Not many people will know what that statistic represents off the top of their head I imagine. However, as of 19:30 on 23/02/12, 26583 people have signed an online petition against changing the definition of marriage.
My English teacher in Year 8, Mrs Bell, told me to never miss an opportunity to give an opinion when talking about something you realise you are passionate about - so for probably the first time ever, I want to talk to you (friends/the internet) about something I’ve realised I am passionate about that isn’t sport, music, films or books.
So here goes - I think gay people should be allowed to be legally married in the UK.
About C4M
I have lifted the About Us section from their website for your perusal:
“The Coalition for Marriage is an umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK that support traditional marriage and oppose any plans to redefine it.
The Coalition is backed by politicians, lawyers, academics and religious leaders. It reaches out to people of all faiths and none, who believe that marriage is the most successful partnership in history and should not be redefined.
The Coalition draws upon a substantial body of evidence showing that marriage – as it has been understood for thousands of years – is beneficial to society, and that changing its definition would undermine that benefit.
The Coalition’s petition demonstrates that there is broad public opposition to redefining marriage. The Coalition is committed to a reasoned and courteous debate on this issue, and will highlight any intimidation or intolerance shown to supporters of traditional marriage.”
For more info please visit : c4m.org.uk - I actively invite you to look at their blog, it’s probably better than mine, and they are much better at expressing themselves than I am.
Clearing my throat
I am not gay. I know people who are, but I’m not trying to trophy hold here.
But before I get started, I firmly state ‘for the record’ these opinions (as ever in MY blog) are my own and I am not looking to intimidate or show intolerance to supporters of traditional marriage - if people think that I am, then it is unintentional and purely a result of my ebullient passion. Now, onwards...
I saw first saw this story on a friend's Facebook page. And I’m surprised I even cared about it in all honesty - all I could see was the link but curiosity got the better of me, it was late and I've been quite busy at work so I needed my sleep (as apparently I get grumpy).
As read the comments and information on the site I realised I had always viewed marriage as per the current definition, which for the record is (via aforementioned Facebook friend):
The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
But my brain kept churning away at it as I tried to find elusive sleep, and when I thought about it that definition seemed exclusive and made me question my own understanding; Does a civil partnership mean the same sort of thing, just not the ‘opposite sex‘ part? Why can’t it be marriage if you are gay? Are we not an equality seeking democracy?
It sort of perversely reminded me of the VW Golf advert where everyone refers to the car being ‘just like a Golf’. Civil partnerships, just like a marriage - suddenly it seems like a civil partnership is the marriage 2:1 not a 1st. Is a civil partnership everything but the badge and brand?
Sexual orientation in my simple world
Imagine for one second that if you were left handed. Crazy isn’t it. Now imagine that because you are left handed you can’t get ‘married’ to your left handed partner because marriage is defined as the state of being united to a person of the opposite ‘handedness’ in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. But, never fear equality seekers - you can be in a civil partnership if you are both left handed - same legal rights (no pun intended) as those in marriage, but just to be clear: it’s not marriage.
You can’t help being left handed, right handed or ambidextrous (I think that’s how you spell it, basically I mean being good with both hands - but bisexual in my metaphoric example). I realise it seems a ridiculous example but not as ridiculous, or as widely used, as race. Orientation doesn’t matter, so why should it be one rule for some and another rule for others?
Why is it a concern to change the definition?
I seem to be asking more questions than I’m answering. In truth I don’t have answers, I have an opinion and the internet - hence a blog.
My first line of enquiry was to question whether marriage is 'what it used to be'. There are currently 24 million married people in the UK, and I’m sure they are all lovely people who will be lovely for “as long as they both shall live”, etc.
My perception was that it probably doesn’t mean as much as it used to - I know more people in my parents’ generation have re-married than in my grandparents‘ generation. I didn’t know what the stats were but I remembered seeing something about divorces having remained at a consistent level.
So I did a little research, because I‘m secretly a massive nerd - Here are the ONS stats!
I plugged this into excel and did what I could with minimal fuss - I made a graph, you can do with the data what you will. Now to the numbers... The data suggests that marriage isn’t what it used to be (in terms of volume, I’m not being judgemental here). It’s been on the decline since the 1970s but divorces are on the up (going by ratio) - I can’t and don’t want to go in to why this has happened, but it has.
Undermining the benefits to society?
Does re-defining it undo all the ‘good’ marriage has brought to the world thus far? I doubt it.
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said: “The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way… For thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman has been the bedrock of societies across cultures, all around the world… Marriage is a cornerstone of our society. Because of this, I believe the general public will oppose the present attempt to fundamentally alter – and undermine – the institution.”
I see the chance to re-define marriage (to be more inclusive) as a good thing, another step in the right direction - is inclusion suddenly not a benefit? Women, and black people didn't have the vote once!
What cost is there to those who are already married for the word ‘marriage’ to be re-defined? It doesn’t undo what has gone before it, it’s not void - it’s basically a legal contract on a consensual relationship. When getting a mobile phone contract just because the people after you got a different version of a contract doesn’t nullify your own version, or am I missing the point entirely?
This is not a rights rant. Their have been huge steps over in recent decades in terms of legal equality for gay couples. Civil partnerships have meant that a homosexual relationship can be legally acknowledged and, through that, provide a security which was not previously available.
But why not unify it, as a society to make the term marriage inclusive? If society benefits from marriage surely we, as a society, should allow (furthermore encourage) more people to partake in it. Society benefits from the contributions gay people make to all industries, services and economies they form part of - yet they can’t be married but heterosexuals can.
I don’t know anyone who is both religious and gay - not out of choice, I just don’t. So if you know anyone who is, can you ask him/her what their opinion is? I, for one, would like to hear it, get them blogging - lie to them, tell them it’s quick and easy...
The L Word
At the end of the day, I’m in no position to tell you what to think or do, nor am I telling you to. I’m not even sure if gay people care about what their union is labelled as long as they are treated just the same as every one else in society. One day, one step at a time…
The church currently provides blessings for gay people but marriage for heterosexuals.
Perhaps we’d be better off viewing equality as an output not input. Then marriage wouldn’t matter, and the Love would conquer all.
No comments:
Post a Comment