On Sunday 500,000 Parisians marched to protest against gay marriage. Both of us in the band disagree with them – we think that gay marriage should be legally recognised as being perfectly legitimate.
Setting our opinion aside, what baffles me is how the two camps in the debate have refused to seek a compromise. On one side we have those who think gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. They correctly point out that 'marriage' derives from religion. They claim that it is a religious term, and as such its domain is dictated by scripture, or by some other source of religious authority. According to these people, religious authority restricts marriage to heterosexual couples.
On the other side we have those who believe that such restriction of marriage involves unfair discrimination against homosexual couples. In a progressive and tolerant society (as we like to believe ours is), such discrimination is out of place. It is unfair that homosexual couples are limited to having 'civil partnerships', whilst heterosexual couples can be married.
What about trying to find a solution that appeases both camps? Here is an idea (inspired by a comment I read in 'The Independent'). Why not make civil partnership the norm? This is the world I envisage:
- When a heterosexual or homosexual couple decide they want their long-term commitment to each other legally recognised, they can register as being involved in a 'civil partnership'. They cannot, however, be legally married. Marriage becomes a purely religious ceremony. Neither type of relationship suffers discrimination from the state this way.
- If a couple decide that they want to be 'married' as well, then they can go to their chosen religious institution and ask for the appropriate religious ceremony to take place. Marriage takes place solely within the confines of religion and has no legal consequences. If a particular religion decides not to allow homosexual marriage then that is their choice.
Under this model, no state can be seen to discriminate against same-sex marriage, such discrimination is confined to religion. And we can reject and ridicule any religious institution that is so backward as to recognise a moral difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
My overall thought is that compromise is a key part of democratic institutions, we should not forget that!
It would be awesome to hear your thoughts, do get in touch! And check out my song of the week: 'I don't know what I can save you from' by Kings of Convenience :)
Vedantha
No comments:
Post a Comment