Michael Cope puts forward his opinions in response to a comment piece on gay marriage in Issue 47 of Exeposé.
In a discussion opposing equal marriage in the 19th February edition, the author indulges in the same stereotypes and misconceptions that LGBTQ people face every day. Reading his homophobic piece distressed me, as it contains the same arguments used by more vociferous bigots who demand far worse restrictions on the rights of LGBTQ people than a refusal of marriage rights. I found his arguments to be bigoted, hurtful and hetero-supremacist, so here’s my say on the issue.
Firstly, the writer uses the tired argument that the definition of marriage should not be changed, and that marriage is ‘public property’. He seems to forget that there is no set definition of marriage, as marriage is a social construct. Its meaning has changed constantly over time and it means different things to different people. Biblical polygamy anyone? If marriage is ‘public property’, then surely the sections of the public who are LGBTQ own it as much as anyone else?
The writer then goes on to state that marriage is unnecessary for homosexual people, firstly because same sex couples in civil partnerships have ‘near parity’ in terms of rights with married heterosexuals, and secondly because, as marriage is based on love, same sex couples do not need marriage as this will not add anything to their relationship. To deal with the first point, ‘near parity’ is not parity. It is not full equality and pretending it is sufficient is to defend the unequal position of LGBTQ people in British society.
The refusal to give a same sex couple the opportunity to marry reinforces the idea that same sex partnerships are inferior to and worth less than heterosexual ones. His argument that ‘the truth of the love and commitment surely comes from the couple, the name is worthless’ is laughable given that he seems very eager to defend the ‘name’ of marriage for heterosexual couples, regardless of how much they may love each other. In addition, does he have to refer to same sex couples contemptuously as ‘these people’?
The next section of his article rehashes two particularly pernicious and incorrect hetero-supremacist arguments: that marriage is a place for rearing ‘the next generation’ and that a heterosexual marriage is the best place in which to do this. Firstly, if the writer believes that the purpose of marriage is for procreation, then surely he also opposes marriage for those who do not want or are unable to have children. Yet there is no mention of this in his article. He focuses purely on same sex couples, which makes his message clear: same sex couples are unsuitable parents.
This argument feeds into hetero-supremacist views that homosexuality and same sex partnerships are innately dangerous. This has usually been linked to accusations of paedophilia or fears about ‘converting’ children. As well as being homophobic, it is also complete nonsense. Secondly, what is it about marriage that suddenly makes for better child rearing anyway? Does the word have magical properties we don’t know about? Despite the writer’s stated wish not to ‘slate’ single parents, this is exactly what he does. The writer argues that heterosexual marriage is the place to raise children because it is ‘the guise that society would prefer’. This is not true. It is simply the guise that those who have the loudest voices and the most power and privilege prefer, and they have used this power and privilege to enforce hetero-supremacy within society. When the writer says ‘society’, he means ‘I’.
His homophobia does not end there. He uses his next paragraph to reduce homosexuality to a set of acts, to ‘what goes on in your bedroom’. The reduction of homosexuality to acts, historically with the term sodomy, has driven the oppression and persecution of homosexual people throughout history and is still used today to paint homosexuality and homosexuals as sinful and unsavoury. For someone who asks ‘why should I care that you love each other’, he seems to care a great deal about making sure same sex couples remain stigmatised.
In the grand scheme of the fight for LGBTQ equality, marriage equality is not the only or the biggest issue. However, it is an important one, one that reaches further then the right to walk up the aisle. It represents the fight for the de-stigmatisation of same sex couples and LGBTQ people. It is about the end to nonsense arguments about the inferiority of our relationships, our inability to bring up children or our danger to society. The equal marriage vote shows that legislators, in a small way, are starting to get it. The writer may not view marriage as a matter of equality, but he clearly has not spoken to people for whom it means a great deal.
Marriage equality looks set to happen, and with it will hopefully come the death of the stereotypes, misconceptions and homophobic arguments that I felt this article consisted of.
Michael Cope
exeposedev 