— read write play

The Archbishop of York has urged the state not to “dictate” over same-sex marriage – possibly because he thinks controlling the terms of relationships between adults is the job of organised religion. That might be unfair, but it’s rather less unfair than claiming supporters of marriage equality are somehow behaving like dictators.

The idea that expanding the social and legal recognition of marriage to more people is somehow controlling – dictatorial, even – is peculiar at best. He’s presumably thinking of the long historical record of dictators who have sought to control people by .. uhm .. extending the range of freedoms available to them.¹

Even then, the least coherent part of Dr Sentamu’s position is the solipsistic argument that a) opposing gay marriage is unpopular; b) some of Jesus’ beliefs were unpopular; and c) opposing gay marriage is therefore “sticking with Jesus”. You might as well argue that a common dislike for Marmite makes support for yeast-based sandwich pastes inherently Christian.

Dodgy rhetoric aside, the underlying argument that change is bad is weak. Yes, allowing gay people to get married will change the meaning of marriage – and this is a good thing. It’s a good thing in the same way that reforming the law so that women became equal partners in marriage rather than legal property was a good thing. It’s a good thing in the same way that changing the law so that 14 year olds couldn’t be married off to adults was a good thing.

If marriage – so far – has been about a relationship between a man and woman, it has also involved changing the definition of who actually counts as a man or a woman, and on what terms. It has involved reforming the definition of who is recognised at all by that institution, again and again. The fact that we might be changing the definition of marriage again isn’t a bug: it’s a baked-in feature of its history.

1. The missing puzzle piece in this argument is the idea that allowing gay people to marry will undermine marriage as a whole because.. well .. it just will. Someone will get back to you on that. [↩]

The Daily Mail’s Melanie Phillips stops just short of accusing the parents of Sasha Laxton of child abuse for attempting a “gender neutral” upbringing – claiming both that gender difference is innate and pre-given, and that a lack of clear labelling from parents will leave a child dangerously confused and open to psychological injury.

The fact that Sasha Laxton seems completely happy (having been allowed to do what he wants, regardless of gender norms) is apparently irrelevant. The existence of children, young people and adults who have had utterly miserable lives because of their unwillingness – or simple inability – to fulfil gender norms is also ignored. The idea that girls are “gentle” and boys are “adventurous” is presented as naturalised fact.

Phillips also claims that gender is in no way cultural, when even a minimal acquaintance with British history alone would tell you that what passes for “conventionally” masculine and feminine behaviour or dress has undergone continuous change¹. Phillips manages this argument by asserting that gender and sex mean entirely the same thing, and by misreading any challenge to rigid gender difference – men as the binary opposite of women – as the idea that no kind of difference exists at all.

It’s not exactly persuasive.

1. You might well start – and finish – with a close reading of the changing tradition of breeching [↩]

The remarkable thing about the backbench Tory campaign to block marriage equality is its fearfulness. I don’t mean its damply apocalyptic claim that same-sex marriage will somehow “fracture” the institution of marriage (as if the one thing holding it together was the resistance of queers) but the deep reluctance to directly address the issue at stake.

Here’s David Burrowes MP as quoted in The Independent‘s story, “Tory MPs go to war over gay marriage”:

“Many colleagues are worried that it would fundamentally affect how marriage between a man and woman has historically been viewed in this country,” he said. “There are strong doubts that we need to go down this path. It would open up a can of worms and a legal minefield about freedom, religion and equalities legislation.

“Gay marriage is a debate we don’t need to have at this stage. It is not an issue people are hammering us on the doorstep to do something about,” he continued, adding: “It is important that there is a reasoned debate around how we view marriage rather than about homosexual rights. It may open up old wounds and put people into the trenches; no one wants that.”

How very sad that the issue of gay rights might force MPs to state their beliefs and defend them in public. How very inconvenient – and how gracious of Burrowes to decide on behalf of gay and lesbian people that the subject doesn’t “need” to be broached, and that they should wait until Tory backbenchers feel it more politically convenient.

The idea that we shouldn’t discuss gay marriage because then we’d need to talk about freedom, religion and equality is frankly ludicrous – not least because the claim on religious freedom has been routinely waved as the reason why same-sex marriage should not be recognised. Similarly odd is the idea we could talk about “views of marriage” – that is, views that gay people should be excluded from marriage – without talking about gay rights. Would we talk about “views on immigration” – for example – that seek to bar certain ethnic groups from the UK without also talking about race?

The desire to reframe the debate in this way – to reframe it in a way which tries to avoid talking about equality altogether – tells you something about the changing face of British attitudes to gay marriage and gay rights and the slow realisation by socially-conservative Tories that they’re on the losing side and that some day, likely very soon, the decision to recognise gay people as fully equal members of our culture isn’t one that they’ll get to make. It will have been made for them.