"The homophobia of the ban on same-sex marriage is now compounded by the heterophobia of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships. It's official: one law for heterosexuals and another for lesbians and gays. Since when have two wrongs made a right? Imagine the outcry if the government prohibited black people from getting married, and established a separate partnership register for non-whites. It would be condemned as racism and apartheid." - Peter Tatchel, 19th Decemer, 2005
I understand what Tatchel is saying. It is a strong point and it is important. But it is hardly something for me to get excited about. After all, the civil partnership legislation brought into force in 2005 is legally equivalent to marriage and it is even called marriage by large sections of the press and population.
Indeed, just about the only distinction (other than semantics) I could find is that whilst marriage has to be a public ceremony, civil partnerships can be conducted in private like any other legal arrangement.A lot of gay people, it seems, do not accept my assessment. They feel that despite legal equality civil partnerships have a second-class status in the eyes of the public. Two such people are Susan Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, a lesbian couple who fought in the High Court to have their Canadian marriage recognised in the UK:
"I do not wish my relationship with Celia to be recognised in this way because we are legally married and it is simply not acceptable to be asked to pretend that this marriage is a civil partnership. While marriage remains open to heterosexual couples only, offering the "consolation prize" of a civil partnership to lesbians and gay men is offensive and demeaning. Marriage is our society's fundamental social institution for recognising the couple relationship and access to this institution is an equal rights issue. To deny some people access to marriage on the basis of their sexual orientation is fundamentally unjust, just as it would be to do so on the basis of their race, ethnicity, and nationality, religion, or political beliefs."
Whilst I do genuinely see the point of this "symbolic" difference, I think that they are taking the argument a bit far and I certainly won't be getting off my backside to protest about the symbolism of the "semantics" of equality.
In this matter, the semantics are already changing. People are using the language of marriage despite what legislation says. Even the BBC, with its strict editorial policy, is using the language of marriage, although it seems they have been told to put these heterosexual references in "scare quotes" for the time being.
It is my view that it is in the hearts and minds of the British people that this debate will be won, and not in a high court ruling, and gay activists should have a little patience and trust in this before making us all seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
2 comments:
Hey, James, it is Ben from the US. The thing I have don't understand is why marriage is such an issue with the homosexual community when civil unions are becoming the norm. Marriage has typically been a religious institution recognized by the state. The legal aspect didn't become an issue until the idea of private property and ownership arose. I believe that in a capitalist society it is every individuals right to choose their legal partnerships for matters relating to property, health, and custody.
The problem I have is with homosexuals wanting marriage. It seems completely counter-intuitive the the gay rights movement. You are starting to win the legal rights that matter. Now the issue is that you don't get the title with marriage. But why would you want that? After the struggle homosexuals have had to gain acceptance, recognition, and equality, why on Earth would you want to stop making progress and assimilate to a heterosexual institution. Isn't part of the point that in having gay rights to demonstrate that heterosexuality is not the pinnacle of legal and emotional partnership? Isn't the adoption of civil union evidence that we are starting to not idealize heterosexuality? Isn't it completely backwards for homosexuals to want to be part of the the institution that has defined them as deviant?
The point is I would think homosexuals would make a better change if they didn't adopt marriage into their legal status. Instead they should fight to remove marriage as a legal status at all. As a heterosexual that supports gay rights movements, I believe that society would be better adopting the sexuality neutral idea of civil union and remove marriage to the private sector of the church and personal ceremony/tradition.
To me, homosexuals fought to win civil unions in hopes of attaining marriage is comparable to going to war with another country so you can adopt their society and culture, not spread your own.
I agree with you Ben.
I want the legal rights without all the rest of the crap that goes with it.
I tihnk Marriage is a bit of a sick institution actually, but I'll not go into that.
Thanks for the comment! :)
Post a Comment