Marry me?

So, at the moment I can't get married.

Because I'm gay.

I know I have discussed this before, and where possible I am going to avoid re-covering old ground.

This all resurfaced yesterday when the Church of England published its response to the Government consultation on legalising gay marriage.

Shall we start with a few reasons why the Church of England is wrong?

Now, this isn't a comment particularly on religion as a whole – I will get round to doing that (before anyone hijacks the comments section to have a secularist rant).

1. 65% of the population are not religious.

Whilst the majority of people will tick that they “have a religion” on forms, this is mostly because they believe they are expected to associate themselves with one; but 65% of the people in that survey “are not religious”. Now, I have concerns over that survey – organised by the Humanist Society, but conducted by an external, independent agency - YouGov - presumably according to recognised standards.

However, when you combine that with other surveys that suggest the number of 'active' Christians is between 10% and 20%, does the religious argument even really come into it? Although that has to be born in mind that we are arguing here for allow which will only change the rights of around 1% of the UK population.

 

2. The Church of England was set up specifically so that the King could divorce.

Indeed, since the changes to the law with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 divorce rates have risen dramatically, even amongst Christians. If they are arguing about the 'sanctity of marriage, surely divorce has already done more damage than same-sex unions could do?

3. The Church of England has a few fundamental tenets: Faith, Hope, Charity, Love and Tolerance.
   The overriding message from the bible is “For God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten son”. Note that it doesn't say “For God so loved the World* (*except for the gays)”.

4. The Church of England says, in the introduction that marriage acknowledges “an underlying biological complementarity which... includes the possibility of procreation.”

So, presumably we should also be refusing marriage to those couples who can't have children because one or other are sterile? Or they are too old? Or they are getting married because one or other is dying? Or that just don't want children?

5. Civil marriages – that is, those without religious ceremony and not in a religious building – have been legal since 1836.
    That separated 'marriage' from 'religion'. Indeed the Christian response even acknowledges that in the introduction “The consultation wrongly implies that there are two categories of marriage, “civil” and”religious”. Showing, in fact, just how out of touch the Church of England are and have been for well over 150 years. Indeed in their response (at para 2) they rely on their own text dating back 350 years. So that means that their paragraph 17 is just plain wrong. They try to redress the confusion they themselves create paragraph 18, waffling on about the 'ceremony', but the fact of the matter is still that people engaged in a civil ceremony in a civil and non-religious building are married in the eyes of the law. Which brings me on to...

5. Marriage is a legal definition.

In this country Parliament has been given the remit of making the laws, not a church senate unelected by the population. However the consultation makes clear that the Church – indeed all religions – can maintain their own definition, and will not be forced to hold same-sex ceremonies within their buildings, which actually puts the church in a better position than they are in at the moment: at the moment they are currently expected to hold non-religious ceremonies or ceremonies of other religions within the building, so long as the people getting married are of the parish.

For some reason they dispute this: “Many, within the churches and beyond, dispute the right of any government to redefine an ages-old social institution.” (para 8).

So, why should religion have the right? Particularly when we are looking at the legal definition of it. As I have already said, religion is out of step with many, many other social institutions and has long lost control over many other definitions, so I really don't see as they have any right over this one.

7. Civil partnerships are currently a second-rate union.

The Church of England response states that the “previous legal and material inequalities between heterosexual and same-sex partnerships have now been satisfactorily addressed.”

No they haven't.

Perhaps in the mind of the Church of England they have, but to the people that they really matter they haven't.

They are different in name.

Now, this may seem a tiny, minor distinction. But it is a distinction – a discrimination – enough. Indeed, whilst the Church argues that the distinction 'civil partnerships' and 'marriage' is so slight as to not warrant a change in the law, they clearly feel that it warrants a substantially and strongly worded response that such a change should NOT be introduced: that their definition of marriage is so sacrosanct, so precious that it shouldn't be dallied around on other unions which have exactly the same “legal and material” rights It is also clearly such a difference that it justifies the gays in arguing long and hard for the change, that it is still a material distinction, an inequality, a discrimination, a fundamental difference.

Gays have long learnt that the difference in names is actually pretty fundamental. We've long been called many different names, all of which have been used to distinguish us, to hurt us, and to discriminate against us, and none of which have been nice.

What the Church of England response is actually saying is that if the word marriage is a reflection of the strength of the bond, that gay unions should not be given the same name heterosexual unions; that somehow gay unions are second-class. They don't deserve the same name.

