A couple of days ago Dr. John Sentamu said that he was against same-sex marriage. He said that marriage was between a man and a woman, and that this definition not for the state to alter, but instead set in history and tradition. But Dr.Sentamu is wrong, and I believe marriage is a civil right that any two consenting adults should have the option to join in.
Tradition as an argument against change is both foolish and contradictory, especially when concerning the church. I have it on good authority from a trusted history scholar that in the past, marriage was an agreement between two people in private. However, when men started to claim women had agreed to marry them, it was deemed necessary to bring in witnesses. Yet, when ‘witnesses’ began to lie too, it was thought necessary to bring in the only trusted people to watch over the weddings, hence the introduction of the church.
Dr. Sentamu said that we should avoid changing social structures that have been in place for a very long time in order to protect tradition. But this begs the question, should we have avoided all change in the church, such as rights for women, and inter-racial marriage to name but a few? Of course, the answer is no. Yes, bible verses are set, but the way they have been interpreted over time has constantly changed, as traditions, and social structures change too. To reference what is commonly the most well-known argument against homosexuality in the bible, from Leviticus, is also extremely frustrating, as there are so many bizarre demands alongside it such as to not wear clothes woven with two different fabrics, and not to eat shellfish to name a few of the most well-known. He argued that civil-partnerships were great for ‘friendships’ but this is patronising.
Civil-partnerships do not recognise the love of a couple, and are instead purely a legal and financial document, with semantics which create a level of inequality within them. Marriage is about the love between soul-mates, which people of all sexualities can have, and shouldn’t be denied.
What frustrates me greatly is when people enter the argument of whether marriage equality is justified by dogmatically brandishing marriage as religious. Marriage in the UK is not religious; marriage in the UK is Christian. If you’re Hindu, Sikh, Muslim or any other religion, your religious ceremony does not count as legal, and as a result you must also get married in a registry office. Doesn’t it seem completely wrong that our laws are still dictated by one religion, when we are a country that celebrates diversity?
Ultimately, the discourse of something as fundamental as marriage is dictated by one religion. Does this mean that all marriages outside of the UK are invalid as well, as not practiced in the Church of England? When people argue “you couldn’t get married in a mosque if you’re gay either” that isn’t the point. Marriage should first be a civil right, available to all, and not just for one religion to denote and rank the ability and validity of two people’s love above or below another, as it does now.
I mean no disrespect in any of the words I say about religion. My mother is a devout Christian and my father a Muslim who prays five times a day. I completely, as much as I possibly can, understand the religious dialect. However, I believe the discourse of religion is completely incompatible with law and politics due to its irrational nature.
To try and compromise religion and law is pointless; the results will always be unfair if people are marginalised and total equality isn’t met, forever favouring one religion. I’m not going to begin saying we should abolish a state religion as that is another argument but if we have one, we cannot let it dictate laws as fundamental as marriage.
When I grew up I could never imagine living in a world where I couldn’t get married to the person I love. Now I find myself in a world where I’m constantly being told that I can’t; that there are limits to love, and that some loves are wrong and some are right. What is a religion, fuelled by disparate aspects, to dictate my love? My rights should be protected by the state. The state needs to recognise my right to love and be loved by whichever consenting adult loves me back, regardless of gender identity.
In today’s society we are conditioned to feel apathetic towards politics; to feel like we can’t make any change even if we try. But we shouldn’t feel like this; we should feel proud to stand up for what we believe in. Change doesn’t come about without people saying how they feel, without people showing discontent when words as hurtful and archaic as the archbishop’s were said last Saturday. In March, when the coalition holds their consultation about marriage equality, I want to feel hopeful that they know that marriage equality is a must.
When the day comes that I find the man I want to spend the rest of my life with, I will not stop fighting for marriage equality if anyone attempts to put a limit on my love. To deny a feeling so strong, and so passionate, is completely unnatural and inhumane. All people must be equal under the law, because ultimately, this comes down to something as simple as love, and the freedom to love and be loved.
Excellent article Cem, with some important points, especially how “our laws are still dictated by one religion”. One issue though:
“I believe marriage is a civil right that any two consenting adults should have the option to join in.”
Why only two?
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/why-is-polygamy-wrong/
even if the campaign you were running had any legs left in it (which, lets be honest, it didn’t), then your friendly fellow campaigners racially abusing the archbishop certainly lost you any moral high ground.
congratulations lgbt community.
