When I first started this blog- as a means of overstating my somewhat miniscule relevance in both student journalism and indeed, 'opinions' in general, I never intended to look at things which had overtly emotional overtones. Yet, when hearing today that David Cameron has given the green light for same-sex marriages to be carried out in religious institutions (although, I expect this is mainly focused on the Church of England), a few things really surprised me. In particular, I think that this political posturing shouldn't be celebrated, or entertained.
First things first, the boring stuff; The Prime Minister (and probably the rest of the cabinet, including what might be an agitated Theresa May) has really only voiced his opinion and subsequently will be proposing the bill in Parliament. Whether or not the bill will actually go through, I don't know. (I expect it will likely pass, albeit with many abstentions and Tory rebellions). However, this blogpost isn't about the inner workings of the British parliament, or the complications such a bill must go through to be passed. It's also not about the European Court of Human Rights enforcing the principle in law.
Yet, you might wonder why, as a self-claimed 'wooly liberal', particularly one that believes in the benefits of a pluralistic society, why I am not rushing to my twitter feed to praise David Cameron (or berate some homophobes). Rest assured, it's not because I've suddenly become an orthodox Muslim, nor homophobic.
In fact, I'd suggest that the realities of actualising such a bill stray far beyond the amiable intentions of the Prime Minister, and is more likely to further disenfranchise same-sex couples, particularly in their relationship with religious institutions.
Much of this has to do with the structure of the proposal itself. Cameron has already said that same-sex marriage ceremonies will be based on an opt-in policy, which in my eyes is hardly revolutionary, nor indicative of the great reform. This point is particularly crucial if we are to look at an institution such as the Church of England (CofE), which serves not only as a figurehead of Christianity, but also as a vital part of political and civic culture. Yet, with the CofE being rather vocal in opposing the proposal, it seems unlikely that many churches will 'opt-in' to proposals of administering ceremonies. True, other churches will take an opposite view- some Anglican, Protestant and Quaker churches have come out in favour. But this does not remove the fact that same-sex couples are likely to occupy the same social position within civil society itself. The CofE is not only a religious force, but also one that wields a great deal of cultural influence; with a reaction to what might be seen as government intervention in sacred institutions, it's not unlikely that the CofE will reassert the sanctity of it's traditional practices through further hostility to homosexual couples seeking to be married in the Church. Indeed, this might also be worse for religious institutions that fall outside the political structures of the country- namely in Mosques and Synagogues, where an extremely stringent definition of marriage is in place.
More vital in this debate, is the way in which 'marriage' is actually conceptualised in the first place. Many who support the idea of equal marriage do so under the premise that the existing status-quo distinguishes between 'civil unions' and 'marriages' and as such devalue the former over the latter. While civil unions are legitimised by the state, the argument goes that the term 'marriage' denotes something much more profound and removed from legalistic connotations. On this basis, it is argued that marriage should be extended on the grounds that it provides the same legitimacy to all forms of relationships. However, it might just be this assertion that proves the biggest obstacle of achieving recognition of equal partnerships.
If there is one thing that unifies both the 'for' and 'against' camps in relation to same sex marriage, it is that a fundamental component of 'marriage' is one founded on love and commitment. But why must such an acknowledgement necessarily derive from those that run religious institutions? Particularly those who not only oppose the union itself, but find the very entity threatening to it's definition of marriage as an institution? Desirable as it might be, I feel that same-sex couples will sadly be unable to reconcile such differences in the long-run.
In this case, I think that there are two options same-sex couples (and indeed, others as well) should lobby for. First, is the libertarian idea of removing the concept of 'marriage' from the privileged monopoly status of the state. While this would mean that Churches and other religious institutions may have the freedom not to wed same-sex couples, it would also open up a market for other groups to carry out ceremonies using the term 'married'. While this approach might create a more level playing field, couples will still face problems within society, particularly in the way that some religious institutions may claim greater authority to marriage than others. In this case, a second approach might be more desirable- one whereby the concept of 'civil partnerships' becomes 'state-recognised marriage'. In this case, while all couples could legally be 'married' with the acknowledgement of the state, it would come at the cost of souring relations with a more aggravated, and possibly more hostile church. Possibly, there might be a third option; while it's certainly clear that governments can do little in terms of forcing religious institutions to host same-sex marriages, history has shown that the Church has always reformed when continual pressure is placed on it's relevance and legitimacy. While the road is arduous, equal marriage activists might find that a true long-term change may only come from further direct challenges to the church itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment