What was once a purely business transaction between two families was only later defined as a religious sacrament, writes FIONA McCANN.
‘MARRIAGE, BY definition . . .” Lately, there’s no shortage of sentences that begin thus, though its how they end that has ignited so much debate over the recently published Civil Partnership Bill.
Perhaps the problem is in defining something as semantically shifty as marriage. It is, after all, an institution that has always evolved with social change. Do those who argue against its continued evolution to include same sex couples then subscribe to the notion that the woman in every union should still honour and obey, having been transferred to her husband as chattel, her wedding ring a down-payment for services to be rendered?
The truth is that marriage has its roots in so many different cultures over so many centuries that the changes made to the word are innumerable in definition and in connotation. What was once a purely business transaction between two families was only later defined as a religious sacrament, a definition disputed by Protestant reformers. In some cultures, marriages are still arranged, while others allow for a polygamous definition of the word. Here in Ireland, monogamy and marriage may have gone hand in hand for some time now, but other changes, such as the lifting of the ban on divorce fourteen years ago, have been permitted.
The rules about who is allowed in it are also constantly changing: Consanguinity has long been considered an impediment to marriage, though you can currently marry your first cousin in Ireland, something still off limits in many states in America. Affinity, however, which once prevented the brother of the groom from marrying, say, the cousin of the bride, has been more or less scratched from the list of obstacles to wedlock.
So what’s left in this ever-changing concept of marriage by definition? As things stand now, the gender issue. Marriage, under the current Irish definition, must be between a man and a woman. Yet in several other countries, including Spain, the Netherlands, Canada and South Africa, this caveat is no longer in place. So what’s stopping us? We’ve had the predictable scrabble for the Constitution in the search for a stumbling block. But are we seriously going to allow our own Constitution, the one that also claims all citizens shall be held equal before the law, stand in the way of equality when it comes to marriage?
Under our Constitution, marriage is protected as the institution on which family is founded. And as the new Civil Partnership Bill makes clear, whatever lesbians and gay men wish to call each other when they get civilly united, the word family is not on offer. A home jointly owned by a gay or lesbian couple under the Bill will not be a recognised as a “family home”, as is that of a married couple, but a “shared home.” Mere semantics, you may argue, but after all, on such semantic niceties hang the entire case against gay marriage.
Article 41.1.1 of the Constitution “recognizes the family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
Imprescriptible rights? Remind me, if you will, why gay men and lesbians aren’t entitled to those?
Marriage gets a more specific mention in Article 41.3.1: “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.” Somehow, this attack has been interpreted as coming from same sex couples.
Family, the argument goes, means children, who as things currently stand still require a biological father and mother. Given the fact that many opposite sex couples are either unable to or choose not to procreate, it’s clear that marriage has evolved beyond offspring to encompass something that is more to do with a celebration of love and commitment.
Yet same sex couples are still denied the right to marry, even though under Irish law discrimination based on sexual orientation is explicitly forbidden. Under the new Bill, same sex couples stand to gain many long-overdue rights, including pension rights, the right to succession and the same treatment as married couples receive under the tax and social welfare codes. Opposite sex couples, of course, are entitled to the same. As well as marriage.
The differences are more than just semantic, given that the Bill makes no provision for children of a civil partnership. It’s not marriage, clearly, and when it comes to protecting the children of same sex couples, it’s still a long way from any kind of equality.
It may be hard to understand after all of this why same sex couples even want to get married. I’m guessing it’s for the same reasons many opposite sex couples do: because they want to make a commitment to each other and have it recognized by the State. Because, in the end, marriage is the only opportunity you get to choose your family and no consenting adult should be denied that right.
In the end marriage doesn’t belong to the church, the Constitution or any single, immutable definition any more than a woman belongs to a man when she weds him. The connotations of the word changed long ago and continue to change: it’s time for the State to catch up.
John Gibbons is on leave