The Christian Mega-Thread

[mnb089mnb]

Anyone got any plans for Easter?

 

[Gladders]

Eat lots of chocolate eggs

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Eat lots of chocolate eggs

See a lot of football.

 

[SUTSS]

Worship our saviour, the Easter Bunny.

 

[Red]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

The right decision I think, but I do wonder if this guy purposely set out to provoke the business owner.

 

[silkyman]

I wonder if anyone went #hometovote to vote no...

 

[blade1889]

I wonder if anyone went #hometovote to vote no...

well they wasted a journey if they did. Well done Ireland.

 

[silkyman]

Well done indeed. Some of the 'no' campaign was fucking laughable

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eamonn.

 

[BlueBee]

Ye great stuff. I know my religious nut of a grandmother/grandfather won't be too happy over there with the result but they're old and stuck in their ways.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I've always been fairly uncomfortable with the idea of holding referendums on this sort of issue. I understand that constitutionally it might have been difficult to do it any other way, but I'm very uneasy about the idea of a majority voting on whether to extend the rights of a minority. That said, the result is a tremendous victory for equality in a nation where the Catholic Church traditionally wielded a great deal of power and influence. Nice one, Ireland.

 

[Pliny Harris]

Deeply chuffed that the people of Ireland voted the right way. Such a fast rate of progress should be an example that gives hope to LGBT folk everywhere, when most are held back in some way, and for countless numbers the only recognition is persecution. I hope this legislation spreads like wildfire.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Next we need governments to stop discriminating against unmarried couples, and get their noses out of the marriage business all together.

 

[Red]

Next we need governments to stop discriminating against unmarried couples, and get their noses out of the marriage business all together.

Yeah, they do need to stop discriminating against unmarried couples. I don't think governments should get their noses out of the marriage business altogether though. Legalising gay marriage is progressive.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I've always been fairly uncomfortable with the idea of holding referendums on this sort of issue. I understand that constitutionally it might have been difficult to do it any other way, but I'm very uneasy about the idea of a majority voting on whether to extend the rights of a minority.

I understand your point here, and even I (a strong proponent of direct democracy) tend toward thinking national referendums should be reserved for really big constitutional things like EU membership, Scottish independence and so forth. But…

Winning a referendum gives you a democratic mandate for change that simply can't be achieved through any other means. When gay marriage is achieved in the fairly standard parliamentary way – as was the case in Britain – its opponents can argue that the whole thing was a kind of lefty-liberal vanity project – a bandwagon for politicians to jump on to parade their own righteousness, when most people (including , no doubt, a fair few gay people) would rather parliament's attention was concentrated on things like the economy, education, health, welfare, etc.

Such arguments simply have no credence in Ireland. Right or wrongly, the matter was put to a direct vote. The "yes" side won convincingly. The law is going to change, and no one can argue that there isn't majority backing from the people. Such changes seem more "organic" (there has to be a better word, but I can't think of one). It's more in keeping with how representative democracy is supposed to work. And because of that, acceptance (even among those who really don't like the idea) will be quicker. That seems preferable to me.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I understand your point here, and even I (a strong proponent of direct democracy) tend toward thinking national referendums should be reserved for really big constitutional things like EU membership, Scottish independence and so forth. But…

Winning a referendum gives you a democratic mandate for change that simply can't be achieved through any other means. When gay marriage is achieved in the fairly standard parliamentary way – as was the case in Britain – its opponents can argue that the whole thing was a kind of lefty-liberal vanity project – a bandwagon for politicians to jump on to parade their own righteousness, when most people (including , no doubt, a fair few gay people) would rather parliament's attention was concentrated on things like the economy, education, health, welfare, etc.

Such arguments simply have no credence in Ireland. Right or wrongly, the matter was put to a direct vote. The "yes" side won convincingly. The law is going to change, and no one can argue that there isn't majority backing from the people. Such changes seem more "organic" (there has to be a better word, but I can't think of one). It's more in keeping with how representative democracy is supposed to work. And because of that, acceptance (even among those who really don't like the idea) will be quicker. That seems preferable to me.

