Equal Partnership in Marriage

The Family: A Proclamation to the World teaches that fathers and mothers have specific, Godordained responsibilities within an equal partnership, with neither husband nor wife seeking to dominate the other. When partners in a marriage value equality, they see each other as equals, treat each other with respect, consider each others needs, and support one another. Equal partners agree on goals together and work as a team to achieve these goals. They show equal commitment to the relationship and provide mutual support and nurturing. Each values the others work life as highly as his or her own, even if that work life doesnt include employment outside the home. Most couples say they prefer an equal partnership, but studies show that few couples live up to their rhetoric. In most marriages, women do an unfair share of household tasks and the majority of child care, regardless of whether they work outside the home or not. Specifically, women do two or three times as much housework as men. Mothers spend 3 to 5 hours actively involved with their children for every hour that fathers spend. Men, on the other hand, have traditionally had more power in decision making. Is it worth working toward an equal partnership? Research suggests the answer is yes.
Benefits of Equal Partnership

An equal partnership benefits marriages as a whole and benefits husbands and wives individually.

Happier marriages. Equal partnership fosters closeness between husband and wife, resulting in a stronger and happier marriage. Spouses feel better about themselves and each other, which makes them more likely to share their thoughts and feelings. This greater emotional intimacy leads to greater physical intimacy, an important element of a happy marriage. Couples with an equal partnership also report more stability in their marriage, less conflict, less dependency, and less resentment. Researcher John Gottman found that husbands who accept their wives' influence are four times less likely to divorce or have an unhappy marriage.

Benefits to men. Men benefit emotionally from equal partnership because there is greater openness and they feel better about their marriage. They also benefit from the greater physical intimacy that comes with equal partnership. Physical intimacy improves physical health and reduces stress. Men in happy marriages also are more productive at work because they are less distracted by concerns at home.

Benefits to women. The closer communication and emotional intimacy in an equal partnership greatly benefit women. Research shows that having an equal say in decision making is the most important contributor to wives perception of their marriages as happy and satisfying. Wives are happier when their husbands appreciate them for the work they do in the home and when their husbands are copartners in home matters. They feel better about themselves, are less angry or depressed, feel their relationship is more fair, and are more happy with their marriage.
Ideas for Creating an Equal Partnership

All couples can do more to work toward creating an equal partnership. The following suggestions center on housekeeping, child care, and decision making.

Share more routine household tasks. There are two different kinds of housework, "occasional" and "routine." Occasional jobs, like household repairs, yard work, and paying bills, dont have to be done every day and can be done just about anytime. Routine housework, on the other hand, like cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, and washing dishes, is more time consuming and must be done regularly and repeatedly. Most people, male or female, find these routine jobs dull and tedious. In general, women do more than their share of routine housework. When men are willing to pick up more of these routine tasks rather than relegating most of them to women, they help create a more equal partnership.

Work as a team. Wives who are dissatisfied with the division of labor in the home often say they feel lonely and lack companionship. When wives and husbands work together as a team, without hierarchy or a "me helping you do your work" attitude, marital happiness increases. Do dishes together. Attack the front room together with one person dusting while the other vacuums. Wash the car together and throw in a sudsy water fight. Set aside time once a month to do a special job as a family, such as planting a garden, cleaning out the garage, or washing windows. Working as a team makes the job go faster, and its more fun.

Avoid "gatekeeping." Researchers have coined the term "gatekeeping" for behavior that prevents men and women from working as team on household tasks and child care. For example, some husbands insist that only they know how to mow and trim the lawn properly, closing the gate on wives or children who might enjoy that chore. For women, gatekeeping can be especially complex because management of the home is so central to their identity. A woman who believes housekeeping is primarily "womens work," for example, might be hesitant to share that role. She bases her identity largely on how she thinks others view her housekeeping and mothering, so if her husband tries to contribute she might feel a threat to her self-respect and identity. A woman with these beliefs who then shares the housekeeping role equally with her husband may feel she is neglecting her family role and may experience guilt, regret and ambivalence. She might not voice her

feelings but instead will close the gate in subtle ways, such as holding to rigid housekeeping standards. If her husband tries to do his share of household chores, she may redo what hes done or criticize and demean his efforts. He then gives up, giving her back her exclusive domain. To reduce gatekeeping, meet together as a couple (include children where appropriate), make a detailed list of all the household chores, and decide on an arrangement for sharing housework that works for everyone. Make assignments, demonstrate and train as necessary, and set up a time to review how things are going. Have reasonable standards and give every family member the freedom to live up to those standards in his or her own way.

