Sunday, March 11, 2012

Changes to Marriage - more pandering

The government is about to issue a consultation paper on proposed changes to the legal definition of marriage so as to open the institution of marriage to same-sex partnerships.

Why?
Who wants this?
Who among the population of the UK, is clamoring for this?
Why is the government pushing this unnecessary legislation at a time when their major focus should be on economic issues?

In 2004 the Labour Government brought into law, the concept of Civil Partnerships.  We were told at this time, that it was only right that those homosexual couples that wanted to, should be able to become legally joined and could then share the same legal rights as were enjoyed by married heterosexual couples.  One of the main arguments put forward surrounded the inequality that was seen for homosexual couples where, when one died, the surviving partner, could not inherit in the same manner as a surviving partner from a civil marriage.

This Civil Partnership act changed that and gave equal rights to those homosexuals that made that legal commitment to each other.  So why is further change required?

The danger with the current proposals, apart from them causing a distraction from the major issues facing this country (maybe that is the point?), is that government is entering into an arena that brings it into direct conflict with religious organizations and with the fundamental nature of what marriage is and the 'right' of politicians to re-define marriage.

I am  not talking about civil marriage.  That is recognized by all Christian churches and (excuse my ignorance if I am wrong,) by all other religious/faith  organizations.  I am talking about enshrining in UK law, the concept that marriage is no longer the sole preserve of the union between a man and a woman.  In the recent letter from the Catholic Bishops Conference, marriage is described as an institution that is at the foundation of our society and married couples as the source and guardians of the next generation. 

So who is pushing for this legislation?  The homosexual 'community' is reckoned to be less than 6% of the UK population.   If, for a moment we made the assumption that all  of this 'community' were in favour of so called 'gay' marriage, that would still represent a very small minority.

If legislation was to be about pandering to 'the people' - how about listening to the widely held views on the UK withdrawal from the EU?  What about pandering to the Capital Punishment lobby.  I would suspect that a significantly greater portion of the population would support such legislation, IF THEY WERE ASKED!

But they won't be asked.  And when MPs come to vote on the issue they will be ever-mindful of the media hate campaign that will be ranged against all opponents of this legislation.  MPs and commentators, who oppose the legislation (including this blogger) will be called homophobic and painted as reactionary and such.

I have mentioned earlier, why is this an issue that is being addressed (at all) and why now?  The focus of this government should be to promote economic growth, extricate the country from the mire of debt, into which we are sinking and, in my view, develop a way of government that is far less intrusive in the lives of the people of the UK.

I urge you to consider the dangers posed by this legislation and ask you to sign the petition at
www.C4M.org.uk

17 comments:

  1. So because Gay people are a minority we can disregard their views? What percentage of the population do you need before you think it's ok for something to be considered for a legal change? I'm not gay but I don't see why they don't deserve the same rights as hetrosexual people!? And of course you don't see hetrosexual people marching in the street about this because it's not that important to them, it doesn't really affect them. We are on a journey to equality in this country which won't stop with your reactionary views as much as you are entitled to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,
      I do not advocate dis-regarding the views of any minority. I do advocate putting those views into perspective and considering the views of the majority.

      Homosexuals have the same rights under law as anyone else. They have the right to a civil partnership and that grants them the exact same rights as those of anyone else that enters into a civil marriage. So why is any change necessary?

      I guess that for some, any view that doesn't conform to the 'let's be ever more liberal and never mind the consequences position' might seem reactionary. The World and the UK has come to a sorry state when that view is held.

      Delete
  2. Hi Tim

    You are homophobic, let's be honest. No one starts a blog with such strong views for a policy which, in inacted, doesn't actually effect them in any way. Can you imagine telling black people or muslims how to run their lives, it isn't your biz. BUT... lets move on!

    However, I can tell you as a gay person who is getting civilly partnered this year I have no interest in setting foot in a church. The church does not welcome gay people.

    Would you go somewhere you are not welcome? Let alone commit to the person you love in a place that for years has openly spouted hate against you?

    Personally, I think civil partnerships are enough, Im happy with it. I am gay, I don't want to be "married", let alone married in a church, it's a right I don't want. Like the right to keep slaves or any other ridiculous "right" from times gone by. You heteros are more than welcome to your marriage.