Are any of the people who have given my first comment a thumbs down going to attempt to explain why they have?
I’ve heard a lot said about this protest, and read a lot of comments which have now been deleted. I find it disgraceful that some of these people were suggesting the people involved in this protest were doing it for personal gain. No doubt, there will have been those who turned up looking for publicity, but to suggest that Cem was one of these is ridiculous. The amount of selfless effort he put into organising the protest is evident for all to see and to claim that he was doing it for personal gain in elections or whatever is stupid! You are suggesting that everyone acts for the benefit of themselves and therefore that all branches of YUSU are irrelevant. Cem is one of the few who genuinely cares about the people he represents and isn’t looking to further himself. As a personal friend, I know he has been greatly affected by the comments made and it makes me upset. Well done, Cem. You organised a fantastic, peaceful, campaign for something you cared about; a campaign which gained more coverage than most of what YUSU has organised in the past year. I am proud to call you a friend.
@matt, I’m there with you. I’m poly myself and it bothers me that I can’t get married, not just because we’re all women but also because we’re poly.
People seem to often be against it as it’s an administrative hassle but truthfully I’d be completely fine were one able to enter into a poly marriage but only give the tax benefits of marriage to pairs of two, even though being the youngest in a trio myself I would be the excluded partner.
You’ll always have people whining about the prospect of people getting poly married for the purposes of tax avoision
Personally I want to be able to marry those I love, we’ve been together over 5 years now and it really eats on me that we can’t.
Matt,
I’ll give one: It causes a dilution of relationship between the various people involved.; in one-to-many (either-way), there are the issues of jealousy which blunt the relationship, and in so doing hurt any children that might be born into/ adopted into the relationship. In many-to-many, you have the peculiar idea of a “primary couple” that presides over all other couples, which more or less erodes whatever equality there is supposed to be in the relationship.
Cem,
If Marriage was unconditional, then there is no point having the term at all. There is one fundamental concept which you diverge with His Grace on besides same-sex marriage: His Grace believes that marriage is set up as a civil right for children, not as a civil right for adults who want to claim a “status” of relationship/parenthood/love/whatever. And it is in this form that it is recognized in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Tradition is not an argument against Change, but neither is Change an argument against Tradition. The former is the Fallacy of Appeal to Tradition, the latter is the Ad Novum Fallacy (The Fallacy of Novelty). Tradition exists because there is a kernel of truth in it, no matter how obsfucated that kernel is.
Marriage may be a private agreement, but it also confers a public status on the people. The need for verification comes from this “public status”, which occurs whether or not Marriage begins as a private agreement, or an agreement between families, or an agreement mandated by either Church or State, or a combination of both. The fact that verification was introduced doesn’t indicate that the Church started selecting spouses for people, that your spouse had to go through some approval process by the Parish or the Diocese to qualify to be marriageable. Marriageable age was introduced by the State, not by the Church.
Different denominations have different perceptions of what “rights of women” comprise, and how – if in any way – feminists have stepped out of bounds, so it is not a useful issue to bring up in this discussion. Inter-racial marriage was never prohibited by the Church; the fault of that prohibition rests on the State. The Shellfish and Fabric issues is culturally and geographically-specific; the injunction against homosexuality is not. Basically, the Bible is a set of books in critical dialogue with each other; If the New Testament overrides the Old, the New Testament prevails; otherwise, what is said in the Old stands. As for the “friendships” argument, the Archbishop was using a fuller concept of friendship than is used on the street today. Thanks to Capitalism, friendship has become a very woolly concept. Also, that is also one of the justifications Stonewall gives for legalizing same-sex marriage, so…
The State is supposed to be imparital; the corollary of impartiality is lack of emotion. It is not the role of the law to provide some sort of moral framework. So it is not the role of the State to spell out a definition of marriage, whatever that might be. The State’s only interest is in the protection of children, because children are literally the future of the state; that is the only justification for the State’s involvement in marriage. Everything else goes to the Church and other community and religious leaders.
The Archibishop defended his position with relation to marriage as a global institution, so your Anglo-centric perspective isn’t sufficient to counter him on that point.
Marriage shouldn’t be the subject of a law, except to protect children, period.
Your love isn’t being dictated; your desire to foist acknowledgement of the moral validity of your love on others who disapprove of it and shield it from any criticism is being “dictated”; after all, tolerance goes both ways, doesn’t it?