Marriage Equality and Sarah Teather

The House of Commons voted 400 to 175 to approve the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading.  It means that, with a substantial majority, they approve the principal of equality in marriage.

Of course, I'm thrilled.  Finally, the love I have for my partner is not relegated to a second class entity.  It sends a message that love and its expression is not divisible into 'normal,' and 'other,' but rather a concept that is universally human.

I watched some of the debate yesterday and was heartened to see that, on the whole, the tone was respectful and measured.  But much of it centered around the notion that 'we are not bigots if we disagree with this.'  And I'm afraid, I disagree.

Bigotry always starts with ignorance.  An unjustified set of discriminatory beliefs.  We might have these beliefs for a number of reasons: a religious upbringing, inherited opinion, or an insular society.  At some point however, someone points out that your beliefs are unjustified and presents a reasoned and rational counter argument based on credible evidence.  At that point you:

a) accept that your belief system is, in fact, flawed and change it.

b) present a counter argument (that is rational, reasoned and based on credible evidence)

c) you hang on to your belief system and scream, 'Well, that's just what I believe.'

If you choose C, then you are a bigot.  Now, of course, you have the right to be a bigot (and I support your right to be a bigot), but let's at least be honest about it.

Which leads me to Sarah Teather, the Lib Dem Front Bencher who voted against equal marriage last night.  On some level this one No vote felt worse than the other 174.  I've always liked Sarah Teather and always found her reasoned and intelligent.  I was shocked when I heard she'd voted no.

On the Brent Liberal Democrats Website - http://brentlibdems.org.uk/en/  Ms Teather outlined her reasons for voting No.  To start with, there is very little substance in her statement. Much of it focuses on how difficult she found it to vote No and how long she has supported gay rights.

Ms Teather seems to have two main concerns:

1.  That removing a requirement of 'sexual difference,' from marriage will, decouple marriage from the family."

She does not go on to say why she feels this will happen, nor does she provide any evidence for this assertion - and in fact absolves herself from having to justify it by saying "I doubt that this change will be immediate. It will be gradual, as perceptions of what marriage is and is for shift."

Given the lack of explanation I can only assume that this stems from a belief that gay people, when married are not, in fact, a family like straight people are and couldn't raise a family as well as straight people.

This is pretty insulting.  It's also not based on any evidence:

Dr Charlotte Patterson of the American Psychological Association, concludes in her Study of Gay and Lesbian Parenting that: "there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

In its 2006 Position Statement - the Canadian Psychological Association is quoted with: "A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts."

2. That the proponents of the bill frame marriage as a private matter about love and commitment alone.

She says:  "Those who argue for a change in the law do so by saying that surely marriage is just about love between two people and so is of nobody else's business. Once the concept of marriage has become established in social consciousness as an entirely private matter about love and commitment alone, without any link to family, I fear that it will accelerate changes already occurring that makes family life more unstable. (I should add, that I also suspect it will make marriage ultimately seem irrelevant. After all, how long before gay people begin to say, as many straight couples of my own generation have begun to say, "if marriage is just about love, why would I need a piece of paper to prove it?")"

First of all, Ms Teather isn't saying that Gay Marriage will cause the irrelevance of marriage - she acknowledges herself that it has already started (which is, in itself, debatable).  She just says that gay marriage might speed it up.  Again, no evidence to support this, just that it might.

Secondly - she completely misses the point if she thinks this is what we are campaigning for. The cornerstone of Stonewall's "Say I Do to Marriage," is this:

"Equal marriage is the final legislative measure for equality – and will help put an end to public mockery of gay relationships. It will send a crystal clear message to the remaining opponents of equality that in 21st century Britain all people truly are equal."

This bill is about making binding public declarations of Marriage (with all its requirements), not private, whispered confessions of love.  It is about the public creation of a family.  That love and marriage, as recognized by the state, is a public rite that should be afforded to all.

There is one aspect of her reasoning, that although technically correct, also misses the point.  Teather says:

"Virtually no new protections are offered to same-sex couples on the basis of this legislation on marriage, and any that are could easily be dealt with by amending civil partnership legislation"

It's true, in a legal sense.  But this law is about declaring that gay relationships are every bit as valid as straight ones and that actively denying them the same name as you would a straight marriage devalues them.  It is about a powerful and necessary message.  One that declares that the UK believes in equality.

She forgets too that every time I fill out a form and check civil partner - I declare my sexuality.  Something that is ultimately private.  This bill should put an end to that.

Then her "justification" gets weirder...

Teather states:  "The argument in favour of same-sex marriage has mostly centred on rights. But this isn't the only liberal philosophical perspective on the legislation. The more I considered this bill the more I was unsure about the state's role. If an important reason for marriage is that it is a space for having and raising children, I can see the relevance for the state being involved in regulating it and encouraging stability for the good of society and for children's welfare. Similarly, if there is a need for protection of rights to property and rights to make decisions, there are good reasons for the state to provide regulation. But neither of these things is what this legislation is trying to do. In this case, the state is regulating love and commitment alone, between consenting adults, without purpose to anything else. That feels curious to me, as I would normally consider that very much a private matter."

Huh?? This seems to totally contradict her first points:

________

"Those who argue for a change in the law do so by saying that surely marriage is just about love between two people and so is of nobody else's business."

Vs:

"The argument in favour of same-sex marriage has mostly centred on rights."

_________

Well, which is it?  Are the arguments based on love or rights?

And this:

_________

"Once the concept of marriage has become established in social consciousness as an entirely private matter about love and commitment alone, without any link to family, I fear that it will accelerate changes already occurring that makes family life more unstable."

vs

"In this case, the state is regulating love and commitment alone, between consenting adults, without purpose to anything else. That feels curious to me, as I would normally consider that very much a private matter."

__________

I don't get it Sarah, in one paragraph you're concerned about the rationale behind this Bill being about love as a private matter - and then, in the next, state that you think love and commitment is, for  you, a very private matter?

I can't believe I'm the first person to point out to Sarah Teather that her arguments just don't hold water (I grant that it could be that I just don't understand them).  So what's going on?

I think the most telling thing about her reasoning is in the first paragraph:

"As a life-long liberal and a committed Catholic I spent many months reflecting on this issue in the lead up to the vote."

She doesn't go on to fess up that Gay Marriage is against her religion, but really that can be the only thing she's telling us - because the rest of it makes no sense.

Unfortunately religious views about sexuality can't be justified because they are based on cherry picking passages from the relevant text but ignoring similar or contradictory passages.

No one can reasonably explain why it's fine for us to uphold the Bible's teaching about homosexuality, but not slavery, misogyny, polygamy, dietary law, employment law or farming practice.  And why some religious institutions seem perfectly capable of interpreting their texts in an open and inclusive way, while others are unable to. The argument descends into, 'Well, that's just what I believe.'

And that, Sarah Teather, I'm sorry to say, makes you a bigot.