Geoff Coupe's Blog

Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…

The Definition of Marriage

I see that Mick Hartley, over at his blog, has also commented on Peter Tatchell’s piece in the Guardian. Unlike me, he doesn’t find the argument compelling, and the reason boils down to "if the definition of marriage is that it is between two people of different sex, then how can it be between two people of the same sex?" Sigh. As Norman Geras points out, this is really a form of question begging.
 
Sorry to point yet again to the pragmatic Dutch, but faced with the dilemma of how to open up marriage to same sex couples, they had two choices: set up a parallel set of laws to govern the civil marriage of same-sex couples, or gasp, change the definition of civil marriage to open it up to same-sex couples. They chose the simpler and fairer way. As it says on the Ministry of Justice web site:

The registered partnership was introduced in 1998. Since then, same-sex couples can already regulate their relationship legally in a way that is in most respects equivalent to a marriage. And yet it was decided to open the institute of marriage to two women or two men. The basic tenet of equal treatment was decisive in this. For many people, marriage simply holds special value and carries a certain symbolism. People may wish to confirm a relationship in precisely this manner. And there is no reason to exclude same-sex couples from this.

That last sentence is worth re-reading: "And there is no reason to exclude same-sex couples from this". A refreshing recognition that inclusion is better than exclusion.

Categories:

3 responses to “The Definition of Marriage”

  1. Unknown Avatar
    Unknown

    I think and hope that much of this argument is really definitional, an exercise in comparative semantics or whatever. The definition of "marriage" is not in the hands of the church, the heterosexual or the gay community, or the Pope, or bus drivers in Luton. It will over the next few years mean what it will mean. The lexicographers from the OED will tell us what the common useage is. And the Church of England can make whatever decrees it likes, but it cannot alter the common useage of words.What matters is that if two adults wish to declare and celebrate a deep and permanent relationship it is clear they should be able to do so and that the same rights should apply whatever their sexual status.Soon it will, I hope be irrelevant. We all celebrated Chris Smith’s courageous declaration all those years ago. Nowadays, most people have forgotten which politicians are gay. It is and should be a total irrelevance.I hope and beleive that in the next few years, this question will also become a matter of irrelevance.My one concern as a doctor is that I have a sigificant number of unmarried patients who care for an elderly mother/father. They would now seem to be in the ludicrous situation that, to protect themselves against death duties (and in London you pay death duties on something not much bigger than a telephone box), they will have to go through the charade of some sort of marriage/declaration of civil partnership or whatever. This starts to become absurd, and rather lampoons any concept of marriage, whoever it may be bewteen.I guess it will sort itself out in time.

    Reply
  2. Geoff Avatar
    Geoff

    Yes, Dr. C., I agree with you that it should all become irrelevant, but I think it’s going to take time, and will never be totally accepted by everybody. Re death duties – I agree that it’s a scandal for family members who are not connected by marriage. Once again, the pragmatic Dutch seem to have got there first. In January 2002 they introduced the concept of "Fiscal Partners" – designed precisely to lessen the death duties burden in cases such as those you mention.

    Reply
  3. Unknown Avatar
    Unknown

    Yep. I sometimes wonder why we don’t all live in Holland. Such a low profile country for some reason and yet such incredible tolerance. The way that young children are introduced to sex education/contraception an a very early age is a role model to all of us – and leads to a lower abortion rate, higher age of marriage etc etc and is so much healthier. We were trying to persuade the headmistress of a local girls shcool to let the health visitors go in to talk to the 11 year olds about contracepion and chlamydia – she would not hear of it, not becuase she was against it (she wasn’t) but because the parents objected. Girls should not learn about chlamydia and "that sort of stuff" until they are at least 16.Well, I suppose you needn’t know about anything until you have got it!! Give me strenght!!Wouldn’t happen in Holland.

    Reply

Leave a comment

More posts