Tag: marriage

Is Britain behind the world in legalising same-sex marriage?

The past two weeks would be regarded as a success by same-sex marriage campaigners. With significant developments in Uruguay, France, Ireland and New Zealand the number of countries recognising and allowing same-sex marriage is increasing. So where does this leave Britain? Is it falling behind other parts of the world in this issue or is it an unnecessary waste of time because civil partnerships have been established for many years now?

 

April 11

The lower house in Uruguay voted in favor of legalising same-sex marriage. The result came a week after the senate  passed it by a wide majority and makes Uruguay the third country in the Americas to legalise same-sex marriage.

 

April 12

France’s upper house voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage, meaning this country is also well on its way to having same-sex marriages. However, the decision was taken amidst lively debates and strong protests. Whether it passes the next stage will be interesting to see.

 

April 14

Same-sex marriage was on the agenda for debate in Ireland, with an overwhelming majority of 79% voting for constitutional reform allowing gay people to marry. 78% of people also voted that the constitutional amendment be directive rather than permissive. Meaning that, if adopted, the constitutional change will require laws to be made allowing same-sex marriage, rather than merely permitting laws to be made to allow same-sex marriage.

 

April 17

New Zealand legalised same-sex marriage with the result of both MPs and members of the public bursting into song to celebrate. New Zealand has made history by becoming the first country in the Asia Pacific to legalise same-sex marriage.

 

Where is Britain in the process of legalising same-sex marriage?

With so many controversial ideas and policies being discussed and implemented recently, the issue of same-sex marriage seems to have been somewhat forgotten. However, it was only in February that MPs in the Commons voted in favour of marriage equality (Same Sex Couples) bill with a majority of 225. This was the second reading in the Commons, meaning that the legislation has now progressed to the committee stage where it will be scrutinised and amended. Once this stage is finished it will be reported and the third reading in the Commons will be carried out. If the bill passes this it will then progress to the House of Lords to begin the same process.

This bill has therefore still got a long way to go before it becomes legal for same-sex couples to marry, if the law is ever passed at all. Conservative MP David Burrowes predicts that there will be great opposition once it reaches the House of Lords.

 

Is same-sex marriage necessary in Britain when civil partnerships are legal?

The Civil partnership Act 2004 made it legal for same-sex couples to enter into legally recognised partnerships. To many people this has bridged the gap that left same-sex couples unable to be recognised by the law, however, there are major distinctions between civil partnerships and marriages which mean that there is a convincing argument that civil partnerships are not equal to marriage.

Firstly, whilst civil partnerships are legal they arguably do not hold the same social standing as marriage. The distinction also forces same-sex couples to ‘out’ themselves whenever they are required to state their marital status. This may not appear to be a significant issue, but many same-sex couples live in fear of being discovered and many believe that ‘outing’ themselves will lead to prejudice and discrimination.

On a more practical level civil partnerships do not grant couples the same financial rights as married couples, for instance pensions are generally lower for a surviving civil partner than for a surviving spouse.

Civil partnerships are not recognised around the world, even in countries that either allow same-sex marriage or some form of civil partnership, so there is no guarantee that a couple civil partnered in the UK will be recognised as a legal couple in other parts of the world. For example, in Sweden and Portugal same-sex marriage is legal, but they do not recognise civil partnerships as a legal relationship. This causes restrictions on travel and the possibility of moving abroad as a couple.

The law surrounding civil partnerships is not as settled and so there may be areas that still cause confusion legally. Civil partnerships are dissolved rather than divorced and adultery is not recognised as a legitimate reason to file for dissolution. This has two implications: firstly, this may feed into the stereotype that gay people are promiscuous and the stigma that civil partnerships are not as important as marriages; and secondly the vast amount of law surrounding marriage may not be applicable to civil partnerships, promoting uncertainty and the possibility for civil partners to be treated very differently by the legal system.

In order to bring legal partnerships between same-sex couples up to an equal footing with heterosexual couples it seems that same-sex marriage is necessary. To ensure that all citizens enjoy the same rights the same law is needed, not a substitute that seems to be very similar, which is arguably what the Civil Partnership Act is. However, if equality is what is being strived for then the issue of civil partnerships also needs to be addressed. It would not be an equal situation if same-sex couples have the choice of either a marriage or a civil partnership, whilst heterosexual couples are restricted solely to marriage.

Old Habits Die Hard: Why the Church of England Won’t Support Gay Marriage

The Church of England is an institution with roots reaching far back into British history. It has presided over changes in law, monarchy and societal trends, and it has updated itself (albeit reluctantly) in order to reflect movements in national thought. So why is it digging its heels in so strongly over the proposal to include civil partnerships within the definition of marriage?

As one irreverent wit recently highlighted on Facebook, it is ironic that the Church of England is making a fuss about changes to marriage law when it was itself created by Henry VIII so that he could get a divorce, something that the Catholic Church would not allow him to do. Humour aside, however, and after much research, I think I’ve finally worked out what their problem is – but before I release this particular puppy from its catapult, let’s have a quick review of how I reached my conclusion.

