Philip Hensher: Against gay marriage? Too late, it's already here

I don’t know a single person in a civil partnership who doesn’t refer to themselves as being married

Share
Related Topics

Opponents of gay marriage have, thus far, made much of the idea that if the Government gives legal recognition to same-sex marriages, then there is no reason why it should not go on to recognise polygamous unions. Defenders of gay marriage say, on the other hand, that the "slippery slope" argument, by which you will find yourself recognising a union between a man and two women before much longer, is nonsense.

Unfortunately, they are both wrong on this point. Polygamous marriages are already a fact in law. It is difficult, but not impossible, for more than one polygamously married spouse to enter the UK from a culture which recognises such marriages – they can't enter as spouses, but they perfectly well could through some other method. It is difficult to be sure of the exact numbers, but there may be 1,000 or fewer legally recognised polygamous marriages in the UK.

The suggestion that anybody owns marriage, and can say what it is, has been, and always shall be, dissolves on the slightest investigation like rice-paper confetti in rain. The Anglican Church spent most of the 19th century orchestrating opposition to the outrageous suggestion that if a man's wife died, he should be permitted to marry her sister – the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill was passed only in 1907. Hindu widows weren't permitted to remarry until 1856. Churches nowadays seem to be able to cope with those former assaults on the sanctity of marriage. The marriage of convenience, the dynastic marriage, the mariage blanc – all belong to particular historical circumstances which arose and which might disappear again.

My own husband's great-grandfather married polygamously – no one else in the family ever did so again, and the question would hardly arise now. When I hear permanent and universal definitions of marriage sonorously uttered on Newsnight, I think of my great-grandfather-in-law, who would hardly recognise any of them. Do they mean that his wasn't a marriage, despite what he, his wives and his whole culture thought at the time?

More to the point, a church should not dictate the nature of secular marriages at all – whether between two people of the same or of different sexes. We choose, these days, whether to let a religious authority have any say over our lives in the way that we do not choose the force of law. Why should the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, or any other church have the slightest say over who can or cannot get married, without that person's consent? Let's put it like this: if you don't like gay marriage, fine. Don't get gay married.

In recent days, opponents of the gay marriage proposal have argued that we need to have a debate about the nature of marriage. Clearly, we are having this debate, and have been having it for centuries. On this point, the debate is concluded, and the opponents of gay marriage have lost. They have also said, in chorus, that they have nothing against gay people: indeed, they think gay people are splendid, and that civil partnerships ought to be enough for them.

This claim would be more convincing if these people could indicate a single historic occasion when they have supported the award of a small fragment of civil liberties to gay people. From the Wolfenden report through the 1967 Act through the right to serve in the military to the creation of civil partnerships, churches and politicians have argued exactly the same thing: gay people don't deserve it, and they will destroy the civilisation of "normal" people. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now: not only wrong, but, in many cases, dissimulating their real attitude.

The Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, has said he hopes that the debate can be "measured and reasonable". It would be flippant, but accurate, to say that it probably will be, so long as he and his church stay out of it. Measured? His colleague in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, kicked off his contribution by comparing the introduction of gay marriage to the forcible reintroduction of slavery, and calling gay relationships "grotesque". Reasonable? His church's claim that marriage is valid only if there is a chance to produce children will have sounded shockingly medieval, not just to gay couples, but to heterosexuals wanting to marry later in life, or where medical factors rule the possibility of children out.

Like it or not, the definition of marriage has changed, in the most literal, linguistic way. I don't know a single person in a civil partnership who doesn't refer to themselves as being married and having a husband or wife. In the popular mind, marriage has extended itself since the introduction of civil partnerships in 2004. There may be some muddle along the way, but no one, in my experience, ever says anything but "When did you get married?". Against the might of the shared attitude, and, even more, against common usage in the English language, church and politicians are perfectly powerless. The same-sex marriage, in almost everybody's mind, has already happened.

