Is it Homophobic to oppose Same Sex Marriage?

The first same sex marriages in England and Wales took place this week.  It gave an ideal opportunity not just to celebrate the love of the people getting married, but for those who disagree with marriage equality to have one last blast at airing their views about how wrong this all is.

Catholic Voices, for example, has been keen to get its members media time on the subject.  The group
was co-founded by Jack Valero, a member of Opus Dei.  CV purports to represent the views of ordinary British Catholics*.  It has put out various items on the issue, such as this blog post, which at first glance seems reasonable enough.  However, breaking it down, in it they say that by allowing same sex couples to wed, there has been an "evisceration" of marriage.  That word generally means "disembowelment": removing the internal organs of an animal.  According to them, when two men or two women enter together into a legal, civil marriage, these are not proper weddings, but instead are a "parody" of the real thing.

They predict that:

• all civil marriages will become insignificant and incoherent; 
• marriage will be weakened; 
• the state will be beset by groups wanting recognition of polyamorous and "other kinds" of sexual unions.  

Their claim is that society must rebuild itself.  You may agree or disagree with these quite serious claims about the effect of opening up of marriage to same-sex couples, but I'm interested in the question of whether being opposed to same-sex marriage is by definition homophobic.

Is it Homophobic? 

Well, I could answer this question in fewer than 140 characters by nicking Sean Jones QC's tweet below.  It's just brilliant and gets straight to the heart of it for me:

Catholic Voices take a quite apocalyptic stance about the effects of marriage equality, particularly when you strip away their attempts to be reasoned and reasonable.  Sean's tweet covers other less dramatic positions of people who simply don't "like" the idea of same sex marriage but haven't really formulated why.  I'll go on below to look at the matter in a bit more detail below, and explain why I agree with him.

The Word Homophobia

The first thing I'm going to do is to try to move away from the use of "homophobia".  It's an interesting word, first coined in 1969 to describe the "mixture of revulsion and apprehension".  It was also called homosexual panic.  I think back then that probably was the reaction of plenty of people (particularly straight men) when faced with people attracted to the same sex.  No doubt it is still the case for some now.

However, what most people naturally mean when they use the term is something akin to racism or sexism, which is directed at LGB people.  The word covers a whole range of negative feelings that range from antipathy or mild prejudice, through to actual violent contempt.  It can include phobia, but on most people's usage it doesn't actually by any means require fear.  I therefore understand why some get hung up on that aspect of the word, particularly when they try to give it its literal meaning.  I'm therefore going to use the term "anti-gay" in this post instead of homophobia here.

Just like any prejudice, anti-gay feeling and behaviour cover a huge spectrum of words and activities.   Someone who calls gays "poofs" in a tweet is clearly not in the same league as those who beat up, attack or kill gay men because of their hatred (19.3% of all hate crimes in the US were incidentally motivated by sexual orientation bias).   By having your position on same-sex marriage challenged as being anti-gay, it does not mean that the person doing so is suggesting that you're in the same category as someone who engages in violent assaults.  It's perfectly possible for you to know, and even like, some LGB people, whilst believing the law should rightly discriminate against them and to seek to deny them the rights that heterosexual people enjoy.   That really should be obvious.

Also, as with racism, you can of course feel that you're entirely not anti-gay, whilst behaving in such a way that others would agree falls into that category.  Those affected by your prejudice certainly don't have an absolute monopoly of determining what is and what is not anti-gay, but they are often in the best place to assess the effect of it because of their day to day life experiences.

The Symbolism of Marriage Equality

Let's be clear that in the UK the huge legal injustices facing same-sex couples were not the driving force in LGB people arguing for marriage equality.  Civil Partnerships had already meant that almost the same legal rights were available to civil partners as to those marrying.  In this the UK differs to many other countries around the world.

The matter of marriage equality was foremost one of equal treatment, dignity and principle.  Marriage is of course an entirely made up thing: a social construct that humans have created and defined.  It's a concept, not a tangible "thing".  It is however an important institution from which we collectively have agreed certain rights and responsibilities should flow.  This change in the law on marriage was about the State saying "your unions are equal".  It's about the State sending out a signal that "you are equal" after many, many years of state instituted discrimination and wrong treatment, and in the context of ongoing social prejudice. 

It was extremely important to many LGB people, myself included, to win this battle.  I'm enormously glad we did.  The symbolism was absolutely enormous.  We have already moved from a society where, growing up as a gay teen in the 80s, my only point of reference to homosexuality was parody characters on Are You Being Served, and hearing how homosexuals were dying of a "gay plague".  Instead we have an incredibly positive affirmation of same-sex unions by a Conservative prime-minister who himself had even voted against the repeal of Section 28.   This is enormous.

Again, Sean entirely gets it:

I cannot emphasise enough what it represents to have the option of marriage available to me personally, and to know the positive effect on the next generation of gay teenagers growing up in an environment where the State recognises their relationships and treats them as equal.  What an amazingly positive change and healthy development in our society.

