So this is the week in which Barack Obama came out in favour of ‘gay marriage’, the Queen remained silent (in her address to parliament), David Cameron seemed a little less sure about where this is going politically (despite the renewed commitments of equalities minister Lynne Featherstone), and Mitt Romney reaffirmed his conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman.
In an editorial this morning the Times said this is ‘a cornerstone issue of civil rights’. You can see how this ‘framing’ of the question closes down any serious debate; it turns it into a battle between the good people who are for civil rights and the bad people who are against them; it completely avoids the much more serious and consequential issue of whether this proposed legislation in favour of same-sex ‘marriage’ will actually change the nature of marriage and the family or not, and what the effects of this change will be for individuals and for society. The Times doesn’t acknowledge that you are not just giving an apparent right to gay people, you are also redefining – for every person and for the whole of society – the nature of marriage and the family as it has been almost universally understood.
There is still time to respond to the Government’s consultation – see the link here. And to sign the Coalition for Marriage petition here.
There is no space for lengthy replies on the consultation website – they limit the word count quite strictly. It’s good in some ways, because it means you have to clarify your thoughts and cut out the flannel.
Here is the reply I wrote for the consultation, and sent to my MP:
I am against this proposal for five reasons.
First, it radically transforms the meaning of marriage for all couples (not just same-sex couples) and turns it into simply a committed relationship between any two consenting adults.
Second, it makes different forms of family life equivalent, and disregards the evidence that it is in the best interests of children to be brought up by their own natural/biological parents. Marriage between a man and a woman is the only relationship that allows children to be conceived by their own natural/biological parents and raised in that lifelong family unit, which is why it is given a special status. This is not a prejudice but a natural reality.
Third, this proposal will increase prejudice and intolerance against those who believe and teach that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
Fourth, it drives a wedge between civil and religious views of marriage, which can only harm society. At present there is a single understanding of marriage, shared by both religious and non-religious people, but celebrated in different contexts (civil or religious).
Fifth, this proposal has been ‘forced’ onto the political agenda; it was not in any party manifestos; it is not a pressing political issue for most people; and 70% of people support the traditional understanding of marriage (according to a recent poll).
[This is slightly over the consultation word count, so I had to cut a couple of phrases – I can’t remember which!]
Bridges and Tangents 
Nicely put!
You’re very eloquent in saying what, from I here in my working life, are the thoughts and feelings not just of the majority of Catholics but also of very many non Catholics. Well done Father Stephen!
I totally disagree with your reasoning Stephen. If it has pleased God to join two people together then why should it be for us to deny the fact?
The understanding and experience of marriage is different for different people but the state should be big enough to give recognition to all. The proposals will not impinge on your rights to pursue your life in the way you wish.
Thanks for commenting Ben. I think you are missing a deeper question. No-one denies that there can be a profound relationship between two people of the same sex. But the question about re-defining marriage is this: is there something distinctive about the relationship between two people of the opposite sex, between a man and a woman? The obvious answer, which I think most people would recognise, is that ‘opposite sex’ relationships can lead to children (even though they don’t in every case), so that these children can be raised within the loving relationship of the mother and father who conceived them. This can’t happen with a gay couple. I’m not even getting into the moral questions here; I’m just trying to explain why there is a distinction between a lifelong gay relationship and a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, and why we have different words for them. To call them the same thing (‘marriage’) is to deny that there are any differences, or to suggest that these differences don’t matter for individuals or for family life or for society, which they clearly do.
Hello Stephen, of course I understand what you say is a standard catholic church view and I wouldn’t dispute your right to believe as you wish. However, most other people have no problem accepting that there are many other viwes of what marriage is about and that all (within reason) can be accommodated by the civil law.
I have to say that the argument based on the potential for children feels like an attempt to find a technicality to justify a prejudice. No couple entering upon marriage can know what the future holds for them – how long the union will last, whether it will be a success, whether there will be children or whatever else. The only essential point is the commitment to face whatever comes together.
What should concern the government is what couples consider their relationships to be. Many gay & lesbian couples regard themselves as married. And on a practical level, marriage is the standard internationally recognised name giving necessary rights in international private law. Therefore it is necessary that we use the right name for all people or they will face inequality.
The governments proposals will in no way restrict or inhibit the catholic church going about its business. I suggest that the RC Church should have the grace not to seek to hinder people of other faiths and of none from doing the same.
Thanks for the reply Ben.
You mention ‘the catholic church’ and ‘belief’, but none of my arguments are connected with the Catholic Church or with belief!
