Religion.
Always a controversial subject, one to steer clear of at dinner parties I always think, but nevertheless a subject that seems to thread its bristly way through almost every area of our lives, be it political, social or sexual.
And nowhere is this more apparent that in the business of marriage. I say business because that’s exactly what it is for many people, a business. Indeed if we look back at history we find that the concept of marriage developed from landowners who wanted to ensure an even and fair distribution of property and assets between family and neighbours.
Interestingly, it was 16th century Protestant founder, Martin Luther, who declared marriage to be “a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government”. And shortly after that the English Puritans passed an Act of Parliament asserting “marriage to be no sacrament” which made it a purely secular deed, no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace.
So why then, we wonder does the Church have the responsibility today for the legal joining together of two people?
Well, in 1563, in response to the Protestant challenge, the Catholic Church took its stand in the Council of Trent and demanded that all marriages take place before a priest and two witnesses. And it seems we have been enmeshed in this religious mire ever since.
Of course things have moved on today and getting wed is about much more than asset protection and property sharing for most couples. But still, legal issues often play a major part in the desire to tie the knot. And the real danger with faith-based organisations is that they are often blinkered and entrenched in outdated, institutionalised thinking that our modern progressive society has simply outlived.
I firmly believe we should take religion out of the partnership equation altogether. Not only would this eliminate the discrimination that many same-sex couples face from church venues and religious facilities when trying to organise their wedding, but it would also render the act a solely legal commitment and therefore totally equal for all.
Right now, thousands of couples in the UK are planning their happy day. Of those, around 18% will be same sex couples. But because they are the same sex – and only because they are the same sex – they will be denied access to around 25% of the venues and facilities offered to straight couples. I don’t think that’s right – do you?
The fact that the government is dragging its heels over the Single Equality Bill is in itself an indication of its lack of commitment to addressing discrimination. But the Bill itself will be at best lukewarm unless the important issues are augmented. As Trevor Phillips, chair for the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights (CEHR), outlined earlier this year: “This should be an opportunity to do something more ambitious than simply ensuring that women get a place at the bar in the local golf club.”
I for one certainly believe that women who choose to drink in golf clubs should be served without question, but aren’t we in danger of missing the point here?
As a dedicated campaigner for equality for gay families it never fails to irritate me how many areas of our lives are subject to discrimination.
And somewhere along the line, the issue of marriage has become inextricably linked to the whole equality thing. For we are continually confronted with clear evidence that faith-based organisations can be as discriminating as they choose when it comes to same-sex couples.
So what’s the answer? Interestingly, in 1792 during its famous Revolution, France introduced the compulsory civil marriage. Germany followed suit in the 19th century which diminished the influence of the Church. Eventually, marriage before a magistrate or government official became the only valid form of marriage in most of the Western world. Religious weddings were still permitted, but only after the civil ceremony had taken place.
Now how sensible is that?
My proposal, and I admit it’s a little radical, is that we remove the legal responsibility from religious organisations, keep the legal partnership of two people in the hands of the civil authorities – that is – the law, and allow people to choose whatever blessing they wish to have afterwards, be it a full on ‘white meringue’ day or skydiving over the Andes.
Put simply, what I’m proposing is that we abort marriage, offer the civil partnership to all and eliminate discrimination for all couples overnight.
Can anyone tell me what’s wrong with that? It certainly fits neatly within the government’s aims to simplify modernise and harmonise the Single Equality Bill.