Being Anti-Gay

It's not terribly hard to set out tests for whether someone is expressing an anti-gay position.  Here are a few examples:

• Do you believe that LGB people should have fewer or different civil rights to straight people?
• Do you believe that civil marriage between an LGB couple is a parody of "real marriage"?
• Do you believe that LGB relationships are only worthy of separate recognition by the State and LGB people should be satisfied with that?
• Do your views and words tend to upset, offend or hurt a sizeable proportion of LGB people?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, I'd say there's a good chance you're being intrinsically and inherently anti-gay.  It really is rather difficult for you to argue that is not case.  I think, with respect**, you'd have to be quite thick to not get this point.  If you were saying black people should have fewer civil rights, people would rightly say you're being racist.  Here, you're saying things that are anti-gay, and if you had your way the effects of this would be laws that discriminate against (i.e. treat differently) LGB people.  You're being anti-gay.

And if, remarkably, you still haven't got the point that you're being anti-gay by arguing I should not be allowed marriage equality, then consider this.  In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which had prohibited inter-racial marriages.  Similar rules existed in other states.  Imagine if, instead, the court had permitted blacks to enter unions with whites, but it created a "separate but equal" institution called "inter-racial partnerships".  Would you argue that mixed race couples should be content with it because it gave all the same legal rights as "ordinary" couples AND this position is not racist?  I think people would label you as racist on this issue, with justification.  I see no difference with stating that LGB people should put up with the separate but (almost) equal institution of civil partnership is being anti-gay.

Please do think about this if you're stance is "I'm not anti-gay, but I don't think they should be allowed to get married."  Really think it through and realise what you're saying.

Baffling Denial

We've had plenty of examples in history of laws related to marriage that discriminate against any given group.  The 1701 Act of Settlement was anti-Catholic.  It said that anyone who became Roman Catholic or married a Roman Catholic was excluded from the succession.  The Nuremberg laws of 1935 were anti-Jewish and prohibited non-Jews from marrying Jews in Germany.  I've already mentioned the ban on whites marrying blacks in some US states.

In each of these cases people were, I believe, consciously aware that the policies discriminated against a particular group.  They felt it was right to do so and put forward justifications for this.  This country faced what it considered to be a serious threat from Roman Catholicism in the early 18th century.  Millions of Germans supported the discriminatory Nuremberg laws as necessary to protect the "German nation".  People who argued for segregation knew they were backing a racist policy.  They wrongly thought it was correct to do so in the interests of social harmony.

The extraordinary thing same sex marriage issue, though, is that many people are in utter denial that by seeking to keep marriage from LGB people that they are being at all anti-gay.  Catholic Voices do it in their article.  They say that they are offended by "jeers" that they are homophobic or bigoted for taking the stance they do.  Here's a Catholic Priest, Father James Bradley, who says we live in "dangerous times" because of this and this is "not the path of a civilized society".

Quite how he reaches this point I'm not sure.  He's entitled to his view that I should be discriminated against by the State and to put forward what he sees as his compelling faith based reasons for this.  People will agree or disagree with them.  But to deny that anyone who takes a position that is by definition anti-gay is being anti-gay makes no sense at all.  It is not dangerous to point this out, and it is not uncivilised to do so.  It is only uncivilised if it's accompanied by abuse, but that's not what I'm doing.  I'm simply stating something which should be quite evident if you use some logic.

The Roman Catholic faith teaches (Catechism 2357) that homosexual acts are "acts of grave depravity" and are "intrinsically disordered".  It says that they are "contrary to natural law".  They do not "proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity".  "Under no circumstances can they be approved".  It talks about same-sex attraction being a "trial" for homosexuals.  This is as inherently anti-gay as it gets.  With these teachings, it is a virulently anti-gay religion.  The Catechism then talks about treating these poor homosexuals with "respect" and not unjustifiably discriminating against them (justifiable discrimination is by definition okay according to the faith).

Why should I not point out that all of the attempts to deny me civil rights come from an inherently anti-gay set of religious views?  They are entitled to their beliefs and can argue them as much as they like, but I will not accept that whilst doing so they are not being anti-gay.

Just as a side-note, we have always to remember that there are many Christians who take a different viewpoint to the one above.  The Church in Wales last month issued a report by the standing doctrinal commission which stated the following:

Isn't that beautiful?  A very recent poll found a majority (53%) of Americans now support same-sex marriage, with support amongst white Catholics even higher, at 58%, and amongst Hispanic Catholics at 56%.  Perhaps Rome will catch up with the huge number of its own members who don't support its anti-gay position.  Don't believe that it doesn't or can't ever change its policies on fundamental issues either: that's demonstrable historic nonsense.  To give one example, the Catholic Church banned the charging of interest on loans during most of its existence.  It said the practice was "detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity".  The doctrine was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils, proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians.  People who lent for money were refused the sacraments and Christian burial.  Then, in the 19th century they changed the rules and, hey ho, allowed it. Such is the immutable Word of God.