Two questions for you – genuine ones, I’m not just being rhetorical: (1) you say ‘The only essential point is the commitment to face whatever comes together’. Do you really believe that there is absolutely no difference between a lifelong commitment between a gay couple and a straight couple? Are these two relationships exactly the same? If they are exactly the same, then I can’t move the discussion forward. If they are not exactly the same, what is it that makes the difference? (2) You don’t seem to acknowledge that the proposals change the definition of marriage for every single couple, and not just for gay couples; so that it is no longer seen as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, with the possibility of conceiving children, because of their sexual difference; but it is now a lifelong commitment of love with any other adult (and sexual difference does not enter into it). Even if you think this change is a good thing (which you obviously do!), are you willing to recognise that this is not a small thing for a society to do, and that it does mark quite a radical change not just for those gay couples who would now ‘marry’, but for the understanding of marriage for all people?
Sorry if I don’t have time to answer immediately.
Dear Stephen. Do you think that straight couples who have a different understanding of the institution of marriage should be allowed to do straight civil partnerships? Many of my friends wish to settle down with their partners but don’t feel that the reasons to do this are the same as those put forward by the church. You state that marriage should only be for the procreation of children, the good of society and essential for a good family life. It’s obviously a definition of marriage being pushed quite strongly by the Catholic church yet is alien to many of us.
Perhaps the soultion is for straight people who have a different understanding of marriage to be allowed to do civil partnersips. What do you think of this idea?
Thanks John. Interesting. In effect, I think many people who do not take on this ‘fuller’ picture of marriage deliberately choose to not marry, and to have some other kind of semi-stable relationship or commitment. But it’s also interesting that many couples who cohabit, after a few years, when they want to have children, decide to get married (I’m not talking about religious views here); as if there is an implicit understanding that marriage is the best and most stable place for them to bring up children (which it is!). Personally I wouldn’t want to encourage an alternative ‘marriage-lite’, because I think this implicit fuller understanding of marriage is still there for most couples; they do see their love and commitment naturally leading to conceiving children (at some time in the future), and they do see a lifelong commitment as the best way of strengthening their relationship and creating a stable home for their children. I think it’s actually quite rare for a couple to very emphatically decide never to have children – although it does happen sometimes.
Stephen,
My reply to the government consultation:
Marriage has existed in this country for hundreds of years specifically for three reasons:
1) The procreation of children
2) Exclusive sexual relations
3) Mutual society
(Introduction to Solemnization of Matrimony service, 1662). The redefinition of marriage to exclude the first reason, or its possibility, fundamentally undermines the primary purpose of the institution’s existence, which is for the benefit of society at least as much as individuals.
There is no legal distinction between ‘religious’ or ‘civil’ marriage, nor should there be. Otherwise there will be a two-tier definition of marriage, which will lead to further ‘equality’ issues.
If ‘marriage’ between same-sex people becomes legally recognised it will fall under human rights and anti-discrimination legislation. Churches and other religious organisations that do not recognise this as a form of marriage will be guilty of ‘discrimination’ and subject to court proceedings by those who want to ‘marry’ in church. The state will thus force those who disagree with this definition for ‘religious’ or other reasons, to be guilty of ‘discrimination’ and become demonised. The legislation will therefore be extremely divisive for society as a whole.
This last point is, I think, a serious issue given the way we have seen the confrontation between religious views of morality and gay rights play out in courts (in the context of the Christian couple running b&b in their home).
Rob
Im sorry if this seems rude to anyone opposing same-sex marriage, but I don’t see your point. The arguments agains gay marriage don’t seem to be logical.
Firstly the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman because it can result in a child. There are many, many couples who are infertile, so should these be redefined as civil parterships when the information that a member is infertile is released? Also the pure fact that they result in a child doesn’t matter seeing as so many children are put up for adoption, or go into care because the parents are abusive or unfit. And this isn’t even mentioning the huge amount of children who are healthy and brilliant people who only have one parent.
Secondly, that is redefines marriage for everyone. This is true, but only in the sense that the actual definition changed. It doesn’t effect anyone other than the same-sex couples who will lead a more normal life if it becomes legal. Everyone else will enjoy the same religious freedom and the same right to marry who they choose.
I have many other points I would like to add but I have to go, so Ill wrap up.
Gay marriage is no different to normal marriage other than the corresponding cromosons and it is more than possible to raise a child with two loving fathers or mothers (just look at Neil Patrick Harris), with the extra bonus that these couple would be absolutly sure theyre ready to take care of a child before raising one, seeing as they can’t come across it accidentally.