Talk about how you divide up housework. Take the time to talk about how chores are divided up and how each feels about the equality of the division. Express appreciation, listen sympathetically, and make decisions together. These actions will build a sense of fairness in your marriage, which in turn will make your marriage stronger and happier. Typically wives are much more personally invested in care of home and family. They also are more affected if the arrangement is not equal. Research suggests men are relatively unaffected by the division of household labor. Thus its usually up to wives to initiate discussion about rearrangement of housework if they feel its unfairly divided. A husband committed to an equal partnership will look for signals of increased stress in his wife that could be a result of her taking on more than her share of home and family management.

Express appreciation. Everyone needs to feel appreciated for the things they do. Family scholars note that when couples argue about domestic work, it is seldom over who does what. More often it is over feeling unappreciated for ones efforts. Most spouses disagree about who does what and how much. Typically wives think they do more than their husbands say they do, and husbands think they do more than their wives give them credit for. To help ease these differences, express appreciation for what your spouse does do.

Avoid making important decisions independently. Marriages are happier for both husbands and wives when each has an equal say in important decisions, such as where the family lives, how to rear the children, and how money is spent. Dont make these important decisions without fully discussing them with your spouse. In the financial area, some couples set an amount of money above which they wont spend without first consulting the other.

Share child care responsibilities. Children benefit when both fathers and mothers are actively involved in their lives. Research shows that mothers and fathers have independent effects on their children, so when only one parent is actively involved the child misses out. For instance, mothers are more likely than fathers to act as a childs social coach, helping them learn how to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Fathers more than mothers tend to play rough-and-tumble with their children. Children need both of their parentslet them have you.

Written by Adrian Selle, Research Assistant, and edited by Stephen F. Duncan, Professor, School of Family Life, Brigham Young University.

References Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61 , 199-212. Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 , 1208-1233. Hawkins, A. J., et al. (2000). Equal partnership and the sacred responsibilities of mothers and fathers. In D. C. Dollahite (Ed.), Strengthening our families: An in-depth look at the proclamation on the family (pp. 63-82). Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft. Rosenbluth, S. C., Steil, J. M., J. H. Whitcomb (1998). Marital equality: What does it mean? Journal of Family Issues, 19(3), 227-244. Steil, J. M. (1997). Marital equality: Its relationship to the well-being of husbands and wives. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
http://foreverfamilies.byu.edu/Article.aspx?a=37

"Friends, companions, and lovers ... are closest to us who best understand what life means to us, who feel for us as we feel for ourselves, who are bound to us in triumph and disaster, who break the spell of our loneliness." Henry Alonzo Myers

Marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman, but it must be an equal partnership. Husband and wife must share in the responsibilities of the home and family, although each family is different and has

extenuating circumstances. A marriage partnership should achieve equality by supporting the other. This way both may be able to have the time to work on existing or new talents. When I married my husband, I thought life was grand and I was going to make this marriage the best marriage on earth. I wanted to make him happy and please him. As time went on, and after having my second child, I noticed I didn't have time for myself. My responsibilities existed of cleaning the house, doing the dishes and laundry, sewing clothes, making meals, mowing the lawn, weeding, planting flowers, paying the bills, buying groceries, and taking care of my children's needs. Whew! Just thinking about those responsibilities can make one tired.

After having children, I found little time to practice my talents or even develop any new ones. When ten o'clock p.m. came around, I was exhausted and was ready for bed. I didn't have time to watch television or to soak in the tub and relax. So this was my daily routine. I noticed that I was losing most of the talents I had worked so hard for. When my husband came home from work, he had plenty of energy. He always found time to go fishing, practice his target shooting, and go to a Mountain Man Rendezvous dressed in his rugged regalia, with his tomahawk hanging from his weapons belt and holding his blackpowder rifle in hand. After a few years of marriage, we sat down and talked about our marriage responsibilities. My husband realized that we needed to make a change in our lives so I could work on my talents. He encouraged me to take singing lessons again and get back what I had lost. He told me that he would help by cooking in the evening when he got home from work, and if I was swamped he would even wash clothes. Soon, I found other talents I didn't know I had. I was able to do some creative writing, do research on ancestors, and even have energy left over in the evening to do something fun with my husband. I found time to prepare a recital each year and even found time to go back to college and get my degree, which I had longed to do for so many years. I was able to feel that I was an individual with talents of my own.

