Stop the barrage against equal marriage

### Mrinmoyee Chatterjee

**Let’s start with the basic axiom that anyone opposing equal marriage is a fathead. There are no two sides to the issue.**

The term “civil partnership”, while it grants most of the rights of marriage, it alienates the LGBT community as if their affection is not worthy of quite the same commitment as a heterosexual one. There is no universally accepted definition of a civil partnership and laws differ from country to country. Besides, getting “civil partnered” doesn’t trip off the tongue as say getting married.

The adorable grandparents of Benjamin Cohen, founder of _pinknews.com_ and the founder of the [Out4Marriage campaign](http://www.out4marriage.org/), explain the issue of equal marriage far better than any article/blog/video ever could. Cohen has expressed his gratitude towards David Cameron’s recent nod to the cause.

On December 7th, the Prime Minister said he was in favour of equal marriage because he was a “massive supporter of marriage” and ‘didn’t want gay people to be excluded from a great institution, but that he would not force any religious groups to hold ceremonies in their places of worship’.

The NUS has started a [“Come out for Equal Marriage” campaign](http://www.nus.org.uk/equalmarriage) in response, thanking David Cameron for supporting gay marriage, and asking him to set a date for a vote on the legislation where they’re asking people to send “I saw Daddy kissing Santa Claus” cards to 10, Downing Street for Christmas.

The legislation will allow same-sex marriages, by religious organizations that allow it. It does not force institutions that do not want to be a part of it to do so, or be liable to be sued for not conducting the marriage. Religious organizations and ministers will only conduct same-sex marriages when their governing bodies have opted in provisions for doing so. And the Church of England and the Church of Wales are exempt from the legislation because of their “explicit opposition”.

This is what we would call in Economics, a ‘Pareto improvement’. There is really nobody that this makes worse off, and it makes at least some people better off. Gay people that want to get married shall be able to. Quakers, Unitarians and the Liberal and Reform Jewish Synagogues have will be able to perform marriages for same sex couples. On the other hand, institutions that don’t support it don’t have to. You can’t argue with it. Just ask Stephen Fry:

Except, apparently they can. Just because they needn’t support it, doesn’t mean they can’t resent it all the same. The Roman Catholic leadership are asking people to “quietly lobby MPs to oppose it”, the Muslim Council of Great Britain called the proposed legislation “unnecessary and unhelpful”, and the Network of Sikh Organization said that it would “dilute the meaning of marriage in the scriptures”. The Church of England has warned that “if the legal position ended up so that same-sex marriage could no longer be limited to civil ceremonies, the whole range of rights and duties that exist in relation to marriage and the Church of England would have to be re-examined”.

Obviously, if you aren’t marrying same-sex people in your church, synagogue, mosque, gurudwara, you aren’t supporting gay marriage, so your religion’s idea of marriage is quite safe from “dilution”. Also, exactly how “re-examining” an ancient concept of marriage written far too long ago is a bad idea, escapes me. Surely, re-examining is a good thing. It’s also called “updating” but I guess it didn’t have quite the same negative ring to it. Everyone would stand to gain from some re-examining of the “rights and duties” related to marriage, gay or straight. (That’s another Pareto improvement.)

Recently, the Archbishop of Westminster, in [his _BBC_ interview](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20840531), said it was “shambolic” and “Orwellian” that there had been no prior in the party manifesto about such legislation. (Although there had, [all the way back in May 2010]( http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/Our_contract_for_equality.aspx)). Oh no, Archbishop Nichols, we’re sorry we ambushed you with democratic legislation. He also fantastically claimed that the support for gay marriage was “1-7” where the actual figures are closer to 53%, according to this year’s government consultation. These comments came on the back of the Pope’s usual Christmas speech about same-sex marriage destroying the “very essence of the human creature”.

The reaction from politicians hasn’t been quite as heart-warming, either. David Cameron’s support has seemingly triggered an exodus of Conservative Party members to the UKIP. Several party members feel that either this is an attempt to redefine the traditional definition of marriage, between a man and a woman (a notion so medieval, it deserves no argument), or that it’s detracting attention from more pressing issues, like the economy. Yes, because they are mutually exclusive? There can’t possibly be a way to cure the economy whilst we are providing rights to a disadvantaged group. If that group were an ethnic minority, that opinion wouldn’t even be considered (as it shouldn’t, anyway).

There is some good news however; some Tories including Education Secretary Michael Gove, London Mayor Boris Johnson and former Prime Minister John Major have backed same-sex marriage by religious bodies. Labour and Liberal Democrats have already vouched their support. The legislation is expected to pass Commons fairly easily, but have a tougher passage through Lords.

Marriage doesn’t only need love, it also needs courage. If someone is brave enough to want to attempt marriage, it seems mental to stop them just because they are gay. And if you do, they might [just marry your girlfriends](http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6846855/gay-men-will-marry-your-girlfriends).