Reflections on the/a Gay Marriage Debate

As regular readers of this blog over the past year or so will know, I have invested time and ink (and even some money!) in the debate over the redefinition of marriage in the UK. I've tried to be incredibly specific, not getting my attention taken by the transformation, rejection and manipulation of various marriage laws in other countries, or various U.S. States. Its been an interesting journey. Sometimes I've had to bite my toungue, moderate comments, or just give up on a conversation. Other times it has been immensely liberating to explain things to someone, and see eyes and minds click. Regardless, it has been a significant debate.

Unfortunately, the entire issue has been marked with a great deal of apathy. From, apparently, everyone. This could mean that everyone who hasn't shown an interest is pro, or anti, or it could mean neither of the above. It could justify a referendum. It could not. Yet apathy remains. Statistics are published proving everything every which way - polls, it seems, can be massaged to get the figures you desire. And my personal experience of people - religious and non-religious, LGBT and not, political and a-political - has been interesting on this issue.

All the various themes were brought together last week when I, along with various people from various small groups, went along to a meeting on the topic of the redefinition of marriage held by a local MP. You can read one reflection/report on that evening here. It makes, in my opinion for depressing reading. And, I believe, it represents something of a microcosm of the national debate.

First, let me lay my cards on the table: I am a Christian, and whilst I love LGBT people, I don't think marriage should be redefined. My thoughts in this post will begin, then, with a brief set of Christian observations...

Many Christians forgot that the Gospel is about God's love.

Some Christians forgot that the Gospel is about God's Truth as well as love. 

One observation came on the issue of the greatest commandment. We are told that the greatest commandment, the thing that Christians should be known for, is loving one another. Amen. But that isn't actually the greatest commandment. In the words of Jesus in Mark 12:28-34, the greatest commandment is something else; "you shall love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength". The second, as a heart-overflow of the first, is to "love your neighbour as yourself". The Christian position on ethical issues should come first from establishing what God has said and second be articulated in terms of love for everyone. 

The tone of the debate that evening was not, with a few notable exceptions, one of love. I would not expect this - it is far easier to throw terms around than it is to actually engage gracefully with substantive arguments. In many cases - and this is an observation I would make on both sides of the debate - there is a frightening lack of awareness of reality. Some examples:

Those on the 'pro' side...
 - are apparently unaware of the meaning of marriage as it is currently enshrined in law
 - are apparently unaware of the strength of feeling that religious beliefs can cause
 - are apparently unaware of the consequences of rushing the redefinition of marriage
 - are apparently closeted in a certain set of world-views and ideas that make debate with another opinion impossible

Those on the 'anti' side (which would include myself!)...
 - are often definitely, from a Christian perspective, lacking the love element of the Christian Gospel
 - are often, for many reasons, completely unaware of the reality of living life as an LGBT person in the UK
 - are often, for many reasons, naive about the kinds of language used in political debates
 - are often, though not exclusively in danger of appearing or downright being bigoted
 - are often closeted in a certain set of world-views and ideas that make debate with another opinion impossible

One of the issues that was raised that evening - and is one of the un-addressed elements of the debate - is that of cost. Whilst it is slightly irritating to be reassured that 'all the gay weddings will pay for it', it does seem that there has not been enough work done on the costings. Two points come to mind; firstly the cost of changing computer software - one Government estimate, according to a friend with a background in relevant IT, is £2-4 million, and that is just software! Secondly, there is the issue of the committees, lawsuits, and huge range of cases that are essentially guaranteed to sort through the bill's as yet unforeseen aftermath.

The moral dimension, and the literal word-meaning dimension, of the whole debate is also frightening. A question was asked at the meeting along the lines of 'what about incest?'. The response was one that ridiculed a valid question. On what moral grounds, once you have redefined marriage from its constant core, can you still assert that, for example, a gay father and gay son cannot get married? Peter Ould makes this, and a number of other excellent points in posts beginning with his 'Questions for the Same-Sex Marriage Debate'. A second observation comes regarding definition. I will let my friends observation in an email suffice here;

"The young lesbian lady who made such a passionate plea about wanting to get married seemed to be the saddest case of all. When she thinks of "marriage" at the moment" her brain pulls in all the attributes that are attached to the concept perhaps better recognised as "heterosexual marriage". Once the meaning of the word is changed it no longer has all those attributes. In the act of generalising the term "marriage" to include additional categories, she loses the very concept she desires"

Valid point.

This touches on one of the key issues in the debate. What the Bill is proposing is not equality. There will be no Civil Partnerships for Heterosexual couples. There is no definition of consummation  adultery and similar for same-sex couples. What will be created will not be 'equal marriage', or even 'gay-marriage', but instead gender-neutral-marriage, with all the attendant problems that will bring. The Bill fails on even its own definition of equality! Equality, in its true sense, is much bigger and better than this Bill proposes. Because Equality on its own is not enough. As an over-riding principle it is insufficient, and as a one-size fits all approach  it is inadequate. It fails to recognise the constant tension and unity of humanity. I explored what this means in my post 'True Equality', which I'd recommend you read.

Finally, I want to come in to close by a brief discussion of the use, constant and unceasing in this poorly-held debate (I refer here to the national debate!) on marriage, of 'homophobic'. This word has a broadly subjective definition, and ranges from the obvious 'fear of homosexuality' to the commonly used 'against homosexual equality'. Many Christians throughout the years have run the full gamut of Homophobia, and I believe Al Mohler's challenge to the Church on this issue is prophetic. This word is often used to close down a discussion. In a liberal democracy, that is unaccessible. I don't personally want to cross the rubicon and invent the word 'heterophobic', I would rather partake in public discourse that went beyond name-calling and soundbites. 

Wouldn't you?

I close by merely stating what I have been saying throughout this debate. The Church needs to do a better job of relating to culture in general, and the LGBT Community in particular. I'm working on what is rapidly becoming a book on that topic. The Government has rushed this process, and has ended up with flawed and unequal (by any standards) legislation that is not fit for purpose. The mood of the people is not clear, Stonewall can be wrong, and the numbers just don't add up. Gay marriage needs to be at the very least better thought through, and ideally in mind not legalised, not out of some anti-LGBT mentality, but because there are better things to do, and it would not represent a recognisable extension of marriage.

I hope this post has made sense. I realise it has been long. And probably rambling. And definitely trying to do too many things. But I hope that we can dialogue on this issue. Respectfully. I apologise if I offend. But I honestly think that speaking out on this issue is necessary. Even as it links to a wider Crisis of Human-Hood. I'd encourage you to read my post 'Christianity and Homosexuality: A New Approach", to understand some of the religious background to what I'm saying. I'd also recommend Cranmer's piece dismantling exactly what is wrong with the Bill. And if you agree with me, keep letting your MP's know, and above all, if you pray, pray.

Thank-you for reading.

______________ 

If you've come across my blog for the first time, are a regular reader, or just want to stay up to date, do follow me on Twitter or 'like' my page on Facebook. It would be great to connect!


UPDATE 29/11/13 - A great new website launched today, looking at this complex issue through the perspective of individuals, theological thought, and book reviews. Endorsed by some great folks and well designed, check out Living Out!