And that is as it should be. Marriage is a wonderful institution. It brings great happiness to people's lives – not just for themselves, but as a result of seeing happiness in others. It takes many shapes and many forms, not all of which would have been conceivable 100 or even 50 years ago. What the opponents of same-sex marriage have missed is the shift in attitude which means that people understand that good, moral, committed lives can be lived in any number of ways; that it is up to us to discover the best path for us, and for politicians to enable our lives' progress, not to stand in their way. In 100 years' time, this will look exactly as controversial as the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act of 1856, the Deceased Wife's Sister Act, 1907.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

SQL Implementation Consultant (VB,C#, SQL, Java, Eclipse, integ

£40000 - £50000 per annum + benefits+bonus+package: Harrington Starr: SQL Impl...

SQL Technical Implementation Consultant (Java, BA, Oracle, VBA)

£45000 - £55000 per annum + Benefits + Bonus: Harrington Starr: SQL Technical ...

Head of IT (Windows, Server, VMware, SAN, Fidessa, Equities)

£85000 per annum: Harrington Starr: Head of IT (Windows, Server, VMware, SAN, ...

Lead C# Developer (.Net, nHibernate, MVC, SQL) Surrey

£55000 - £60000 per annum + Benefits + Bonus: Harrington Starr: Lead C# Develo...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

i Editor's Letter: Still all to play for at our live iDebate

Oliver Duff Oliver Duff
 

The leak of Jennifer Lawrence's nude photos isn't her fault. But try telling that to the internet's idiots

Grace Dent
Alexander Fury: The designer names to look for at fashion week this season

The big names to look for this fashion week

This week, designers begin to show their spring 2015 collections in New York
Will Self: 'I like Orwell's writing as much as the next talented mediocrity'

'I like Orwell's writing as much as the next talented mediocrity'

Will Self takes aim at Orwell's rules for writing plain English
Meet Afghanistan's middle-class paint-ballers

Meet Afghanistan's middle-class paint-ballers

Toy guns proving a popular diversion in a country flooded with the real thing
Al Pacino wows Venice

Al Pacino wows Venice

Ham among the brilliance as actor premieres two films at festival
Neil Lawson Baker interview: ‘I’ve gained so much from art. It’s only right to give something back’.

Neil Lawson Baker interview

‘I’ve gained so much from art. It’s only right to give something back’.
The other Mugabe who is lining up for the Zimbabwean presidency

The other Mugabe who is lining up for the Zimbabwean presidency

Wife of President Robert Mugabe appears to have her sights set on succeeding her husband
The model of a gadget launch: Cultivate an atmosphere of mystery and excitement to sell stuff people didn't realise they needed

The model for a gadget launch

Cultivate an atmosphere of mystery and excitement to sell stuff people didn't realise they needed
Alice Roberts: She's done pretty well, for a boffin without a beard

She's done pretty well, for a boffin without a beard

Alice Roberts talks about her new book on evolution - and why her early TV work drew flak from (mostly male) colleagues
Get well soon, Joan Rivers - an inspiration, whether she likes it or not

Get well soon, Joan Rivers

She is awful. But she's also wonderful, not in spite of but because of the fact she's forever saying appalling things, argues Ellen E Jones
Doctor Who Into the Dalek review: A classic sci-fi adventure with all the spectacle of a blockbuster

A fresh take on an old foe

Doctor Who Into the Dalek more than compensated for last week's nonsensical offering
Fashion walks away from the celebrity runway show

Fashion walks away from the celebrity runway show

As the collections start, fashion editor Alexander Fury finds video and the internet are proving more attractive
Meet the stars of TV's Wolf Hall... and it's not the cast of the Tudor trilogy

Meet the stars of TV's Wolf Hall...

... and it's not the cast of the Tudor trilogy
Weekend at the Asylum: Europe's biggest steampunk convention heads to Lincoln

Europe's biggest steampunk convention

Jake Wallis Simons discovers how Victorian ray guns and the martial art of biscuit dunking are precisely what the 21st century needs
Don't swallow the tripe – a user's guide to weasel words

Don't swallow the tripe – a user's guide to weasel words

Lying is dangerous and unnecessary. A new book explains the strategies needed to avoid it. John Rentoul on the art of 'uncommunication'
Daddy, who was Richard Attenborough? Was the beloved thespian the last of the cross-generation stars?

Daddy, who was Richard Attenborough?

The atomisation of culture means that few of those we regard as stars are universally loved any more, says DJ Taylor