A High Court judge has attacked the Government’s gay marriage plans as the “wrong policy” and accused ministers of wasting effort on an issue that affects “0.1 per cent” of the population.
Sir Paul Coleridge, who started a charity to fight family breakdown, said that ministers should focus instead on supporting married couples…
Categories: Marriage
I can’t read the entire article since I’m not a paid subscriber to The Times, but even the few sentences I can read are annoying, though common among anti-gay marriage folks.
First, Sir Paul creates a false choice: that the government can only support legal marriage rights for gay couples OR support “families” (as if gay couples and their children are not families, I guess). I think it’s possible for a government to both grant equal legal rights to gay and lesbian citizens AND support families, whatever you conceive them to be. Does anyone doubt the capacity of government to multi-task??
Second, this notion that only a tiny minority is affected by legal same-sex marriage, and therefore their legal rights can be ignored, is highly offensive. Although Britain’s legal system differs consequentially from America’s, there still exists a principle of equal protection, regardless of how big or small your classification is. There is no legal principle that I know of, either in America or Britain, that espouses a notion of legal or civil rights based on how many people share your particular characteristic.
And the idea that this is some big government effort, for the benefit of few people is ridiculous. The only reason there is any effort at all is because people like Sir Paul are trying to stop it! If everyone agreed that it’s the right thing to do, legal same-sex marriage could be implemented in a matter of days, and effortlessly. I do love how the anti-gays reason though: “we’re going to make a big deal of this, and because of that, the government shouldn’t expend the effort to oppose us….”
Finally, quite a few people are affected when gay and lesbian citizens are not extended full citizenship rights, including the right to have a government-approved marriage:
1. Obviously, gay and lesbian couples
2. The children of gay and lesbian couples
3. The parents, siblings, and friends of gay people, who often want their gay relative or friend to be treated equally and have the same opportunity for a lifetime relationship as they have
4. Any person who believes that all citizens should be treated equally under the law, lacking a rational public purpose to do otherwise
5. Any person who does not want religious doctrine or practice to invade the sphere of secular law-making
I suspect there are other stakeholders. Taken together, this amounts to quite a bit more than the “0.1%” figure Sir Paul cites.