Gay Marriage: An Equality Too Far
16See for example the ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph on 11 March 2012 which was reported as showing that 45% supported and 36% opposed moves to legalise
same-sex marriage. The poll did nothing of the sort and
respondents were not told that civil partnerships provide the legal rights of marriage, nor were they given the option of saying they supported civil partnerships but opposed gay marriage.
with civil partnerships or whether they wanted same-sex marriage. It found that a majority of the public oppose same-sex marriage given that all the legal rights of marriage are already available through civil partnerships (51% oppose same-sex marriage; 34% agree; 14% don’t know or no answer). 86% believe that it is possible to be tolerant of the rights of others and protective of traditional marriage at the same time and this was a recent poll carried out in
January 2012. 17
A ComRes online poll for Catholic Voices released on
8 March asked two separate questions: first, whether respondents supported civil partnerships (59% said yes they did); and second, whether they believed marriage should remain as an exclusive commitment between a man and a woman (70% said it should).18 This poll had a relatively large sample (n=2,000) revealing that people simply support the civil partnerships and the full equal legal protection and recognition they offer but think that
gay marriage is an equality too far. It is simply pointless to redefine marriage as it is for the formation of children
(even those unable to reproduce must understand this to be valid) and no matter how much we argue two same-sex people cannot produce children in the natural order.
This trend can be seen with a poll by YouGov for the
Sunday Times, published on 11 March, used the same three propositions as BSA19. It found that 32% opposed same-sex marriage whilst supporting civil partnerships and
17Marriage Attitude Study, ComRes, 6-8 January 2012. The poll was conducted by ComRes which interviewed
1002 English adults by telephone between 6th and 8th January 2012. Data were weighted to be demographically representative of all English adults. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
18Marriage Survey, ComRes, 23-24 February 2012, Table 1,
page 2
19YouGov / Sunday Times Survey Results, 8-9 March 2012, page 7
an additional 15% opposed both. So 47% opposed gay marriage with 43% supporting it and 10% saying they don’t know. This cannot be clearer enough, by figures alone the consultation suggests that civil partnerships are without breaking the natural law, an equal and civil means of accepting the profound friendships and partnership that make up marriage without disrupting (or even disrespecting) the natural definition of marriage. The evidence is clear; the majority don’t support redefining marriage. Why change the definition when you cannot
change the natural disposition of the human person (that is, two of the same sexual organs cannot reproduce).
Throughout history and in universally in all cultures marriage has been between one man and one woman. In
Spain, some Canadian provinces, and some US states where gay marriage is legal, official documents have been changed so that they no longer refer to “mother” or “father”, instead using language such as “progenitor 1, progenitor 2” or “parent A, parent B”. 20
Even before certain groups have tried to redefine marriage in the UK these kinds of changes are now happening and will greatly accelerate if the change is made.
The introduction of civil partnerships has meant that
20Manitoba Vital Statistics Agency, Marriage certificate application form, see https://vitalstats.gov.mb.ca/pdf/ application_marriage_certificate.pdf as at 15 March 2012; Prince Edward Island Vital Statistics, Marriage and
birth certificate application form, see https://www.gov. pe.ca/photos/original/dohw_vs_servapp.pdf as at 15 March 2012; Superior Court of the District of Columbia Marriage Bureau, Information for Marriage License Application, see https://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/ docs/family/marriage_license.pdf as at 15 March 2012; Commonwealth of Massachusetts One-day Marriage Designation Instructions, see https://www.mass.gov/ governor/administration/legal/marriage/ as at 15 Mar 2012
the words “bachelor” and “spinster” have already been dropped from marriage certificates.21 Perhaps these will even be removed from the academic distinctions in future years.
With the development of scientific methods such as IVF, childless couples who for whatever reason cannot reproduce within marriage can now have children. With same-sex couples now adopting, all child passport application forms in the UK are to be redesigned to remove the words “mother” and “father”, replacing them with “parent 1 and parent 2” revealing an alarming trend towards the dismemberment of the traditional family. 22
You may say that with same-sex couples having
children that marriage redefinition is the next logical step
to provide a stable home for children to develop. However the European Courts of Human Rights have in a recent case ruled that it is not against the human rights of same-sex couples to be denied adoption as it is not within their human ability or natural right to reproduce with same-sex couples and this is a logical conclusion. There was no violation of Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 23
Legislation still frequently uses terms such as husband (1003 times), wife (888), spouse (2740), or “husband and
21Liverpool Diocesan Registry, Marriage: Frequently Asked Questions, see
https://www.liverpooldiocesanregistry.co.uk/marriage.html as at 16 March 2012
22Diversity Strategy 2010-13, Progress Report 2010-
11, Home Office, August 2011, page 22; Daily Mail, 3 October
2011
23March 15, 2012 , Human Rights Europe, “European
Convention of Human Rights
Judgement on French gay adoption appeal” https://www.humanrightseurope.org/2012/03/judgement-on- french-gay-adoption-appeal/
wife” (342).24 There are 3,000 references to marriage in current law with the oldest reference is to an Act passed in 1285, in the reign of King Edward I. Part of this legislation is still in force and also includes the term “husband and wife” but if marriage is redefined these words could be swept away from the statute book. The very first Clause of the Stonewall draft Bill deletes the words “a husband and wife” from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, replacing them with “parties to a marriage”. 25 As I have argued in this book, the gender roles within the traditional
marriage have now become so obscured to be mere parties to a marriage, so with the involvement of children the message will be mixed and confuse the child. The cost is too much with children having very little exposure to the
behaviours of heterosexuality, and how to form relationships with respective genders and roles.