It Bothers Them

Now, back to the curious point about those being anti-gay denying that they are in fact so.  If you point this out to them, wow does it bother them.  They want to have their communion wafer and eat it.  NO, they are motivated by God's word and love and nothing about their anti-gay stance is at all anti-gay.  They trot out the words that everyone is created in God's image and is worthy of human dignity.  It's "love the sinner, hate the sin, and go out and campaign loudly for the State to actively discriminate against the sinner in civil matters."  They get most upset when their anti-gay stance is called out as such.

A few of them are obviously and offensively homophobic.  The ostensibly reasonable Catholic Voices piece contained the slippery slope argument about "other sexual unions" being recognised.  These words are a bit nebulous and they don't spell out what is meant with that.  Given the piece has already considered straight, same-sex and polyamorous sexual unions, I can only assume it refers either to bestiality, paedophilia, or both.   Considering the union of two people of the same sex with screwing animals in the same context is a bit anti-gay isn't it, even it if wasn't overt?

This Catholic convert and former monk below, who calls gay men "LGBT perverts" and "poofs", is much more direct:

And YET, it bothers the donkey-loving former monk to be called anti-gay.  He's been off recently on a long rant with a doctor I follow about how he worked with gay men in the 1980s during the Aids crisis, preaching abstinence.  Because of this, and despite his anti-gay tweets, he maintains he isn't anti-gay.  This is, to me, very baffling psychology.

A Fifth of Britons wouldn't go to a Gay Wedding

Just to wrap up, it was widely reported (BBC, Guardian, Telegraph etc) that a recent poll showed 68% support for marriage equality, with a minority of just 26% who actually object to it.  That result must have hurt those opposed to same-sex marriage, with their claims that the majority of the population is opposed to it.  26% opposition is actually quite a remarkable figure.  There actually aren't many contentious political issues (HS2, fracking, EU etc) where just 26% of the population are opposed to something.  It shows surprising and heart-warming consensus given the public hasn't even had time to get used to the change yet.

Rather than emphasise this positive point, most of the press however highlighted a subsidiary finding in the poll that a "fifth of Britons (22%) would turn down an invitation to a gay wedding."  Father Bradly, above, said the findings of the survey reflected the reality that people remained "deeply uncomfortable" with being honest about their true feelings on the meaning of marriage.

I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if 20% of the British population would respond in a poll that they would not be comfortable attending a Muslim wedding.  People can be very uneasy and/or prejudiced towards groups, particularly when they have had no personal contact with members of it, and have soaked up negative stereotypes from the press and elsewhere.  If this were the case, a sensible approach might be to accept that prejudice of all sorts is deeply engrained in our society and to ask what can be done to justify it.  I certainly wouldn't argue that it means that Muslim people shouldn't be allowed to marry by the State, because people are personally "deeply uncomfortable" with going to one of their weddings and we need to pander to that prejudice.

Some Gay People Get Married. Get Over It.

The really GREAT thing is all this is over, or it should be.  Those seeking to be anti-gay about marriage have lost their argument, the vast majority of the population supports marriage equality, and this is the last opportunity for them to air their anti-gay views with anyone taking any kind of notice. 

I believe it's been a particularly disastrous week for the likes of Catholic Voices in getting their anti-gay viewpoint over and attempting to win hearts and minds.  Some attempts have led to enormous mirth online, and it's been really quite amusing watching it unfold, and see it bite them back on the arse.  The opponents of marriage equality appear, in my view, to be increasingly isolated, bitter, unreasonable, and often hysterical in their predictions. 

I hope this is my last blog post on the subject.

Love wins in the end.







* Christian Voices is in somewhat hot water at the moment when one of their Speakers, Paula Thompson, an architect, put out an anti-gay tweet regarding Mozilla that spoke of "normal people".  In response a person in the US agreed with her and added "All fags are mentally ill and need to be exterminated".  She retweeted this hate-filled statement to her 1100 followers with no indication that she objected to the contents of the tweet.  She further agreed with a tweet that said "Homosexuals do not want tolerance.  They want to dominate with their sick, deviant life style choice".  Finally a tweet came to light before she was a Catholic Voice in which she said she hoped the IRA would bomb an abortion clinic in Northern Ireland.  It was after that they recruited her as a speaker.

Catholic Voices apparently has the "blessing" of the Catholic bishops in the UK. They apparently "can be relied on to express authoritatively the Church's positions in ways that are succint [sic], compelling and reasonable."  Make your own mind up how those tweets fit with that.  Genocide and sectarian violence.  Paula has since resigned, which has conveniently led Catholic Voices to say it's nothing to do with them any more.  Neither she nor Catholic Voices have offered any form of apology to the anti-gay tweets.  The issue of whether this constitutes illegal hate speech is currently with the Police.


