Radio waves
Some of you may have caught the discussion of our campaign on Woman's Hour on Tuesday 25th July. Many thanks to everyone who has responded or signed the petition as a result.
Judging by the discussion on the Woman's Hour message board, there is obviously still a lot of ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding to tackle. There was much puzzlement over the meaning of the word 'marriage', including a debate on whether it could be offensive in a carpentry context, and (more seriously) an indignant demand to know why straight people are suddenly demanding civil partnerships when gay couples have had to fight for decades to get legal recognition.
I hope that there is not a widespread assumption that there is any conflict or animosity between our campaign and the struggle for equal rights for homosexuals. There are two reasons why we believe civil partnerships should be equally available to all. One is that it is reasonable to object to certain elements of marriage that make it different to civil partnership, and that, as such, those who object should not be arbitrarily prevented from forming civil partnerships instead. But the second - and most important - is that segregation on the grounds of sex and sexuality is not only irrational but odious, and discriminates against homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.
This argument is essentially the same as that of homosexual couples who want access to marriage because they endorse and embrace the elements of marriage that make it different to civil partnerships, or simply because they rightly demand equal treatment to heterosexuals.
This parallel means that we completely support campaigns to make civil (as opposed to religious) marriage available to same-sex couples. (From my personal, secular perspective, I don't see any good reason for religious marriage being unavailable to homosexuals either, but then I don't see any good reason for religion full stop, so I don't feel qualified to judge on this particular issue.)
I was disappointed to read the judgement passed last week rejecting the petition by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger to have their Canadian marriage recognised as such in the UK (see Approaching From The Opposite Direction, below). It was unfortunately unsurprising that their case was rejected, but I had expected this to be on the grounds that there was no actual discrimination because civil partnership confers all the legal rights of marriage (once again based on the failure of the political and legal establishment to appreciate that there is more to the notion of marriage than the level of personal commitment and legal responsibility).
In fact, however, the judgement declared that while there was indeed discrimination, this discrimination was justified in order to protect the status of marriage as being a union between one man and one woman, primarily for the purpose of procreation. The judge also rejected the couple's arguments that made reference to the right to family life, on the grounds that homosexual childless couples cannot legally comprise a family.
In my view, the assumptions underlying this judgement are far more offensive than the original construal of Sue and Celia's marriage as a civil partnership. That act simply perpetuated discrimination - this judgement actively defends and promotes it.
The realisation that these deeply homophobic attitudes and prejudices are still informing political and legal decisions about human relationships makes me feel more determined than ever to help fight sex discrimination from all angles. Many heterosexual couples feel passionately that they cannot conscientiously enter into a marriage, and are angry that a baggage-free legal relationship is arbitrarily closed to us. In fighting to change this situation, we should remember that at least we are not being told that we cannot be families, or that we are being excluded in order to preserve the special status of an institution for couples of a different sexuality.
Until sex and sexuality are no longer used as criteria for legal privileges, either for homosexuals or heterosexuals, the Civil Partnership Act will have brought about only the most superficial improvement in the status and treatment of same-sex couples. That's why, in the end, we're all on the same side.
Judging by the discussion on the Woman's Hour message board, there is obviously still a lot of ignorance, prejudice and misunderstanding to tackle. There was much puzzlement over the meaning of the word 'marriage', including a debate on whether it could be offensive in a carpentry context, and (more seriously) an indignant demand to know why straight people are suddenly demanding civil partnerships when gay couples have had to fight for decades to get legal recognition.
I hope that there is not a widespread assumption that there is any conflict or animosity between our campaign and the struggle for equal rights for homosexuals. There are two reasons why we believe civil partnerships should be equally available to all. One is that it is reasonable to object to certain elements of marriage that make it different to civil partnership, and that, as such, those who object should not be arbitrarily prevented from forming civil partnerships instead. But the second - and most important - is that segregation on the grounds of sex and sexuality is not only irrational but odious, and discriminates against homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.
This argument is essentially the same as that of homosexual couples who want access to marriage because they endorse and embrace the elements of marriage that make it different to civil partnerships, or simply because they rightly demand equal treatment to heterosexuals.
This parallel means that we completely support campaigns to make civil (as opposed to religious) marriage available to same-sex couples. (From my personal, secular perspective, I don't see any good reason for religious marriage being unavailable to homosexuals either, but then I don't see any good reason for religion full stop, so I don't feel qualified to judge on this particular issue.)
I was disappointed to read the judgement passed last week rejecting the petition by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger to have their Canadian marriage recognised as such in the UK (see Approaching From The Opposite Direction, below). It was unfortunately unsurprising that their case was rejected, but I had expected this to be on the grounds that there was no actual discrimination because civil partnership confers all the legal rights of marriage (once again based on the failure of the political and legal establishment to appreciate that there is more to the notion of marriage than the level of personal commitment and legal responsibility).
In fact, however, the judgement declared that while there was indeed discrimination, this discrimination was justified in order to protect the status of marriage as being a union between one man and one woman, primarily for the purpose of procreation. The judge also rejected the couple's arguments that made reference to the right to family life, on the grounds that homosexual childless couples cannot legally comprise a family.
In my view, the assumptions underlying this judgement are far more offensive than the original construal of Sue and Celia's marriage as a civil partnership. That act simply perpetuated discrimination - this judgement actively defends and promotes it.
The realisation that these deeply homophobic attitudes and prejudices are still informing political and legal decisions about human relationships makes me feel more determined than ever to help fight sex discrimination from all angles. Many heterosexual couples feel passionately that they cannot conscientiously enter into a marriage, and are angry that a baggage-free legal relationship is arbitrarily closed to us. In fighting to change this situation, we should remember that at least we are not being told that we cannot be families, or that we are being excluded in order to preserve the special status of an institution for couples of a different sexuality.
Until sex and sexuality are no longer used as criteria for legal privileges, either for homosexuals or heterosexuals, the Civil Partnership Act will have brought about only the most superficial improvement in the status and treatment of same-sex couples. That's why, in the end, we're all on the same side.
posted by The editor at 12:01 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home