The problem of marriage - gay or not

GAY MARRIAGE - SO RIGHT IT'S WRONG?

“I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative” - David Cameron

Our Prime Minister, for once, is telling the truth. However it's painted, this is not the progressive legislation it is made out to be – it's regressive, intended to bolster the status quo and prop up a flagging institution which is seriously in need of a major overhaul to enable it function effectively in the 21st century. And so I find myself in an interesting position.

I saw a tweet from one gay activist saying "Can't understand why my Twitter feed is full of people saying not all opponents of same sex marriage are bigots. Of course they are." So there is one viewpoint suggesting that you cannot say anything of worth against the bill without ending up in the same camp as appalling bigots like Cardinal O'Brien. (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099)

But here is Alex Andreou, a respected gay journalist, giving his reasons for expressing doubts about the bill - http://www.newstatesman.com/alex-andreou/2012/12/fascinators-and-neo-puritanism-why-im-conflicted-about-marriage-equality. This strikes me as a well reasoned position evincing doubts I share about the government's motives. I would take this argument a step further to suggest this policy is not just about propping up the Conservative Party, but also to further their basic ideology.

But first I think it only fair to make it clear where I'm coming from on this subject. I'd be the first to admit that in my thirty-something years as a civil servant I never really achieved very much. But the one thing I am proudest of was playing a role, albeit a very peripheral one, in the introduction of same-sex Civil Partnerships. I felt I was a part of something that was beneficial to society as a whole, and specifically for a section of the community which was, and still is, frequently on the receiving end of sickening bigotry and discrimination.

So why am I expressing an opinion which might be seen as being against the gay marriage bill? Emotionally I am strongly in favour of full equality. But what is the point of having equal access to rights which are unfit for purpose and which hark back to a society which disappeared a long time ago? There is a lot being said about the ancient traditions of marriage, but it doesn't take much historical knowledge to recognise the falsity of this position. The concept of marriage as a loving and equal partnership is a very modern one which has only gained common ground in the latter half of the 20th century. Throughout most of history marriage has been seen as a means to an end, a tool to ensure succession and inheritance rights. Marriage was the legal means whereby a man effectively owned a woman. This was still as true in Victorian times, when the basis for our current marriage laws were drawn up, as it was in previous eras.

Most people in Britain would agree that stable partnerships, irrespective of gender or sexuality, are an essential component of our society, providing protections for the rights of women and children and providing a bulwark against loneliness in later life. If we were able to start with a clean sheet of paper what are the elements which make for successful coupledom? Which agreements or contracts need to be in place? Whilst the answers will vary greatly depending on circumstances and personalities I think it is possible to identify three main areas which every twosome need to address in some way or other.

Firstly, Private. My wife and I have an agreement that whichever of us cooks the dinner the other does the dishes. Works for us, might not for others. Couples will decide if they have joint or separate bank accounts, how childcare will be split between them, who does the cleaning or the shopping. The choices made may be influenced by health, family or employment, but ultimately these are decisions to be made by the couple jointly in whatever way is best for them.

Secondly, what I will call Social. How the couple relate to society around them. This takes in broad scope of subjects so I'll just look at a couple of the more obvious ones. There is a choice to be made as to whether either or both partners wears a visible symbol of their union, traditionally a ring in this country. This announces the fact of the alliance to anyone not in the know and also tells observers that the person concerned is no longer in the market for a mate.

The couple may want to mark the announcement of their partnership with a ceremony or party of some description. A way of sharing the occasion with family, friends, colleagues and those with whom they have other social interactions. They may want it to reflect some particular set of beliefs, values or views they hold and go through a prescribed form of ritual which gives meaning to the event for them.

Finally, there is the Legal status of the union. Recognition of the partnership in law can be important for several reasons. It gives each partner next of kin status which provides vital rights if one of them is taken seriously ill. Whilst we continue to have our existing quaint inheritance laws it provides for a bereaved partner against outside claimants. The rights of children are better protected. And, amongst other benefits, the need to go through a formal dissolution process can give pause for thought and help save troubled relationships.

I can not think of any good reasons why the state need be involved in either of the first two categories. Whereas it is clear that the legal aspects are the correct province of government agencies. So why does our existing situation muddy the waters and bring the law into all three areas, and permit non-state bodies to perform statutory duties?

This is less the case in the Private field, although some forms of words used in marriage ceremonies verge towards this. (Although surely there is nobody nowadays who is asked to "love, honour and obey"? Is there?)  However it is obvious that there is currently considerable overlap between the Social and the Legal, for no obvious benefit. Religion, most especially Christian Protestant religion, continues to enjoy huge privileges within our society and it this essentially social function has an immense impact on the legal state of marriage. Although (some) churches can create legal unions they do not have the opposite power. Divorce can, quite rightly, only be performed by state bodies. This in itself illustrates the skewed relationship and the need to rationalise the situation. Apologies for appearing facetious, but I fail to see why something which can only be dissolved by properly appointed officials can be formed by someone whose sole qualification is a particularly good relationship with their imaginary friend.

Ironically we have a situation where gay couples have access to a state authorised concord which is more modern and some ways superior to the options afforded to heterosexuals. Civil Partnership (CP) is largely based on that for marriage, but improves on it in several ways. There is no statutory requirement to have a ceremony, thus removing one of the key links between the Social and Legal spheres. A large number of the initial rush of CPs decided to dispense with the ceremonial aspect because they had already organised something similar earlier in their lives. Usually these couples had been together for one or more decades, some for over fifty years. A long time to wait for their relationship to be officially recognised.

The partners in a CP are legally bound to one another when both have put their signatures to paper. Whereas in marriage this happens once both parties have spoken the relevant form of words, a reflection that this law was introduced for a society in which most people remained functionally illiterate. Both marriage and CP share a further anachronism, the need to give fifteen days notice of their intent and for this to be displayed for public inspection. Again this makes sense for a world in which most people lived and died within a few miles of their birthplace, in which people knew their neighbours and what they got up to, a world of long ago which is far removed from the bulk of the population who live in cities with considerable geographic mobility.

What should replace this largely shambolic situation?  I believe the marriage laws should be repealed en masse and CP extended to cover all who want to be have their relationship placed on a legal footing, with some further changes to make it more appropriate to the twenty first century. Marriage would not suddenly vanish overnight, but move out of the legal area and firmly into the social where it belongs. As in France there would be split between the legal bond, which comes from the government, and the interaction with society which would allow couples to choose any type of ceremony they choose. This could be provided by the state, or performed to whatever set of beliefs, superstitions or practices lighted their joint candles.

Lyndon B Johnson, one of the more intriguing US presidents, said of J. Edgar Hoover "It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in". That seems to sum up Cameron's thinking on gay marriage. Get the gay community inside that marriage tent and they become one more bulwark to defend the existing ludicrous state of affairs. I am fully in favour of equality for all, no matter their social, racial or national origins, without respect for age, gender or sexual orientation. Gay couples should have access to exactly the same legal rights as anyone else.

But, although I support this bill in principle, a part of me can't help hoping it fails. The resultant pissing in might be enough to set off the wave needed to bring down the whole structure and put us on the road to having a more modern view of relationships which benefits us all.

Footnote - Where I have commented on technicalities in the law these refer to England and Wales only. There are differences in the relevant legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, although the same conclusions can be drawn within those jurisdictions.