Marriage for all

**Last month, a majority of MPs (an overwhelming 400 out of 575), voted to support plans to introduce a bill allowing for equal marriage rights for same sex couples. This is an event that has been labelled ‘historic’ by some papers and is a ‘huge step forward’ for equal rights in Britain. **

Frankly, it is embarrassing that it has taken so long to get to where we are now and it is even more embarrassing that people are still trying to fight the movement. Out of the 175 MPs who voted against the bill, unsurprisingly 139 of them were Conservatives. Some have been arguing that this shows weak leadership on David Cameron’s behalf but it seems to be a huge credit to him. Despite the overwhelming defiance within his own party, he has pushed the bill forward and advanced the terms of equality for the LGBT community.

{{ quote Clearly, as we progress in our views, our institutions have to progress and marriage is no exception to this }}

There are a lot of arguments against the bill. These come mainly from the Church of England and the Catholic church, both of which wish to preserve marriage as something sacred. To allow gay marriage, they argue, undermines the entire institution of the marriage tradition. However, the ‘marriage tradition’ is thin ice to be building an argument upon. When we look at the historical traditions of marriage, a woman becomes her husband’s property and has no legal rights for herself once she commits herself to him. Clearly, as we progress in our views, our institutions have to progress and marriage is no exception to this.

The other problem with the CofE and Catholic churches arguing against the bill is that they are not representative of all Christians. Christian churches, including the Quakers and Unitarians, feel that is an intrusion of their religious freedom to forbid them from marrying same sex members. In this way, the bill creates more religious freedom; those that want to marry same sex couples can, whilst more conservative churches will not be forced to act against their beliefs and marry gay people.

The final argument runs like this: marriage is an institution based on family values. It is when two people come together to create and nurture a family and therefore it should be restricted to heterosexual couples. Despite the more rational nature of this argument, it does not hold together. Firstly, LGBT people can adopt children and have just as healthy and happy a family as any other couple. Secondly, the logic of the argument implies that a childless heterosexual marriage is completely invalid. Clearly, we can’t stop infertile couples and the elderly from getting married and neither can we stop same sex couples.

The reality underpinning any of this opposition is that there is still a sense of unease about homosexuality lingering in Britain. It is not a conscious homophobia and maybe the people making these arguments truly believe them but none of them holds any weight. Individual freedom only extends as far as yourself; you cannot use your personal views to inhibit another person’s freedom in a fair society.

In every sense, this bill is a step towards a more egalitarian and accepting culture and we must continue to support it, despite the opposition.