Such arguments have no credence anyway so far as I'm concerned. What happened in the UK was, despite what Peter Bone, Gerald Howarth and other assorted dinosaurs on the Tory backbenches might like to think, parliamentary democracy in action. It was a piece of legislation that the government wanted to introduce and they went to great lengths to ensure that any objections (largely concerning religious institutions) were reasonably addressed. Members were afforded a free vote on the matter, a privilege they do not usually enjoy, and when permitted to vote in accordance with their conscience MPs overwhelmingly chose to endorse same-sex marriage. It didn't even meet with a great deal of opposition in the Lords where gay rights legislation has traditionally floundered. The charge that the government shouldn't have considered changing the law because there were other priorities, the notion that this was going to somehow hamper the economic recovery, is as risible as the idea that the legislation was trivial or largely unwanted. So yes, its opponents can make these arguments but it doesn't make them remotely credible. They're really rather easy to demolish. That said, I acknowledge the point you're making - It's much more difficult to portray gay marriage as an imposition if the public endorse the move in a public vote (although the Scottish referendum campaign does perhaps suggest that a referendum won't necessary put an issue to bed - it can, in certain circumstances, serve to embolden the losing side).

Ultimately, whilst I entirely understand where you're coming from, I'm still unable to see a referendum as desirable and certainly don't regard it as preferable. Perhaps I'd be more amenable to the idea if I was more detached, more dispassionate about the issue, but the idea of the gay community effectively being put on trial for a few months while the electorate decides whether they're worthy of enjoying the same rights as the rest of the population does somewhat appall me. If the state decides, as it should, that its citizens ought to have equal treatment and equal protection under the law then why not simply apply those principles? It's the best way to ensure that vulnerable minorities aren't oppressed or marginalised. After all, public support doesn't make a position any more or less valid. I accept that on a lot of social issues, including this one, an idea needs to gain enough traction before it becomes law, but if you see what way the wind's blowing I don't see why you shouldn't just legislate in the way that the UK government have done. Many of those uncomfortable with the idea will soon come round when they realise that it won't result in the IMMINENT DESTRUCTION OF CIVILISATION AS WE KNOW IT.

 

[silkyman]

There is a big difference with this sort of decision in England and Ireland, which is mainly that they are, as a whole, a more religious lot with the Catholic Church holding more power, or at least until recently. The country is going through a major swing away from religion and I read one commentator saying that as much as actually being about gay marriage and equality, it was a vote on overall trust and support of the Catholic Church as a force in Ireland.

Meanwhile

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32900426

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Such arguments have no credence anyway so far as I'm concerned.

Fine, but it's NOT ALL ABOUT YOU, darling.

More sober answer to (eventually) follow.

 

[Alty]

There is a big difference with this sort of decision in England and Ireland, which is mainly that they are, as a whole, a more religious lot with the Catholic Church holding more power

Thanks for letting us know.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^ It's surely things like this which have led to the unwashed masses deeming you a worse poster than Pleg.

 

[silkyman]

Thanks for letting us know.

??

The referendum in Ireland was being compared with the Parliamentary decision in the UK. Seemed a fair comment.

 

[Alty]

^ It's surely things like this which have led to the unwashed masses deeming you a worse poster than Pleg.

No shame in not quite matching up to the mighty Pleg.

!

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Fine, but it's NOT ALL ABOUT YOU, darling.

More sober answer to (eventually) follow.

Yes it FUCKING WELL IS, me love.

(I look forward to it)

 

[Captain Scumbag]

If the state decides, as it should, that its citizens ought to have equal treatment and equal protection under the law then why not simply apply those principles? It's the best way to ensure that vulnerable minorities aren't oppressed or marginalised. After all, public support doesn't make a position any more or less valid. I accept that on a lot of social issues, including this one, an idea needs to gain enough traction before it becomes law, but if you see what way the wind's blowing I don't see why you shouldn't just legislate in the way that the UK government have done. Many of those uncomfortable with the idea will soon come round when they realise that it won't result in the IMMINENT DESTRUCTION OF CIVILISATION AS WE KNOW IT.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, not about gay marriage but about democracy generally. I suspect we've been having this disagreement in various guises for the best part of 10 years (yikes!), and I'm not sure if it will ever be settled one way or another. For the spectators, then...

In a parliamentary democracy, it's not "the state" (which is far too broad and amorphous a term – one that could include the civil service, the judiciary, etc.) that decides to change the law; it's the legislature. Or, put in more familiar terms, it's parliament.

Now, if MPs want to amend, abolish or introduce X, that's fine. But, if one is given to thinking that parliamentary democracy ought to be representative, it's obviously better if those acting on a desire to amend, abolish or introduce X are in that position because they have been elected to it, and by people who were, at the time, fully cognisant of their desire to amend, abolish or introduce X.

The last parliament was almost entirely comprised of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs. None of them (according to my 10 minutes of half-arsed research) stood for election on a party manifesto explicitly pledging to introduce/pass a bill legalising gay marriage. The Conservatives came closest by saying they'd "consider" it in a "Contract for Equalities" supplement that was released 3 days before the election and which hardly anyone knew about. Labour and Liberal Democrats – being good "progressives" – didn't, so far as I can see, mention it in their manifestos at all.