I wasn’t convinced by the line in the papers about how passing this legislation would undermine the Church’s status as principal administrator of State marriages in the UK and alter the meaning of marriage for everybody (with the implication that this would be a bad thing). I really don’t understand how this claim can be substantiated. For one thing, the C of E’s own website states that, in the present day, “more than a quarter of all marriages in England take place before God in the traditional setting of a Church of England church” – I’m just going to assume I’ve misunderstood something fundamental about the definition of State marriages, because “more than a quarter” does not constitute the lion’s share. (If you have a decent explanation for me, please leave a comment.) For another, why would including gay couples in the definition of marriage dilute the meaning of marriage itself?

The Church appears to define marriage as being between a man and a woman because matrimony is first and foremost a precursor to procreation… so why doesn’t it have a problem with elderly hetero couples getting wed for reasons of companionship? They sure as hell aren’t marrying because they want to have kids. And does this mean that infertile couples’ marriages are also invalidated in the eyes of the Church because their union won’t produce offspring? In the Church’s opinion a loving, stable relationship, sanctioned legally through marriage, is the best environment in which to raise a child – those who enter into a civil partnership are making the same level of commitment, so how could this water down the meaning of marriage?

My search for a coherent, reasoned argument – unsurprisingly thwarted by trawling through online media – took me to the Church of England’s own website, where they’ve put up an explanation regarding the Church’s views on civil partnerships and the current proposed changes to “marriage”. Their statement was revealing. While the Church supports civil partnerships – or “friendships”, as the Archbishop of York calls them – it maintains that a “marriage” is traditionally between a man and a woman and that the State has no right to change this – doing so would, in fact, change the definition of “marriage” for everyone. It also maintains that it is arguing for the protection of “marriage” – not just religious marriage but civil marriage as well – and that anyone suggesting that religious marriage be treated separately is failing to acknowledge the Church of England’s established role in providing State-recognised marriages to religious and non-religious couples alike.

This is a pretty weak argument, for several reasons. Firstly, the Church would appear to be advocating the stagnation of British law in order to protect the status quo (primarily for itself, that is, as society needs change in order to remain healthy). I would argue that even the Church, although admittedly long established and still to some extent involved with law-making in the UK, should not have the power to halt the evolution of our legal system just because it doesn’t like the proposed changes. To say that it is trying to protect the definition of both religious and civil marriages actually weakens its position – if separate definitions of religious and civil marriages existed, then to change the definition of civil marriage would in no way affect the definition of marriage for those who might object on religious grounds to the inclusion of same-sex legal partnerships within said definition. And for any married, hetero couples who might object on non-religious grounds, surely the redefining of marriage as “a state into which two people may enter, who love one another and wish to take on the legal responsibilities and benefits that such an arrangement would bring” could draw no objection, as it would be a blanket definition that applies to everyone and would therefore take nothing away from the meaning of a marriage between a man and a woman.

The Church also argues that there is no need to redefine marriage, as civil partnerships provide the same legal rights to same-sex couples as marriages do to straight couples. (I looked this up – they’re virtually identical. There’s some different wording, obviously, but that’s about it.) So, in fact, what we have currently, in our already highly complex legal system, is two ways of saying the same thing – isn’t this a bit pointless? If civil partnerships and marriages provide the same things to couples, and marriages aren’t exclusively religious, and all partnerships are recognised as equal in the eyes of State and Law, why as a society do we need to have one “traditional” and one “modern” definition of love-based partnership?

The Church of England really shot itself in the foot when it allowed gay people to become vicars, as it very publicly and officially put aside the Bible’s argument against homosexuality when it did so. Now bereft of that religiously-sanctioned homophobia, it is forced to come up with weakened, trivialised nonsense in order to try and hang on to marriage as the sole purview of the straight. What the Church now has, in fact, is a percentage of its religious representatives who are forbidden by their own institution to wed! Oh, you’re a gay vicar? That’s progressive; isn’t that cool that you can continue practising your faith without having to deny your sexuality… Oh, but you and your partner have to remain celibate, and your Church won’t let you marry your partner, in the sight of your own God or otherwise, despite your devotion and unshaken belief? That’s… fucking nonsensical, hypocritical, degrading and tragic. What kind of “organised” religion are we dealing with here?!

I think what the Church of England should really be concerned about (and perhaps it is, deep down) is the potential schism looming between those religious organisations that wish to perform marriages for same-sex believers and those that think marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It has, in fact, already garnered a backlash from some of its own vicars for its arguments against the inclusion of same-sex couples in the definition of marriage. Additionally, as the proposed legislation would actively disallow gay marriages in a religious context, the Church is potentially looking at some serious future arguments in the European Court of Human Rights. But as the C of E survived the admission of gay vicars, so I suspect it will survive this, with a mixture of grudging compromise, popularity contest antics and no doubt more embarrassing statements along the way.

So, after my “quick” overview… my conclusion? Rather anticlimactic, I’m afraid: that the Church is afraid of change, paranoid over losing its grip, and confused about what exactly, in the modern day, it really believes.