Redefining marriage will be expensive, have complicated policy implications, have bewildering effects on the English language (plus the further international English standard implications) and lead to further unfairness. Civil partners already have all the legal rights of marriage, something which is denied many other house-
sharers of the same or opposite sex in situations of great difficulty. Therefore where will the encompassment of marriage stop? Will it next involve animals such as pets?
To legalise same-sex marriage also involves complex policy choices such as what happens to civil partnerships – do they simply cease? Did they have no value? Do they then become profound engagements to so-called marriage. According to the consultation the Government wants
there to be two legal options for homosexuals (civil partnerships and marriage) but only one for heterosexuals
24Found by a LexisNexis search
25 See
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/stonewallmarriagebill. pdf as at 16 March 2012
(namel
y marriage) so why cannot heterosexual couples enter civil partnerships? Perhaps the next logical sense is to divide the religious and secular world even further apart by providing two types of marriage: that of state and religious. And what about religious law? It throws all types of problems into the mix and creates a self-imposed natural “disorder”. Peter Tatchell’s ‘Equal Love’ campaign is already running a court case on this issue. 26 In the natural
order, love is not actually equal. While God has an equal love for all of us as His children, only He is capable of
agape (divine) love. Therefore there are acceptable forms of natural ordered divisions in society that creates a unity in diversity. Man and woman is diverse with different sexual organs that create a union becoming one flesh within the confides of the sacrament of marriage and new Life. It is natural however it creates disorder to create a second way of marriage once marriage has been illegally redefined.
If civil partnerships become open to heterosexuals and marriage open to same-sex couples even the leading gay
rights advocate admits this would cost £5 billion27 and is this fair that everyone will foot this bill when (according to aforementioned polls) they do not actually want it.
The Liberal Democrats passed a conference motion
favouring this option of opening up both civil partnership and marriage to any two adults gay or straight. The huge cost comes from the likely uptake of civil partnerships by heterosexuals under this plan, together with the associated tax, benefits and pension rights.
Redefining marriage affects all of us because it weakens
the status of traditional marriage, which provides the most stable environment for raising children. Just one in eleven
26Equal Love, Press Release, Equal Love case filed to European Court, 2 February 2011
27PinkNews.co.uk, 20 September 2010, see https://www. pinknews.co.uk/2010/09/20/stonewall-update/ as at 16 March 2012
married couples split by the time of their child’s fifth birthday compared to one in three of cohabiting couples. 97% of couples who stick together until their children reach adulthood are married. 28
This is important because children who are not brought up in two parent households are 75% more likely to fail at school, 70% more likely to be a drug addict, 50% more likely to have an alcohol problem, 40% more likely to have serious debt problems and 35% more likely to experience unemployment/welfare dependency. And this does not even address the economic costs, or the effects on the physical and mental health of children. 29
Jack Straw MP, when a member of the previous Labour
Government, said that children are
“Best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship”. He said the evidence showed “that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married than where they are not”. 30 A Government paper cites the importance of the stability marriage provides, observing: “given that married relationships tend to have greater longevity and stability than other forms, this Government believes marriage often provides an excellent environment in which to bring up children. So the Government is clear that marriage should be supported and encouraged.” 31
If the law is changed there is great concern that, increasingly, people will be punished in their careers, charities will be closed down and couples will be prevented
28The Centre for Social Justice, Press Release, Nick Clegg’s disdain for marriage hurts the poor, CSJ warns, 18 December 2011
29The Centre for Social Justice: Green Paper on the Family,
The Centre for Social Justice, January 2010, page 10
30The Independent, 5 November 1998
31Social Justice: Transforming Lives, DWP, March 2012, page 16, para. 48
from fostering, all because of their views on traditional marriage.