Dennis Lythgoe, the author of A Marriage of Equals, said that a marriage should be 50/50 and partners should share the responsibilities of cooking, laundry, cleaning, and parental responsibilities. Dennis calls this an "equal partnership." He said, "Sharing the load has made me a more productive person domestically. It has eased Marti's fatigue considerably and given us a lot more time for each other. It has taught our children that men and women should spend equal time acting as parents." (Women and the Power Within, "Equal Partners," p. 98.)
When Dennis counseled married couples, he said, "Sharing in marriage is an inherently controversial topic among men. I often brought up the possibility of sharing to the men ... I never suggested my own 50/50 arrangement but only a fraction of the load to ease the wife's burden. In most cases, these men were not anxious to hear such suggestions. In fact, they were worried that a comfortable status quo was being invaded. When I wrote articles about sharing, I received some angry responses from men even from colleagues who did not appreciate my introducing this concept to their wives. So I realize that women do not find it easy to convince men that this is a good ideabut in my opinion it is eminently worth doing." (Equal Partners, p.99)

A lot of the problem is lack of communication. Most women just figure their husbands will notice how hard they are working and will want to pitch in and help. They expect their husbands to notice they have had a big day and are exhausted. But it's not so. Husbands don't realize all the work their wives have accomplished, but will notice the toys strewn about the floor or the dishes haven't been done. Women should ask for help and shouldn't expect men to just volunteer. Most husbands, because of their love for their wives, will want to help if you just communicate. Dennis said, "Chores should be divided on the basis of who does what best. ... A great way to encourage husbands to do more around the house is to list and divide chores according to interests and abilities." (Equal Partners, p. 104) We shouldn't criticize how our husband helps, but allow him to do it his own way. We must give our husbands free reign in whatever they do. When my husband cooks, the kitchen looks like a disaster, but I don't have to cook. He figures that the "dish washer" will take care of the mess. When he does the laundry, he'll bring it upstairs and we have to get our own clothes and put them away, but the fact is I don't have to do the laundry. When a husband and wife communicate and work together by sharing the household responsibilities, this helps the wife to grow in other areas and to have time for herself. This gives her enough energy, physically and emotionally, to develop her talents. A woman needs to feel content in her marriage. Just remember that no two marriages are the same and can't be compared. We should have mutual respect for one another and care about the other's needs. Elizabeth Barrett Browning said it best when she wrote: Grow old along with me; The best is yet to be. The last of life For which the first was made. Copyright 2006 Reproduction of this article may only be used with the author's Bio intact. http://www.articlesbase.com/marriage-articles/equal-partners-in-marriage-78440.html

Mary Wollstonecraft - What Rights?

Arguments of Mary Wollstonecraft in "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman"

In her 1791-92 A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, now considered a classic of feminist history, Mary Wollstonecraft argued primarily for the rights of woman to be educated. Through education would come emancipation.

In defending this right, Mary Wollstonecraft accepts the definition of her time that women's sphere is the home, but she does not isolate the home from public life as many others did and as many still do. For Mary Wollstonecraft, the public life and domestic life are not separate, but connected. The home is important to Wollstonecraft because it forms a foundation for the social life, the public life. The state, the public life, enhances and serves both individuals and the family. Men have duties in the family, too, and women have duties to the state. Mary Wollstonecraft also argues for the right of woman to be educated, because she is primarily responsible for the education of the young. Before 1789 and her Vindication of the Rights of Man, she was known primarily as a writer about education of children, and she still accepts this role as a primary role for woman as distinct from man. Mary Wollstonecraft goes on to argue that educating women will strengthen the marriage relationship. Her concept of marriage underlies this argument. A stable marriage, she believes, is a partnership between a husband and a wife -- a marriage is a social contract between two individuals. A woman thus needs to have equal knowledge and sense, to maintain the partnership. A stable marriage also provides for the proper education of children. Mary Wollstonecraft also acknowledges that women are sexual beings -- but so are men. Thus female chastity and fidelity, necessary for a stable marriage, require male chastity and fidelity too. Men are required, as much as women, to put duty over sexual pleasure. (Perhaps her experience with Gilbert Imlay, father of her elder daughter, made this point more clear to her, as he was not able to live up to this standard.) Control over family size, for instance, serves the individuals in the family, strengthens the family, and thus serves the public interest through raising better citizens. But putting duty above pleasure did not mean that feelings are not important. The goal, for Wollstonecraft's ethics, is to bring feeling and thought into harmony. The harmony of feeling and thought she calls reason. Reason was of primary importance to the Enlightenment philosophers, a company to which Mary Wollstonecraft belongs. But her celebration of nature, of feelings, of "sympathy," also make her a bridge to the Romantic philosophy and literary movements which follow. (Her younger daughter much later married one of the best-known Romantic poets, Percy Shelley.) Mary Wollstonecraft sees women's absorption in such purely sensing and feeling activities as fashion and beauty denigrates their reason, makes them less able to maintain their part in the marriage partnership and reduces their effectiveness as educators of children -- and thus makes them less dutiful as citizens. In bringing together feeling and thought, rather than separating them and dividing one for woman and one for man, Mary Wollstonecraft was also providing a critique of Rousseau, another defender of personal rights but one who did not believe that such individual liberty was

