Summary
28 April 2012
In his closing speech to the 2011 Conservative Party Conference, Prime Minister David Cameron promised that the Government would consult on replacing civil partnerships for same-sex couples with civil marriage.
“But we're also doing something else. I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn't matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we're consulting on legalising gay marriage.
And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it's about equality, but it's also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.”
That consultation document was issued in March 2012 and is open for responses with a deadline of 14 June 2012. Since marriage is a devolved matter, the consultation only applies to the law in England & Wales. The governments of Scotland and of Northern Ireland are responsible for civil marriage in those countries.
Many religious groups have already objected to the proposed change.
My views on the relationship between civil marriage and religious marriage were set out on my page "Why the state should exit the marriage business". Fundamentally I believe that confusion is caused by using the single word "marriage" to cover two distinct relationships.
In my opinion the state only has a legitimate power to regulate relationships of the first type. The state needs to know when a relationship of this type exists, and since the state is expected to enforce the rights and responsibilities arising, the state has the right to determine when and how relationships of this type come into being and end.
The state has no legitimate interest in relationships of the second type. Indeed in modern British society the state does not attempt to regulate how adults enter into sexual relationships with each other, and any type of household can be formed by mutually consenting adults.
The consultation document half recognises the distinction since it only addresses the regulation of "civil marriage" and does not propose any changes to what it calls "religious marriage." Indeed apart from the possible exception of the Anglican Church (which is established by the state) I do not see how the Government could possibly claim the power to regulate the meaning of marriage as understood by Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc.
I have sent in a personal response to the consultation document, and have reproduced the response below. The consultation asks 16 specific questions.
Disagree.
A civil partnership gives essentially the same legal rights and responsibilities as a civil wedding. To the extent that it does not, the civil partnerships law should be amended.
The word marriage derives its meaning from religion and from social custom. Although the state regulates civil marriage, the concept of marriage is not the property of the state, and the attempt to re-define it is improper. If the state wishes to enforce identical rules on gay and straight couples, it should stop having a civil marriage system and instead offer civil partnerships for all.
This question doesn’t apply to me.
This question doesn’t apply to me.
Agree – religious marriage should not be opened up to same-sex couples.
Disagree; it would be otiose. However as explained at question 1, I disagree entirely with the proposed extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples.
This question doesn’t apply to me.
Disagree – civil partnerships should be opened up to opposite-sex couples. That should be combined with the abolition of civil marriage if the government regards the status quo as unacceptably unequal.
This question doesn’t apply to me.
Disagree – there should be a time limit.
No, there shouldn’t be an option.
This question doesn’t apply to me.
This question doesn’t apply to me.
The administrative process for a civil marriage and a civil partnership should be harmonised as far as possible. There is no logic in requiring civil partners to specify both parents while participants in a civil wedding are only required to specify fathers.
No.
The consultation is seeking to address a problem that does not exist. To the extent that there are remaining differences between a civil marriage and a civil partnership, they can be eliminated by legislation to ensure that civil partners have identical legal rights to a married couple.
At the same time the historical baggage within civil marriage (such as the legal implications of consummation or adultery) should be removed.
What the state should not be trying to do is to appropriate to itself the right to redefine the meaning of marriage.
I have no wish to treat same-sex couples any worse than mixed-sex couples.
The consultation document mentions in a few cases where civil partnerships appear to have less favourable treatment than civil marriages. If that is the case the Government can eliminate the inequality by making legal amendments to the law for either civil partnerships or civil marriages (or both).
If the government wishes to use the same terminology for the legal relationship between a same-sex couple and a mixed-sex couple, the most appropriate way to do this is to use the term "civil partnership" for both relationships, since we are talking about a relationship which is manufactured and controlled by the state. The word "marriage" refers to a relationship which is manufactured and controlled by God (in the eyes of religious people) or by society (in the eyes of people without a religion) and in neither case is it the business of the state.
I encourage readers who live within England and Wales to submit their own response to the consultation.
Follow @Mohammed_Amin