Today the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill got royal assent and passed into law. If you want to read lots of happy articles singing this as a great triumph, I suggest you ask a search engine or elsewhere – I’m going to piss in everyones cornflakes. Though before I do that I would like to wish well to all the same sex couples for whom this is actually important. I’ll also ask those that campaigned for equality:
1) Why did you settle for inequality?
2) Why do you want the state involved at all?
Now on with the pissing. A while back I observed that this bill is not equality and now as it becomes law that hasn’t really changed. I’ve just finished reading the 61 pages of the act as it was last published and as is typical it’s not easy reading being full of amendments of the form:
“In act blah blah blah (1972) in section 299 part 72 after “this” insert “that””
In this day and age there must be a better way to do this, though I suppose the lawyers have to keep earning a crust somehow. Also I would suggest that saying that marriage between couples of the same sex was equal to marriage of opposite sex couples wouldn’t take that long either, if it was actual equality. Then I guess that’s why this is the “Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill” and not the “Marriage Equality bill”.
Just to get one of my biggest gripes out of the way first, civil partnerships are still only an option for same sex couples, so two options for the same sex couples – which as I said last time isn’t equality. Really would it have hurt anyone to give that option to opposite sex couples.
Again as I said before the new “same sex marriage” doesn’t consider adultery grounds for divorce (p 30, Part 3, 3 (2))
“(6) Only conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of this section”
So again as I said before looks like our lords and masters don’t think same sex couples can keep their pants on and shouldn’t be held to the same standards as opposite sex couples. I think same sex couples are also still let off the hook for the whole consumption of the marriage thing (why are we keeping that for opposite sex couples?), but I’m not sure as it’s an amendment bit, basically in grounds for annulment (p 30, part 3, 4 (3)):
“(2) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) do not apply to the marriage of a same sex couple.”
So this is still not the same class of marriage as for opposite sex couples, and it’s really not clear how those differences will be handled in the case of marriages involving one or more transgender people.
This is such an act of equality that the marriage won’t even be valid through out the entirety of the united kingdom, cross the border into Scotland or Northern Ireland and your lovely same sex marriage magically becomes a civil partnership. Which makes me wonder two things:
1) How is that going to play out with the whole Scottish independence thing:
“Vote for an independent Scotland if you think marriage should only be between a man and woman”
2) How well does it bode for these marriages being recognized internationally ?
Let me expand that last point, Scotland and Northern Ireland are as far as I’m aware signatories to the Hague Convention, so if they don’t recognize these English/Welsh marriages what chance is there of them being recognised in less friendly lands. Just picture it:
Foreign diplomat to British ambassador: “Yes Ambassador, I realise they have a document that says they’re married but that’s not even recognised within all of your country and you expect us to recognise it here?”
Really it’s not going to go well is it, but that I guess is devolved politics for you.
Another bit of inequality now further enshrined in law is way down on page 59(37) an amendment to the “Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008”. There we have the following ammendment and others like it:
38 (1) Section 35 (woman married at time of treatment) is amended in accordance
with this paragraph.
(2) The title: after “married” insert “to a man”.
(3) Subsection (1)(a): after “marriage” insert “with a man”.
So this is looking like equality has been really well achieved.
Finally one bit I can see which will cause all sorts of fun and games is on P58 and the amendment to the “Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)” where we have this:
“(2) In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, any discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”.
I can see some lawyers make quite a lot of money out of how that one plays out.
How the act handles the whole transgender thing seems to be a horrible mess, and I’m not going to even touch the mess it’s going to cause amongst religious groups. As you may have gathered I don’t think this achieves equality for anyone, it does entrench inequality further in modern law, and probably means all the celebs will toddle off to the next shiny cause leaving that inequality in place. It seems a shame that we’ve managed to gain not a huge amount of benefit for keeping inequality and pulling the machinations of the state into even more peoples lives.