    I have many gay friends, and none of them would want anything to do with the church, let alone the catholic church who commit terrible crimes against children and not to mention the millions slaughtered in the name of Christianity.

    You are right in one sense, who is asking for this? Why is this an issue? It's smoke and mirrors, lets focus on important issues, gay people getting married in a fr*cking Church? Is really not important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous
      I do not consider myself as homophobic - that is your view and nothing I say or write will deter you from that.

      I am not sure what it is you are saying, other than this consultation exercise will have no effect on yourself and your partner (BTW I wish you both well and a long and loving partnership).

      I am glad that you agree that this is a distraction from the most serious issues that are facing the country - these are economic.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "In 2004 the Labour Government brought into law, the concept of Civil Partnerships. We were told at this time, that it was only right that those homosexual couples that wanted to, should be able to become legally joined and could then share the same legal rights as were enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. One of the main arguments put forward surrounded the inequality that was seen for homosexual couples where, when one died, the surviving partner, could not inherit in the same manner as a surviving partner from a civil marriage."

    And let's not forget the opposition to even this!

    "This Civil Partnership act changed that and gave equal rights to those homosexuals that made that legal commitment to each other. So why is further change required?"

    Because "same rights but still segregated" is still segregation. During 1950's America, before the Civil Rights Movements got off, there would often be two of lots of things; water fountains, public toilets etc. One for "whites only" and one for "blacks only". In fact, the Pentagon building was made with twice as many toilet facilities for this very reason. Now why would this be a problem and why would anyone have any opposition to it? I mean, both get to use the facilities, right? No-one's being denied a toilet or a water fountain, so that's all cool? Quite simply, because the only reason you'd have a problem with someone of a different race using your facilities and the only reason you'd demand they use "separate" ones is because you consider yourselves superior to the other group, and being made to use the same facilities as the "lower" people is in fact lowering yourself to that level. Absolutely nobodies marriages will be affected in any way by this proposal. You will not be made to divorce because a loving gay couple can celebrate a "marriage" rather than a "civil partnership", and suggesting that allowing them into the term "marriage" will undermine the sanctity of yours is the same as complaining that blacks can use your toilet facilities: you feel that you're letting a lower class of person do something equal to you. This isn't a valid threat outside of your perceived threat to your "higher status".

    "The danger with the current proposals, apart from them causing a distraction from the major issues facing this country (maybe that is the point?), is that government is entering into an arena that brings it into direct conflict with religious organizations and with the fundamental nature of what marriage is and the 'right' of politicians to re-define marriage."

    I'll ignore the attempt to suggest some kind of conspiracy theory on timing. Anyway, as much as the religious try to claim ownership, the institution of marriage is NOT owned by any religion. In fact after the protestant reformations, marriage became a civil contract in law. Otherwise, we would stop inter-faith weddings or weddings of people belonging to any faith outside of Christianity. It is a purely legal contract that sometimes is done in a religious context. Marriage has been redefined so many times in history that it's almost unrecognisable. If you lived 200 years ago, I'd dare say that you wed someone, anyone, because the wife wanted a stable home and the husband wanted someone to look after the home. Love was an extra luxury if you could get it. If you lived 400 years ago, you'd have your spouse picked by your family, mostly to tie in business, personal or political ties. Again, love rarely featured. In fact, "re-defining marriage" was the idea behind one of the largest political and legal shake-ups in English history when Henry VIII split from Rome and set up the CofE. So to say that we all of a sudden cannot "redefine marriage" is nonsensical, and is a poor attempt at stifling debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If i Understand your argument you equate the issue over what you seem to describe as 'just a word' with the inhumane treatment that was meted out to black people in the USA, before the mid 1960s?

      I am not saying that homosexuals cannot enter into a civil union, under the law. The law says they can so that is it!

      However, I do not accept that a government can re-define marriage, which to me as a Roman Catholic, is a sacrament, and especially to pander to a vocal minority of the population.

      My point about what your suggest is a conspiracy theory viewpoint is that I would be that any opinion poll (there we go asking those pesky 'people' again) would rank joblessness and the economy far higher in importance than homosexual 'marriages'

      Delete
  5. "I am not talking about civil marriage. That is recognized by all Christian churches and (excuse my ignorance if I am wrong,) by all other religious/faith organizations. I am talking about enshrining in UK law, the concept that marriage is no longer the sole preserve of the union between a man and a woman."

