More Happy Weddings with More Happy People....

Oh the irony....It turns out nothing bad happens, just more happy people at more happy weddings....

So a few weeks ago there was a dramatic debate in the House of Commons on whether the UK should legalise gay marriage. After hearing a variety of different speeches from MPs, it became clear that this was going to be a battle of personal opinions. Some people are fine with idea of gay marriage and other people are...well....just not. Personally I am not sure what all the fuss is about. Obviously I understand that the UK government telling religious institutions what they can and cannot do in terms of the parameters of religious belief might be problematic. But hey, gay marriage means more people getting married, what could possibly be the harm in that? And is it not time that perhaps some religions moved with social progress and embraced different human relationships? I cannot see what could possibly be wrong with homosexuals loving each other, entering into matrimony and having children. Love is love in my opinion and arguing against gay marriage is like arguing against the very concept of love itself.

It seems that 400 MPs felt the same way as me because the vote was passed. What was disappointing is that 175 MPs voted against the bill and even some MPs abstained. In such a modern era, it is distressing to me that politicians would vote against a bill of law that would give basic equal human rights to a group of their own electorate. Although I am not a Conservative Party supporter or David Cameron's biggest fan, I am impressed with his insistence on pushing a vote on this subject and I don't believe for one second that he is doing it because he thinks it will be a vote winner at election time. He's not a stupid man and although I am loathed to admit it, he is a shrewd politician. If anything, the Same Sex Marriage Bill will lose him votes among some of his supporters. This time I actually think he is doing this because he believes it is the right thing to do.

So after celebrating the news of the successful 'Yes' vote, with a whoop and a 'hear hear' directed at the radio playing BBC Radio 4, I decided to have a little look at the bill. Let me emphasise how unlike me this is. I almost never read government legislation. That is because I live with a man (my husband) who does and he normally explains it to me. In fact, if given half a chance, he would probably read me the new NHS health reform legislation while I tried to snooze on the living room couch. But I care about gay rights, I have gay friends and some family who are gay and since I personally managed to get married with some drama (although none of it legal drama) and lots of love, I wanted to see what this bill would mean if it gets passed in the House of Lords and is successfully implemented. Now, not being a legal or political expert, what I gleaned from it is that Homosexual couples would be able 'marry' in a civil ceremony (like heterosexual couples) and have their existing civil partnerships changed legally into marriages. Gay couples may also be allowed to marry in a religious institution like a church or temple if the church or religious group in question grants them the right...or recognises homosexual marriage as...okay I guess.

See that's the problem right there. The bill is an 'opt-in' scheme for religious groups. They have to opt-in to let gay couples marry in their premises. This allows the religious institutions who do not recognise or allow gay marriage to not do anything at all and remain silent, simply because they are not 'opting-in' to the law. I would have preferred an 'opt-out' scheme, so that all churches and religious institutions were automatically allowing gay marriage and would have to specifically 'opt-out' if they did not want to marry homosexual couples in their premises or recognise them in their congregations. This would mean religious institutions would have to publicly declare their beliefs. I am all in favour of people's personal beliefs remaining private (ie. individuals), but religious institutions and churches are public places and public groups (and often receive a tax credit from the government - ie. public money), so to be honest, they should have to declare their beliefs and what they stand for in a public arena.

Perhaps different religious groups don't want to do this. Maybe they think it would lead to lawsuits. Maybe they don't want to appear bigoted  like the Tory MPs two weeks ago who argued that they themselves were not homophobes, but that they voted against the bill because it changed 'what the institution of marriage is.' (a shit argument if I ever heard one)
But personally I would like to know if my local Anglican church retains an outdated bigoted view of marriage before I go along for a service or pop money into the collection box. Probably not, since my local Anglican has a female vicar and is extremely liberal and accepting.
I guess the bill is trying to retain some separation between church and state and allowing religious freedom. Except surely freedom, whether it is personal, religious or economic, should not come at the cost of someone else's freedom.