A plea for tolerance.
Feb. 6th, 2013 01:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksI'm a staunch atheist and a vociferous supporter of equal treatment for gays in all areas, but I do feel that the people who voted against this measure are being unfairly stigmatized in a fashion that is not suitable to anyone who claims to be socially tolerant and liberal.
If you see marriage as a religious institution rather than a legal institution, one "sanctified by god and by god alone", then you could be a strong supporter of gay rights and yet still feel unable to vote in favour of gay "marriage", because (their argument would go) they simply cannot do so because they believe the institution of marriage to be something unique to a man and a woman. That isn't homophobia (the most common accusation) or bigotry (the second-most common accusation). It's a deeply held belief (no matter how misguided from some people's point of view) based on an interpretation of the Bible.
One aspect of which Britain (in particular, I think, London) is justifiably proud is a willingness to accommodate different beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not seriously impact on other people's lives. None of the MPs who voted against gay marriage are planning to launch mass protests, or to picket gay marriage ceremonies. They are simply saying that, as a matter of conscience, vote in favour.
"Groupthink" is becoming nastily fashionable on the left -- it's a strain of politics that does not sit easily with my belief in social liberalism (perhaps even social libertarianism) and "live and let live". Not only does the law start to say how you must act; the Groupthinkers want it to say how you must think.
Sure, there may be some bigots and homophobes amongst that minority who voted against gay marraieg (OK, let's face it, there probably are), but that does not make every single one of those who voted against a bad, evil, person who should not be tolerated in the current political system. Already a significant minority of people in this country are effectively disenfranchised because their views (on race, homosexuality, immigration, whatever) are now illegal to express. Some people want to extend this to virtually everything that they don't agree with themselves.
That is the Orwellian future that one MP referred to in the debate yesterday. It's not an invalid fear. Others on the liberal left: There are people who hold views that are different from ours. We should not seek to bar them from speaking or insult them personally as "bigots" for saying things with which we disagree. That way lies fascism.
If you see marriage as a religious institution rather than a legal institution, one "sanctified by god and by god alone", then you could be a strong supporter of gay rights and yet still feel unable to vote in favour of gay "marriage", because (their argument would go) they simply cannot do so because they believe the institution of marriage to be something unique to a man and a woman. That isn't homophobia (the most common accusation) or bigotry (the second-most common accusation). It's a deeply held belief (no matter how misguided from some people's point of view) based on an interpretation of the Bible.
One aspect of which Britain (in particular, I think, London) is justifiably proud is a willingness to accommodate different beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not seriously impact on other people's lives. None of the MPs who voted against gay marriage are planning to launch mass protests, or to picket gay marriage ceremonies. They are simply saying that, as a matter of conscience, vote in favour.
"Groupthink" is becoming nastily fashionable on the left -- it's a strain of politics that does not sit easily with my belief in social liberalism (perhaps even social libertarianism) and "live and let live". Not only does the law start to say how you must act; the Groupthinkers want it to say how you must think.
Sure, there may be some bigots and homophobes amongst that minority who voted against gay marraieg (OK, let's face it, there probably are), but that does not make every single one of those who voted against a bad, evil, person who should not be tolerated in the current political system. Already a significant minority of people in this country are effectively disenfranchised because their views (on race, homosexuality, immigration, whatever) are now illegal to express. Some people want to extend this to virtually everything that they don't agree with themselves.
That is the Orwellian future that one MP referred to in the debate yesterday. It's not an invalid fear. Others on the liberal left: There are people who hold views that are different from ours. We should not seek to bar them from speaking or insult them personally as "bigots" for saying things with which we disagree. That way lies fascism.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-08 04:48 pm (UTC)When Mick Jagger got divorced from Jerry Hall his lawyers argued that the very nice Balinese religious ceremony the couple went through did not count as a legal marriage. If the majority of society wants to define marriage as a union of two people (regardless of gender), then Churches are entitled to disagree and refuse to allow people to sign the marriage register in the church. Equally, society could refuse to allow churches to be used for the signing of the marriage register, and insist that a marriage is only legal if transacted at a registry office.
Either way, if this came down to a battle between church and state, I think the state would win this one and the church would become yet further marginalised. Church weddings could be religious marriages, but, if they are not legal, more people will gradually drift away and not bother.
Niall L
no subject
Date: 2013-02-25 02:17 pm (UTC)But your argument seems to me to go back hundreds of years in England, to the time of Henry VIII, and the battle between church and state which, in the eyes of some, has never really been settled. Your key sentence is ssurely:
"Equally, society could refuse to allow churches to be used for the signing of the marriage register, and insist that a marriage is only legal if transacted at a registry office."
But could society do this at the moment? I suspect that if the secular arm tried this on then the rumbling unresolved compromise of the past 500 years would once again rear its ugly head. I could imagine a country where the secular/church battle for authority really came to a head (say Mexico between the wars, or France in the late 19th century) trying this on, but the result would be hundreds of thousands of people being married in their own eyes, and in the eyes of the church, but not in the eyes of the state. I think you can see where that would lead. As such, I don't think that it is a viable option. I don't think people would "drift away and not bother". I think it would cause a grave constitutional crisis.
PJ