 |
| (S) |
This week I had to write an article for uni about a local or central government issue, and for me the decision was easy. I wrote about same sex marriage. I then thought I might as well post it here as it sort of summarises what is happening about the issue currently in the UK. While other countries are busy legalising it, we're still talking about it, and there's a reasonable way still to go. So here we go, my summary of our current position and people's feelings about it.
On 11th December 2012 the government announced its Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Commons. The bill would allow same-sex couples to be married in civil ceremonies; it would allow those already married or in a civil partnership to change their gender without getting a divorce, and it would allow same-sex marriage in religious establishments on an opt-in basis (although it was stated that same-sex marriage would be illegal within the Church of England).
The announcement was received with largely mixed opinions across the nation. While some applauded and celebrated it, others were far less please.
“Same-sex marriage is not by its very nature, the same as heterosexual marriage,” said student Tim Jasper. “It never will be. No matter how much we fiddle with the law, or censor the use of words like "bride" and "groom", the fact that homosexual marriage does not tend toward the conception and raising of children will forever set it apart. This is why I am against the inclusion of same-sex couples, by law, into the definition of marriage.”
Much of the opposition to same-sex marriage generally comes from religious organisations, and the opt-in clause of the bill recognised this, with its “quadruple lock” protecting them from the potential legal ramifications of refusing to marry a same-sex couple.
As Maria Miller, Government Culture Secretary, said in her speech announcing the bill: "I am absolutely clear that no religious organisation will ever be forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, and I would not bring in a bill which would allow that.
"European law”, she added, “already puts religious freedoms beyond doubt, and we will go even further by bringing in an additional 'quadruple legal lock'. But it is also a key aspect of religious freedom that those bodies who want to opt in should be able to do so."
One group which cannot opt-in, however, is the Church of England. This part of the bill was incredibly divisive, with some supporting it and others vehemently opposing it. The decision to specifically protect the Church of England was explained by Mrs Miller as they had “explicitly stated” their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Church of England priest Father Jo Delfgou said: “The official view as far as I’m aware is that it’s a no go… I would say that the issue for the Church of England is about procreation; is about the fact that the man and woman should be together. It is that kind of stuff that still sways the argument.”
However, there are of course those within the Church of England who do not agree with this stance. Student Kezia Bryant said: “I was brought up in the Church of England and I have always thought that it should be allowed. Personally, I believe that in an ideal world, people who want to get religious marriages should be able to get religious marriages, and people who want to get civil marriages should be able to get civil marriages.”
“Basically I disagree with the church on this but I understand why they did it because it would create huge schisms within the church,” said student Hannah Dormor. “That’s why they’re doing it, because they don’t want to have this argument and have people leave the church for other denominations.”
The bill has so far been through two readings. The second reading was accompanied by a debate of several hours, in which MPs from both sides of the house put forward their opinions of the bill and of same-sex marriage in general.
"We have come a long way in a short space of time,” said Liberal Democrat MP Stephen Gilbert, “but it is absolutely right we take the next step and delivers full legal equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people in our country. This view is one that is borne of a hatred of discrimination and prejudice of all types, whether it's about gender or skin colour or religion."
Michael McCann, Labour MP, disagreed: "Whilst civil partnership legislation unequivocally broke the back of unlawful discrimination this bill doesn't end any discrimination whatsoever and has the potential to open up a can of worms of Olympian magnitude."
"Who are we, this government or this country, to redefine the term marriage that has meant one man and one woman across cultures, across ages, across geographical barriers since before state and religion themselves?” Tim Loughton, Conservative MP, asked. “Is not the problem a lack of equality in the law that we need to address, but a lack of equality in some people's eyes in society, and just changing the name of a ceremony will not address that."
Despite the mixed views of the bill, on the 5th February 2013 at its second reading 400 MPs voted in favour of it, with only 175 against, a majority of 225. 136 of those who opposed it were members of the Conservative party, going against David Cameron’s strong support for it.
The vote in favour of the bill meant that it passed to committee stage, and it is expected that the dates for the report stage and third reading of the bill will be announced shortly.
Were the Same Sex marriage bill to make it through the remaining parliament stages both in the House of Commons and subsequently the House of Lords, it would come into legislation some time in 2015, when the UK would join countries such as New Zealand, The Netherlands, South Africa and Argentina, where equal marriage is already a reality.
Follow @FRW
