UK Marriage: A Flawed Consultation?

I've spent some time filling in the Government's "Equal Civil Marriage Consultation" this morning - and apart from the (in my mind) obvious flaw in the proposal, the Consultation itself seems to be somewhat flawed. Putting aside the need or otherwise to redefine marriage in this way - from the way it has essentially always been understood - the petition seems to reflect a Britain very foreign to that which I, or those I would come into contact with, would know. From the outset the views of everyone are welcomed - which is ideal - but it is clear that certain views are more valid. The initial questions relate to your orientation, religion, and other personal questions - how is this relevant? Surely a poll of public opinion should be conducted as simply as possible, with the least amount of selection? I think that I am not alone in assuming that the responses of a white, male, Christian heterosexual are are not intrinsically less valuable, simply due to the fact that they are the views of a white, male, Christian heterosexual. That's my opinion - lets hope that the Government, and the Home Office in particular, is more reasonable than we give them credit for!


I claim that this consultation is flawed - how so, I hear you cry. Well to me its clear. First off, the entire survey is based on the ability to be dishonest - I could claim that I'd prefer not to state my age, gender, gender identity, marital status, religion - which, if everyone did it, would result in an infuriatingly bland set of data - but is how the data, and each individual person's response, should be taken. All votes are equal, or at least they should be in an alleged liberal democracy - be the voter be Gay or Straight, Religious of Atheist, Male or Female, etc. The notion that I have to respond to some questions - presumably in there as a filter (Because having opinions about marriage is now not allowed) - is offensive, and to my mind pointless. Surely the consultation could have been anonymous, non-demographic-specific, and quicker?


The second thing I take issue with - and I don't want to cause offence, but it seems bizarre to me - is the notion that gender and gender identity are distinct. Gender - and sexuality for that matter - is an immense, complex and fascinating area of study and identity - but there is also an undeniable biological element. The question that I found bizarre (Though I'm sure relevant to those who struggle with gender identity issues) was "is your gender identity the same as the gender you were assigned at birth?". The language boggles the mind. Whilst I am aware of the differences between sex and gender, and the issues surrounding identity as a result of that, I have yet to meet a single individual who claims they were assigned a gender - and I've never heard a proud mother or father proclaim the successful assignation of a gender to their child. The basic biological fact is, there are males and females. There are of course people born with alternative layouts, and of course those who will struggle their entire lives with their gender identity due to either a physical or mental 'thing', but the basic truth, the basic fact, is that there is male, and there is female. This distinctiveness is crucial for humanity. I've blogged on this before. Gender is obviously a complex issue - with sex being definitively assigned, and gender being vulnerable to a variety of influences.


It is interesting that the Consultation directly speaks and asks about the issue of Religious marriage. There is one question in the entire consultation about this. I am glad that the Government intends that no-one should be discriminated against - but I am wary of the language of  "no-one should face successful legal action for hate speech or discrimination if they preach their belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman". What about non-successful legal action? I would hope for a clearer, more set in stone attitude from the Government to protect freedom of speech.


Fundamentally, on the issue of freedom of speech, I would argue that its irrelevant that the Government will 'be clear' on liberty. We are in the same situation as at the legalising of Civil Partnerships - when it was claimed that marriage would be left well alone. Of direct importance is the simple fact that Marriage as understood in UK law has always been understood in this way - one man and one woman - if that can be redefined in law, then what is to stop the definition of free speech being redefined? Given that the rights of this minority are being elevated essentially unequally in this consultation, it would not surprise me if the right of the religious to object were further ignored.


It is my hope that the consultation will be sufficient in showing the Government that it is out of touch with the majority of public opinion on this issue. I hope that the Government will listen to the public - and if the conclusion of the wider public differs from my own, then fair play! I do however hope that the UK will always remain somewhere where differing views on big issues can continue to be discussed, regardless of  who thinks what. 


In closing, I'd recommend reading this article from the BBC, and in particular watching the video from Mike Judge of the Coalition for Marriage.