Dr Donna Smith is dismayed by the Government’s vacillation over gay marriage in the face of mid-term electoral blues.
When the Coalition Government announced it would hold a consultation on opening up marriage to include gay civil marriage, it suggested that one half of the Coalition, the Conservative Party, had become much more socially liberal since the Party’s opposition to many of Labour’s gay rights policies in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron made it clear that he supported gay marriage, with the Lib-Dem Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, stating gay marriage was a “change for the better”.
But, hang on a minute. Who says gay marriage doesn’t matter? It certainly matters to many gay people, their friends and families. In fact, it could be said to matter to society as a whole, as an issue of equality and fairness. And don’t governments have a duty to focus on issues whether they affect the ‘majority’ or ‘minority’? If the Government doesn’t look out for people, who will?
Perhaps Government should just go ahead and legislate. That is, after all, what they have been elected to do. Doesn’t consultation give the wrong message on this one? If a government believes something is morally right, there is no need to consult. Especially as the consultation was not about whether gay civil marriage should be allowed, but rather the best way to go about it. Just make a decision and legislate! (By comparison, on the day of the Queen's Speech that failed to mention gay marriage in the Coalition's plans for the next year, President Barack Obama affirmed his support for same-sex marriages in a nation where 29 States oppose it).
The previous Labour Government faced huge opposition to some of its equality measures, but pushed on nevertheless, resulting in a fairer and kinder society. Of course, we have to accept that not everyone will be in favour of gay civil marriage. Their opinions should be heard, without the need for shouting by either ‘side’. But by consulting, the Government weakens its stated belief in gay marriage. It leaves room for the policy to be picked apart by the media, with opponents in the Conservative Party having room to blame it for the Government’s current woes.
It seems unlikely that the Coalition’s stance on gay marriage had that much of an impact at the polls; high unemployment, lack of consumer confidence, petrol prices and the perception (fair or unfair) that the Conservatives are a party for the rich, not poor, are higher on most people’s agendas, surely.
So, stand up for gay marriage, Cameron and Osborne, if it’s what you support. You’ll be stronger and more respected for it.
Donna Smith 8 May 2012
twitter: @Dr_DonnaSmith
Donna Smith is a tutor on the Open University modules Introducing the social sciences - part one (DD131) and Living political ideas (DD306), and is based in the East of England. She is the author of Sex, Lies and Politics: Gay Politicians in the Press and talks to Platform about gay politicians and the media here
The views expressed in this post, as in all posts on Society Matters, are the views of the author, not The Open University.
Cartoon by Catherine Pain
Comments
I find it quiten objectionable that the Dr should use this academic platform to promote her obvious political bias in favour of changing the long established institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. The political leadership do not have a mandate to bulldoze this through as she suggests. Her argument that in the scheme of things it is not as important as all the other issues which exercise the public and politicians should not therefore be deterred from letting it creep into its legislation programme irrespective of a public mandate. This is not what politicians were lelected for - to ride roughshod over the electorate as she also suggests.
This academic forum should provide a platform for research based argument fairly presented in an unbiased manner to allow the audience to consider all the researched arguments on all sides to be equally considered. It is not a political or gay/lesbian lobbyist platform.
The article / paper shouod be withdrawn unless included amongst a collection of oposing points of view and reference material/sources (of which there are many).
Hi John
Very happy to have your comments, but in reference to your second and third paragraphs, I should point out that Society Matters is not intended as a platform for scholarly academic articles, and in no way do our pieces aspire to the same standards as these. Society Matters is a succession of opinion-pieces by individuals, expressing their own points of view, which readers are free to debate and disagree with. Indeed we hope readers will use the Comments facility for this purpose, as you have.
Yvonne Cook (Platform editor)
I really enjoyed your article and I find your common sense refreshing. As a lesbian I find it hard to understand what all the faffing is about. If something is right then it is right and you should do it, not state your opinion and then run away at the first sign of opposition abandoning the gay community.
I also don’t think this is an issue that should be decided by a vote because my rights are something that shouldn’t be voted on. We are not asking for privilege we are asking for equality. Homophobia won’t end until we are seen in the eyes of the law as equal.
I don’t think John has researched marriage or really thought about what he is opposing. The first marriages were about connections between tribes and trading. Then you were only married in the eyes of the law if it was in a church by a clergyman so that means other faiths and atheists couldn’t get married. The marriage act of 1836 allowed for non-religious marriages in registry offices and for other faiths to marry in their own place of worship. The point I am trying to make is that ideas change and the definitions of words change to suit the attitudes of the people. People don’t change to suit the dictionary definition of a word. At the moment there is a campaign to change the definition of marriage to be between two consenting adults because it’s reflecting what is happening in the world as some countries now have marriage equality. If the long established institution of marriage had never changed then women would still be passed from her father to her husband and have no rights over her children or her wages if she was allowed to work.