** not really

Abseiling Lesbians

February is LGBT History Month and 2 February 2013 marks the 25th anniversary of a remarkable event in British LGBT history.. the storming of the House of Lords by abseiling lesbians.  This is my little tribute to them.

"Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin"

For anyone lucky enough not to remember, here's some quick background.  In 1981 a straight Danish woman, Susanne Bösche, wrote an illustrated children's book called "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin".  It covered, for example, a trip to the laundrette, a surprise birthday party, and an incident of homophobia in the street.  Her aim was to show to children that it's perfectly fine that some people grow up with different family situations.  As she puts it "It's not possible to go through life without meeting people living in different ways, and they shouldn't come as a shock to anybody" Here's an excellent radio piece from the BBC on it and a lovely Guardian interview with Susanne, in which she describes her gentle, incredibly reasonable, intentions.

When the book came out in English translation, there was uproar from the British tabloid press.  In 1983, the Mail reported that a copy had been found in one school library in Labour-controlled Haringey and a storm developed with the press reporting that outraged parents didn't want their children subjected to "images of semi-naked men in bed with a 7 year old girl".  A cultural gulf between Nordic countries, where families routinely have breakfast in bed together, and 80s Tory Britain where they apparently did not, was about to have explosive results.  The Sun, the Star and the Mail led the hectoring and onslaught of prejudice and hate-speech against gay people.  The book was apparently "blatant propaganda for homosexuality".

Only one copy of the book was ever found in that one school library.  There is no evidence it was ever lent out, nor that a single schoolchild ever read it.  If they had, the homophobic lobby would surely have highlighted it.

This was a ghastly time for many in Britain.  Thatcherism was causing enormous social and political upheaval. Terrence Higgins had in 1982 become the first gay man in this country to die of Aids. Several Labour councils were pilloried for taking the (radical!) step of including sexual orientation in a list of discrimination policies, and the Labour-controlled Greater London Council, headed by Ken Livingstone, was attacked for funding the London Lesbian and Gay Centre which occupied a  building in Farringdon.  Bear in mind also that it was only in 1980 that sex between consenting adult males men stopped being a criminal offence in Scotland, and in 1982 in Northern Ireland.
 
"Pretend Family Relationships"

The Thatcher government's response to all of this was to introduce Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill.  Dame Jill Knight, a leading supporter of the amendment, claimed that gay lobby groups were aiming to "abolish the family".  Tory MPs claimed that gay people were attempting to "indoctrinate" children into becoming homosexual.  It's been said many times, but how anyone can influence anyone to do anything with someone of a person of a gender they're not attracted to is beyond me.

The Clause was vile, spiteful and designed to offend the LGBT community with its use of the words "pretend family relationships".  It provided as follows:

A local authority shall not:
(a) Intentionally promote or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality.
(b) Promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality in a pretended family relationship.

Protestors Take to the Streets

There was a huge amount of protest over the Clause. It led to Ian McKellen's coming out just over 25 years ago, on 27 January 1988.  He did so on Radio 3 as a result of it and featured on the front page of the Gay Times.  It's extraordinary to think that "coming out of the closet" was such a political act back then for an actor.  It wasn't THAT long ago.. and it's weird to think that today Gay Times has pictures of 19 year old straight Olympic divers happy to get their kit off for their adoring gay male fans.

"Out of the closet and fighting"

Here are some pictures from rallies against the Clause.  These first two were in Manchester when LGBT protestors occupied Albert Square and Piccadilly Plaza.  Some had to be removed by firemen and weren't going to leave quietly:

Albert Square, Manchester, February 1988

Defiant Manc Lesbian taking on the Coppers

"Gay Proud + Angry"

Five lesbians chained themselves to the gates of Buckingham Palace on 8 March 1988 to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Suffragettes doing the same, and were joined by other protestors, some in period costumes!

Abseiling Lesbians

The two most high profile protests, however, were the abseiling into the House of Lords 25 years ago on 2 February 1988, and the invasion of the BBC Six O'Clock News (more on that later).

What happened in the dusty old House of Lords (remember, this was before the Blair reforms, when literally hundreds of ancient Tory hereditary peers could be wheeled in to fall asleep on the benches), was that the peers had just had a two hour debate on the Bill.  They voted 202 to 122 to pass it.  A group of protestors in the public gallery began heaping abuse on them, while four lesbians attached wires to the ironwork and unfurled two thin wires.  Three of them abseiled down into the chamber, shouting "LESBIANS ARE OUT!"  Three House of Lords Ushers, all retired naval warrant officers, tried to quell the protest and in the chaos two of the three abseilers walked out of the chamber.

