Equal marriage and the LGBT Humanists
By Adam Knowles, Chair of Galha LGBT Humanists
Myself and several Galha LGBT Humanists members were alongside Peter Tatchell upstairs in a packed Committee Room 9 at the Houses of Commons on Tuesday (5th) evening, as MPs below voted on equal marriage. The result was an overwhelming ‘yes’, 400 to 175 in favour. This is brilliant news, though the number voting against is significant. It’s of great concern to me that here in 2013 there remain one hundred and seventy five elected members of our Parliament that disagree with basic equality for LGBT people. That includes a majority of those that voted from the Conservative party. I don’t accept that Cameron is using this issue as an attempt to eliminate ‘nasty’ from his party’s image. If he is, on the above evidence, he’s failed. No, I prefer to accept he truly believes in the basic justice and fairness of this change. So Cameron has our full support in his determination to push this through.
The debate brought out some fierce, bigoted comments ranging from the misinformed to the crazed. A particular highlight was the claim that this is an unstoppable slippery slope toward incestuous marriage and bestiality. Sir Roger Gale, the MP for North Thanet claimed, “It is not possible to redefine marriage”. Try telling that to the Church of England, brought into existence to do exactly that. “Marriage is the union between a man and a woman – has been historically, remains so”, he said. Historically marriage has often been between a man and several women (source: the bible), and all sorts of other combinations. In South Africa, it was illegal for whites to marry blacks – then it changed. So essentially all you can say is ‘marriage has always been X, until it changed’. Marriage is a social construct, and as such, we have every right to redefine it whenever we like. We should do that based on our conscience, our concept of fairness, our reason – not ancient texts from bygone civilizations. The time for LGBT inclusion is now.
There are some important amendments brought up during the debate, particularly the inclusion of Humanist celebrants being empowered to conduct ceremonies like their religious counterparts. The proposed change has yet to clear the Houses of Lords, with its unelected squad of Church of England Bishops. So some way to go, but we’re confident that with your continued support we can get there.
I know that people have a variety of views on the institution of marriage, many wanting nothing to do with it, seeing it as a disappointing desire to conform. But Galha LGBT Humanists will continue to fight for this law to pass because, for those that are LGBT and want to get married, they have every right to be treated the same as heterosexuals in the eyes of the law.
Equal marriage and the LGBT Humanists,
“It is not possible to redefine marriage” is the most deranged argument coming from the anti-equality side. I wonder if the people who tout this imagine that some sort of quantum force field will prevent anyone trying to sign a new definition into law, rebuffing the pen from the paper? Or perhaps they think that trying to pass equal marriage legislation is like trying to change the past on some models of time travel: events will necessarily conspire to prevent it?
But then if they really thought it was impossible they wouldn’t need to voice the objection.
Delighted we have all come such a positive journey in thinking fairness for all in the marriage too. Just intrigued to see what happens to the tax relief for married couples in the Tory party thinking ?
EQUAL MARRIAGE
While the Norwegian Humanist Association has taken full legal marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples since 2009, the Church of Norway (arconym CON!) is now slowly to follow. The majority of bishops has now voted in favor of equal marriage ceremonies in church. Although it is none of my business if the church wants to be progressive or make a fool of itself, this is good news for our christian friends. Whatever, there is no lack of jobs for LGBT humanists and others who “feel the call”: Homophobia will remain on a more personal level. We need more LGBT -lib in education. What of our opressed LGTB friends in backward communities in East Europe. And more.
Rolf Solheim
BHA/GALHA LGBT humanists, Norway,
Humanist celebrant
rolf.solheim@human.no
Was very happy with this verdict. Would love to do a piece on defeating all the arguments against equal-marriage. Going to make a list on my website and do a blow by blow. Would love you guys to help list the arguments.
I heard the debate unfold on the radio and, even as a heterosexual, was appalled at the arguments against gay marriage. One voter commented that it required a change in lexicon that was ‘Orwellian’. What is really Orwellian is his argument that ‘homosexuals are equal, just not equal enough to get married.’
@Jenwots, indeed it was the same speaker (Sir Roger Gale) that made that comment.
@Benjamin Collingwood, love to help. Maybe make some kind of wiki/shared editing online thingy and I can contribute?
Thanks for the positive comments and votes everyone!
