Last night of course President Obama became the first president of the United States to say he supports the measure in an absolutely ground-breaking statement. Do not underestimate what that means in terms of influence around the world to the equality cause. My feed was awash with some brilliant tweets last night on the subject. This from @JournoDave really stuck out, touched and inspired me:
It's Quite Simple
The issue, as has been said repeatedly, is plainly and simply, one of equality. Unlike North Carolina, which has just voted in a measure to block all forms of civil unions, in this country we do at least have Civil Partnerships. Why are they not good enough? Well my friend @TheSecretJake puts it beautifully and pithily here:
The denial of marriage equality to same-sex couples, to quote President Obama "means that they are considered less than full citizens." It is that simple.
There is however undeniably a fudge at the heart of the current UK proposals. We are seeking equality, but the proposals clearly do not provide it. They suggest that same-sex civil weddings be permitted in registry offices and other licensed venues. However, as a sop to prevent religious opposition, the government has made it clear that there are no proposals to force churches to allow same-sex weddings - or more critically, even to allow them to hold them if they wish. I'm not sure everyone has got that last point. That isn't equality.
Misleading Voices
I think I'm safe in saying all of the opposition to marriage equality I have encountered has been from traditionalist Christians. The stance of the Anglican hierarchy is however no where near as anti-equality as these loud voices would have us believe, with the Dean of St Albans having called two weeks ago for the church to "rejoice" at the prospect of gay marriage. The Jewish Liberal movement has long accepted and lobbied for same-sex unions, as do denominations such as the Unitarian Church, the Metropolitan Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America etc etc.
There are plenty of great individuals on Twitter I follow: Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, United Reformers, Unitarians, Muslims and Jews (literally I can think of someone from each group including quite a few clergy) who are in favour of marriage equality. The ban on allowing those institutions who actually want to conduct same-sex marriages is simply wrong. It perpetuates inequality amongst their own members and it is against their own will.
The existence of these pro-equality religious bodies is one issue. The other is of the scare-mongering traditionalists claiming that churches will be forced to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies. Neil Addison, a Roman Catholic Junior Barrister at Palmyra Chambers in Warrington (he is held out to be a "leading discrimination lawyer" by the likes of the Mail) has published what I consider to be a misleading and inaccurate blog on the subject. He "quotes" in a curious way from the recent ECtHR case of Gas/Dubois v France. This was actually a case which actually upheld that the ECHR currently does not provide the right to same-sex marriage. When asked to provide the paragraph references by both me and @AnyaPalmer (an extremely sharp pro-equality employment barrister) he refused to publish our comments. He also makes a somewhat odd statement in his comments about the UK being the only country where ECHR law is applicable in the domestic courts.
 |
| Ruling against SSM used to justify slippery slope. Huh? |
Addison's blog is still being quoted as "fact" by the likes of the Anglican who poses as a Archbishop who died 450 years ago, @His_Grace. It is not fact: his viewpoint is speculation, it is heavily coloured by his own religious stance, and it is not supported by any passage in the ECtHR ruling (Anya and I have both carefully read the entire thing, in French). The Telegraph took down a misleading story in March based on Addison's views, yet he has since published this item. The concept that all people should be treated equally appears to be terrifying to this type of Christian: so much so that they will use non-facts to bolster their argument and will not allow polite, reasoned, critical examination of their claims.
Marriage as a Civil Contract
Nonetheless, we must accept that are plenty of people of faith who would accept state civil weddings, but do not want religious ones. They must be free to govern themselves and their institutions in that way, if that is their choice. The Catholic church does not have to marry divorced people. If the Pope decrees that "gay marriage is a threat to humanity" (yes, really apparently he did; also caution, the link takes you to the Daily Mail) then the same principle should presumably apply to Church performed same-sex marriages, as ridiculous and offensive as I find such views.
The problem is, however, that in Britain you may either marry in a church, or in a registry office (or other venue licensed for civil weddings). Whilst churches continue to have the right to join people in matrimony in a sense that creates legal rights and obligations in civil society, there will always be an unresolved issue.
 |
| A German "Standesamt" |
You then may, if you wish, go along to a Church, Synagogue, Mosque or anywhere else for a religious ceremony. As a "believer" you may consider only after that are you married "in the eyes of God" - fine, that's your belief. Your institution may not allow you to have this ceremony if you've been divorced before, or if you're marrying someone of the same sex: that's up to them. It doesn't matter to me as I don't share your faith and you're welcome to apply your own rules to something that has no civic legal standing. If your institution does welcome same-sex couples, superb: all the better for the people that this matters to.
It would not be terribly difficult to make this change in the United Kingdom. It is so much cleaner, so much simpler, and allows both those who object to the religious "ownership" of marriage (of all sexualities), and those whose faith does matter to them, to both be accommodated. Are you listening Mr Cameron? Exactly as in the Netherlands (who introduced this in 2000 and whose society has not collapsed into the fiery pits of hell, anarchy or the world of Morris dancing):
Marriage should be open to all two people of the requisite age and capacity, regardless of gender, in the form of a civil contract, performed exclusively by the State.
It's really quite a simple, attractive idea, I believe. I hope one day that it will be applied widely around the world.
 | |
| Phylis (77) and Connie (85): first same sex marriage in New York |
Finally, if you want to know why this matters, and why the voters of North Carolina who backed the ban on same sex unions have pain and misery on their hands, and spite in their hearts, take ten minutes to click here and watch this harrowing video. It certainly had me in tears. Equality isn't an abstract concept. This stuff matters to people around the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment