A Marriage of Convenience?

“I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.”

David Cameron looked defiant in front of a sea of bemused-looking delegates, as he stated his support of full civil marriage for LGBT couples in front of the Conservative party conference.

For Cameron to come out at a conference in support of gay marriage is audacious to say the least. Even six years since the introduction of civil partnerships, it is hard to believe a leader of the Conservative party would take such a position. Confronting the inevitable doubters in his party, he stated not only was it about equality, but commitment: “Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.”

Although Cameron has hugely changed the Conservative Party’s position on homosexuality, there is cause for speculation over his motives; after all, this is coming from the man who for many years held a rather ambiguous attitude towards gay rights.

The Conservative party had long been opposed to gay rights. Cameron has attempted to change this before now; however, this is by far his biggest and boldest move. His record on gay rights is shaky, having voted against gay couples adopting in 2002 and voting for the retention of the Section 28 in 2003, which outlawed the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality by local authorities; this not only demeaned gay people, but arguably it prevented LGBT children from receiving the support they needed in schools. He has now apologised for his party’s position stating in 2009 that it was “offensive to gay people.”

I spoke to veteran gay rights campaigner and human rights activist Peter Tatchell asking what he thought about Cameron’s new position. Speaking to the _Boar_, he argued, “Marriage is a Conservative value. So why did David Cameron, George Osborne and Theresa May take so long to support the right of lesbian and gay couples to get married?” He went on to add, “Conservatives rightly encourage and approve loving, stable relationships because enduring care and commitment are good for individuals, families and for the well-being of society as a whole. Contrary to what the critics say, gay marriage doesn’t undermine marriage, it strengthens it.”

Some might question why this change is needed when couples in a civil partnership have the same rights in law as civilly married couples. This may be true; however, there is a clear distinction between Civil Partnerships and Civil Marriage. If there wasn’t, then there would be no argument for change.

The very fact that gay couples are excluded from this type of union can be seen as discriminatory. In July 2011 a representative poll by ‘Angus Reid Public Opinion’ showed that 43% of Brits believed same sex couples in the UK should be allowed to marry. The Scottish government is already consulting on its introduction, and many EU states such as Spain, Portugal and Sweden already allow full same sex marriage.

[pullquote style=”left” quote=”dark”]Equal marriage is no longer a question of if, but rather a question of when.[/pullquote]

It is easy to doubt Cameron’s intentions, given his record. Is he trying to change perceptions of the ‘nasty party’ during times of austerity? Is he being coerced by the Lib Dems? Is he trying to distract from the state of the economy?

Whatever his motivation, this policy certainly won’t be popular in his party and it will inveigle those in the right of his party. It will also cause fractures within the religious community in the UK; the Archbishop of Canterbury has already stated his opposition to the policy.

Whether his intentions are motivated by equality or purely circumstance, this is undoubtedly a historic moment for LGBT rights in the United Kingdom.

There will be an almighty fight getting the legislation passed by the end of this parliament, given the consultation has been delayed from June 2011 until March 2012, meaning it is unlikely to be presented to parliament before mid-2013. However, what is now clear is that equal marriage is no longer a question of if, but rather a question of when.