Adam
Chair, Galha LGBT Humanists (UK)
[Straight but supporting equal rights]
I’m beginning to feel uninformed, and the media and those they typically interview are no use. This puts me at a disadvantage in personal discussions. Aside from the obvious legal redefinition of the word, what other differences between current marriage and civil partnership will be ironed out by this bill?
I welcome the availability of Gay marriage for those who want it,though the talk of offering it with’ Four Lock’etc began to make it less than what many want
However,I will be be VERY ANGRYif the present Civil Partnership legislation will be abolished as a result.I believe that that form of union was something that Gays had created to increase the range of relationship possibilities and of which we can be proud.Many of us cannot put out of mind the historical/cultural connotations of MARRIAGE,remebering that HUSBAND means ‘managing’ ‘controlling’ etc of the partner.
Civil partnership was a greart secular ‘cleansing’ of that institution.Cameron will not extend it to heteros,which is a sure sign that he wants to abolish Civil partnerships (I have this from a Tory candidate)
So will BHA and Stonewall,so vocal for Gay Marriage,now campaign to ensure we keep the option of Civil Partnerships-which,notwithstanding the Gay Marriage victory,I will continue to regard as a more secular ,truly modern option
@Peter: glossing over some technical differences to do with international recognition amongst other things, the easiest thing is accept that civil partnerships are the same as marriage in all but name. And name is an important enough thing alone to warrant a change. ‘Separate but equal’ as now is a form of apartheid. Beaches for blacks, beaches for whites. It provides the appearance of parity but in practice is not since the existence of two different words emphasizes the difference in social status and legitimacy accorded to them.
Equal access to marriage, even if only a symbolic victory, is none the less important for that.
And I agree @Roger that marriage for many has problematic connotations, some of which civil partnerships as a new formal agreement solves.
@Adam
Since asking my question I’ve heard that the adopted children of a couple in civil partnership (CP) are legally adopted by only one partner, raising problems if that partner should die. If true, then there is an inequality and the Law should iron it out. Regarding international recognition, this will require treaties, not primary, British legislation.
You can use the Law to enforce equality, but not to force people how to think. The latter is something that has to happen as attitudes change, encouraged by the former. I remain uncomfortable with legal redefinition of a word of such ancient meaning, and presently am left only with the issue of the death of an adopting CP partner to support an assertion that the the proposed Law should make it through Parliament.
Perhaps others can give me more examples of inequalities that the new law would iron out.
Supplement!
I’ve just read the Government’s fact sheet. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/factsheet?view=Binary
It states “amending the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that no discrimination claims can be successfully brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple”. THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! The Government is proposing to give religious groups selective immunity from anti-discrimination law.
*I hope the BHA is going to campaign against this blatantly anti-secular aspect of the bill.*
@Peter, I agree that religions seeking further exemptions from European equality laws is outrageous, if predictable. The government shouldn’t hear it, but it will.
Also agree that top-down legal changes can’t change social attitudes (alone), though they are an important element. I’d like to turn your argument on it’s head though and say its preciesely because social attitudes have changed that the law (defining marriage) needs to be updated.
I think to focus on the practical difference this will make to LGBTs may be missing the point,. If we accept LGBT’s as equal and two of them have a relationship that qualifies and has the same status, it should be called the same thing. Simples
I don’t see why ‘Separate butn Equal’ should be seen as a form of Aparthetheid.,not when the Equal part of it is enshrined in the Law
Separateness,Differences can surely be seen as positives-as new thinking,new develpoments which enrich ,and diversify
I believe that we should be proud that it was through us a new form of relationship has entered the field,so much so that many heteros are keen to FOLLOW ,yes FOLLOW usn in that (but will not be allowed)because the only reason Cameron promoted the law change was his christian LOVE of marriage.
Our fight for equality was originally equality on our terms,,not to tag on to existing cultural (worn-out ,dying,moribund?)institutions
Same status-but don’t call it by that outmoded tainted name
Adam Knowles
In passing ,I enjoyed your photos of Pkhara/Nepal /I wonder if you stayed at the wonderful lakeside “Mike’s Place-Fewa hotel?Mike died of cancer 3 years ago- A lovely,quiet contained man.loved by all his staffI was there with my Thai partner 5 years ago
Roger, separate but equal is apartheid, because CPs treat people differently because of a difference that makes no difference. That would apply even if CPs were equal to marriage, but, of course, they’re not; they’re inferior.
Bob
I agree with you, as human beings we have the power and some would say the right to redefine what we choose. Just like the Nazi’s did in all those camps when they redefined murder.
bill