    But you ARE talking about civil marriage. Legally, there is no other recognised form in UK law. As previously mentioned, it has been changed to accommodate new ideas and social norms, such as marrying for love. There's no viable reason why you can suddenly say "no more". Yes, this is about establishing that marriage is no longer the sole preserve of a man and a woman. This doesn't mean that men and women cannot marry, so your (or anyone else's) marriage will in NO WAY be affected, just as people's marriages were not affected when inter-racial marriage was a hot topic 40 years ago. Back then, they'd say "I don't hate blacks, but we shouldn't undermine the sanctity of marriage by letting them wed whites". It didn't undermine anyone's marriage (and if it did, then that was a pretty weak marriage anyway), and it was nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt at saying "they're lower-class humans than I am, and I don't want to have to associate my name with such creatures by claiming they share the same institution as I".

    "In the recent letter from the Catholic Bishops Conference, marriage is described as an institution that is at the foundation of our society and married couples as the source and guardians of the next generation."

    So? How precisely will long-term, loving same-sex couples getting married affect this? Your marriage will still be in place, and will still hold the same legal strength as it did before. You're not being forced to share some magic beans, or some other finite resource, it's simply a case of others being treated as you would like to be treated.

    "So who is pushing for this legislation? The homosexual 'community' is reckoned to be less than 6% of the UK population. If, for a moment we made the assumption that all of this 'community' were in favour of so called 'gay' marriage, that would still represent a very small minority."

    Again... and? According to the Office of National Statistics, just 2% of marriages were inter-racial. Does this mean that there should be any move to remove this from the statutes? Of course not, because we recognise that an inter-racial couple getting married doesn't hurt our own marriages, and any attempt to say that it undermines them is simply bigotry that's been very badly disguised. Yet when it's a minority that you claim is three times the size of the inter-racial couples, this is a "tiny minority" and we therefore shouldn't be giving them anything! There's no consistency in your argument, and without including the factor of you seeing gay couples as "lower" than you, your argument makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you can tell but plainly try not to see, my view, in accord with many, and yes, including the Catholic Bishops of England and Wale, and, given Cardinal O'Brien's comments, those of Scotland,is that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The state can, and in deed in the UK has, take a view that a union between two people can be legal, if certain forms are followed, but that does not make it marriage.

      What do you have against inter-racial marriages? If these are between a man and a woman and conform to the relevant legal processes, then they constitute a marriage. Why would you think otherwise?

      Delete
  6. "If legislation was to be about pandering to 'the people' - how about listening to the widely held views on the UK withdrawal from the EU? What about pandering to the Capital Punishment lobby. I would suspect that a significantly greater portion of the population would support such legislation, IF THEY WERE ASKED!"

    This legislation isn't about "pandering" to anyone. Was removing racist laws and segregation laws from our books "pandering"? Should outlawing discrimination against people based on their gender or the colour of their skin be open to a vote? What if the public voted "yes"? Would you be cool with that? What if the public voted to openly ban all Christians from owning cars? would you say "well, the public voted for it, so that's fair game"? What if the public voted to legalise murder? Would that be fine and dandy? No. There are some matters that are so important that they are simply not up for public vote. Anti-discrimination laws are one of those. I don't care if you don't like same-sex marriages just as I don't care if the National Front don't like inter-racial marriages. They're not forced to have one and it's not reasonable to stop them having a marriage because some other group, who have no involvement in it whatsoever, disagree. Don't like gay marriages? Don't marry a guy!

    "But they won't be asked. And when MPs come to vote on the issue they will be ever-mindful of the media hate campaign that will be ranged against all opponents of this legislation. MPs and commentators, who oppose the legislation (including this blogger) will be called homophobic and painted as reactionary and such."

    Indeed they will. Any MP who says they want to propose a bill that would make black people less-than-human would be called racist and vile by the media. Would we shed a tear over this? No! If an MP wants to deny marriage to same-sex couples because they don't deem them worthy of marriage, then they must accept they will be called homophobic and bigoted.

