Newsfight: Gay Marriage
First of all, I'd like to sidestep the whole John Kerry "I support civil unions but not gay marriage" gambit. Most marriages are essentially civil unions anyway, whether or not Christian vows are included to please parents or to satisfy the bride's desire for a big entrance and a white dress. The way I see it, there are three main objections to gay marriage: biblical, traditional and social.
Since the two countries in which gay marriage is touted, Britain and America, are Christian, I hope you'll forgive me using Christian arguments. The Old Testament, it is true, talks about a man leaving his mother and father and joining with his wife, and Sodom and Gomorrah is condemned pretty strongly. Interesting, and in one of my favourite passages from the Old Testament, Lot is so disgusted by the baying crowd's desire to sodomize his male guests that he offers them his virgin daughters instead. Good honest family morals there.
The trouble with using Biblical evidence is that it relies on some pretty acute picking and choosing of texts: for some reason, the strictures against homosexuality are championed, whereas no one mentions much of the Old Testament's other useful advice for life. Do you know what to do if you have a mouldy skin disease? What about purifying yourself after a period? (I think the first answer is see a priest; the second involves burning some doves.) Not only this, but as The Economist's pro-gay marriage editorial points out, religious objections should not (and under the American constitution cannot) affect the legislation of a secular state.
Secondly, traditional. Marriage, we are to believe, is a sacred and long-established tradition where two people who love each other form a lifetime bond, which has consistently preserved society as we know it. Wrong. Until this century, marriage was a means of property transferral via the medium of a woman (at least for those with property), and a woman's only way of securing her and her children's future. Love had nothing to do with it - it was only in the late 18th century that the idea of 'companionate marriage' suggested that it would be nice for the participants to be fond of each other. Of course, divorce rates were low - women risked losing their children and being condemned to a life of poverty, as well as to a lively social stigma. If we are to re-imagine marriage as a loving bond between two people, why should they necessarily be a man and a woman? Even a cursory examination of historical or literary writings from previous eras will show you that homosexuality isn't a modern phenomenon - it just wasn't allowed to interfere with the cultural function of marriage. If we acknowledge that homosexual relationships exist, why not encourage them to be monogamous and long-term, rather than taking place furtively outside a loveless marriage?
The social argument is that marriage is a stabilising force - many Daily Mail pieces lament the decline of marriage as evidence that the youth of today aren't willing or able to take responsibility, and cannot function in adult society. Research shows that marriage reduces the incidence of domestic violence, for example, and forces both parents to undertake commitments to children. I'm sure this will sound glib, although it's not meant to: if marriage is great, why not have more of it?
One of the most common complaints about gay men and women is the culture of promiscuity which is supposed to be inevitably linked to homosexuality. Although there are promiscuous queer people, as there are straight, the sheer numbers of gay couples who rushed to be married in San Francisco recently shows that many wish to formalise and celebrate their relationship. Why would we stop them?
The institution of marriage has never looked more shaky, with an ever-growing percentage ending in divorce. Perhaps the only way to revitalise marriage is to shrug off the phenomenon's historical baggage and revisualise it as a solid, stable and loving bond between two people - regardless of gender.
But if you'll excuse me, I've got several years of pigeon-sacrificing to catch up on.
I find myself in a difficult position this week. On the one hand, I am a republican, eager to see a conservative government win re-election in November. On the other hand, as a homosexual, my President has just declared me illegal.
Or so it would seem if you listened to all the of the liberal media this past week. Once again the institution of marriage has been hijacked. In the 1970s, legal lobbying groups joined forces with The Women's League, and brought about changes in the ease with which divorces can be obtained in the US. Now a minority of activist judges, under the intense lobbying of gay rights groups, are seeking once again to tamper with the institution of marriage and the effects may prove equally disastrous.
To make the debate on marriage a debate about gay rights is to sidestep the more fundamental issue: marriage is a religious institution, based around the promotion and stabilisation of the family unit.
The more we focus on marriage as just a personal relationship between two adults, the weaker the position of children becomes.
While many adopted children grow up secure, loved and well adjusted to society, legalisation of gay marriage is a move towards a disregard for biological mothers and fathers, and the importance they should play in a child's upbringing.
This is a discussion of marriage, not of homosexuality.
In terms of a strict legal equality, there is really very little for homosexuals to complain about, yet in arguing for child benefits, the gay community highlight the fundamental ideological problem: gay couples are not expected to have children.
There is nothing to stop them if they are able to afford it, but the majority (63 per cent) values of the American people are that state subsidies should not be given towards supporting same-sex couples who wish to raise children.
It is unfair, and unconstitutional, to force the values of the minority onto the majority. While no one can discriminate against gay couples on the basis of sexual orientation, it is not for them to demand rights that are not freely available to everyone.
Gay men may as well demand protection from the Equal Rights Amendment, banning any discrimination against women.
Most importantly, however, I believe it is possible that granting marriage licences to gay couples will do more harm than good. This is certainly the case in the UK, where the debate will surely take place within the next year.
The ease with which gay men and women live within Oxford make it easy to be blinded to the fact that they are a still an often persecuted minority; government polling released at the beginning of February suggests that only one in 5,000 UK residents are part of a same-sex couple.
As Ben Summershill of Stonewall, a UK gay advocacy group, notes, married gay couples in the UK will face violence and hostility from a public that is simply not ready to accept such a coupling.
I agree that it is an unquestionable breach of human rights to discriminate against an individual on the grounds of sexual orientation, but to assert the views and opinions of a minority over those of a majority is not only undemocratic, but dangerous.
There are some serious battles for gay men and women to fight if they are to be fully accepted into society. If there is a chance that it might do more harm than good to my future life and partnership, I for one don't have time for a cosmetic battle of terminology.
3rd Apr 2004