In the modern day, marriage has become a hotly debated topic. In the United Kingdom, we are currently in the throes of the issue of whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry: that is, join themselves together in matrimony in the same way that heterosexual people can.
Hold on... don't we already allow that? Eight years ago, the Blair Government passed a law called the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which outlines the legal right of homosexual couples to get married in a civil ceremony. This type of joining is called a civil partnership, and to all extents and purposes is marriage, just without it being called explicitly that. Certainly, there are some differences, but most of these are cosmetic and have no real impact on the legal composition.
The United Kingdom is 1 of 20 countries that allows same sex "coupling" under the heading "civil partnership" nationally, and 1 of 31 that allows same sex coupling in general nationally (whether called marriage or partnership). Now, however, a new bill is currently doing the rounds in Parliament to allow same sex couples to be conjoined under the title, "marriage". Great, lovely. The question I want to ask starts to become apparent: considering all the hullabaloo, what exactly is the difference?
A core part of the new bill is the fact that once passed, it will give gay couples the right to marry in religious institutions, where the institution does not object on spiritual grounds to the act. At least, that was the original, layman's wording of the bill. Now, however, it has changed to allowing the Church of England and any other organised religion based in the UK to place a blanket ban on gay marriage in their holy places.
For some reason, this is causing quite a to-do in the gay community, and so although I may get hounded for saying this, I'm a little confused as to why this is the case. If you'll give me the opportunity to explain, I will.
As it stands, the bill will allow gay people to register as "married" in a civil ceremony, that is, a secular event held in a registry office or non-religious affiliated building or open area or such like, for the purposes of allowing them to describe their union as "married" rather than "partnered". This all seems great, but the provision that religious institutions can opt out exposes, in the gay community's eyes, a prejudice that belies those institutions. Well... of course it does. The Church of England recently prevented a policy change in their organisation allowing women to become priests, something that people have also decried as "absurd" and "archaic".
However, we must remember - and this is important - that organised religion is based on eternal doctrine, not the changing cultural attitudes of our time. That is the point. And the Bible is quite explicit in its patriarchal attitude, taking every opportunity to demean the female gender, from the very first chapters of Genesis to the painting of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, even though there is some evidence to suggest the contrary. I don't want to get into a drawn out religious debate about the issues regarding the Bible (such as the fact that most of the gospels were written years after Jesus' death; were heavily edited or omitted when the thing was actually compiled in various draft forms much later; and then translated and edited again at the Council of Nicaea), but when you pick up the Bible and you choose to adopt it as a spiritual guide, then you must take every word for that of the Abrahamic god.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22. "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." Romans 1:27. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,..." 1 Corinthians 6:9. These are all Bible passages that, in my opinion, leave little room for alternative interpretation regarding God's view (or at least his followers' views) of homosexuality. There are others, but they can be interpreted in other ways I believe. Nevertheless, my point is this: only a gay Christian would directly condemn this new bill as a result of the impact it would have at a personal level, but, a gay Christian must have some serious problems if they commit an act that is knowingly antithetical to the God they believe in. This, of course, exposes the true problem with organised religion and the detrimental effect it can have on individual spirituality, but again, probably a topic for another time.
Eternal doctrine is just that, and it should be because of this that we should seek not to force change in God's word through cultural attitudes, but do away with it altogether.
When you consider these things, any further objection to the bill reveals the true issue: it's not about homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals, nor is it about the secular nature of our society. It's about the vocabulary. A civil partnership and marriage are considered exactly the same thing, with the only difference being the name; and both sides in this debate are guilty of not getting their story straight. On one side, you have the societies and communities arguing to get something they already have, and on the other you have institutions that are under the assumption marriage can only take place in the eyes of God. So why have we been having heterosexual civil marriages in this country for almost two centuries? And, up until 1753, people could get married without requiring it to presided over by a cleric.
The question is about who owns the term "marriage" - and clearly, based on precedence, religion does not have a sole stake on it.
Now I'm going to make a counterpoint, to defend the religious institutions fighting the introduction of allowing same sex marriage into their buildings. I've already mentioned eternal doctrine, so I'll continue. It's called having a secular society. In this country, whilst we are not secular by ownership - our head of state is positioned by hereditary descent based on divine right, and is also the head of a religious organisation - we are so by operation and by culture. Politically and socially, we fight vehemently for the public separation of church and state. However, in doing so, we cannot build bridges between them whenever we so wish, and whenever we see something in scripture we do not like: if we don't like it, we convert, and either become secular ourselves or become an alternative denomination.
Separation between faith and law works both ways.
If you are a Christian who is also gay (and you've found a way around those pesky verses in Leviticus, Samuel, Romans, Corinthians etc.) and you want to get married in a religious setting, then find a priest that feels the same way you do about what the Bible says on homosexuality and have him perform the ceremony. It is no good forcing a priest to marry you: the whole idea of getting married in a church is for the added bonus of getting joined under the eyes of God, but what good is that if the priest marrying you does not believe in the sanctity of such a union? It becomes null, and you may as well have got married in a registry office.
If we decide eventually that "marriage" is a religious word, then that's how it should stand, and apply across the board of sexual orientation. If, one day, I decide to make a demonstrable commitment to a woman, then I will do so in a secular setting under the auspices of the law. And if gay people in such circumstances are forced to refer to it as a civil partnership, then I will happily apply the same term to my own situation.
