Equal marriage
Do
gay people want to marry merely because straights can, like a toddler wanting to play with the toy his wee sister has? Marriage is strengthened, not weakened, by equality for gay people.
Marriage differs from cohabitation because it is at the start a life-long commitment, a pledge excluding all others. There is a recognised failure if it splits, whereas in cohabitation a split is simply “moving on”. That commitment to work on the relationship, and cherish and grow it, benefits children of the marriage, but also the couple themselves. In establishing equal marriage, England and Wales, and soon Scotland, show a renewed belief in that life long commitment, though the divorce rate and cohabitation rate rises.
That is why equal marriage is a Conservative cause.
Roger Scruton states same-sex marriage is homophobic, because it forces gay people into a mould fitted to straight people. But that requires the idea that a life-long commitment is only of value to society and children, not to the couple themselves. So, marriage would only be a Conservative institution, only for those who place duty to society over self-actualisation.
It is not just the label I want, but the reality, and so inequalities in marriage law do not make marriage in practice unequal. A straight marriage is valid, but may be declared void by a court, on the ground of non-consummation. That is not defined by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, but by W (orse K) v W, to mean erection and penetration with emission of seed. The case is not in BAILII, so I take the Guardian’s word for it that there are no cases since.
To make adultery or non-consummation an issue in gay marriages there has to be a definition of what gay sex counts. “Yes dear, I know we agreed scissoring is a het myth, but we have to do it this one time”. Gay couples may divorce for “unreasonable behaviour”, which may include withholding sex, or sex with another. There is no difference in treatment in practice, just some difference in concepts to recognise physiological differences.
My question for opponents of equal marriage is, why do they value marriage? What good is it? If for procreation of children, then my father’s second marriage has no value, and no-one should marry without intending to have children. It has to have value for the couple themselves.
So my suspicion is that they oppose equal marriage because it is a symbol of equal value. They want gay people to be treated differently, because we are not quite as good as they are, and they want the law to enshrine that view.
I totally agree with your conclusion..
So my suspicion is that they oppose equal marriage because it is a symbol of equal value.
Just so. And, of course, equality rights under a non discriminatory the law, which is yet another ‘attack’ from the ‘war’ on religion… religion that seeks always to gain privilege in law. This is why the main opponents to fairness and equity in law – fundamental secular enlightenment values – are almost always religious spokesmen.
I was interested to read here that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales supported the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, though not quoad the church itself. Quakers enthusiastically supported equal marriage.
Unfortunately most “Christians” feel the obligation to play “I am better than you” and withholding equality in marriage is a way to do this. It’s a way to make themselves feel better about the faults in those own lives by pointing out what they see wrong with everyone else. If gay marriage is legalized then they lose their foothold.
I hope it is possible to be life-affirming because of being Christian, rather than in spite of it, that the narrow cramped and fearful way is not the only way to be Christian. The life-affirming way is the way I seek. I hope I would be in favour of equal marriage even were I not queer myself.
I agree 100%
Your conclusion is just spot on.
I’ve been thinking so much about why some people are against equal marriage. It is a mystery for me. Why would anyone, straight or not, be against equal rights? For me, it is as offensive as being against female priests or interracial marriage. I don’t understand how people can discuss this issue in the same way as they would discuss if they prefer vanilla or strawberry ice cream. It is my life, opportunities and self-value they are talking about. It’s like you say, perhaps they just want to feel better than us, and the fact that they are backed up by the law makes it, in their eyes, less homophobic. I hate it when people say: “I have nothing against gays, but I don’t think they should be able to marry”. If they don’t think that I’m entitled to the same rights as they are, they clearly have something against me.
Thank you for this post,
E
Welcome. It is lovely to have you here, Emmy. I think they want the law to reflect their prejudices, because otherwise their prejudices lose their foundation, and that feels like the world losing its foundations.
Hi Clare.
I read this particular post of yours last night and for the whole day today I had been thinking about it.
It never occurred to me that the people who vehemently denies equal marriage because it will ‘destroy the sanctity of marriage’ might not even understand what are they trying to defend.
I agree with you.
To value something, there must be a point in it. If they value marriage’s sacredness because its purpose is for pro-creation, then not only same-sex marriage should be disallowed; infertile couples should be forbidden from marrying, contraceptive devices should be illegal for married couples, people who cannot produce children anymore due to age/health must be automatically issued divorce, and people who have no intention to have children should never be allowed to marry. After all, by not producing offspring, they are desecrating the sanctity of marriage.
If they value marriage because it’s strictly for one man and one woman since Eden, then only arranged marriage is legal. Adam and Eve certainly did not go through the phase of dating, getting to know one another, engagement, etc. It’s basically an ‘arranged marriage’. Marriage for love of any kind (same sex or not) should be illegal.
However, if the marriage they defend because they value it as love between one man and one woman, then all arranged marriages are illegal, monogamous marriages are illegal, marriage for the sake of money/power/sex/some other benefit is illegal, and families forbidding lovers from getting married should be jailed.
Thank you for the post. It certainly helps me see a fresh perspective of marriage.
You say the sweetest things.
People marry without love- because they want security, or children, because it is the done thing, whatever. Your shoulds and illegals bring out the anarchist in me, let people make their arrangements as best pleases them- and we have this institution where people voluntarily accept that the law will affect their relationship, which I find valuable. Pope Francis would indeed say that contraception should be illegal, to the great harm of the world and of women’s rights.
Fresh perspectives are the thing. Thank you for commenting.