The issue here is not whether or not it is right to legalize same-sex marriage. I happen to think it is. Many believers, and some secularists, disagree. The issue, rather, is whether legalizing gay marriage would in itself amount to an attack on religious freedom, and would inevitably lead to the persecution of believers, and of Catholics in particular. Unless it is wrong for a society to enact laws that are contrary to the beliefs or practices of certain religions, then it cannot be wrong in principle for society to legalize gay marriage, nor can such legislation be in principle contrary to the demands of religious freedom. Indeed, it is only because there exists a distinction between what a religion requires or forbids and what a society permits or proscribes that the issue of religious freedom is important. If there were no such distinction, then there would be no need to defend freedom of religion.
The claim that legalizing gay marriage undermines freedom of religion has it back to front.  Legalizing gay marriage in reality extends freedom of religion. While most faiths oppose gay marriage, some support it and would like to consecrate same-sex unions. They are, however, forbidden from doing so by the law. Adherents of such faiths are, in other words, legally prohibited from following their conscience.  In permitting such congregations formally to bless same-sex unions, any law legalizing gay marriage would extend freedom of religion. The question that critics like Cristina Odone have to answer is not simply: `Why should your beliefs be so privileged that the fact that you hold a particular view of marriage be sufficient to prevent others from acting upon their different beliefs and legalizing same-sex marriage?'. It is also: `Why should your religious beliefs be so privileged as to take precedence over the religious beliefs of others who happen to hold different views to your own?' And: `In
In any case, what is the alternative? Odone and the Catholic priests are in effect arguing that the possibility of religious freedoms being trampled upon in the future should be reason definitely to trample upon the freedom of gays to marry today. How can this possibly be a morally or politically acceptable argument? If legislation for gay marriage does lead to unacceptable infringements upon religious freedom, then we - secular and religious - should contest any such infringements. But the fact that injustice may be done to believers in the future is no reason to prevent justice being done to gays and lesbians today. (I recognize that many believers do not see legalizing same-sex marriage as enabling justice to be done to gays and lesbians; that, however, is a different debate.) Certain injustice to X today is hardly a good remedy for possible injustice to Y tomorrow.
What of the claim, made by the Catholic clerics in their letter to the Daily Telegraph, that `Legislation for same sex marriage, should it be enacted, will have many legal consequences, severely restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship'?
The quote by the Catholic clerics correctly defines the historical and social institution of marriage in western society. It is a social or religious ceremony that has to be completed by a procreative, sexual act. Marriage has traditionally, and still is legally in most western societies, to be consummated to become legally recognised. You infer disagreement with this in your article and in your support to `the right' to same sex marriage, but you have not defined what you mean by marriage that is different from the clerics. If like many, you do not believe in the necessity to consummate marriage, then it becomes a social and civil ceremony (a civil partnership), not an institution for the creation of the next generation. The institution of marriage would then be very different for everyone from its historical and social context and we should all have the widest of debates. If you believe marriage must be consummated, you must define what consummation of a same sex marriage would be and let the
working party of civil servants know, who have been asked to wrestle with this dilemma! Put another way, how do you consummate a same sex marriage so that same sex partners may take part in the procreative nature of marriage? Yet the `right' to same sex marriage only differs materially from civil partnership in that formal marriage includes its consummation. If you do not believe in consummation then it must be a false `right'. Therefore, please define the consummation of same sex marriage.
laws)? At the same time gay and lesbian couples can have children through a variety of means, from IVF to surrogacy to adoption. Are you suggesting that only couples who have children through heterosexual sex should be considered married? So, yes, if we were not to fetishise the physical act of heterosexual sex so much, we could both `define the consummation of same sex marriage' in a way that makes sense to the modern world and take a more rational view of marriage, again in a way that acknowledges that we live in the 21st century.
