Husband and Husband

Off the bat, I’m against gay marriage.

:O What?!

A liberal like you?

Yep. Though, not for the reasons you might think. My rationale is mostly to do with the meaning of ‘marriage’ . According to the Wikipedia entry on marriage, the custom predates reliable written record, and so its actual origin cannot be discerned exactly. But what is very clear, and what immediately comes to mind when one thinks of a ‘marriage’, is some kind of religious ceremony. * Religions have a lot to say about marriage, and have variously been the chief bodies in various parts of the world for ordaining the act, sometimes legally so. It depends largely on where in the world you look. What comes up time and time again, regardless of culture and religion is that people think it natural to be tied to a partner, which is interesting to say the least. I suppose people find the restriction affirming in a sense. Some evidence seems to suggest that at points in history, notably before the 1500s, when legal changes started to be made, there didn’s seem to be a lot of religious involvement in marriage. I quote Wikipedia:

In medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognised as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.

The Council of Trent (convened 1545–1563) ruled that in future a marriage was only valid in Roman Catholic countries if it was witnessed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church or, if obtaining a priest were impractical, by other witnesses. [...]

Common law marriages were abolished in England and Wales by the Marriage Act 1753. The Act required marriages to be performed by a priest of the Church of England – unless if the participants in the marriage were Jews or Quakers. The Act applied to Ireland after the Act of Union 1800, but the requirement for a valid marriage to be performed by a Church of England priest created special problems in predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland. The law did not provide an exception.

So begins, in the UK at least, the imposement of religious values on the act of marriage. Common-law marriage, a simple affirmation with no legal meaning, was replaced by church-sanctioned marriage, depending on which religion was predominant in the country at the time (Which in turn was largely due to the ruling monarch).

In my opinion, the same values hold more-or-less true today. I think that the mass majority of people consider marriage as a religious affair. And as the world becomes increasingly less religious, I don’t believe that legal rights can be based on religious values.

Look at this page.

There you see the contrasting opinions of various religions on ‘gay marriage’. A government which aims to be non-discriminative in terms of faith surely cannot restrict the rights of the people in the religions that permit gay marriage from doing so as a part of their faith? By the very same token, to forbid religions from having criteria over what constitutes a marriage in accordance with their faith is discrimination also? If marriage is to be a religious process, which it certainly seems to be, then a society which tries to treat all religions equally can’t discriminate against those with one set of beliefs or the other. I’m not saying anything new here. The more formal term is ‘separation of church and state’. America as a law against it, namely the First Amendment. (Lot of good that has done, clearly a collossal effect.)

Recognising the necessity of the separation of church and state, (probably)  Civil Ceremonies were permitted (though I have no freakin’ idea when cause there’s no information about it anywhere). This, of course, opens the doors for partnerships of all sorts. Now anyone can marry anyone in accordance with any faith in any manner they please, and be afforded the same legal benefits. Right?

Not quite.

Though this is what introduction of Civil Unions and Civil Partnerships variously has in essense allowed, there are still some differences in law. In fact, the Uk government information directory, Directgov says so.

Civil partners have equal treatment to married couples in a wide range of legal matters, including:

A wide range? So, not all? Cries of bias ring from the towers.

My proposal? The words of genius you have come to expect and adore from me?

The concept of a partnership with legal implications needs to be rebuild from the ground up. I propose a simple legal requirement such as the signing of a register by both parties as witnessed by an authorised person. This act affords the legal rights of marriage to whomsoever partakes in it. Everything else about the ceremony is completely customisable. it can take place in a Church, a Gurdwara, a Mosque, a country club, a hotel, a zoo, or anywhere. Any religious ceremonies can precede or follow the signing, or none at all if preferred. Any two consenting parties can enter the partnership, so long as they are of an appropriate age (probably as is currently permitted) and meet citizenship rules. This would satisfy all religious parties as could easily be integrated into their present practices (the signing of a register often already is) and would afford the same legal rights to all couples.

In short, the legal concept of marriage should be abolished. All ‘married’ couples would be civil partners. Those that wanted to, could be husband and wife. Or husband and husband, or wife and wife if they preferred.

*Maybe not! My boyfriend said that he doesn’t necessarily. Do you? Vote: