Reform of the law about marriage is being debated and voted upon in the House of Commons today.  The debate has been going for a while, so a vote about now seems timely.   It will be between the ‘pro’ side, whose principle argument seems to be that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married if they want to, in the way that opposite-sex couple are, and the ‘anti’ side, whose principle argument seems to be that relationships and sex between two men (and by implication between two women) are forbade in religious texts and so should not be allowed to marry as this would lend credence to a sinful act.

In a democracy, this seems like a fairly ordinary debate in many ways—two groups of people debate/argue over a certain thing and whichever is the biggest group by the end, at least in parliament, wins.  It is how virtually every other decision is made in a western democracy.  But I do find myself wanting more.  What the arguments in the debate boil down to is that one side wants it because they think they should have it, and the other side thinks they should not.  Based on that you might say there is not much difference, one might easily think that any kind of objective decision was basically impossible.  It could be met with the attitude ‘Let it go to the majority, there’s no shame in that.’   I am not so sure, and for two reasons.

First is the obvious unfairness of one group of people (e.g. devout Christians) telling another group of people (gayers) how they should build their relationships.  This notion that it is not allowed according to the bible becomes preposterous with even the most superficial analysis: if the law were changed to allow pairs of men and pairs of women to get married, it would not change what Christians or other religionists do or have to do with respect to marriage.  So why should the religious argument about what is written in religious texts be relevant?  It almost makes basing marriage laws on the bible look tantamount to religious persecution.

The second argument is a bigger one.  It also goes right to the heart of our legal system.  It is an argument about equitability.

Historians tell us that the signing of Magna carta in 1215 was the first step towards an equitable legal system in England.  It was the initial move towards all people being treated equally in the eyes of the law.  Obviously we continue to make exception for those who are too young to make the decisions knowingly, or too ill or infirm to do so, but in general being 18 or 80, male or female, rich or poor, justice is the priority in decision making.  This, I think, is universally agreed as a good plan.  So, if we aspire to an equitable legal system, in which all consenting adults have equal legal value, why would we not let any two of them get married?  Despite the length of the debate, that argument does not seem to have surfaced.

I suspect marriage reform will take place, and in case my inflammatory tone has hidden it too well, I strongly support the move.  I think there are too many people who do support the move for it to be voted down and it is too much of a vote-winner not to go through.  It just seems a shame that we will probably get the right thing but for the wrong reasons.