We’re getting near the end! Here’s reason number eight from the “Ten Myths” leaflet.
Myth 8
The public supports it
Seven in ten people want to keep marriage as it is. Other polling which purports to show public support for gay marriage fails to tell respondents that equal rights are already available through civil partnerships. When people are told this crucial fact, most people say keep marriage as it is. MPs say their postbags have been dominated by public opposition to redefining marriage. Ordinary people want the Government to concentrate on reviving the economy and providing better public services, not meddling with marriage.
Hmmmm. Which surveys?
Related
It’s a justice issue. Would the record show that most people were non-racist and non-sexist before legislation in those areas came to force, or was there not rather some urgency in (take race) ensuring that minorities didn’t suffer from the prejudices of the majority?
And one has to laugh at the solipsism of ”normal people”. True, evangelical churches are full of young, good-looking 20 something with conservative views on sexuality. They are very far from the rule. There’s far more ‘normal’ straight people with ‘normal’ gay friends and gay colleagues than there are sodomy-denouncing placard-wavers. And note also the false dichotomy of public services v equality (!). Yeah, I’m sure the corridors of powers ring with heartfelt “well, we’d love to have gay marriage, but the trains are rubbish, and needs must!” Perhaps tackling the problem of tax avoidance would help fund marriage equality? ;)
If “equal” rights are available through civil partnership, then what’s the objection to updating marriage law to reflect the fact that gay and straight relationships are supposedly now equal in law? The fact that C4M views the absence of a tactical leading question as indicating a flaw in a survey speaks volumes about their biased approach.
Again, we are discussing a claim-right that imposes a duty on the State to support as equivalent in worth to society, not a liberty right that ensures freedom from hindrance.
The State has no duty to recognise an exchange of consent between any two people as a valid marriage. It has made a fair alternative provision through civil partnership.
So, as a justice issue, unless you insist that every restriction that could void a marriage of consenting adults is discriminatory, a particular restriction should only be lifted if by doing so, it delivers the equivalent in social worth. Homosexual relationships do not deliver anything equivalent to the social worth of heterosexual marriage.