So, whether one agrees or disagrees with the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, it's simply fact to describe it as a bill that was introduced and passed by politicians who hadn't made explicit this intention before being elected to government and/or the legislature. On this view, then, the mere introduction of the bill lacked democratic legitimacy. It was a bill that no one (even those who supported it) actually voted for.

And, yes, I know, I know… the same could be said of a great deal of legislation that goes through parliament. Those who write election manifestos do not have a crystal ball, and it’s impossible to cover everything. But gay marriage doesn’t fall into that category. You either think the legal definition of marriage should be broadened to encompass same sex relationships, or you don’t. It’s hard to think what unforeseen events or circumstances could complicate the issue.

If the wish/intention was to change the law (and it certainly was there among the three party leaders), there was no excuse for not making clear that wish/intention when standing for election. We can only speculate as to why they didn’t, but the fact they didn’t lends the whole thing a faint whiff of superciliousness and elitist contempt. Let’s not consult the grubby, backward proles on this one, chaps. It’s the right thing to do, so let’s just do it. Those who don't like it will get used to it, eventually.

My basic contention is not that this was some kind of unpardonable sin against UK democracy. Your points about how the bill was progressed are well observed. But if the comparison is between the UK way and the Irish way, the Irish way seems to me obviously preferable for the simple reason that has far greater democratic legitimacy. It is backed by a national referendum in which clear majority support for the change was expressed. The law will change because the people have said they want it to, not because a bunch of elected politicians decided, after being elected, that they ought to change it.

Unless I’ve misread, your view is roughly thus: if the government and/or parliament thinks something is right and long overdue, it should just do it. Whether or not they communicated this intention to the electorate (and gained approval for it) doesn’t matter. It’s easy to say this when the proposed change is something you approve of. As a general principle, though, I don’t think it’s a very good one. It's a conception of democracy in which the state is knows-best Nanny and the electorate is a clueless infant.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

The last parliament was almost entirely comprised of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs. None of them (according to my 10 minutes of half-arsed research) stood for election on a party manifesto explicitly pledging to introduce/pass a bill legalising gay marriage. The Conservatives came closest by saying they'd "consider" it in a "Contract for Equalities" supplement that was released 3 days before the election and which hardly anyone knew about. Labour and Liberal Democrats – being good "progressives" – didn't, so far as I can see, mention it in their manifestos at all.

So, whether one agrees or disagrees with the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, it's simply fact to describe it as a bill that was introduced and passed by politicians who hadn't made explicit this intention before being elected to government and/or the legislature. On this view, then, the mere introduction of the bill lacked democratic legitimacy. It was a bill that no one (even those who supported it) actually voted for.

Yes, it might have been nice if it featured in more manifestos but it didn't and, as you yourself admit, parliament legislates on plenty of issues that don't feature in party manifestos. Conservative party literature that was in the public domain prior to the general election said they would consider the change, Nick Clegg was on record long before the election as saying it was something he supported, Labour made it party policy after Miliband's election. That it was on the political agenda shouldn't have come as a complete surprise to anyone.

The vast majority of democratically elected parliamentary representatives endorsed it in a free vote. Is that really not enough for you (and apparently Alty)? If they feared that the majority of their constituents were opposed to the change I very much imagine that they would have voted differently. It's not as though you can't vote them out of office...

My basic contention is not that this was some kind of unpardonable sin against UK democracy. Your points about how the bill was progressed are well observed. But if the comparison is between the UK way and the Irish way, the Irish way seems to me obviously preferable for the simple reason that has far greater democratic legitimacy. It is backed by a national referendum in which clear majority support for the change was expressed. The law will change because the people have said they want it to, not because a bunch of elected politicians decided, after being elected, that they ought to change it.

Obviously preferable for whom? Not, I would argue, for the people that the legislation is designed to protect. Perhaps it's preferable for the majority, whose rights it doesn't impinge upon at all - but why ought they to determine what rights I possess? I would have more sympathy for your argument if it took into account the rather inconvenient fact that the legislation really has fuck all to do with the vast majority of the population who aren't gay. It's an extension of the rights of gay people, it affects them and only them. It violates the rights of nobody else.

Unless I’ve misread, your view is roughly thus: if the government and/or parliament thinks something is right and long overdue, it should just do it. Whether or not they communicated this intention to the electorate (and gained approval for it) doesn’t matter. It’s easy to say this when the proposed change is something you approve of. As a general principle, though, I don’t think it’s a very good one. It's a conception of democracy in which the state is knows-best Nanny and the electorate is a clueless infant.