    "I have mentioned earlier, why is this an issue that is being addressed (at all) and why now? The focus of this government should be to promote economic growth, extricate the country from the mire of debt, into which we are sinking and, in my view, develop a way of government that is far less intrusive in the lives of the people of the UK."

    The first part of your argument is the weakest form of argument on the subject I've yet to come across. It's not a valid position with evidence to support it, it's no different to saying "quick, look over there! No, keep looking.....". It's not an attempt at an argument, it's an attempt to avoid all discussion. To suggest that because there's a big issue to be discussed therefore absolutely no other issues may ever be addressed until this one is totally fixed is intellectual dishonesty. It's attempting to win by default by not even letting the debate happen. This, however, is normally a sign in my opinion that there is actually no argument to have. Having said that, your second point is entirely hypocritical to your whole post! You want the Government to stay out of people's lives, yet you want them to get into the lives of same-sex couples and deem them not worthy of a marriage? No. You stay in your marriage, and let them have theirs. You have no right telling them that they aren't good enough to have a marriage and that only the likes of you can enjoy it.

    "I urge you to consider the dangers posed by this legislation and ask you to sign the petition at
    www.C4M.org.uk"

    I urge you, considering that your whole post has utterly failed to do so, list one real danger that a same-sex couple getting married would pose to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So tell me, why do homosexuals - and judging by your comments, this would only seem to apply to male homosexuals - want to say that they are 'married'. What is wrong with being in a civil partnership? What additional rights or responsibilities does being married confer, that a civil partnership, doesn't?

      It seems that only those opposed to my position, post here (thankfully all use temperate language) but none put forward a case for WHY this legislation is required.

      I am opposed to this possible legislation and, if you like, have nailed my colours to the mast. They are somewhat tinged by my adherence to the Catholic faith, which, unsurprisingly informs much of my stance on issues.

      Again though, WHY is the possible legislation necessary? What injustice or suffering are homosexuals encountering?

      I don't hear any arguments to answer these questions, just the expected and in themselves, illiberal, attacks.

      Delete
  7. Obviously a great deal of time has already been spent/wasted (depending on your viewpoint) on this issue and now that the churches, most notably the Catholic church, have voiced their opinion, it will no doubt squander a bit more. The argument seems semantic to me, the church claims 'marriage' and its definition as having specific meaning - heterosexual. My thoughts on this are relatively simple: Where an experience/opportunity is available to one it should be available to all irrespective of race, gender, faith or sexual orientation. If the definition of marriage is changing because those in civil partnerships consider themselves to be married or wish to, then the OED will catch up, as it always does. The question is, why does the church object so vehemently? The cynic in me says that if the church loses unique abilities (to marry people)then it loses power. No-one is hurt by this, most people don't care, those who care probably have something to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is disingenuous to suggest that it is just semantics. To the Church, marriage has a particular meaning - the celebration of a union between a man and a woman. This pre-dates the notion of legalities and government interference.

    "Where an experience/opportunity is available to one it should be available to all irrespective of race, gender, faith or sexual orientation."

    I agree but my experience of the law on unfair dismissal (albeit some time ago) suggests otherwise. A 'white' heterosexual male is, uniquely, unable to claim unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination related to sex, gender, religion or sexual orientation. I am not aware that this has changed.

    Again, I ask the question, why do homosexuals feel the need to call their union, marriage? After all, no one is hurt by it being called a civil partnership!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I came to the UK from Morocco with my partner some years ago as our relationship was considered inappropriate. In UK we have so much freedom and we feel very comfortable here. Even with the current economic hardship the state provides and this does not happen in Morocco.

    Whether the UK recognises gay marriages is not a big issue. I feel for all my friends back in Morocco who are denied their freedom because of their sexual preference.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am glad that you are able to enjoy the freedoms of the UK. They are so often taken for granted by local UK people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The inequality within our current marriage law is clear discrimination against the gay community. I believe marriage should be equal, with all those who wish to marry their partner, able to do so. It is therefore paramount that the government amend the marriage law in order to reflect equal access to marriage.

    The current consultation on the issue is an opportunity to finally bring our marriage laws up to date with the society which we live in.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Still no answer just baiting and name calling.

    ReplyDelete