This month saw London’s eighth annual Pride event, attracting upwards of a million people and a good deal of media attention. Notably, recently retired rugby professional Ben Cohen and the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in favour of legalisation of gay marriage. Tatchell stated that “all discrimination is wrong and should be opposed. Since marriage exists, it ought to be open to everyone.” While this is no doubt true, his approach is somewhat flawed. There has a been revitalised interest in promoting greater equality in the UK generally since the Marriage Equality Act passed the State Senate in New York, where gay marriage will be legal from the 24th July. What is saddening is that legalising gay marriage is seen by some as the final objective in ensuring legislative equality.
The question that needs asking is: why should the state be involved in marriage in the first place? Why, as David Blankenhorn of the Institute of American Values put it, should society “hold up one particular family form and say we protect and support this family form but not others”? Promoting true equality does not mean granting rights to just straight and gay couples – it also means allowing those in polyamorous relationships, are single or do not want to formalise their relationships to be treated equally as well.
Despite recent leaps and bounds in terms of equality in the UK, we are at present left with a system where some are ‘more equal’ than others, with marriage for one sort and civil partnerships for another. This sort of arrangement entrenches any remaining homophobia and negative discrimination, creating a societal divide and perpetuating a ‘them against us’ culture of inequality.
While a lot of attention has been given to legalising gay marriage, David Cameron’s recent comments in support of tax breaks for married couples received much less. We already see how the state treats those in relationships differently to those who are single. As two groups, inequality exists in a range of areas, including housing, immigration and taxation arrangements. The idea of a ‘state-approved’ lifestyle is a disturbing one, as the relationships we choose to take part in as individuals should be up to us, not to what the state deems the correct way to live one’s life.
While legalisation of gay marriage and straight civil partnerships would be an improvement, the question of marriage equality is not a binary one, with only the option to legalise gay marriage or not; we also have the option of undoing the state nationalisation of marriage. No one should have to ask the state to be married, rather they should be able to define for themselves what marriage is. If couples wish to have some legal recognition of their union, they may do this via private contracts, in much the same way as prenuptial agreements exist in the US.
Mark Grisanti, one of the Republicans who voted to legalise gay marriage in NY asked what right he had “to say that someone does not have the same rights that I have with my wife?” Rather we should extend this, and ask ‘who are we to say that all people do not deserve the same rights, regardless of their relationship choices?’
This article is so typical of Pete Spence. “rather they should be able to define for themselves what marriage is”. I do not object to people defining what a relationship means to them; whether they want an open relationship, an exclusive relationship or whatever. However, the word marriage means a certain thing… much like the words ‘right’ and ‘left’ determine directions and if left open to interpretation would lead to much confusion. Sometimes things have to have labels as to avoid confusion! It is not a case of the state trying to force something upon its people. Grow up?
Totally agree with Pete. Let’s end state hegemony in relationships.
What a surprize that Phil Downs agrees with what Pete Spence says…
I totally agree with Pete we should move towards a system of communism, that way we can achieve the equality we all yearn for. Thank you for another supportive article. Keep fighting the good cause as ever.
This seems a sneaky way of arguing for Sharia Law Pete. Marriage is the bedrock of our civilisation, and requires the state to protect the sanctity of this noble institution.
Marriage is not the bedrock of our civilisation, money is. The word SANCTITY should not even come into question concerning the state, in a secular country such as Britain. Delegalization of marriage!
Personal Tax Allowances cannot be transferred from one partner to another. This means that a couple who each work part-time will, effectively, receive twice as much tax-free income as a couple where one of the partners works full-time and the other ‘keeps house.’
This appears to be rather discriminatory. It seems reasonable to try to reduce this unfairness by allowing personal allowances to be transferable between partners. But then you have the problem that the state has to decide which ‘couples’ qualify to be allowed to make such transfers.
Sure, we don’t want the state interfering in our family arrangements, but unless you allow personal allowances to be transferred to anyone you like – quite a drastic step with potentially extreme consequences – then you still have discrimination of some sort.
I agree that the idea of a ‘state-approved’ lifestyle is a disturbing one. However, do you really think it’s possible to have a state that doesn’t discriminate at all? Whatever your rules and regulations, whatever your tax system, won’t there always be someone who is discriminated against?
It sounds nice to say, ‘Let’s have a world without discrimination!’ – but is that even theoretically possible?