Yes, and I imagine it's very easy to advocate putting a civil rights issue to the popular vote when your own civil rights are not at stake.

My view is that if there is an obvious legal inequality that can be rectified then the government ought to do just that. It should extend the same legal rights and protections to all its citizens, irrespective of their sexual orientation. If a government can't guarantee the equal treatment of all its citizens, if it continues to discriminate along the line of sexual orientation, race, gender etc then I don't think democracy is functioning in quite the way it ought to (at least not for those members of society who aren't afforded an equal stake in it).

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, not about gay marriage but about democracy generally. I suspect we've been having this disagreement in various guises for the best part of 10 years (yikes!), and I'm not sure if it will ever be settled one way or another.

I suspect so. Yikes, indeed. Plus ça change, mon ami...

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^ Forgive the late reply. Busy, busy, busy...

Yes, it might have been nice if it featured in more manifestos but it didn't and, as you yourself admit, parliament legislates on plenty of issues that don't feature in party manifestos.

If gay marriage was a straightforward equalities issue, there was no excuse for it not being in a manifesto – not if a party planned to address it, anyway. It's not one of those issues that is going to be suddenly forced on politicians and parliament by unforeseen events.

Obviously preferable for whom? Not, I would argue, for the people that the legislation is designed to protect. Perhaps it's preferable for the majority, whose rights it doesn't impinge upon at all - but why ought they to determine what rights I possess? I would have more sympathy for your argument if it took into account the rather inconvenient fact that the legislation really has fuck all to do with the vast majority of the population who aren't gay. It's an extension of the rights of gay people, it affects them and only them. It violates the rights of nobody else.

I don't see it as a narrow matter of individual preference, nor do I wish to frame it solely as an issue of competing rights. My principle concern is that we have a healthy and functioning representative parliamentary democracy; that we don't tip-toe further towards a politics in which parliament assumes the role of a moralistic parent and the electorate the role of an impulsive, dumb, untrustworthy child. You might be fairly sanguine about that as long as it produces favoured outcomes. I'm not. As suggested, that might be the root of our disagreement

And while we're here, I'm gonna take issue with your somewhat parochial insistence that gay marriage is some kind of "gays only" issue that ought not to interest or concern others. By broadening the definition of marriage to encompass same sex relationships, marriage was effectively redefined. And since the traditional concept of marriage (a heterosexual union between two people of opposite sex) was the bedrock of family life and planning for hundreds and hundreds of years, an attempted redefinition was, to borrow one of your stylistic tics, A REALLY BIG DEAL.

That's isn't to say it was wrong, of course. If you want to argue the toss over that, you'll have to find someone else. My point is simply that it was matter of profound socio-cultural significance – something that was of relevance to millions of people, irrespective of their sexual orientation, or whether their rights were likely to be impinged in some way, or whether the world was likely to fall in on itself afterwards.

Yes, and I imagine it's very easy to advocate putting a civil rights issue to the popular vote when your own civil rights are not at stake.

Naturally. But my ease on this issue or any other isn't greatly relevant. We either want a representative parliamentary democracy, or we don't. If we don't, fair enough. Let's just relax and submit to the will of unelected technocrats who mean well. But if we do still value representative democracy, we ought to be wary of the creep towards Nanny-knows-best political elitism, even if it is, from time to the time, the quickest way to secure something we want.

My view is that if there is an obvious legal inequality that can be rectified then the government ought to do just that. It should extend the same legal rights and protections to all its citizens, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

And mine is that if politicians want to address a legal inequality (be it self-evident or merely perceived) – and if they think the arguments for doing so are obvious, persuasive and numerable – they should say they're going to do it when they stand for election. Have some courage in their convictions and the quality of their arguments. Show a bit of trust in the common sense and decency of the electorate.

And, since it might be fun to get away from dry arguments about the ideal role of parliament, was there really an obvious legal inequality to be addressed? Following the introduction of civil partnerships, same sex couple were granted the freedom to give their union legal status. And with that legal status came a set of rights and protections virtually identical to those enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. What legal inequalities was gay marriage addressing? And if there were some, why wouldn't it have sufficed to amend the civil partnerships legislation so there was greater (or perfect) legal parity?

Though I have no personal objection to gay marriage (and have, in fact, wasted God knows how many hours of my life arguing in vain with people who do), my honest take is the whole thing seemed more focused on achieving some kind of semantic and/or conceptional equality rather than addressing injustices of a strictly legal nature.

I remember my wife once saying she didn't care if civil partnerships and marriage were perfectly identical in terms of the legal rights and protections they offered. What mattered more was eradicating the difference in the nomenclature. Unless you call both heterosexual and homosexual unions "marriage" – unless you got rid of the different terms, which reflected and reinforced the idea of there being a category distinction – it wasn't real equality and no one would recognise it as such. Which is an interesting and fairly cogent argument. But it's moving the issue way beyond the bounds of "obvious legal inequality".

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I don't see it as a narrow matter of individual preference, nor do I wish to frame it solely as an issue of competing rights. My principle concern is that we have a healthy and functioning representative parliamentary democracy; that we don't tip-toe further towards a politics in which parliament assumes the role of a moralistic parent and the electorate the role of an impulsive, dumb, untrustworthy child. You might be fairly sanguine about that as long as it produces favoured outcomes. I'm not. As suggested, that might be the root of our disagreement

Naturally. But my ease on this issue or any other isn't greatly relevant. We either want a representative parliamentary democracy, or we don't. If we don't, fair enough. Let's just relax and submit to the will of unelected technocrats who mean well. But if we do still value representative democracy, we ought to be wary of the creep towards Nanny-knows-best political elitism, even if it is, from time to the time, the quickest way to secure something we want.

Well, I've attempted to explain my position - to my mind it's about fairness and equality. I think that the principles of equity, justice and inclusion must necessarily be key components of any functioning modern liberal democracy. Upholding and guaranteeing minority rights, prohibiting discrimination, ensuring equal treatment before the law are all features of a mature, responsible democracy that values all of its citizens. These ideas are also central to human rights law, which has a greater concern for the rights of the individual than the opinions of the majority.

The idea that political parties should communicate proposed changes when they stand for election is an eminently reasonable one but one could really spend a very long time poring over manifestos and identifying inconsistencies. Seems rather churlish to highlight this particular example given that it constitutes something of a landmark victory for equal rights.

And while we're here, I'm gonna take issue with your somewhat parochial insistence that gay marriage is some kind of "gays only" issue that ought not to interest or concern others. By broadening the definition of marriage to encompass same sex relationships, marriage was effectively redefined. And since the traditional concept of marriage (a heterosexual union between two people of opposite sex) was the bedrock of family life and planning for hundreds and hundreds of years, an attempted redefinition was, to borrow one of your stylistic tics, A REALLY BIG DEAL.

That's isn't to say it was wrong, of course. If you want to argue the toss over that, you'll have to find someone else. My point is simply that it was matter of profound socio-cultural significance – something that was of relevance to millions of people, irrespective of their sexual orientation, or whether their rights were likely to be impinged in some way, or whether the world was likely to fall in on itself afterwards.

I don't think it should be of no interest or concern to anybody else. On the contrary, I think it's tremendous if people are supportive of gay marriage. I'm also perfectly happy to recognise that there are plenty of people who hold an opposing view - such people are entirely at liberty to do so. What I don't think they ought to be allowed to do is actively prevent their fellow citizens from enjoying the same rights that they take for granted.

I don't view it as a redefinition. I think over a number of decades social mores and attitudes have changed, the nature of the family unit has changed and people's whole view and understanding of what marriage is and what role it fulfills has fundamentally shifted. Marriage has simply evolved to reflect social change.

And mine is that if politicians want to address a legal inequality (be it self-evident or merely perceived) – and if they think the arguments for doing so are obvious, persuasive and numerable – they should say they're going to do it when they stand for election. Have some courage in their convictions and the quality of their arguments. Show a bit of trust in the common sense and decency of the electorate.

And, since it might be fun to get away from dry arguments about the ideal role of parliament, was there really an obvious legal inequality to be addressed? Following the introduction of civil partnerships, same sex couple were granted the freedom to give their union legal status. And with that legal status came a set of rights and protections virtually identical to those enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. What legal inequalities was gay marriage addressing? And if there were some, why wouldn't it have sufficed to amend the civil partnerships legislation so there was greater (or perfect) legal parity?

Though I have no personal objection to gay marriage (and have, in fact, wasted God knows how many hours of my life arguing in vain with people who do), my honest take is the whole thing seemed more focused on achieving some kind of semantic and/or conceptional equality rather than addressing injustices of a strictly legal nature.

I remember my wife once saying she didn't care if civil partnerships and marriage were perfectly identical in terms of the legal rights and protections they offered. What mattered more was eradicating the difference in the nomenclature. Unless you call both heterosexual and homosexual unions "marriage" – unless you got rid of the different terms, which reflected and reinforced the idea of there being a category distinction – it wasn't real equality and no one would recognise it as such. Which is an interesting and fairly cogent argument. But it's moving the issue way beyond the bounds of "obvious legal inequality".

