The day itself is of course not our wedding day. Civil partnerships in the UK are specifically
and legally separate but (almost, but not quite) equal.
However, there are plans afoot by the Government to bring in
equal marriage – not gay marriage, which would be separate by fully equal – but
instead extending existing marriage rights to gay couples. A decision that Sir Humphrey Appleby might
describe as ‘courageous’, nevertheless a few weeks ago the proposal passed the
first stage of the legislative process in the House of Commons.
The legislation had a tough ride, and the debate was marred
perhaps by some rather pompous and insensitive remarks. Among the usual “what next? Siamese twins marrying narwhales?”
brigade who are so far off the map (a) their minds cannot be changed and (b)
they are Mostly Harmless in that most people recognise they are frankly barking,
there were some rather more pernicious naysayers.
One argument ran that this change would force people like
teachers to act against their conscience and compel them to treat gay
relationships as equal when they don’t believe this is so.
Well, the previous Conservative government had no difficulty
enacting charming legislation forbidding teachers discussing homosexuality in positive
terms (section 28 which banned the “teaching in any [state funded] school of the
acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”)
Another,
frequently made, argument was that extending marriage to gay people devalues
straight marriage and anyway we have civil partnerships and those are the same.
To me this is like saying Rosa Parks was wrong on 1 December
1955 to refuse to give up her bus seat to a white man, as she was required to by law. After
all, she was still on the same bus and still heading the same place, at the
same speed as white people and in almost, but not quite, the same comfort. Now,
instead, all this civil-rights nonsense has devalued bus travel for white men!
It’s not a very good argument, and vanishingly few could rationally
support it. But even if they did, the argument might be said to be missing the point.
And let us not forget that ‘gay marriage’ has been legalised
in countries on every continent (if we include Nepal where the Supreme Court
has ruled it must be enshrined in the new constitution). There does not appear
to have been a collapse in morality and family life in any of those places. Nothing
that has rocked them like the recent scandals to affect a certain Church currently
searching for a new leader…
But I think it is the third, broad argument – one made of
many strands - that demonstrates the blindness some people have when it comes
to gay rights and tells us how LGBT people are still not quite seen as having
the same validity as straight people. For all the arguments around religious
freedom; the value of marriage; the future of children – how can anyone who
values marriage as the bedrock of society or argues in favour of personal
freedom be logically against everyone having the freedom to enjoy it?
The future of the legislation is uncertain but I think it is
unlikely to be completely derailed. The politics around it will become
increasingly toxic, I fear. The largest party split its vote 42% for
and 46% against. If the Government’s own party can’t muster a majority either
for or against its own policy… well, there may be trouble ahead.
But we shall persevere.
