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 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