Well, I think I was thinking rather more broadly than just same sex marriage when I wrote that. However, if you're prevented, by law, from marrying (marriage being an institution that all opposite sex couples have access too) then that would seem to me to represent something of a legal inequality. I'm not sure that there are many tangible benefits from marriage that weren't already conferred by civil partnership legislation and I think your wife is right, in that the difference is largely symbolic. However, although it may just seem like semantics, I think it's rather more complex than that. I think it's fundamentally about how we acknowledge and recognise people's relationships. Civil partnerships served a purpose at the time (some recognition being better than none at all), but they also created a problem. Next to marriage, the longstanding means of establishing a union between two people, civil partnerships were always going to appear inferior. If gay relationships are equally as valid as straight relationships, if they're of equal worth then why create a separate institution? If the state won't formally recognise a gay couple's union in the same way it would a straight couple's that seems a pretty obvious example of inequality to me.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I think your wife is right.

Well, that's the most reliable indicator I know that further argument is futile.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^ But since I'm bored and lack the web-savvy required to find the new episode of Hannibal online...

Well, I've attempted to explain my position – to my mind it's about fairness and equality. I think that the principles of equity, justice and inclusion must necessarily be key components of any functioning modern liberal democracy.

This is where the (possibly irreconcilable) difference of opinion lies.

I see democracy as a system of government in which all adult citizens in a particular state are involved, directly or indirectly, in state decision making. In a representative parliamentary democracy, the involvement is mostly indirect and consists of citizens electing parliamentarians to represent them in the legislature.

On this view, then, what really matters is that all adult citizens are enfranchised. Whether the state ought to grant each citizen exactly the same package of rights, privileges and protections strikes me as an entirely secondary and extraneous question.

Are we less of a democracy because women are granted 9 months of maternity leave while paternity leave is just two weeks? Or because rape claimants in a criminal trial are entitled to anonymity but defendants aren't? Or because only people born before 1952 can claim the Winter Fuel Payment? Or because the Police can't legally go on strike? Or because the Equalities Act grants an exemption to political parties who wish to practise 'positive discrimination' through things like all-female shortlists?

One might view some of the above as unfair, undesirable and so forth, but the "democratic-ness" of a state is not defined by how successfully it avoids or eradicates those things. Democracy is fundamentally about the relationship between the electorate and political decision makers. A parliament of unelected technocrats could replace what we have now and do away with all the inequalities mentioned above, but it wouldn't make us more democratic. Quite the opposite, actually, because the relationship between the electorate and legislature and/or government would be severed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not especially dewy-eyed and idealistic about this stuff. I'm well aware that there are problems with majoritarianism, the most obvious being that minorities may be treated unfairly. Unfortunately, the only sure-fire way around majoritarianism is to move to a more technocratic political system in which the views of the electorate effectively count for fuck-all. Therefore, I prefer a majoritarian system (with all its imperfections), one in which those who wish to change the law (for whatever reason) are expected to make their intentions clear and get some kind of democratic mandate before doing so.

The idea that political parties should communicate proposed changes when they stand for election is an eminently reasonable one but one could really spend a very long time poring over manifestos and identifying inconsistencies. Seems rather churlish to highlight this particular example given that it constitutes something of a landmark victory for equal rights.

I highlighted this particular example because it pertained to the topic of conversation. I could have picked others, but they wouldn't have been relevant. I'm not sure what is "churlish" about that!

And, yes, for the third time now: there are many other examples. But, also for the third time, there are issues politicians can plan for and others they can't. Gay marriage, like any other issue that can be formulated as a straightforward civil rights question, belongs in the former category; therefore, its omission from political manifestos is less excusable.

If the government suddenly decided (tomorrow, let's say) to extend the franchise to all 16 year olds, I'd have the same objection. That's because it's a straightforward civil rights question – one that has been there for years, and one that isn't suddenly going to be forced as a matter of urgency on parliament by unexpected circumstances. If a political party wants to extend the franchise, it can plan to do so. And part of that is communicating the intention to the electorate prior to an election. Same deal with gay marriage.

I'm also perfectly happy to recognise that there are plenty of people who hold an opposing view - such people are entirely at liberty to do so. What I don't think they ought to be allowed to do is actively prevent their fellow citizens from enjoying the same rights that they take for granted.

I think (or hope) my stuff about democracy and majoritianism covers this. In a parliamentary democracy, legal rights, privileges and protections are bestowed on people by an elected parliament, i.e. our legislature.

If people have been elected to parliament after saying they wish to do X, it's fair enough (on democratic grounds) if they then take actions to achieve X. If they haven't made X clear, then there is a democratic deficit of sorts.

