There have been a
number of events recently that puzzle me. That is not surprising
these days; I am now constantly foxed by life, by parking meters,
telephone answering machines, BOGOF offers at the supermarket, texts
from Ms Sexylegs, etc.
But to deal with one of
these events, you may have seen that on 5 February the Marriage (Same
Sex Couples) Bill was approved by the House of Commons by 400–175.
The legislation still has to pass the House of Lords, and who knows
how they will vote, but the decisive Commons vote by more than 2 to 1
seems to be pretty representative of current public opinion. But
the voting has split the Conservative Party. Bizarrely, more
Conservatives voted against the bill than voted for. In fact, almost
all the votes against were Conservative. Because of this, a number
of questions have arisen.
Why has the Prime
Minister pushed this legislation through? It wasn't in the Party
manifesto and clearly wasn't supported within the Party. Passing
legislation by enlisting Opposition support is not that unusual, but
it's pretty odd for an issue of this kind, especially when you don't
have your own party's backing at all. Moreover, although public
opinion is onside, most people are actually fairly apathetic about
the subject. They are much more likely to get excited about the tax
on sausage rolls or a railway running through their garden.
Secondly, what has made
half the Conservative Party vote against their leader's Bill?
Surprisingly, their objections seem to be religious ones.
'Surprisingly' because no one else in Parliament seems to hold such
strong religious views. I shan't go into the religious points here,
you no doubt know, or can guess, what they are. Anyway, it will
remain illegal to have a same-sex marriage in a CofE or RC church for
some years I think, but some other religions have already accepted
the principle, so church marriage will be possible when the law is
passed.
Thirdly, what is the
view of same-sex couples? Are they all as keen on the law change as
their activist representatives? It is always the same with minority
views, the activists are so vociferous, that one can hardly believe
the whole world doesn't agree. But, as far as I am aware, there has
been enormous support for the Civil Partnership, introduced at the
end of 2005, a union which the Church accepts, but not much of a
movement in preference for same-sex marriage. There remains a body
of opinion within the LGBT community none the less that wants
marriage on a par with heterosexual couples. But what exactly does
'on a par' mean here?
I confess my initial
reaction was to bemoan the continual minority picking away at
societal norms. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and
that's that. There's no reason of course why that can't change.
Society is dynamic and views evolve. Changing the law is trickier
and changing religious practice is something else. But the position
can change and no doubt will, given the present momentum.
Never the less, although LGBTs don't want to be different in marriage
from everyone else, the fact remains that they are different.
Same-sex relationships
tend to be based on the way one likes to have sex, whereas marriage
is based on procreation for the survival of the species or the family
line, depending on your view. Maybe those needs are less urgent
these days, but this was the intention of the institution of
marriage. Henry VIII would have had none of his problems if that was
not the case. And, as you will have seen in the Tudors television
series, sexual gratification was a separate matter. In some
cultures, a marriage between members of different families and
descent is still considered more important than love, certainly than
sex.
However, in a ruling
against marriage between transsexuals as long ago as 1967, Mr Justice
Ormerod stated "Marriage is a relationship which depends on sex,
not on gender". This rather defeats my initial conclusion. And
anyway Henry VIII made some pretty radical changes to law and
religion to accommodate marriage, so it it is clearly not impossible
to do it again.
So how does civil partnership change the situation? I was rather
irritated, to be honest, when, after all the fuss to get that
legislation approved, gay activists continued to campaign for more.
The recent case of Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson is also
interesting, where their discrimination case (that not recognising
their civil partnership as a marriage contravened their human rights)
failed because "such discrimination has a legitimate aim, is
reasonable and proportionate, and falls within the margin of
appreciation accorded to Convention States." In other words,
human rights legislation not only permits discrimination against
same-sex marriage, but recognises that civil partnership confers all
the rights and responsibilities of marriage. So, opening marriage to
same-sex couples would confer no new legal rights on those
already in a civil partnership, yet would require multiple legal
changes and the definition of marriage would have to change for
everyone. As I have said, that is no reason not to do it and it
would certainly end discrimination.
So, the
argument is between maintaining marriage and civil partnership, since
there is no difference between them, or harmonising the two because
there is no difference.
But, even accepting that, it is still a slightly odd debate. The trend to marriage has
continually fallen (despite a slight recent rise, probably following
the 2002 changes in the immigration laws). The fastest-growing type
of family in the UK is of those living together without being married.
The number of people who cohabit has quadrupled from 0.6% to 2.2%
(5.9 million couples) since 1996. Over the last 10 years, the
numbers of children born to cohabiting couples has also doubled,
suggesting that the unmarried state is a genuine social choice over
marriage. There is, moreover, no religious or society objection now
generally to cohabitation or to children born out of wedlock, nor
indeed to divorce. Since the Divorce Reform Act came into effect in
1971, the annual number of divorces has continued to rise. At the
same time, although same-sex couples in civil partnerships appear to
be less likely statistically to “divorce” than their heterosexual
counterparts, dissolutions of such unions, particularly among
females, are already occurring, despite only being made legal
relatively recently, suggesting that legal union for homosexuals is
no more binding than for heteros.
So we have a situation
where growing numbers of couples live together, rather than marry,
where indeed ambitions to marry have softened considerably in recent
years, even where children are concerned, and where there is no
inherent commitment to permanence in any legal union. Furthermore,
of those that do marry, church is not now the first choice for
marriage. Many still content themselves with a 'legal' marriage at
the registry office and dispense with the ceremony altogether. Very
many others choose mundane secular locations such as hotels or even
beaches for their nuptials. This, coupled with the fact that divorce
rates continue to increase, shows just how rapidly strict attitudes
in society have relaxed in the last few years. It is not
inconceivable, with presently proposed legislation supporting
same-sex marriage and not especially encouraging heterosexual
marriage (indeed for some couples cohabitation offers a preferential
tax position), that at some stage only homosexuals will bother with
marriage. That will provide an interesting divide.
Ultimately though this
is a legal problem and, even without the public apathy, no one is
much excited by a legal debate. The Bill may or may not drift
through Parliament without much fanfare, except from a small minority
whose euphoria will not be understood by the majority of us, from the
quality newspapers who will call it a 'landmark', and from Zimbabwe
which will call it an abomination. But my puzzlement at the Prime
Minister risking his re-election on the strength of it remains. If
we aren't much moved by same-sex marriage, we would surely prefer not
to have to make this into an election issue. There are far more
important things to worry about in this country. Personally, a
manifesto offering cheap sausage rolls will get my vote every time.
