constitutions of countries including Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia and Ukraine define marriage strictly as being between a man and a woman. Despite this, the situation in Europe is incomparably better in relation to gay rights in other continents. In Africa and some parts of Asia, for instance, continuing hostility remains, while the execution of a 16 and a 17-year old in Iran, allegedly for homosexuality, shocked the world displaying how gay rights are not universally accepted by any means. The Iranian President notoriously denied that homosexuals even existed in Iran.
So, is it likely that the gay marriage bill will be passed in Britain, and same-sex marriages will finally be legalised? Will we see our society becoming even more equal, or will continuing hostility mean that this is only a dream, with no hope of becoming reality? This is such a controversial issue that it is unlikely that anyone will ever be completely satisfied. What can be noted, however, is how gays have been granted increasing rights over a long period of time, with the concept of same-sex marriage generating more acceptance and support in a forward-thinking, liberal society. But issues of religion and tradition remain critical, meaning that the road to gay marriage on the same basis as heterosexual marriage is likely to be paved with troubles.
exeposedev 