Tying the knot and tied up in knots

As the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, steps down, he leaves a church with many open sores and centrifugal forces, most of them intractable and not of his own making.  Whether he will be remembered as a great Archbishop in the manner of Lanfranc or Anselm, he can at least be reflect he did not have to suffer in the same manner as St Thomas á Becket or Thomas Cranmer.

One of the issues to have riven the Anglican episcopacy is the issue of homosexuality, with its American brethren (and sistren too) in open revolt.  The fissures have widened under Archbishop Rowan’s tenure, yet they were present before he took up his post and will continue to be divisive under his successor.  So The Church of England’s approach to the government ‘consultation’ on gay marriage has been ill-defined.  Much like on the issue of a major new airport in the Thames Estuary, the government seems determined to consult people – to create a veneer of public engagement – and then do its own thing.  The Roman Catholic Church has a monolithic (if probably hypocritical given the suspected nature of a good deal of its priesthood) stand and can lead a charge unencumbered by the need for caveats and clever-clever formulations.  The Muslim, Jewish and Sikh communities also express their consternation in cut-and-dried terms.

As to myself, I am ambivalent.  It won’t be the end of the world, as those countries that have adopted gay marriage have not seen an unravelling of their moral fabric.  Opposition to lowering the age of consent and civil partnerships were wrong-headed.  It was a farce that gay people could not serve in the armed forces.  At root, I think people are born with a certain sexuality and should not be persecuted for something over which they have no control and certainly not for engaging in whatever relationships they choose. That 37 African countries have outlawed homosexuality is disappointing from an outside perspective and dangerous for those inside who wish reform but Britain was the same not so long ago.  The monstrous treatment of Alan Turing is a prominent example of darker times.

Not that gay marriage represents sunlit uplands, though to suggest it will plunge the country into an ethical funk is a tad hysterical.  Religious leaders talk of being forced to officiate weddings to which they are fundamentally opposed.  Judges at the European Court of Human Rights suggest that any place of worship that refuses to allow a couple to marry based on their sexuality could be prosecuted for discrimination, while at the same time stating that ‘gay marriage’ was not a human right.  I think the religious leaders are chasing a red herring.  Being married should be a happy day and only the most wilfully obtuse would choose to have a ceremony in a place where they knew their union was not welcome to be performed.  Indeed, priests can opt to not marry anyone of whom they do not wish, irrespective of sexuality; they turn so few away because it brings in a significant portion of income.  They could claim that they were busy on a proposed set of days (a vicar’s schedule is indeed very packed) and who could prove otherwise?  The priest can do what they like with their time.

I am a little bemused at why the British government sees gay marriage as such a hot-button issue, a boil to be lanced forthwith.  Minorities need to be protected and valued but the homosexual community accounts for only 2-3% of the general population (with a far bigger footprint in media impact).  The Liberal Democrats are very much inclined to libertarianism anyway, so they would see it as a feather in the cap.  For the Conservatives, it is overtly political, at attempt to detoxify the Tory brand, which Francis Maude made abundantly clear.  David Cameron Gay marriage ties up a few loose ends on rare occasions, such as the French woman who cannot adopt the child of her lesbian partner because they are not married (the EHCR ruled against them) or not being allowed to attend the hospital bedside if a partner fell ill abroad.  But whereas minority rights were in vogue in the Inter-war years, they were dropped after being exploited on grounds of ethnicity.  After World War Two, the emphasis was on human rights – the rights of the individual.  Those of a homosexual or bisexual position have had all their individual rights granted in western democracies. 

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone says that homosexual couples have no way to formalise a commitment of love, which is bunkum, as civil partnerships are there, with all the legal protections inherent in them.  Who’s to say gay marriage will be recognised anymore than civil partnerships in countries that frown upon both, if a partner were to become sick whilst travelling? If only they could admit that it’s all to do with local politics.  David Cameron, maybe after watching the episode of American Dad that showed homosexuals could be very right-wing, declaimed “I support gay marriage not despite being a Conservative but because I’m a Conservative.”  In addition to alleviating the ‘nasty party’, Cameron obviously thinks that it is an own goal to force gay people into the arms of the Liberal Democrats and Labour. For her own domestic politics, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf defends the ban on the practice of homosexuality.  Both Cameron and Johnson Sirleaf have too much acumen to be upfront about their motives.  Religious establishments will gnash their teeth with sound and fury and continue to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  Yet the gay marriage bill will be passed in this parliament and Britain will wake up the day after this is signed into law much the same as it did the day before.