Sadly no pictures of the protest exist, even though this was after filming was introduced in the House of Lords. This piece in the Guardian records it.  It has also entered this list of high-profile historic protests in parliament and has achieved somewhat legendary status.  They are still remembered fondly today:

So who were the abseiling lesbians?  Very little is known about them.  Click on this link if you want to see a copyrighted picture that shows the four women.  The woman on the right is Janet McLoughlin (not Jane as it says in the caption).  The tall woman at the back is a German woman who went by the name of Tim.  A third woman was Stella Blair (also quoted in the Guardian report) but it's not clear from the caption which one is Stella.  And the fourth remains nameless.  If anyone knows what they are doing now (and PLEASE check that they're happy for that information to be made public), do add a comment below.

Labour Peer Lord Monkswell, who had obtained passes for the women, was forced to apologise to the House a few days later.  His apology was reported in the Guardian.  He doesn't exactly sound sorry though: he declines to condemn the action, and he quotes a 12 year old girl as saying "This is just what Hitler did to the Jews."

BBC Six O'Clock News

The second famous protest was the invasion of the BBC Six O'Clock News on 23 May 1988.  This was the day before Clause 28 was enacted into law as the notorious and hated Section 28.  One woman managed to chain herself to Sue Lawley's desk and another was sat on by Nicholas Witchell.   It really is worth watching this video: Sue Lawley's composure is absolutely remarkable.  Do watch to the end because there's also an interview with the two women who invaded the studio.

(Direct link here if your browser doesn't work.  Firefox properly supports Blogger)

Even more amusing is this little sound clip (just for the first part). A man can be heard saying "Oh f*cking hell, we've got a nutter in the studio! Get them out!... Get security. Get security quickly!"

(Direct line here)

The final priceless thing from this event is the front page of the Daily Mirror the following day:

A Long Road

And there we are... it all seems like another world to me, though I remember 1988 incredibly well.  I was in the lower sixth form and struggling with my sexuality.  You can imagine what the grotesque manifestation of homophobia from the then Tory party did to young gay people of my generation.  I'm not sure I've ever forgiven them for it.

One immediate result of Section 28 was the setting up of Stonewall in 1989 to work within Parliament as well as outside to make sure nothing like this ever happened again, and of course to campaign for the repeal of Section 28 and other discriminatory laws.

Labour first tried to repeal the Section in 2000.  The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party also opposed the Section.  The attempt passed the Commons, but was defeated in the Lords following a campaign by Baroness Young (Conservative).  It was at this time that David Cameron defended Section 28 and publicly accused Tony Blair of being anti-family.  He added that Blair wanted to "promote homosexuality in schools". 

Section 28 sent out a message that the Government sanctioned homophobia; it endangered vulnerable children (because it appeared to prevent teachers from intervening in homophobic bullying); and it implied that gay people were dangerous to children.  Not one prosecution was ever made under it. The Section was repealed under Labour by the Local Government Act 2003. 



Michael Howard, who voted for the Bill, was Tory leader in 2005.  He told Attitude Magazine that "I thought, rightly or wrongly that there was a problem in those days" but added "Nobody’s fussed about those issues any more".  Never mind the damage it caused.  In 2006, Tory Chairman, Francis Maude, who himself voted for it, told Pink News that the policy was wrong and a mistake.

David Cameron voted against the repeal of Section 28.  In 2009, 21 years after its introduction and 6 years after its repeal, he finally apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the Section.  He accepted it had been "offensive to gay people".


A Different World

It is a different world in this country today.  There is still bullying in schools, there is still homophobia in the workplace and we have seen a disgusting amount of it from (certain) Church figures relating to the issue of marriage equality.  There's also an enormously long way to go in the fight against outright violence towards trans* people.

However, the days when people were openly proud of their homophobia have gone.  We have an equal age of consent and anti-discrimination work protection.  It's no longer permissible for a hotel owner to shout in someone's face  "We'll not have any of that here" as happened to my friend Henrietta and her girlfriend not so long ago.  People go to lengths to deny they are homophobic, even if the content of what they are saying blatantly is.

My experience is that young gay, lesbian and bi people are growing up feeling much more secure, balanced, and happier than ever was the case.  It's not across the board, but I genuinely think it is the case broadly speaking... and it is a wonderful thing.

Marriage equality is of course going before the House of Commons on Tuesday.  The Prime Minister supports it, despite a groundswell of anger from grassroots Tories.  I wonder how many MPs who do vote against the proposals will look back in 25 years on marriage equality, as the likes of Howard and Maude do now on Section 28?  Let's hope the hateful rhetoric of those times will be a thing of the past during the debate, that the measure will pass, and that we don't even have to call on the help of abseiling lesbians into the House of Lords during the process :-)




Huge thanks to my friend Anya (@anyapalmer) for suggesting and editing this post, and for providing me with loads of the source material. 

The Times They Are A Changin'

I'm on a complete high.  Despite predictions of a narrow victory, Barack Obama seems to have swept back to power.  The latest results I have is that he won the popular vote by 59,298,913 votes to Romney's 56,801,964.  If Florida does go to Obama, as looks almost certain currently, the President will have 322 electoral college votes to 206.  It is what I think they technically call a landslide.

There is another big story of interest to me here though, apart from the general rejection of right-wing, conservative philosophy.   There are six US states where same-sex marriage is permitted, but marriage equality was achieved either through law suits or by lawmakers, rather than as a result of direct votes by the population.

Last night, the State of Maine became the first US state to introduce marriage equality.  It has been joined by the State of Maryland and (subject to finally counting) by the State of Washington.  In Mid-West Minnesota, a ballot to introduce a ban on same sex marriage into the constitution was defeated by voters.  These smiling young smiling young faces of discrimination who voted yesterday to enshrine prejudice won't be too happy this morning.

This is massive.  LGBT people are in the minority everywhere, but voters have shown that they do care about issues outside their own personal interests.  Social issues and equality do matter to them. 

There will now be 9 US states where same-sex marriage is legal.  Federal appeal courts have repeatedly struck down the "Defence of Marriage Act"* and it is likely to end in the US Supreme Court.  The President himself took the principled, risky and politically unnecessary step of declaring that he was in favour of marriage equality during the campaign.

Meanwhile, closer to home, yesterday the highest court in Spain declared that same sex marriage is legal and constitutional.  This was in the face of an aggressive challenge by the country's conservative party and the Catholic hierarchy.  Although mired in arguments, the majority of the population in France supports same-sex marriage and its government is drawing up plans to introduce it there.  This will bring to 12 the number of countries with full marriage equality.

Back in May I saw the above tweet.  Its words have really stuck with me.   The fight isn't over yet, but we will get there.  The times, they are a changin'.  They are changing faster than I would ever have thought even two years ago.  An acceptance that lesbians, gays and bisexuals should have equal rights rather than be classed as inferior is rapidly becoming a reality.  The forces of reaction, discrimination and social conservatism are losing.

I don't want to pretend the discrimination I face is anything like that faced by people who have suffered in the past.  It isn't, by a million miles.  However, this picture sums up beautifully how widely accepted societal norms can change in a very short space of time and how we look back on it with genuine incomprehension now.

Thank you America.  Thank you voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota.  Thank you Spanish Constitutional judges.  History is on our side.  Equality is right, it is just, and it is coming.



* Correction: thanks for the comment below. DOMA was penned by Republican Representative Bob Barr and was passed by the Republican dominated Congress.  Every Republican but one, in both houses, voted in favour of it.  A White House spokesman described it as "gay baiting" but President Clinton, not President Bush, signed it into law.

Gay Marriage

Gay marriage* has certainly been in the headlines recently with Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, joining a coalition of Christian groups to oppose David Cameron's plans to introduce same-sex marriage by 2015.

Lord Carey has said "This matter is so serious and so important for our nation – we cannot allow this act of cultural and theological vandalism to happen." 

The first thing to say in this debate is that I'm amazed how many straight people assume that gays have the right to marry in this country.  They don't.  They never have had.  Civil partnership was introduced under Tony Blair in 2004.  It accords an almost identical set of rights as marriage to same sex partners who wish to enter into one.  There are a few very minor differences to marriage: civil partners cannot enter a legally binding union in a church and then there's the name.  This is a CP, not a marriage.

What's All The Fuss About Then?

Well in many respects the battle has been won.  Civil Partnerships were passed with remarkably little debate in 2004.  The vast bulk of other European countries (such as France and Germany) also have same-sex civil unions, but there are differences that may mean a same-sex couple doesn't get the same tax treatment as a married couple, or can't adopt etc.  That is not the case in the UK: the rights are identical.  Huzzah.

However, there are two important little points to be made.  The first is a practical one.  When you tick the "Marital Status" box on an application, PR, bank or mortgage form, you do not tick "Married" you tick "Civil Partnered".  Instantly you are disclosing your sexuality to whoever reads the form.  I regard that as a completely irrelevant and intrusive disclosure of fact about someone's private life that, reflecting the prejudices that still exist in Britain in 2012, might lead to discrimination.

Get ready to reveal your sexuality when you reach 3

The second is a rather more fundamental point.  Up until 1967 many States in the USA prevented inter-racial marriages.  The Supreme Court struck this down in the landmark civil rights case Loving v Virginia.  Whites and Blacks were able to marry one another on absolutely equal terms as uni-racial couples.  They had not previously been able to.  Now, imagine instead of this landmark ruling, a separate institution had been created that accorded exactly the same rights as marriage but it had been called "inter-racial partnerships".  What would the fuss have been about?  A black/white mixed couple would have got the same rights.  It's just a different name!  Okay they have to tick a different box on a form, but so what?

Hopefully you get the point.  This is about equality.  As long as society is saying that same-sex couples do not deserve to have their unions accepted on the same terms as straight couples, it is making a distinction between the two unions.  It is the State saying the two institutions are not equal.  It is that simple.

But Marriage is a Traditional Institution!