for women. Woman, for Rousseau, was incapable of reason, and only man could be trusted to exercise thought and reason. Thus, for Rousseau, women could not be citizens, only men could. But Mary Wollstonecraft, in her Vindication, makes clear her position: only when woman and man are equally free, and woman and man are equally dutiful in exercise of their responsibilities to family and state, can there be true freedom. The essential reform necessary for such equality, Mary Wollstonecraft is convinced, is equal and quality education for woman -- an education which recognizes her duty to educate her own children, to be an equal partner with her husband in the family, and which recognizes that woman, like man, is a creature of both thought and feeling: a creature of reason. Today, it may be nave to imagine that simply equalizing educational opportunity will ensure true equality for women. But the century after Wollstonecraft was a progression of newly opened doors for women's education, and that education significantly changed the lives and opportunities for women in all aspects of their lives. Without equal and quality education for women, women would be doomed to Rousseau's vision of a separate and always inferior sphere. Reading A Vindication of the Rights of Woman today, most readers are struck with how relevant some parts are, yet how archaic are others. This reflects the enormous changes in the value society places on women's reason today, as contrasted to the late 18th century; but it also reflects the many ways in which issues of equality of rights and duties are still with us today.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/wollstonecraft/a/wollstonecraft-rights.htm

Marriage
1. Introduction
The marriage institution was ordained by Yahweh the Almighty God of Israel at the creation of the world. Though there was no civil ceremony as we know it, that first wedding in Eden was nevertheless as legal a contract as ever there was: because the Almighty himself officiated and the angel host were witnesses. Yahweh's own opinion about marriage was that 'it was not good for man to be alone.' Genesis 2: 18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Proverbs 18: 22: Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

2. A Spiritual Model
Fresh from the Creator's hand, Eve was presented to Adam to become his wife: to be his companion, his helper, his soul-mate, his physical and spiritual partner. But by far the most important purpose for their marriage was that it should prefigure a union still to come: the union between the second Adam (Yeshua the Messiah, Jesus Christ) and his future wife, the ransomed Church. It is only when we consider marriage with that thought in mind, that it is a living object lesson of the soon coming spiritual partnership between the Messiah and his Bride, that we will ever hope to understand its mysteries, appreciate its privileges and benefit from its disciplines.

Marriage, in short, was ordained by the Almighty to typify Yeshua the Messiah's spiritual union with the Church, a partnership which is about to commence in the very near future and which will continue for all time. Understanding and living by this basic truth will pave the way to a happy marriage.

3. Marriage Is For Life

Sad to say the marriage union is not taken very seriously these days and marriages are being dissolved at an alarming rate. Nevertheless the Bible teaches that marriage is for life and once consummated can only be annulled by the death of one of the parties. Romans 7: 1: Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2: For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 1 Cor.7: 39: The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

No matter how the attitudes of people may change or what laws earthly governments may pass, the above divine precepts are still on the statute books of heaven and society disregards them at great cost.

4. Personal Duties
The Bible also gives us detailed directions as to how married couples should behave towards each other. I will take a few points from just one passage in Scripture: Ephesians 5:22-31.

