A marriage proposal fraught with pitfalls

Just over 40 years ago homosexuality was illegal; so it is a measure of how far our society has changed that the Government yesterday published proposals to allow civil marriage to take place between two men or two women. Ostensibly this is a consultation exercise, though its emphasis is less on whether such a change in the law should happen and more on how it can be brought about. This runs into an immediate problem since there are powerful voices opposed in principle, notably the churches. Their arguments – that marriage should be considered a sacrament exclusively between men and women for the procreation of children – will be heard, but are unlikely to prevail.

This issue stirs strong passions. Many gay people resent being treated differently, even though they can now enter into a civil partnership with the same legal rights as a married couple. But if they are to be allowed to marry, why should heterosexual couples be denied the right to a civil partnership? Introducing a new inequality to end another is an odd way to proceed, and many more legal anomalies will be exposed by this change, as Lord Brennan pointed out on these pages a few days ago.

What is being proposed here is not a minor social tweak, but a fundamental redefinition of an ancient institution, partly in order to signify the “modern” values of David Cameron’s Tories. In pursuing this reform, the Government has created a neat, but disingenuous, conceit: namely that if you believe the estate of marriage is a benign and stabilising influence then you must also favour marriage between two men or two women. They go further: Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister, said opposition to gay marriage was fanning the flames of “dark ages” homophobia. This is unfortunate rhetoric. If anything, it is the Government’s attempt to change the law that risks reigniting anti-homosexual bigotry.

The consultation paper acknowledges the concerns of religious organisations by restricting gay marriage to civil ceremonies. It will not be legally possible for a faith organisation to solemnise same-sex marriage even if it wants to, though once the law is changed it will be hard to justify prohibiting a church from carrying out such a ceremony should it wish to do so. Although churches will not be forced to conduct gay weddings, there will be challenges under equality and human rights laws arguing that this is discriminatory. It is right that there should be a free vote when this matter comes before Parliament; but the ramifications may be far more profound than Mr Cameron has anticipated, not least for the future relationship between the established Church and the state.