I don't view it as a redefinition. I think over a number of decades social mores and attitudes have changed, the nature of the family unit has changed and people's whole view and understanding of what marriage is and what role it fulfills has fundamentally shifted. Marriage has simply evolved to reflect social change.

There was a legal redefinition, hence the need for an Act of Parliament. Whether socio-cultural attitudes have changed – and so much so that legal reform was required to effectively catch-up – is a more contentious matter (and, I suspect, your point); but, for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right. In this case, why didn't politicians communicate their desire/intention to change the law until after they were elected? If the law was being reformed to reflect wider socio-cultural change (and, by extension, some kind of consensus/majority view among the electorate), why be shy about it?

I think it's fundamentally about how we acknowledge and recognise people's relationships. Civil partnerships served a purpose at the time (some recognition being better than none at all), but they also created a problem. Next to marriage, the longstanding means of establishing a union between two people, civil partnerships were always going to appear inferior.

Why? There is strong assertion here but little argument. Referring to two different things by two different names does not, ipso facto, make one of them legally inferior and/or of lower socio-cultural value. Thing X predating Thing Y does not, ipso facto, make Thing X superior. That's actually a rather conservative logical fallacy – perhaps the conservative logical fallacy.

If gay relationships are equally as valid as straight relationships, if they're of equal worth then why create a separate institution?

It's a very good question. It's also hard for me to answer sincerely and continue the debate because I basically agree with you. It's the question I ask when I debate conservative opponents of gay marriage. So, some devil's advocacy is required here! And the best I can manage is this: because there might be good reasons, from a legal, administrative or policy point of view, for retaining a category distinction.

Though we recognise men and women as equally human (and therefore equally deserving of certain rights and protections), we also recognise there are some differences between them – women being able to bear children being the most obvious. Rather than lump us all in together as humans, we've retained a male/female category distinction, and this allows the state to treat men and women differently when there are reasons for doing so. The undeniable inequality that exists with regards to maternity and paternity leave (mentioned earlier) is one example. There might be a case for something similar with regards to gay marriage and civil partnerships.

The obvious difference between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions is that homosexual unions are, by their nature, sterile. In addition to this biological fact, there are many people who believe that heterosexual marriage – one man and one woman committed to a lifelong monogamous relationship – is the ideal foundation for child-raising and family planning, not just because of the stability it (theoretically) offers, but because it provides the balance of a strong male influence (father) and a strong female influence (mother) during the child's formative years. This is not to say homosexual couples are patently to unsuited to raising children; it is merely to suggest that heterosexual marriage is the familial ideal. If so, there might be a utilitarian case for uniquely privileging heterosexual marriage – be it in terms of granting it unique legal rights, or privileging it through things like tax cuts or special benefits. But that approach requires the existence of a category distinction.

As alluded to earlier, these aren't really my arguments (I'm kinda against the state incentivisiing any kind of familial set-up), but you asked and I was bored, so there! Make of that waffle what you will.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

This is where the (possibly irreconcilable) difference of opinion lies.

I see democracy as a system of government in which all adult citizens in a particular state are involved, directly or indirectly, in state decision making. In a representative parliamentary democracy, the involvement is mostly indirect and consists of citizens electing parliamentarians to represent them in the legislature.

On this view, then, what really matters is that all adult citizens are enfranchised. Whether the state ought to grant each citizen exactly the same package of rights, privileges and protections strikes me as an entirely secondary and extraneous question.

Are we less of a democracy because women are granted 9 months of maternity leave while paternity leave is just two weeks? Or because rape claimants in a criminal trial are entitled to anonymity but defendants aren't? Or because only people born before 1952 can claim the Winter Fuel Payment? Or because the Police can't legally go on strike? Or because the Equalities Act grants an exemption to political parties who wish to practise 'positive discrimination' through things like all-female shortlists?

One might view some of the above as unfair, undesirable and so forth, but the "democratic-ness" of a state is not defined by how successfully it avoids or eradicates those things. Democracy is fundamentally about the relationship between the electorate and political decision makers. A parliament of unelected technocrats could replace what we have now and do away with all the inequalities mentioned above, but it wouldn't make us more democratic. Quite the opposite, actually, because the relationship between the electorate and legislature and/or government would be severed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not especially dewy-eyed and idealistic about this stuff. I'm well aware that there are problems with majoritarianism, the most obvious being that minorities may be treated unfairly. Unfortunately, the only sure-fire way around majoritarianism is to move to a more technocratic political system in which the views of the electorate effectively count for fuck-all. Therefore, I prefer a majoritarian system (with all its imperfections), one in which those who wish to change the law (for whatever reason) are expected to make their intentions clear and get some kind of democratic mandate before doing so.