The "tradition" argument is used time and time again to try to stop things from changing.  There have been many traditions in this country.  Until 1833 Slavery was permitted in the British Empire.  It was tradition and had been the case for ever such a long time.  Until 1882 married women could not own property.  Until 1918 only men could vote in parliamentary elections.  Until 1967 gay sex between consenting adults was punishable with prison.  I could go on and on....  The point is that society changes, develops and moves on.

Nothing would ever change if the argument "it has always been this way" is applied: it is a silly non-argument.  There can of course be very sound reasons not to change something, but simply to say "it's tradition and therefore by definition must not change" is wholly unconvincing.

It is also quite interesting to consider exactly what the tradition of marriage is in history and around the world.   Hinduism and Buddhism for centuries permitted marriages between one man and multiple women.   Judaism allowed them until 1000AD: under the Sephardic tradition this continued longer.  Only one of the 22 Islamic Arab League countries prohibits them today.  It is actually public policy under English private international law broadly to uphold polygamous marriages.

Queen Isabella: Married (13) to King John (33)

European Christian society permitted marriage with pre- or barely pubescent children for centuries for royals and nobles.  The Old Testament details the incestuous marriage of Abraham with his sister Sarah, and that of Lot and his daughters.  Marriage between first cousins was par for the course throughout Europe for centuries and is still permitted in many US States.  Same-sex marriage itself existed as a legal institution in Ancient Rome and was around before the first straight Christian couple wed.  It was only prohibited in Ancient Rome in 342 AD by a clause in the Theodosian Code.  It was practised in China throughout the Ming Period.  I've already touched on marriage until quite recently as being defined as only between people of the same race in some places.  The same applies to defining it only to people of the same religion, which applies today in many societies.

If you are surprised or indeed shocked by some of these examples you are proving the point.  The goal posts of the institution of marriage have changed repeatedly through the centuries, and in all likelihood will continue to do so.  This is how society works: things change to reflect the views and norms of the people at the time.  People once accepted these norms: they do not now.  Homophobic hatred, promoted by the Church, was the norm: it now no longer is.  Society has changed and so will the goalposts of marriage.

What Is Marriage Then?

Like it or not, those trying to "defend traditional marriage", you cannot simplify the argument to the institution always having been a fixed unbending concept of the union of one adult man and one non-related adult woman.  Even today marriage is still not a homogenous concept around the world.  It does not belong to one faith and has not originated from one single faith either.  

Let's also be absolutely clear, Lord Carey, this is not a Christian institution that belongs to bishops to decide on: it belongs to humanity, to us, to society, to people around the world.  It always has done.

What is then the core element that defines marriage, if it is not what the "traditionalists" say?  In my view it is very simply the desire to declare a public bond about your union.  The State allowing a same-sex couple to marry is not about creating a new institution (click here for that rather off the point argument).  It is about extending this long-standing human institution to reflect a truly massive change in how society relates to same-sex unions today.  The very point here is that couples will not say "I'm same-sex married" (as they would if it were a new institution, like CPs) - they will simply say "I'm married".  It is the same institution that has existed for thousands of years - marriage - being extended to a group who could not previously marry.

Even if it were about creating a new institution (the logic of which I refute) that is also irrelevant.  Was allowing women to vote creating a new thing, or extending an old thing?  Actually I doubt too many women went to the poll box saying "I'm going to cast my woman's vote" but who cares: the argument is not relevant to the argument about granting equality regarding men and women being allowed to vote.  Nor is it here.

It's All About Children

It is true that marriage often provides a framework for raising children, but it cannot be argued that marriage only exists to bring up children.  There have been millions of childless marriages.  Lots of children have been appallingly and miserably brought up within the context of marriage; equally children have been successfully raised in all sorts of different situations not involving marriage.  The survival of humanity does not depend on a fixed view of marriage that has in fact varied through history.  

If marriage is only about children, why should society permit infertile couples, those who do not want children, or post-menopausal women to marry?  If permitting them to marry does not weaken the institution of marriage on a macro level, I fail to see how allowing a likely total of 75,000 same sex marriages in this country would do so.

"An Act of Cultural Vandalism"

Lord Carey claims this is an issue "so serious and so important for our nation".  He said in his recent article in the Daily Mail that the Government has "no right to change marriage" and that "marriage will only remain the bedrock of a society if it is between a man and a woman."  He continues that marriage is the "glue that holds this country together" and somberly adds that if the plans go ahead this will be "one of the greatest political power grabs in history."  His article gives us the warning that "such communions would jeopardise the stability of our country."

How is that for hyperbole?  One third of the population has not just been wiped out by the Black Death.  Opposing forces are not meeting in battle during the bloody Civil War.  In a true political power grab, the King has not just broken from Rome, nor has Parliament just signed the death warrant of the Monarch.  The workers are not on General Strike.  This is not June 1940: hundreds of thousands of Nazis are not about to invade.  Yet this change of name from "civil partnership" to "marriage" jeopardises the stability of our great nation.  Stop and think about this claim for a moment.