22: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24: Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28: So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29: For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32: This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33: Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Married couples who practice this advice will find their partnership a happy and beautiful experience: infinitely more blessed than they had expected. The secret, as we can see from the above passage, is for each partner to concentrate on the welfare and happiness of the other. This spiritual formula will, of course, only work IF it is applied by both parties. Selfishness by either party will wreck any marriage in the course of time.

5. A Team of Equals
Marriage is a team of equals. Their should be no dictatorial bosses and no slaves. In Genesis 2:18 we read the following words: Genesis 2: 18: And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

That word 'meet' means 'appropriate, fitting, suitable and equal.' In other words Eve was made Adam's intellectual and spiritual equal: different yes, but not inferior. Men should, therefore, not delude themselves into thinking that they are superior to women, because they are not. Likewise, women should never imagine that they are smarter than men. Both viewpoints, popular as they are these days, are totally wrong and self-destroying. When fostered and applied in a marriage, they end in sorrow and tears. The modern trend on TV is for husbands to be depicted as blundering fools constantly being put right by their smart, efficient wives. This trend is slowly brainwashing the nation's youth into thinking that this is the norm. It isn't. The truth is that in some areas men excel: in others women take the lead.

This is because each sex has been divinely created with different strengths and no amount of propaganda will change that biological fact. The sexes have been designed by the Creator to play entirely different roles in every field. They complement each other and should never compete. Married couples ignore these basic facts at their peril.

6. Be Faithful
The world is in disarray. Marriages are collapsing all about us. Almost every person these days knows a friend, neighbour or relative whose marriage is on the rocks. Why should this be? What has gone wrong with society? One of the main reasons given in the divorce courts is adultery. What has God to say about adultery? He says this: Exodus 20: 14: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Leviticus 18: 20: Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her. Proverbs 6: 32: But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

The law that forbids adultery is one of the Ten Commandments and it is still on the statute books of heaven. Fornication, the sexual act between an unmarried couple (even though one of the parties is married) is likened to the act of adultery. (Revelation 2:20-23) Nothing is guaranteed to destroy a marriage faster than these two acts of adultery and fornication. I urge all married couples to obey the Almighty's commandments. Failure to keep them will surely devastate a relationship; not to mention the terrible effect adultery and fornication have on the children and the awful punishment that will be meted out to the guilty on the terrible Day of Judgement.

7. Daily Worship
Years ago Scotland was known as the Land of the Book! In cottages, crofts and castles, the Holy Bible was read almost every day. The Bible made Scotland great: it fortified the faith and character of its people and directed their behaviour. Scottish missionaries compassed the world and taught multiplied millions of heathen the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the laws of Almighty God. But alas! the Holy Bible is out of favour these days in most Scottish homes. The prophet Isaiah and the apostle Paul give us this priceless advice about reading God's word: Isaiah 34: 16: Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read, Not one of these things shall fail ... 2 Timothy 2: 15: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

8. Be Equally Yoked
In the Old Testament we read that the Israelites were forbidden to marry Gentiles. This principle still holds good for all true believers; for it is carried forward into the new covenant where Christ's followers are expressly forbidden to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Ezra 9: 12: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons ... Nehemiah 10: 30: And that we would not give our daughters unto the people of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons. Nehemiah 13: 25: And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. 2 Corinthians 6: 14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

The requirement for believers to be equally yoked (married to like-minded believers) is still binding: and most religious authorities will agree that couples who ignore this basic guideline do so at great risk.

9. Better to Marry than Burn

Millions of young couples these days set up home without getting married. It's the 'in thing.' The beautiful and the famous are seen doing it: so the youth follow suit. But the point is - are these couples doing wrong? Is sex outside marriage a sin? The answer is: Yes they are doing wrong, sex outside marriage is sin. According to God's law these couples are committing the sin of Fornication! They may think they are being 'smart,' 'with-it' and 'cool;' but they will realise on the Day of Judgement how foolish they have been. Concerning the many sexual sins that are gaining popularity these days the Bible says this: 1 Corinthians 7: 2: To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1 Corinthians 6: 9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,(homosexuals) 10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Summary
In summary we would say that:

