Equality is on the horizon

Picture credits: Moser’s Maroon

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.

 

James Crouch, Exeposé print Features editor

 

Listening to the debate over the introduction of gay marriage is fascinating. Only this government could introduce a measure that appears so popular and have it met by muddled half-hearted support surrounded by grumblings of even semi-coherent disapproval.

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.

Picture credits: LiangHH

Conor Byrne

 

For advocates of equal rights, gay rights activists, and many ordinary citizens in British society, the news this week that gay marriage is to finally be legalised in Britain has met with joy, relief, surprise, and celebration. 400 MPs in the House of Commons voted in favour of legalising gay marriage and 175 voting against. Prime Minister David Cameron enthusiastically announced: “Last night’s vote will be seen not just as making sure that there is a proper element of equality, but also helping us to build a stronger and fairer society”. Ed Miliband agreed with Cameron, stating: “this is a proud day and an important step forward in the fight for equality in Britain”. But there has been a considerable backlash, particularly from other politicians who strongly oppose plans to legalise gay marriage.

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.

 

A call to action in response to worldwide domestic abuse

Twenty-four percent of all crimes reported to Devonshire and Cornwall police are instances of domestic violence. One in three men and women will be beaten or raped during their lifetime.

These sobering truths helped to inspire the performers of Eve Ensler’s “A Memory, A Monologue, a Rant and a Prayer“, a show that was held on Valentine’s Day as part of the worldwide One Billion Rising campaign to raise awareness about the oppression of women. A series of monologues about all forms of violence against women – physical, sexual and emotional – the show was successful in highlighting that violence is an issue that affects everyone.

One Billion Rising in San Francisco. Photo by Steve Rhodes

The first monologue focused on the daily tasks that many women around the world have to fulfil and the potentially demoralising impact of this often unrecognised work. When the monologue was over, the performer sat a little apart from the others, perhaps with the implication that the nature of her role prevented her from connecting with other people affected by restrictive gender stereotyping.

The emotional impact of being worn down by a seemingly inescapable situation was also discussed with regards to domestic violence in the monologue that began “I was a woman split in two”. Many who suffer abuse and trauma disassociate themselves from it, but eventually the character told herself “you don’t deserve this” and broke away from the cycle of abuse.

One Billion Rising in Barcelona. Photo by aw.samoano on Flickr

The moment of breakthrough was also highlighted in a chillingly well-acted account of gang rape. The performer juxtaposed the characters’ helplessness when casual, jokey flirting turned sinister (leading to girls feeling they ought “not to make a big deal out of nothing” if they are touched against their will) and her empowerment having fought against this abuse.

One Billion Rising in Washington DC. Photo by cool revolution on Flickr

This performance was later contextualised by the shocking statistic that a third of young women and a quarter of young men think that violence is acceptable. The character portrayed had suffered varying forms of sexual abuse before, always telling herself it was “easier just to let it happen”, an attitude it can be easy for anyone to take if the other person involved is drunk or someone we know.

A third of young women and a quarter of young men think that violence is acceptable.

I have to admit that this was one of the stories that brought me to the brink of tears. I don’t know how many young people were reached by the One Billion Rising campaign, but it seems hugely important that we begin to reflect on these ideas. This is my one criticism of the campaign if not the performance itself: there was an air of preaching to the choir. Perhaps with better publicity far more students would have engaged with it.

One of the strongest aspects of this performance was that it didn’t fall into the trap of pigeon-holing issues of violence as something that only affects women. One monologue presented a man’s recollection of his father beating his mother with part of a cardboard wardrobe. Set in America during the Great Depression, this story suggested that poverty and marginalisation – the family presented were eastern-European immigrants – can lead to more oppression and abuse. Intersectionality is a key tenet of current gender equality movements and this was a clear and effective way of highlighting how, to some extent, tackling broader social issues could contribute towards improving equality.

One Billion Rising in Münster. Photo by Harald Berenfänger

Another positive aspect was that the performance addressed issues affecting women worldwide rather than just familiar and local examples of violence. One monologue told the absolutely chilling tale of Nun running a boarding school in Uganda in which girls and boys were taken by rebel militia to be systematically used and indoctrinated. This was entirely believable, right down to the details of how hardened children’s hands and feet become after years of walking and fighting with armed groups.

 

One Billion Rising in Guyana. Photo by Amanda Richards

Another story told of a journalist’s regret at not saving two young girls from a brothel in Cambodia because “journalists don’t get involved”. Given that One Billion Rising aims for action on these issues rather than passive comment, this was an effective way of highlighting that suffering affects everyone and is therefore for everyone to fight against.

Suffering affects everyone and is therefore for everyone to fight against.

The final monologue brought these issues back to a more familiar setting with the story of a young woman accused of “spoiling the party” for talking about the abuse suffered every day by women and other marginalised groups across the world.

Exeter has recently been commented on in the national press as a university where the party has got a bit out of hand. We will only be able to shake off this reputation if we note the messages of campaigns like One Billion Rising and take the opportunities available to us, as a group of intelligent, energetic individuals with a good education, to achieve something positive.

By Helena Bennett