Message
The Church of Scotland, through its Legal Questions Committee, has responded to The Scottish Government consultation on same-sex marriage, as reported widely in the press today (1 December.) I’m not at all surprised to read: “The Church of Scotland cannot agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to allow same-sex marriage.” It bases this on the following reasons: the proposal represents a fundamental change to our understanding of marriage – that it is between one man and one woman; and that there has not been enough time for considered debate and contributions from ‘ordinary people.’ The Kirk also says that it doesn’t think that Civil Partnerships ought to be celebrated on religious celebrants or on religious premises. On this last point I actually agree: a Civil Partnership is just that – a relationship legalized by the civil authorities – a bit like Civil Marriage. You could no more have a Civil Partnership celebrated in a religious way than you could have a church wedding which was non-religious. I believe this separation of church and state actually ought to be taken further; more of that later.
As this debate on same-sex marriage has progressed I’ve found myself changing my views. There was a time, not so long ago, when I was unsure about same-sex marriage. I was sympathetic to the view that marriage was historically and theologically a relationship between opposite sex persons, bound up with patriarchy and societal structures and expectations, albeit we talk today of equals and of a covenant. It’s also the case that marriage, as an institution, is failing: heterosexual people have cheapened marriage through easy marriage, easy divorce and having children outside of marriage. Why, I asked myself, do lesbian and gay folk want to enter this patriarchal, crumbling institution? Let the straight folk have it! Further, I was quite content with being different and outside of mainstream society: what’s the attraction of playing at weddings like straight folk! To be gay is to be different: so let’s be different!
I was speaking to a friend recently who told me that when he was coming out in the 1960s, as a hippy, no-one wanted to get married! He finds this contemporary rush to get married by gay folk a bit strange. I can understand that. But perhaps younger lesbian and gay people, for whom coming out has been a lesser ordeal, and who’ve had the blessing of less fear and prejudice to deal with, simply feel like everyone else and want to do what everyone does. (So says the old man!)
When Civil Partnerships were introduced in November 2004 I rejoiced; I felt very strongly that same-sex relationships ought to have legal sanction and protection. When my partner and I had a Civil Partnership ceremony our key motivation was that legal recognition; in fact we had such a simple ceremony that if we could’ve done it on-line we would’ve! We’ve also not sought a Blessing Ceremony as we’ve no doubt that our relationship is blessed by God. I’ve been content with Civil Partnership, and probably will remain so.
So what’s changed for me? There’s no doubt that marriage, or some form of public recognition of a committed relationship, is a good thing. There’s research showing that married people tend to be happier, healthier and live longer than single or unmarried people. Indeed, it is not good for a man to be alone! (It’s worth reading What God Has Joined Together – The Christian Case for Gay Marriage; Myers and Scanzoni, 2005) I’m also in no doubt that equality under the law is something to which gay and lesbian people must aspire and work for. I was delighted when legislation was passed making is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services. So much has been achieved in the last ten years; I once thought that I might never live to see such progress towards full equality. And there’s the rub: there’s either equality or there’s not. You can’t be half equal.
I suppose marriage is the last hurdle. And I’m persuaded that if the state is to give legal recognition to two people in a committed relationship then it ought to offer to its citizens only one such legal framework. Anything else is discriminatory. Civil Partnerships were a huge milestone: but why is there a legal framework for opposite sex couples and a different one (different chiefly in name) for same-sex couple? That’s discriminatory. It’s been curious, I think, that some opposite-sex couples are campaigning to be allowed to have a Civil Partnership, because they don’t want to be married (perhaps for some of the reasons I mentioned above.)
That’s the chief reason why I have changed my mind. I’d actually like the Government to go further and totally separate the civil aspects of marriage (or whatever you might call the arrangement!) from the religious and adopt the model which is found in most of continental Europe. There, couples must have a civil ceremony in order to be legally married; after that, those who are so inclined can go to church, chapel or mosque to have the religious bit. If we had this clear dividing line between the functions and responsibilities of church and state there wouldn’t have been any huge problem, I believe, with a proposal to have same-sex marriage. (I also found Prof. Hugh McLachlan in a letter to the press persuasive. He argues that marriage shouldn’t be about sexual orientation: two people of any gender or any sexual orientation should be able to be married, if the law is to be totally non-discriminatory. It’s not really the business of the law to ask about a person’s sexual orientation, after all.)
But there’s another reason for my change of mind: I’ve been pushed into it. Some of the rhetoric flowing from the anti-same-sex marriage lobby has been vitriolic and spurious. The prophecies that same-sex marriage will be the end of civilization, the suggestion that the human rights of heterosexual people are being attacked, the belief that opening up marriage to same-sex couples is an attack upon marriage and the assertion that marriage is ostensibly about the raising of children are all founded upon an irrational fear and dislike of lesbian and gay people. It’s hard to argue rationally with such irrationality.
But here’s a couple of points. Marriage is a good environment in which to raise children - and many same-sex couple are raising children. One of the partners may have had children before coming out, the child or children may have been adopted, or perhaps the couple had a child with some ‘outside help.’ I know three same-sex couples who have children. I also can’t understand why some opposite-sex married people feel they are under attack. If marriage is a good and desirable thing, for individuals and for society, the logical conclusion is that it’s good for all people to be married – preferably to the person they love and wish to spend their life with. I’ve been amused when it’s been pointed out that there have been few Civil Partnerships in Scotland compared to the number of marriages. That’s not surprising! It doesn’t mean that a small number of people don’t have a right to equality under the law. It’s also been interesting to observe that the anti-same-sex marriage lobby have suddenly become converts to Civil Partnerships being a good thing – but on the basis of ‘this far and no further.’ We need to go all the way, however.
We are told that The Scottish Government ‘is minded’ to introduce this legislation. I believe that they will. There’s cross-party support for it and evidence that many Scottish people are supportive, or at least not much bothered. It’s ironic that the new ‘Marriage for Scotland’ campaign launched itself on the same day as the public sector strike: hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom never darken the doors of a church, had more pressing matters on their minds.
I’m not a great fan of weddings. I’ve been to enough to have grown tired and cynical about the expense, the fashions and fripperies. But I’m not tired and cynical about human relationships for it’s in them – within intimacy, honesty, commitment and trust – that grace is present and nurtured. A blessing upon a loving relationship does not make it special in God’s eyes: God already looks upon it with respect and pleasure. The blessing proclaims the belief that God is pleased – and so we rejoice. Call the relationship what you wish – but marriage is not a bad word and most people understand what it’s about. And if society can say that some forms of covenanted relationships between two people are worthy of rights under the law, then all forms are.