Gay Marriage and Equality

'All men are equal - to varying degrees...'

I’ve long kept my peace about the issue of gay marriage, simply because of my tendency to avoid confrontation. Recently, however, various personages have produced arguments in the public arena which are so baseless and ill-conceived that one wonders what fetid, squelching recesses of the mind these arguments were vomited from. I feel very strongly about this issue – not simply as a bisexual man (for nothing can be considered logically from a personal feeling only, though this is important), but as a Christian, a member of society, and as a human being.

Gay marriage has been a point of extreme contention in Ireland recently, as a result of the Civil Partnership Bill which was drafted in 2008, which, obviously, aims to grant same-sex couples the right to a Civil Partnership. This grants such couples the right to register their relationship\partnership legally, and allows them some of the legal rights to which heterosexual couples have been entitled for generations. It gives the people in such partnerships rights to inheritance, places them in a more favourable situation with regard to tax, and moreover, allows their love to be recognised officially.

This is indisputably a milestone not only in the history of Gay Rights, but also in the history of Western society (of which Ireland is part). Certainly, it is greatly preferable to the previous state of affairs, which placed same-sex couples in a dreadful position indeed, with no rights as a couple, save for the rights granted to each of us as a person (and, one could argue, even these were not fully applied to LGB people).

This, some argue (including Brenda Power, a columnist with the Sunday Times), should suffice – and that asking for more is unappreciative, it is insolence. Effectively, this considers LGB people as spoilt children who fail to appreciate what they’re given – presumably, we’re still recovering from the unimaginable high of being allowed to publicly engage in same-sex relationships sixteen years ago. This has made us ungrateful, it has spoilt us, and we ought to be thankful for what we have received.

I have come to the conclusion recently that this bill was drafted not out of an overwhelming desire to grant equality to a group of people who had formerly been denied such equal standing - but rather, out of a need to grant some sort of appeasement. Effectively, this bill is a stop-gap measure to silence the nagging of various LGB equality groups such as GLEN (Gay and Lesbian Equality Network). Yes, it grants rights to same-sex couples and that is undoubtedly and incontestably welcome – however, it has been granted decidedly grudgingly, and moreover, it may even serve to reinforce the ‘those-weird-people’ attitude which is so lamentably prevalent.

Is it therefore any wonder that the majority of the gay community in Ireland have received the bill with such disfavour? Given the attitude which is being so vocally espoused by Brenda Power and her ilk (namely, that we should count our blessings for having received any equality at all), it is unsurprising.

There are two main points of contention which the gay community have with this bill. The first is that it is not marriage, and this is definitely the case. It is Civil Partnership, which is a step below marriage – it is unashamedly unequal to marriage, and no attempt has been made to cloak this in any way. True, it is a step above no equality at all – but how are we expected to be content with partial equality? It is amazing that, on the threshold of the twenty-first century’s second decade, such an attitude can be so staggeringly prevalent. Moreover, in a society and in a country that prides itself on the application of Human Rights, it is quite frankly astonishing that such a half-step is so welcomed – and acknowledged as somehow being the ultimate step.

The second point is that it does not grant the right to adopt. That is true, but not only does it not grant the right to adopt, it does not even grant the merest possibility of even being considered in the adoption process. Perhaps I am blinded by my own condition, but I fail to see any reason why two balanced people in a loving, committed relationship cannot provide a suitable home for a child simply because of the sexual nature of their relationship – namely, that their genders are the same. This is a result of this ridiculous notion of gender-roles which has still grasped the minds of the general populace. In other words, all women are disposed in such-and-such a manner and approach things in such-and-such a way, and all men are similarly disposed in such-and-such a manner and therefore approach things in such-and-such a way. This is an utter fallacy, and has been demonstrated as such by the most recent gender studies. As people are all unique and different, not all men are the same, and not all women are the same. Some men approach things in a more traditionally ‘feminine’ way (emotionally and intuitively) and others approach things in a more conventionally ‘masculine’ way (systematically and logically). The same is true of women. The parties of gay couples can, therefore, not be considered as inherently too similar to one another to raise children properly.

Here, Miss Power proposes the argument that placing children in same-sex households makes them ‘different’ because their adoptive parents are similarly ‘different’. Supposedly, gay couples are inherently ‘different’ and do not fit into society – presumably, as a result of their sexual orientation (which point she is reluctant to draw to its logical conclusion). One wonders here whether she has considered that the reason why LGBT people don’t fit into society is precisely because that very same society refuses to allow them to fit in! And it is utterly intolerable for society to deny LGB people rights on the basis of a truth that they themselves serve as originators to! And to argue a case based on this self-sustaining pseudo-fact is unspeakably, insidiously vacuous!

Naturally, these two things have been picked up on by the gay community, and have caused considerable upset, anger and outrage. To be considered strange because of one’s orientation and unfit to love and nurture children because of that same ‘difference’ is ridiculous. Miss Power’s argument that this whole business is not about the ‘rights of gays’, but rather about the protection of children is baseless. There is no inherent reason that, given a chance by society, a same-sex couple cannot provide a loving home for a child, in which his or her cognitive and emotional development is stimulated in the proper way, in a like manner to how the best of opposite-sex couples do this. It is the ultimate in ignorance to suggest that, by virtue of the gender-disposition of same-sex couples, this is impossible.

However, the main point I intended to discuss here was marriage – adoption of children is an entirely different argument. What LGB people are seeking is the right to marry. Yes, as Miss Power says, Civil Partnership does grant the right to nominate next-of-kin, and all the rest of that, but that isn’t the fundamental point of marriage. That point and purpose is to make a declaration of eternal, undying love for one’s partner – a gesture of commitment, fidelity and affection which is the most beautiful symbol ever devised. Civil Partnership is not that – it is recognition of what already exists. This legislative Eureka-moment may be wonderful in a legal sense, but for a hopeless romantic like me, it lacks the beauty and the passion of marriage, which is a selfless act of love. To suggest that LGB people are somehow incapable of that, undeserving of it, or otherwise unworthy of it is the greatest act of bigotry imaginable. For Brenda Power and her like to tell us that our supposed lifestyle-choice is to blame for the inequality we suffer is unconscionable (how can a straight person make pronouncements on the disposition of a lesbian, gay or bisexual person).

And for us - not just in the gay community, but all of us as society members, whether straight, gay, bisexual, lesbian or transgender – to accept these attitudes is not right. We need to make a stand as human beings, we need to tell these official types, these people in the media and other vessels of public opinion that we will not stand to see those with whom we share our fundamental humanity disadvantaged and discriminated against because of a component of that humanity. Whether we share our sexuality or our religion is irrelevant – we are all human. And do not all humans deserve the right to be given an equal standing – the same opportunities and the same rights? To say otherwise is to prove right the old cliché – that some are created more equal than others.

Perhaps I should end this as I begun it, with a quote. Sir Winston Churchill once said the following: ‘I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.’ One wonders whether pigs discriminate on the basis of gender or sexuality – however, I think the answer can be guessed rather readily.