Guest Post: Equality and Difference

In the tradition of well-written anonymous guest posts, today I am sharing with you one on the topic of Same Sex Marriage, Civil Partnerships, and Equality. This topic has been in the news a great deal recently - and this blog looked at the issue heavily last year. As we run up to the first vote on the matter, I intend to write a 'why' and a 'what can I do' post, and then hopefully not write about it again. Anyway, without further ado;

Equality and Difference

Last year I saw a great poster from my university's LGBT society. It showed a series of cartoon figures, and stated a few things about them. I can’t remember the exact wording, but basically it went:

This is Kevin. He likes football, poker, and he’s heterosexual. He’s not strange or wrong. He’s just different.

This is Julie. She like history, poetry, and she’s a lesbian. She’s not strange or wrong. She’s just different.

This is Ben. He likes war games, walking, and he’s gay. He’s not strange or wrong. He’s just different.

Now, any views on the sentiments aside, it’s a very compelling poster. It makes a simple and important point: some people are different, and that doesn’t mean they’re bad. It is, of course, an important principle we’re all taught from a very young age, and which is so important when fighting prejudice.

Yet, this seems to have been lost recently. The current debate about same-sex marriage is based on a premise which is hugely offensive to civil partnerships. It is based on the assumption that civil partnerships are not equal to marriage - even though the treatment in law is the same (or at least as similar as possible, and as similar as same-sex marriage would be). So, in other words, on the premise that civil partnership is de facto inferior. How offensive. It seems extraordinary that politicians currently arguing for it would be as bluntly discriminatory as to say that gay and lesbian will not have equal status until there is gay marriage - ie a couple in a civil partnership don’t equal status to a married partnership. It’s a slap in the face, if you ask me.

Now, I see that some people say ‘well, it doesn’t carry the social weight of marriage’. Personally, I’m not sure about that. But either way, the way to solve that is not to say that civil partnerships are inferior! Instead, if you want to see them on a similar footing, them treat them as if they are on a similar footing. Otherwise, you’ll just end up having to do that with gay marriage anyway!

Ultimately, equality is not saying: these to things are the same, therefore I will treat them the same. Equality is saying: these two things are different, but I will treat them the same anyway. Equality is all about different things. Calling everything by the same name isn’t equality.

Now, marriage and civil partnerships are very similar. But there are a few differences. Obviously, the sex of the people entering! But there are a few legal differences to do with adultery, and there are biological differences to do with procreation. Am I making a value judgement by saying that? Not at all. But if our society is to retain (regain?) what equality is, it needs to embrace difference, not uniformity.