UK still on track for equal marriage

Peers debated equal marriage on the 3rd and 4th July (x)

Each time a debate on the UK same sex marriage bill approaches, a plethora of articles are released about those who plan to fight against the bill. Most recently these include letters to the Prime Minister from members of the conservative party, complaining that the bill is helping to rip the party apart and is going to result in their defeat at the next election, and the much discussed wrecking amendment from Lord Dear. These are the sorts of articles and incidences that strike fear into the hearts of supporters of same sex marriage, although unnecessarily so. The bill is continuing on its seemingly unstoppable passage through parliament.

The bill is currently at the House of Lords committee stage, having successfully passed through the third reading in the Commons and the first and second readings in the Lords. So far, the various attempts to halt its progress and destroy it have failed. Most recently, Lord Dear’s attempt to deny the bill a second House of Lords reading was emphatically defeated (390 votes to 148 against the amendment), and before that there was the proposed civil partnerships amendment.

Some MPs suggested that, in the interests of equality, civil partnerships should be extended to heterosexual couples. The point was made that, to extend marriage to same sex couples while not allowing opposite sex couples to enter civil partnerships would be unequal, and surely against the point of the bill.

This is a view which I find problematic, to say the least. My understanding of civil partnerships is that they are a lesser alternative to marriage. They were an attempt by the government to appear equal and fair, while not really offering complete equality, and my question is, why would a heterosexual couple want a civil partnership when marriage is available to them?

I understand that some people don’t want to get married, and that civil partnerships would perhaps allow couples to publically commit to one another without actually being married, but personally I think it would be better to abolish civil partnerships; automatically upgrading those existing to marriage. To me, civil partnerships represent a sort of almost-but-not-quite equality. Surely opposite sex couples wouldn’t go for this when there’s a better option available?

Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps they are desirable. It’s just that when people try to delay a bill such as this because opposite sex couples aren’t being given enough equality, I start to get a little suspicious.

But now this debate, at least in the context of this particular bill, is in the past. The government are planning to introduce civil partnerships for heterosexual couples, which I have no problem with, I think it would hypocritical to find this a problematic move, and they are doing it without interrupting the passage of a crucial bill. This is a win win situation.

It has been interesting to watch the debate over this bill as it has gone on. Contributions have been intelligent at times, brilliant at others, and at the other end of the scale, downright ridiculous (one particular Lord who went off on a tangent about war memorials during his speech provided me with great amusement). Some of the arguments were, of course, predictable. One Lord questioned whether same sex marriage would lead to polygamy (to which I would reply, so what if it does?), others gave the standard religious arguments (to be countered by others, a pleasing and surprising number in fact, in the debate who were also religious, and yet still in favour of same sex marriage), and still others questioned whether allowing equal marriage would undermine the institution of marriage as it is.

Among the arguments by this group were that, since same sex marriage was introduced in Spain, the number of marriages has decreased and the number of divorces increased. As one interjector pointed out, however, this could be because Spanish divorce laws were reassessed at the same time. And of course, this point of view is generally flawed. In France, one of the first men to enter a same sex marriage said: "My only fear with marriage is that our lives will not be long enough to do our love justice." These aren’t words that seem dangerous to anyone’s marriage, and people who are scared that equal marriage will damage the existing institution should listen to words like these and understand that same sex relationships can be more than worthy of equal recognition.

And that equal recognition is on its way. Country after country and state after state are legalising equal marriage, and hopefully, after a 205 vote victory for the same sex marriage bill in the House of Lords, the UK is soon to follow.