I don't know that I fundamentally disagree with your view on democracy but I certainly suspect I'm rather more wary and rather less comfortable with the concept of majoritarianism, which I think ought to have its limits precisely because it does all too often result in the oppression of minorities. If this is an inevitable and accepted consequence of majoritarianism then I think it comes into conflict with other democratic values that most modern democracies profess to uphold. Of course there might be occasions where it makes good sense to discriminate between different groups of people but I tend to think that fundamental rights ought to be protected*. That is ultimately one of the chief political functions of rights - to safeguard minority groups from oppression by the majority.

*And yes, I suppose it's arguable as to whether marriage falls into this category but I suspect most people would probably regard it as a fairly basic right

I highlighted this particular example because it pertained to the topic of conversation. I could have picked others, but they wouldn't have been relevant. I'm not sure what is "churlish" about that!

And, yes, for the third time now: there are many other examples. But, also for the third time, there are issues politicians can plan for and others they can't. Gay marriage, like any other issue that can be formulated as a straightforward civil rights question, belongs in the former category; therefore, its omission from political manifestos is less excusable.

If the government suddenly decided (tomorrow, let's say) to extend the franchise to all 16 year olds, I'd have the same objection. That's because it's a straightforward civil rights question – one that has been there for years, and one that isn't suddenly going to be forced as a matter of urgency on parliament by unexpected circumstances. If a political party wants to extend the franchise, it can plan to do so. And part of that is communicating the intention to the electorate prior to an election. Same deal with gay marriage.

I know. My bad.

I don't have any particular objection to this. As much as I don't really have any major qualms about the way the legislation was enacted I do think it would have been preferable had the intention to legislate on the issue been clearly communicated to the electorate.

Why? There is strong assertion here but little argument. Referring to two different things by two different names does not, ipso facto, make one of them legally inferior and/or of lower socio-cultural value. Thing X predating Thing Y does not, ipso facto, make Thing X superior. That's actually a rather conservative logical fallacy – perhaps the conservative logical fallacy.

As I say, if there's no fundamental difference between gay and straight relationships then there should be no difference in the way they're legally recognised. It's an unnecessary distinction, one that quite reasonably prompts people to ask why they're being treated differently. Perhaps it boils down to perception, but I think perception's important. Fundamentally, if people don't feel as though they're being treated equally, if they feel as though a Civil Partnership is an inferior substitute, then I can't see that CPs are serving a very useful function.

It's a very good question. It's also hard for me to answer sincerely and continue the debate because I basically agree with you. It's the question I ask when I debate conservative opponents of gay marriage. So, some devil's advocacy is required here! And the best I can manage is this: because there might be good reasons, from a legal, administrative or policy point of view, for retaining a category distinction.

Though we recognise men and women as equally human (and therefore equally deserving of certain rights and protections), we also recognise there are some differences between them – women being able to bear children being the most obvious. Rather than lump us all in together as humans, we've retained a male/female category distinction, and this allows the state to treat men and women differently when there are reasons for doing so. The undeniable inequality that exists with regards to maternity and paternity leave (mentioned earlier) is one example. There might be a case for something similar with regards to gay marriage and civil partnerships.

The obvious difference between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions is that homosexual unions are, by their nature, sterile. In addition to this biological fact, there are many people who believe that heterosexual marriage – one man and one woman committed to a lifelong monogamous relationship – is the ideal foundation for child-raising and family planning, not just because of the stability it (theoretically) offers, but because it provides the balance of a strong male influence (father) and a strong female influence (mother) during the child's formative years. This is not to say homosexual couples are patently to unsuited to raising children; it is merely to suggest that heterosexual marriage is the familial ideal. If so, there might be a utilitarian case for uniquely privileging heterosexual marriage – be it in terms of granting it unique legal rights, or privileging it through things like tax cuts or special benefits. But that approach requires the existence of a category distinction.

As alluded to earlier, these aren't really my arguments (I'm kinda against the state incentivisiing any kind of familial set-up), but you asked and I was bored, so there! Make of that waffle what you will.

I realise it's not your own but I've always found this a thoroughly unconvincing argument. It seems to presuppose that all heterosexual couples regard marriage in such a way but of course some heterosexual couples are childless, others are sterile and yet they're still afforded marriage rights. It also assumes that homosexual couples won't have children, but of course gay couples can and do have kids - sometimes via natural means (a former heterosexual relationship), sometimes via surrogacy or adoption (the latter having now been legal for some time). And while some people might very well think that heterosexual marriage is the familial ideal, such opinions have more to do with those people's own instinctive prejudices than any actual basis in reality. It's not a very compelling case.