1. According to the Almighty it is not good for a man to be alone. That is why He designed the marriage institution: to give man a companion. 2. Marriage is a spiritual model typifying the Messiah's relationship with His church. 3. Marriage is for life and normally may only be dissolved at the death of one of the parties. 4. In marriage the husband should love his wife as Christ loves the church: even to the point of sacrificing his life for her. The wife's part is to honour and obey her husband just as the church is expected to honour and obey Christ. 5. Marriage is partnership of equals. It is not a competition between the sexes. Men and women have different roles to play in society and are qualified accordingly. 6. Faithfulness in a marriage is absolutely vital. Acts of adultery or fornication are devastating in their effects. 7. As a guide to a happy marriage, daily study of the Bible is recommended. Nothing builds a sense of responsibility towards one's spouse better than does Bible study. 8. Being unequally yoked with unbelievers is not wise. The Bible advises that believers should marry like-minded believers. 9. Unmarried couples living as man and wife are fornicating. If this sin is not forsaken it will, like adultery and homosexuality, exclude the couple from the kingdom of heaven. http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/laws/marriage.html

Marriage v Civil Partnership FAQs

What is marriage?

Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognised by governments the world over. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. Yet it is more than the sum of its legal parts; it is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that you and your life partner love each other. It represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people, and everyone understands that. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection. In Ireland, the family (with or without children) based in marriage is protected by the Constitution from attack, and must be "guarded with special care". This means that other families (with or without children) do not have this special, elevated and protected status in Irish law. Civil marriage is not the same as religious marriage. Religious marriage is a ceremony in a church, but it is followed by the signing of the civil marriage register, which is the civil (or legally binding) part. A civil marriage takes place in a registry office or other approved venue, and has nothing to do with religion.
What is Civil Partnership?

The Irish Government enacted the Civil Partnership Act in 2010.

Civil Partnership is not marriage. It will not automatically apply all the rights of marriage to civil partners, and therefore same-sex couples will not have equality. It will give partners who register their partnership some legal rights and protections in relation to succession rights and property rights. However, Civil Partnership:

does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent. does not recognize same sex couples' rights to many social supports that may be needed in hardship situations and may literally leave a loved one out in the cold. defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted.

For a more in-depth analysis of the Civil Partnership Act and what it means for same sex couples and families, please read our Summary Analysis of Civil Partnership. Marriage Equality recently published a marriage audit, called "Missing Pieces". The report compares the rights, protections and responsibilities afforded to married couples with those afforded to Civil Partners. "Missing Pieces" identifies 169 differences between Civil Partnership and civil marriage.
Why does Marriage Equality favour marriage over Civil Partnership?

Civil marriage in a registry office (or other approved venue) exists, and can easily be extended to same sex couples. Anything less than marriage is less than equal. There is no need for a separate and unequal legal institution (Civil Partnerships) to recognise same-sex relationships. In Ireland, the rights conferred upon a couple under the Civil Partnership Act are far fewer than those they would receive if they could marry.
What does the Irish Constitution say about marriage?

The Irish Constitution does not define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and so Marriage Equality believe that the Constitution's definition of "the family" could include samesex relationships. The legal system (ie: our courts) simply interprets the constitutional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Constitution is considered to be a living document, open to interpretation by the judges in the Supreme Court, to reflect the changing values of Irish society. It is, therefore, open to change.

Legislation was introduced in 2004 (The Civil Registration Act) that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. This legislation could be amended at any time to define marriage in gender neutral terms.
Isn't marriage about religion?

Not at all. A civil marriage is a marriage which takes place in a registry office or other nonchurch venue. Religious marriage is a ceremony followed by the signing of the civil marriage register, which is the legally binding part of the event. Because of religion's traditional role in sanctifying marriages and presiding over wedding ceremonies it is easy to think of marriage as a religious rite only, but this is not the case. It is vital to separate "legal marriage" in the secular, or civil sense, from "holy matrimony" in the religious, or spiritual sense. The marriage equality debate is about how the government should treat its citizens and how the laws on marriage should be enforced. The government is separate from and independent of religion and churches, and must define marriage in a manner consistent with the secular principles upon which the government and the laws are founded
Would lesbian and gay parents benefit from marriage equality?

Lesbians and gay men are, and will continue to be, loving mums and dads to their children. However, the Government continually ignores this fact. Through our Constitution, only married parents and their children receive constitutional recognition and protection as families. Click here to find out more about Civil Partnership and Families.
What about the children of gay and lesbian parents?