Note the caption on the Mail photo, taken directly from his article.  Two gay women, who remember can already enter into a civil partnership, dress however they wish, and believe it or not are already allowed to kiss in public, are a "threat" to the stability of our nation... all because the name of their partnership might be changed to "marriage" by means of a democratically voted on, perfectly legal, Act of Parliament.  What an actual drama queen that man is. 

In 2001 The Netherlands became the first nation in the world in modern times to extend marriage to same-sex couples.  Society immediately collapsed.  (Oh, sorry, no it didn't actually).  Next came Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.  None of them is a perfect society: such a thing does not exist.  However many are much further up the list than the UK in terms the UN Human Development Index (Norway is at the very top).

I should love to hear George Carey for one moment define how "traditional marriage" in these countries has been undermined by the extension of marriage to same sex couples.  I would like him to explain exactly what the wider damage to these countries is and how their societies have been destabilised in such a fundamental way.   Cultural vandalism is a phenomenally strong term to use.  I would like him to explain what it means in this context.

I want to know exactly what the harm is to the institution of marriage in allowing same sex couples to call their civil partnerships marriage.  I have yet to hear one cogent argument that can prove any harm, or likelihood of harm.  If your heterosexual marriage is somehow weakened by a gay couple marrying, you have the problem with your relationship.  There is no cost to this name change: the financial rights accorded by marriage are available already to civil partnerships.  

To be absolutely clear: we are talking about the institution of civil marriage here.  500 years after Henry VIII shifted the goalposts for marriage by allowing divorce, the Catholic Church is still not forced to marry divorced couples: they can make their own rules.  There is no suggestion that churches would be forced to open their doors to same-sex partners if it conflicted with their own beliefs (it doesn't, of course with all faiths: see Reform Judaism, the Lutheran Church of Sweden, the Mennonite Church of the Netherlands, Metropolitan Community Churches, Unitarian Universalists etc. etc.).  If you're a divorced Catholic and your church won't accept you, come to a registry office.  The law of this country will allow your union (as long as you're heterosexual, of course.)

Further, as Ben Summerskill put it "If you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex."  Straight people are not somehow being converted here.  No-one is forcing gay people to enter into these unions: it is simply giving gay people the same right as straight people to make that choice or not.

 

Sweden: a morally bankrupt nation on verge of collapse

One thing that the introduction of same-sex marriages in these countries has of course already done is to destroy the "tradition" argument: an 20 year old alive in Holland has spent more than half his or her life with the tradition of same-sex marriage around them.  Many of these countries are our close neighbours: gay marriage is a reality all around us.  Marriage has been redefined once more.  If history is anything to go by, it won't be the last time.

Mimicking a Straight Institution

There are plenty of individual gays who reject the idea of marriage as a failed example that they would not want to copy.  I understand where they are coming from.  As a woman friend on Twitter put it to me "Heterosexuals have undermined the institution of marriage far better than gays ever could".  Why would anyone want to copy it?

I do not have a partner, I do not currently want or expect to get married to another man.  I do want to extend this basic element of equality, though, to those who men and women who do.  As long as kids use the term "gay" as an insult in school playgrounds, as long as gay teenagers self-harm because of their sexuality, as long as society sees homosexuality as something wrong, different, or not equal to heterosexuality, I will take this position.

Why should they be "separate, but equal"? What's wrong with equal?

To go back to my fictional example of "inter-racial partnerships" you can hopefully see why it is simply not good enough to have "marriage" for one group and separately to have "civil partnerships" for another.  It is State defined discrimination and it is wrong.  To equalise the two institutions would send out a huge message.  Names matter; signals matter.  This is a small, but symbolically highly important step on the path to equality.   When kids grow up seeing same-sex people and couples on equal terms society will change.  It is already happening, thank God - despite the best efforts of particular elements within society for decades now to prevent it.

Conclusion

I used to feel quite relaxed about this subject: kinda "meh".  The more I think about it, and the more I see the hysterical utterances of the likes of Lord Carey, as expressed in the Mail and Telegraph, the more irritated I become.  We live in a largely secular country.  The definition of marriage does not belong to a minority group (traditionalist Anglican or Roman Catholic churchgoers and their leaders).

Once again, marriage does not derive from and belong to the Christian Bible, it is not a fixed concept, and it belongs to society to define.  Lord Carey is being perverse when he attacks David Cameron and says law-makers have no right to extend the institution.  It in fact very much belongs to us, society, and not to the bishops.  It is our elected representatives that make laws on our behalf in Britain.  All I can see is spite and prejudice coming from anyone seeking to deny this change.  I have yet to see a cogent argument against it not based on "it's tradition" and "I don't want to give this to you".

A sign of how far our society has changed is the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party is apparently pushing for this harmless, just, and simple change.  I really hope that the pressure of these mean-spirited, hysterical, reactionary groups does not lead him to waiver in this.



* It's been correctly pointed out I should refer to same-sex marriage.  There are bisexual couples who also wish to marry, so apologies.