Adrian Smith, a housing manager in Manchester was demoted and had his salary cut by 40% because of his views on marriage expressed on his Facebook page. 32 Former leader of the SNP, Gordon Wilson, was voted off the board of Dundee Citizens Advice Bureau for supporting traditional marriage.33 Islington Council effectively sacked registrar, Lillian Ladele, for refusing to register same-sex civil partnerships. 34
Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the owners of a B&B in Cornwall, have been forced to pay £3,600 in damages to a same-sex couple because they restricted double rooms to married couples and they applied the same policy to unmarried heterosexuals. 35
Almost all Roman Catholic adoption agencies have
been closed down because of their views on traditional marriage. 36 The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has been sent “abusive and threatening” racist emails after speaking out against same-sex marriage. 37 David Burrowes MP received a death threat and hate mail after speaking out in support of traditional marriage. 38 If marriage is
redefined there would be important implications for parents – would they have the right to have their children withdrawn from lessons which promote it? And would teachers also have a right of conscience so that they would not have to teach gay marriage?
The evidence from around the world is that once marriage is treated as having a flexible definition, pressure
32Daily Mail, 24 October 2011
33The Scotsman, 29 October 2011
34The Daily Telegraph, 20 December 2008
35Daily Mail, 11 February 2012
36The Daily Telegraph, 5 October 2010
37The Times, 7 February 2012
38Enfield Independent, 5 March 2012; Daily Mail, 25
February 2012
grows for that definition to be changed yet again. This should be no surprise as there are advocates of same-sex marriage who openly support also changing the law to permit polygamy. 39 In Holland, same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001 and since then, three-way relationships have been given legal recognition through a “cohabitation agreement” 40. Mexico City introduced same-sex marriage in 2009, and now two-year fixed-term marriages have been proposed where instead of divorce the two-year marriage is not renewed. 41 Same-sex marriage legislation in 2005
replaced the term “natural parent” with “legal parent” in Canadian law. 42 While in January 2007 an Ontario appeal court ruled that a child can legally have three parents43
39Martin Robbins, ‘The irrational and sinister campaign against gay marriage’, The Guardian blogs, 20 February
2012, see https://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the- layscientist/2012/feb/20/1 as at 15 March 2012; ‘I’ve yet
to hear a good argument against gay marriage’ , Blog, 13 March 2012, see https://www.jamesarmstrong.org.
uk/2012/03/14/ive-yet-to-hear-a-good-argument-againstgay- marriage/ as at 15 March 2012
40The Brussels Journal, 26 September 2005, see https://
www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301 as at 15 March 2012; Government of the Netherlands, Marriage, registered partnership and cohabitation agreement, see https://www. government.nl/issues/family-law/marriage-
registeredpartnership-and-cohabitation-agreements as at 15 March 2012
41The Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2011
42Department of Justice Canada, Civil Marriage Act, see https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr- cp/2005/doc_31376.html as at 15 March 2012
43CTVNews.ca, 2 January 2007, see https://www.ctv.ca/
CTVNews/Canada/20070102/two_mothers_071202/ as at 15 March 2012; Mercatornet.com, 30 September 2008,
see https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/same_sex_ marriage_lessons_from_canada as at 15 March 2012
while in British Columbia there are major attempts to legalise polygamy through the courts using the precedent of same-sex marriage. 44
In Spain same-sex marriage was legalised in 2005 and the following year it was announced that birth certificates would read “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B” instead of father and mother. 45 In November 2003 a Massachusetts court said same-sex marriage had to be legalised and gave six months for it to be introduced and in response, the State De
partment of Public Health changed the standard marriage certificate to read “Party A” and “Party B”, instead of “husband” and “wife”. 46
Only ten out of the 193 UN member countries have legalised same-sex marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Canada,
Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. 47 Same-sex marriages have also been introduced in Mexico City, the Brazilian state of Alagoas, the US District of Columbia and nine US states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Maryland, Maine and Washington State) with the American public in 31 US states have rejected same-sex marriage by voting for constitutional amendments supporting the traditional definition of
44The New York Times, 24 November 2011; National Post, 24 November 2011; PinkNews.co.uk, 4 February 2009,
see https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/02/04/mormonaccused- of-polygamy-to-use-gay-marriage-as-defence/ as
at 15 March 2012
45The Revolution in Parenthood, Institute for American Values, 2006, page 11; The Daily Telegraph, 7 March 2006 46 The Revolution in Parenthood, Institute for American Values, 2006, page 14; See also https://www.mass.gov/ governor/administration/legal/marriage/ as at 15 March 2012; The New York Times, 19 November 2003
47 See https://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml as at 15 March 2012
marriage. 48
Equality doesn’t mean sameness. Same-sex couples already have the legal rights of marriage available through civil partnerships. So there is no need to redefine marriage on equality grounds. It is perfectly possible to support traditional marriage, while also recognising the rights of
others. The irony is that basing public policy on a principle of ‘eradicating difference’ only leads to more inequality. This is strikingly obvious with the government’s plans, which give marriage and civil partnerships to same-sex couples, but only marriage to heterosexuals. That is hardly equal.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article