The solution to the problem of gay marriage

Gay marriage. A contentious subject

The problem of gay marriage is easily solved

Gay or straight marriage. Keep this music

Rivers of political blood have been shed over the last several years on the issue of gay marriage and, without doubt, the bleeding on this subject will continue for many years yet. The controversy has arisen, not over religious marriages. The major religions of the world still forbid same-sex marital unions and I can see little prospect of that changing in the near future. The problem seems to be whether it should be legal for civil registrars to officiate at marriages of couples, where both the parties to the union are of the same gender. Bishops and pastors seem to be united in expressing their opposition to same-sex civil marriages. No doubt there are Imam's and Lamas and other such religious exotics getting their ecclesiastical knickers twisted into knots on the same contentious subject. Politicians on all sides of the political divide are also expressing very heated opinions on whether gay couples should be allowed the same right of civil marriage as their heterosexual counterparts.

There is of course a simple solution to the whole problem. But because politicians and theologians are more or less incapable of thinking outside their respective boxes, none of them have alighted on it yet. The perfect way to extend the same rights to gay couples as to female/male couples is to abolish civil marriage altogether. I'm not proposing that there should not be binding civil registration of relationships. I just believe the terms “marriage” and “married” should be stripped out of the legal definition for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. If people want to consider themselves informally to be married, that should be fine. Gay couples in the United Kingdom, who presently have civil partnerships, think of themselves as being in a marriage. The legal protections, given somebody in a civil partnership, are very similar to those extended to a party in a civil marriage. Equally, the dissolution of such a partnership is not too dissimilar to a divorce.

I was baptised Catholic and was brought up in that religion. I still subscribe to most of its doctrines. The Catholic doctrine on marriage is very pertinent to this issue. This doctrine was formally adopted by the church at the Council of Trent in 1566. It states that a marriage must be between a man and a woman and that it is not the legal unless it is officiated over by a priest. My religious teachers went to great lengths to teach me that marriage in a register office was not a marriage. This didn't matter whether it were a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Catholic teaching is civil marriage sinful, church marriage sinless. So why, therefore, are all these bishops trying to prevent a change in the law regarding civil marriage, when Canon law doesn't recognise its legality anyway? It makes no sense to me. I'm certain that a lot of other religions have similar requirements. They call it the sacramental nature of marriage.

I say let them keep it. Marriage can remain a religious construct. Abolish civil marriages for all couples. We can have a debate as to what term to substitute for the word “marriage”. I favour “Personal commitment ceremony” as a possible replacement.

If government adopts the course I have just outlined, it will “cut the boots from under” the religious objectors. They are trying to have it both ways at the moment. They should not be allowed to do so.