Marriage has changed over time and there are no good reasons to oppose marriage equality. It won’t affect you or any straight or religious people in any way.
I would also like to know if you would demand a collection of opposing points of view and reference materials/sources if this article was biased or in favour of the black civil rights movement. And just because there are many opposing points of view doesn’t make any of their arguments valid or right. The majority view is not always the right one.
I am sorry that this comment is a bit long but this is an issue that I am very passionate about and I keep hearing the same arguments against it over and over again.
Dear Dr Smith
Browsing on another subject and came upon your piece about gay marriage and the subsequent views of other commentators, one against and one for, very interesting. This is a subject which is very emotive. As someone who has been married to my husband for forty years, I have found many of the comments from politicians distressing. At one point they were discussing the possibility of removing the words 'husband' and 'wife' from all current government documentation with a view to removing these words retrospectively where possible. When I made my marriage vows in a wedding ceremony, they were sacrosanct. I find it distasteful that something which has been so important to me is, potentially going to have the sanctity removed and airbrushed from documentation now, in the future and if the government has its way, anything from the past.
Kathryn, commenting in June asks another contributor a number of questions. I have researched marriage historically. When I contributed both politically with my time, lobbying and financially from my meagre jobseeker's allowance to Stonewall, I was absolutely assured by the then cohort running the campaign for Civil Partnerships that marriage was not an option then or in the future. Civil Partnerships as unique. I was advised that many in the gay community did not want marriage as they wanted to have something which was unique to the gay communnity and which could be claimed as their own. A ceremony which although open to heterosexual or transgender couples, would stand for a unique moment in history when the gay community could register, legally, their love for and have recognition about their uniqueness in their love for same sex couples. I campaigned against the injustice afforded gay couples who did not have any legal rights. I also campaigned that with rights comes responsibilities and was pleased that others took up that subject matter and that Civil Partnerships also recognise the equality of rights and responsibilities should separation occur. I have actually worked towards changing the law. As it stands at the moment, legally, the gay community have exactly the same rights enshrined in law with regards to their partners as married couples do. One institution is called marriage the other is Civil Parnerships. Just because someone is against changing the institution of marriage does not make them homophobic and I deeply resent that slur on my character, especially given the work I have done to make equality count.
Having pinned my colours to the mast, I would say that marriage in this country stands for one woman and one man. That is the law as it currently stands. In my opinion that is how it should stay. Otherwise, I was lied to when canvassed as to whether or not I would work towards making Civil Partnerships law. I played my part of the bargain then and would feel betrayed now if the gay community had achieved Civil Partnerships through duping women like myself.
Of course, Kathryn is right, contemporary society is a moveable feast. Technology will see to that. However, there are some institutions that should not change, one of them is marriage. There is no substance to the arguement to bring in racial discrimination, that is an old chestnut that has long bitten the dust and one which the gay community does seem to bring out with boring regularity as they think that no one will want to be called racist as well as a bigot!
There is one way to put this to the test. Let the government have a referendum on this issue and let the people decide. It could be an extra question put on the ballot papers at the next general election. Now would that not be an interesting result? Like Kathryn, this is an issue that I am equally passionate about and that is why I spent a considerable amount of time and money working to get Civil Partnerships legally recognised!
EP.
Dear Mr smith
I am a mother of two I am happily married to my male husband and I live in Scotland where I must admit I am deeply proud of our governments stance on the Gay/lesbian marriages.
I may not be as religous as some of the others who read these posts and I am in no way setting out to offend anyones opinions or beliefs but I think our government has it right.
At the end of the day everyone has gone on for years about how we should live in a free and equal society where men and woman, old and young, black or white etc are treated as equals so why should gay and lesbian couples have any less rights than everyone else when it comes to their commitment to one another.
I truly believe that people who are against such things have to open their minds just a little and imagine this if two people regardless of sex are deeply in love and want to spend the rest of their natural lives together, potentially raise a family and go about their lifes as the rest of us do, does the fact that they are both females or both males really make any difference to the bond that they both share.
lynn
Dear Mr smith
I am a mother of two I am happily married to my male husband and I live in Scotland where I must admit I am deeply proud of our governments stance on the Gay/lesbian marriages.
I may not be as religous as some of the others who read these posts and I am in no way setting out to offend anyones opinions or beliefs but I think our government has it right.
At the end of the day everyone has gone on for years about how we should live in a free and equal society where men and woman, old and young, black or white etc are treated as equals so why should gay and lesbian couples have any less rights than everyone else when it comes to their commitment to one another.
I truly believe that people who are against such things have to open their minds just a little and imagine this if two people regardless of sex are deeply in love and want to spend the rest of their natural lives together, potentially raise a family and go about their lifes as the rest of us do, does the fact that they are both females or both males really make any difference to the bond that they both share.
lynn