Marriage
Lately I've been thinking about religious and non-religious marriage ceremonies, civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. What I've put down here are some of my thoughts on the matter in the hope of having it out of my head in a way I can look at and also because I'd like some feedback and opinions if anyone is that way inclined.
Debate is welcome, picking a fight is not. Thank you.
It's all about this word "marriage" and how "civil partnership" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
I think part of the reason people have trouble seeing eye to eye on this is the fact that we use "marriage" as a way of describing the relationship following both a secular/ civil ceremony and a religious/ Christian /church wedding. If two people are married at a town hall by a magistrate, under the law of the UK they are just as married and entitled to all the legal benefits of a married couple as two people who had a full-blown white wedding in a chapel with a priest. They also receive all the cultural benefits of having a husband or wife, as opposed to a civil partner. A same-sex couple is legally only allowed a civil partnership, which has a different social and cultural status. For example, introducing someone as "my partner" is not nearly as clear in explaining their relationship to you as being able to say "my wife".
One solution to this would be to have all secular ceremonies called "civil partnerships" whether they are same- or opposite-sex unions, and leave it up to the couple to choose to have a religious ceremony in order to call it marriage. But this is unsatisfactory, as people wish to use this word, marriage. It has emotional and cultural importance far beyond its dictionary definition.
As regards the Christian viewpoint, that "marriage" should used to describe an opposite-sex union with the intention of creating life, that may be the ideal of the church, but it does not reflect reality. Denying same-sex couples a religious ceremony on the basis that they cannot produce children without outside help is clearly a hollow argument, but one that is often presented, often joined with the view that same-sex couples are somehow "unnatural". However, opposite-sex couples may wed when they are too old to have children, or are infertile, or intend not to have children for whatever reason, and these couples would not be forbidden from having a church wedding ceremony. Furthermore, nothing in the world would prevent them from having a legally binding wedding in a secular ceremony. The UK may be a Christian country, but there are many people here of different or no faith, and the law reflects that.
A fear I often see expressed is that priests will be forced to bless unions that they do not approve. Priests currently have the choice whether or not to perform marriage ceremonies for divorced persons; why not for same-sex couples? There are enough LGBTQ-friendly churches in the UK for same-sex couples to be able to find a church where they could have their union blessed in a joyful, welcoming ceremony, rather than feeling disapproved of on their wedding day, so I, perhaps naively, think that this would be the more likely choice.
I feel I've explained pretty well the desire for legal and cultural recognition, but there's another side to this that I think is better explained by people who are actually married or getting married.
This video was made by couples and families in California during the Proposition 8 debacle (a change in the law was being proposed to make same-sex marriage illegal where it had previously been allowed).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-awVQkTeVE
These people are members of their community and have friends and family who support them in their marriage. There's a public show of love and commitment in a marriage ceremony that you don't get anywhere else and that is continued in married life. To deny this to same-sex couples or give them "same but different" treatment seems to me to be incredibly unfair.
Debate is welcome, picking a fight is not. Thank you.
It's all about this word "marriage" and how "civil partnership" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
I think part of the reason people have trouble seeing eye to eye on this is the fact that we use "marriage" as a way of describing the relationship following both a secular/ civil ceremony and a religious/ Christian /church wedding. If two people are married at a town hall by a magistrate, under the law of the UK they are just as married and entitled to all the legal benefits of a married couple as two people who had a full-blown white wedding in a chapel with a priest. They also receive all the cultural benefits of having a husband or wife, as opposed to a civil partner. A same-sex couple is legally only allowed a civil partnership, which has a different social and cultural status. For example, introducing someone as "my partner" is not nearly as clear in explaining their relationship to you as being able to say "my wife".
One solution to this would be to have all secular ceremonies called "civil partnerships" whether they are same- or opposite-sex unions, and leave it up to the couple to choose to have a religious ceremony in order to call it marriage. But this is unsatisfactory, as people wish to use this word, marriage. It has emotional and cultural importance far beyond its dictionary definition.
As regards the Christian viewpoint, that "marriage" should used to describe an opposite-sex union with the intention of creating life, that may be the ideal of the church, but it does not reflect reality. Denying same-sex couples a religious ceremony on the basis that they cannot produce children without outside help is clearly a hollow argument, but one that is often presented, often joined with the view that same-sex couples are somehow "unnatural". However, opposite-sex couples may wed when they are too old to have children, or are infertile, or intend not to have children for whatever reason, and these couples would not be forbidden from having a church wedding ceremony. Furthermore, nothing in the world would prevent them from having a legally binding wedding in a secular ceremony. The UK may be a Christian country, but there are many people here of different or no faith, and the law reflects that.
A fear I often see expressed is that priests will be forced to bless unions that they do not approve. Priests currently have the choice whether or not to perform marriage ceremonies for divorced persons; why not for same-sex couples? There are enough LGBTQ-friendly churches in the UK for same-sex couples to be able to find a church where they could have their union blessed in a joyful, welcoming ceremony, rather than feeling disapproved of on their wedding day, so I, perhaps naively, think that this would be the more likely choice.
I feel I've explained pretty well the desire for legal and cultural recognition, but there's another side to this that I think is better explained by people who are actually married or getting married.
This video was made by couples and families in California during the Proposition 8 debacle (a change in the law was being proposed to make same-sex marriage illegal where it had previously been allowed).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-awVQkTeVE
These people are members of their community and have friends and family who support them in their marriage. There's a public show of love and commitment in a marriage ceremony that you don't get anywhere else and that is continued in married life. To deny this to same-sex couples or give them "same but different" treatment seems to me to be incredibly unfair.