In the abstract and as you say, "we could both `define the consummation of same sex marriage'...and take a more rational view of marriage". The context, however, for the current debate is that the U.S., UK and French governments have acted to change fundamentally the social institution of marriage without defining the consummation of same sex marriage, nor taking a rational view of it, rather launching an attack on our most intimate of relationships, under the banner of `equality'. It is a state led and imposed, legalistic change to an institution that should and always has changed in a very social way, as a summation of everyone's private and intimate behaviours. Support for the legalisation of same sex marriage, therefore, is a call for the state to interfere and regulate personal relations. It gives the state moral authority over us and political elites more power to dictate our behaviour, as well as providing a useful distraction from pressing economic and social woes. This is why it is
1. You asked me in your original comment to `please define the consummation of same sex marriage'. I did so. Now you argue that my definition is `abstract' because the `US, UK and French governments have acted to change fundamentally the social institution of marriage without defining the consummation of same sex marriage, nor taking a rational view of it'. Well, I'm sorry, I don't speak for the US, UK and French governments, nor do I need to in order to answer the question that you asked. As it happens, I disagree on many points with government policy on this issue, and with the law that is being proposed in Britain. But that is irrelevant either to the question that you raised or to the question of whether gay marriage should be legalized. If you want to challenge my answer, do so. But don't suggest that it is unsatisfactory because the UK government gives a different answer.
2. You say that `Support for the legalisation of same sex marriage, therefore, is a call for the state to interfere and regulate personal relations'. This again seems to me strange reasoning. Allowing gays and lesbians to get married is `state interference in personal relations', but the state forbidding gays and lesbians from getting married, and forbidding churches that wish to marry same sex couples from doing so, is not interference? How do you work that out?
4 You write that `It is a state led and imposed legalistic change to an institution that should and always has changed in a very social way, as a summation of everyone's private and intimate behaviours'. First, that is an odd reading of how the institution of marriage has changed through history; such changes have occurred largely through the changing needs and desires of the elites, political and religious. In any case, what we are debating here is state policy and laws that prohibit gay marriage; inevitably, therefore, what we are talking about are changes in the law and in the policies of the state. If what you mean is that there is no great social pressure on the state to allow same-sex marriage, or that there is no mass movement pushing for this, I agree with you. But that is a different issue from the question of whether same sex-marriage should be supported or opposed.
2. Western governments are still forbidding gays from most religious marriage. The `rights' they are proposing for gay marriage over civil partnerships amount to consummation, annulment and adultery, for they are the only substantive differences between them. If the call for same-sex marriage is not to be an attack on religious marriage and freedom, then it should be restricted to these differences and a name change from civil partnership to marriage. But the framework proposed by many goes much further than this. Hence the hysterical reaction of Catholic clerics.
3. The call for same-sex marriage gives the state the moral authority to define, shape and direct our most intimate of relationships. The UK government makes clear that it is seeking a legal definition of marriage, where none previously existed in statute. The state has never prescribed by law what constitutes marriage, nor should it now, nor in the future. Civil law over the centuries has set boundaries to marriage, forbidding a whole range of people from getting married, but that is very different from a statutory prescription.
4. Yes, there is no great social pressure for same-sex marriage. Let's face it, who is likely to get worked up about a right to consummation, annulment and adultery. I am one of what you say are `some secularists' who oppose the call for it. How do you know we are so few, without asking the question and raising the debate?
As a secularist lover of freedom, faced with narrow political elites in the U.S., Britain and France who are threatening to define new statutes and regulations for marriage, where none currently exist, I want the state to butt out and keep out of marriage! I don't accept the moral authority of these elites and states to regulate and prescribe how everyone behaves in our most personal and intimate of relationships. I have avoided your question as to which form of state interference I would support, permitting or banning same-sex marriage, because it asks me to support the state's right to interfere, which I reject utterly. This is absolutely necessary in the interest of individual and religious freedom.
Your demand for legalisation of same-sex marriage cannot presently be distinguished from state proposals for the same. Your insistence that the demand for same-sex marriage should be supported in the context of specific proposals from governments that purportedly meet this demand, which you claim are irrelevant, is recognising the moral authority of the state to interfere in marriage and so all our personal behaviours. This recognition compromises and sacrifices our freedoms, including religious freedom.
I pointed out that the Catholic clerics correctly defined the historical and social institution of marriage. This doesn't equate to support for their beliefs or moral rectitude. The Christian view of marriage has held sway in western societies for many centuries. That is factual history, which is always a good place to start an argument. This happens to include tricky issues like consummation, non-consummation, annulment and adultery. I know they are tricky as they are exercising the minds of many government lawyers at the moment. It seems to me they would very much appreciate your opinions that legalising same-sex marriage is irrelevant to the protection of freedoms, religious included. With your support, they will prescribe and proscribe marriage, and so our behaviours and freedoms, unopposed. In the current context, there is an indivisible link between the call for legalising same-sex marriage and the potential for attacks on religious freedom. If I were a Catholic cleric, I would be worried,
Western states have made the call to legalise same-sex marriage an issue that crystallises where each of us stands in relation to the state and freedom. It is, therefore, a defining issue of the day that determines whether you stand with the state, or with people.
I think we agree that marriage in western societies, as traditionally described by the Catholic clerics, now referred to as `religious marriage', including the full range of behaviours of our most intense of relationships, namely consummation (in the form of sex), annulment, adultery (and so divorce), is what historically has defined marriage. At both individual and social levels, marriage is inherently exclusive. Laws have developed, although surprisingly few, over the centuries to set boundaries to marriage to exclude many people and groups, including third parties, children, bigamists, those incapable of making a free decision and people of the same sex. UK and other governments now seek to impose a statutory definition of marriage, where none currently exists, under the banner of same-sex marriage.
You believe gay people should not be banned, so support the call, as a principled demand, separate from Government. You believe that the legalisation of same-sex marriage, on the basis that gays are banned from marriage, is irrelevant to religious freedom, so the reaction of Catholic clerics is hysterical and should not be used to impose on others, especially gay people wanting to marry. I still see your argument as indistinguishable from that of the political establishment, such as ex-police minister, Nick Herbert MP, founder of Freedom to Marry http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21181273 and Maria Miller, Culture Secretary http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21178387. In the context of western states seeking to impose a definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, your `principled demand' can only be seen as support for the Government's proposals. Any distinction you try to make can only be semantics, not principle.
I pointed to consummation as being part of the procreative potential of historical marriage and you kindly offered a definition in which consummation in same-sex marriage is about having children and that we could define it in a way that `acknowledges we live in the 21st Century', which is what today's published proposals attempt to do. However, although concerned about the contents of these proposals, what scares me much more is the wide recognition, including yours, that the Government has the moral authority to define and so direct our marriage behaviour. I neither call on the state to ban gays from marriage, nor to change it to include same-sex marriage. It is a false question and the choice of charlatans and government ministers. Governments have never before defined marriage, leaving it to a small body of case law to curb unacceptable marriage behaviours. Let people, through their beliefs and behaviours define what is socially acceptable marriage, as we always have done. The very act of
1. In pt 1 you claim that what I `say and promise is almost indistinguishable' from that of `western governments'. In pt 2 you claim that `Western governments are still forbidding gays from most religious marriage' (I assume you are referring here to government proposals for same-sex marriage). Given that a central part of my argument is the insistence that governments should not forbid churches from marrying same-sex couples if they so wish, are you not with pt 2 demolishing your own claim in pt 1?
You began by questioning my support for the legalization of same-sex marriage, suggested that the Catholic view of marriage is correct, and claimed that
the `right' to same sex marriage only differs materially from civil partnership in that formal marriage includes its consummation. If you do not believe in consummation then it must be a false `right'. Therefore, please define the consummation of same sex marriage.
I did provide such a definition. At which point you changed tack and claimed that my answer was unsatisfactory because `the US, UK and French governments' have proposed laws `without defining the consummation of same sex marriage, nor taking a rational view of it' (again undermining your claim that my argument `is almost indistinguishable' from that of `western governments'). I don't disagree with your point about the problems with the government's proposals, and it is an important debate, but it is also irrelevant to the issue that you first raised.
Be that as it may, I have already shown that the particularly proposals put forward by a government are irrelevant to the insistence that same-sex marriages should as a demand be supported. To take a different example, I disagree with both the current law on abortion and the 1967 Act as being too restrictive; that doesn't mean that I do not, or should not, support the case for abortion; similarly with divorce.
As for the demands of others undermining religious freedom, I argued in my post that `there may well be grounds for such fears'. And, I wrote that `If it turns out that Catholics, or anyone else, are prevented from teaching what they consider to be the `truth', either in public or within their own institutions or places of worship, such restraints should be robustly challenged, not just by religious believers but by all those who believe in free expression and freedom of conscience.' But, I added, `the remedy for possible injustice to one group in the future cannot be the insistence on injustice to another group today.' In other words, it is quite possible, and rational, both to defend the idea of same-sex marriage and to oppose any attempts to use this as a means of infringing legitimate religious freedoms.
In any case, Catholics like Cristina Odone are not simply challenging government proposals, nor even `the framework proposed by many goes much further than this' but rather the very idea of same-sex marriage which they claim in itself undermines religious freedom. That is what I was objecting to.
Finally, you have avoided the question I raised in my previous response: Why are you worried about state interference in permitting same-sex marriage but not state interference in banning same-sex marriage?
`I have avoided your question as to which form of state interference I would support, permitting or banning same-sex marriage, because it asks me to support the state's right to interfere, which I reject utterly. This is absolutely necessary in the interest of individual and religious freedom.'
My point is that in banning gay marriage, and in banning churches from performing such marriages even if they wish to do so, the state already is interfering. To support the idea of same-sex marriage, and to support the right of churches to act upon their conscience, is to oppose that interference. In any case would you in 1967 have opposed the right to divorce on the grounds that the state was seeking to interfere by enacting a law to reform the process?
'Your demand for legalisation of same-sex marriage cannot presently be distinguished from state proposals for the same.'
It seems to me they would very much appreciate your opinions that legalising same-sex marriage is irrelevant to the protection of freedoms, religious included. With your support, they will prescribe and proscribe marriage, and so our behaviours and freedoms, unopposed.
In the current context, there is an indivisible link between the call for legalising same-sex marriage and the potential for attacks on religious freedom.
`You believe that the legalisation of same-sex marriage, on the basis that gays are banned from marriage, is irrelevant to religious freedom, so the reaction of Catholic clerics is hysterical and should not be used to impose on others, especially gay people wanting to marry.'
What of the claim, made by the Catholic clerics in their letter to the Daily Telegraph, that `Legislation for same sex marriage, should it be enacted, will have many legal consequences, severely restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship'? Given that we live in an age in which the claim that certain speech is `offensive' is used all too often to impose censorship, and in which there is increasing intolerance of those whose speech does not conform to liberal norms, there may well be grounds for such fears. If it turns out that Catholics, or anyone else, are prevented from teaching what they consider to be the `truth', either in public or within their own institutions or places of worship, such restraints should be robustly challenged, not just by religious believers but by all those who believe in free expression and freedom of conscience.
'I neither call on the state to ban gays from marriage, nor to change it to include same-sex marriage.
Catholics have already been harmed in places where same-sex `marriage' was made legal; Catholic adoption agencies have been shut down because they would not adopt out to a same-sex couple. Catholic priests can lose the state right to marry if they do not agree to marry a same-sex couple. Individual Catholics can be put out of business by law suit if they refuse to service same-sex marriage related events, such as wedding receptions. Once something is enshrined in law as a `right', anyone objecting can be damaged by the fallout.
Are you suggesting that nothing should be enshrined as a right in law? Or that nothing should be enshrined as a right that is contrary to Catholic teaching? Do you, for instance, think that the right to abortion and divorce, and the legalization of homosexuality, all `harm' Catholics and therefore should be scrapped? If so, what is so special about Catholic teaching that non-Catholics must also abide by its rules? If not, why are these issues so different with respect to Catholic belief compared to same-sex marriage? And why should the right of Catholics to believe and to act upon their beliefs (one right that I assume you insist upon) be the only legitimate right? Or, to pose the issue in a different way: you say that you are concerned that legalizing gay marriage harms the activities of Catholics. Why are you not equally concerned that that imposing the Catholic view of marriage upon everyone else, harms the ability of gays to get married?
Would it be acceptable for a gay teacher to exclude Catholic students from his class because he doesn't approve of their opinions about same-sex marriage or contraception?
What do you think of this: `Maria Miller, Secretary of Culture and Great Britain's equalities minister, recently stated that teachers and the Church of England will not be put in a compromising position due to the same-sex marriage bill.
Miller told BBC Radio Four's "Today" program that teachers will be able to tell their students that different religions have different beliefs when it comes to same-sex marriage, but they still must teach same-sex marriage in a "balanced way," regardless of their beliefs' - taken from http://wwrn.org/articles/38974/
And if the point about abortion, contraception, homosexuality and divorce are all legal in Britain is that these freedoms have been eroded for a long time now, then I would agree, but also would say that same-sex marriage puts a total seal on the Christian persecution that is upon us now; people will lose their lively hoods and I venture to say that you will not be there to spear head any effort to get justice for them.
So, I ask again: does the fact that Catholics object to same sex marriages mean that same sex marriages should continue to be barred? If you think `Yes', then you are effectively demanding a theocracy, a state in which the law is shaped to meet the demands of a particular religious group. If you think `No', then we agree. If the rights of Catholics are infringed then we must challenge that. But, as I wrote in my post, `the remedy for possible injustice to one group in the future cannot be the insistence on injustice to another group today.'