In paragraph 6 of their response they state that “marriage affords many benefits to society, which include mutuality, fidelity and biological complementarity with the possibility of procreation.”

Well, we have dealt with the procreation matter already. So are they really saying that same-sex couples do not have the same bond of trust, mutuality or fidelity as heterosexual marriage?

Really?

No, they aren't. They actually counter their own argument at paragraph 9 “Same-sex relationships often embody genuine mutuality and fidelity” and “The Church of England seeks to see those virtues maximised in society.” So they have actively contradicted themselves. Do they now want us to marry, or not?

How ignorant.

8. Marriage evolves

Again, they acknowledge this at paragraph 7: “While marriage has evolved as an institution in many other ways this aspect has remained constant.”

Why?

Why should it? Why is this one, single aspect of marriage the only 'protected', 'undesecratable' aspect? Particularly when it seems to be the only discriminating aspect.

In fact, in their own introduction the Church of England says “imposing for ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.” So what does the Church do? Is the entire basis of the church not idealogical? (Obviously I have already covered the fact that this isn't a 'new' meaning, but one over 150 years old, prior).

9. By their own admission, it is purely biological

At para 10 The Church says “the uniqueness of marriage … is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women.” and that “this distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman.”

So, we're ignoring the fact that when Christ was supposed to be around, homosexuality was just as active today; they are purely objectifying it as biology. The women out there will be unsurprised as they have been objectified by religion for years. We're no longer human, people, we're objectively biological.

Clearly the writer of the response to the consultation has never seen a gay couple, seen how so fantastically they complement (as opposed to compliment) each other. How together they have a skill set that adapts, that provides that mutuality, that makes each of them an active and independent individual working together within the union: the total being greater than the sum of the parts.

To be perfectly base about it, the Church is concentrating on willies and fannies and ignoring the fundamental mutuality at the heart of the union. Send them back to the school playing field. They carry this theme on – para 11 “Marriage has, from the beginning of history been the way in which societies have worked out and handled issues of sexual difference.”

NO IT HASN'T

Marriage has been about love, mutuality, fidelity, support, complementation, assistance, friendship, sometimes just being there. They are reducing it down to bonking.

They say (para 11) that “to remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.” But then go on at para 12 to say “To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are interchangeable individuals.” What they are actually asserting in their statement is that all men are interchangeable with other men and women with other women and that so long as the union contains one of each, sod the individuality. Individuality doesn't matter to the Church. All they are concerned about is sexuality. It's all about sexual difference, not the person.

They say that a majority of their bishops supported same-sex partnerships when the bill was passing through the House of Lords which has actually been quite well documented and contradicted. Ultimately they accepted civil partnerships, presumably because it was the lesser of evils and they were being threatened with full marriage.

Did you realise at all whilst reading the response that the Church doesn't refer to “love”. Not once does it use the word in relation to marriage. Not a single use. The bible doesn't shut up about love. Love thy neighbour, God so loved the World and so on. There is clearly no room for love in marriage when you're too concerned about bums and willies.

Strangely the response states (para 16) that “legislating to change the definition of a fundamental and historic social institution for everybody in order to meet the emotional need of some members of one part of the community … seems a doubtful use of the law.” Well it isn't. The law regularly defines and redefines words and phrases, all the way from the Finance Acts to Health and Social legislation. And it is very frequently done in order to bring about a single meaning where there has been confusion or inequality of expectation as to what the word actually means.

In fact, the Church seems very confused generally as to the use of language. Aside from the ceremony/marriage confusion, they question the use of the word 'ban' in the consultation document. They suggest that this “implies an act of human will to prevent same sex couples marrying”. (para 25).

Well yes. There clearly was a human will to prevent such an occurrence when the original legislation was introduced.

And secondly, same sex couples cannot marry. Yes, I know there is a distinction between a 'ban' and an 'exclusion', but the effect here has been the same: same sex couples cannot marry whilst heterosexual couples can. Are you really trying to tell me that same sex marriages were missed off as an oversight and therefore it is an 'exclusion' rather than a 'ban'?

The “redefinition” of marriage isn't going to alter it or debase it for heterosexual couples who wish to marry. They will still have no less of a marriage in law or in society.

This isn't about giving the gays 'special rights', this is about them getting the same rights as everyone else.

If you would like to contribute to the consultation it is available here.

So, please, will you marry me?