The children of lesbian and gay parents are in legal limbo in Ireland. The Civil Partnership Act totally ignores them and their rights. Under the Act, there is no provision for adoption or guardianship of children who are being parented by same-sex couples. In addition, there are no provisions for custody, access, or maintenance payments for children. Furthermore, a child's de facto parent may not be treated as next of kin in a hospital or school situation, because they are not recognised as a legal parent - they are effectively strangers in law.
Won't marriage equality require constitutional change and a referendum?

The Supreme Court has yet to decide that issue in the Zappone & Gilligan case, which is currently before the court. Marriage Equality shares the opinion of some of Ireland's finest constitutional lawyers, who see no constitutional impediment to providing marriage equality. There is no substance to the argument that providing full equality for same-sex couples is unconstitutional. In fact, the Irish Constitution upholds equality for ALL its citizens.

What can I do to help, and where can I find out more information?

Marriage Equality would encourage everyone who believes in equality to go directly to your TDs and tell them that the rights of lesbian and gay couples are infringed by being denied access to civil marriage.
http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

Civil partnership =/= marriage

March 17, 2012 at 10:26 am Mano Singham

It looks like I may have been too quick to judge that the civil partnerships that are currently available in the UK provide the same legal rights as marriage and that that is all that matters. From the comments I learned that this is not the case. One difference, as I understand it, is that religious institutions are allowed to perform marriages but not allowed to perform civil unions. So a same sex marriage ceremony is legally prohibited from being performed by a member of the clergy even if he/she is willing to do it. Another is that when couples go to another country, that country might not treat the partner as having the same rights as a spouse. For example, if someone with dual UK-US citizenship enters into a civil partnership in the UK, then when they come to the US, the partner is not eligible for permanent residency the way a spouse would be. So clearly civil partnerships are still inferior to marriage in terms of legal status and privileges. The second point raises the general question of how governments recognize the marriage laws of other countries. For example, according to the Koran, a man can have up to four wives and some countries legally allow this. Suppose such a person comes to the US with all his wives, does the US government give all the wives the same rights? According to this NPR story, the answer appears to be no, but some Muslim men in the US covertly marry more than one woman anyway. Heres how a man gets around the laws: He marries one woman under civil law, and then marries one, two or three others in religious ceremonies that are not recognized by the state. In other cases, men marry women in both America and abroad. Legally, theyre invisible, says Julie Dinnerstein, a senior attorney for Sanctuary for Families. If you are the second or third or fourth wife, that marital relationship is not going to be recognized for immigration purposes. It means if your husband is a citizen or green card holder, he cant sponsor you. It means if your husband gets asylum, you dont get asylum at the same time. The man is always going to be in a position of greater power.

Apparently in some Muslim societies, being a second, third, or fourth wife confers much greater acceptance and social status on a woman than being a widow, and so women are willing to enter into it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2012/03/17/civil-partnership-marriage/

The Differences Between Civil Partnerships and Marriage The most popular post on this blog is Civil Partnerships and Marriage: What's The Difference?. It's now two years since I wrote that post, and I thought it was time to freshen it up in order to counter the lazy, and untrue, argument that the LGBT community already has equality via Civil Partnerships. I like to call that argument "doing a Ben Bradshaw". So here are the differences! Gender The most obvious difference in law is gender. A marriage is a partnership between a man and a woman. A civil partnership is one between two people of the same gender. If only gender was so neat and tidy! Gender, in a legal sense to avoid any semantic arguments, is NOT set in stone. People can, and do, change their gender. So if you have a married couple, and the "man" in that couple transitions into becoming a female, that couple would automatically have their marriage dissolved regardless of whether they wished it to be or not. They will lose accrued pension rights and other financial benefits and need to get a civil partnership if they wish to again be legally recognised as a couple... and the benefits will need to start to be gained FROM SCRATCH again. This is my number one reason for campaigning for marriage (and civil partnership) equality. Transgendered people, and their partners, are unfairly discriminated against by the "separate but equal" way we are currently doing things in this country. Making marriage laws gender neutral would be a massive step in the right direction. International Recognition and Pensions Two strange topics to connect I know, but I didn't want to repeat information and there is an absolutely fantastic video which explains these two issues in a very clear and direct way (with Lego for added awesome)

On the international front think of it this way: of course same-sex marriages won't be recognised in many countries. But civil partnerships fail the criteria for an international standard (many countries with equal marriage won't recognise civil partnerships!), whereas marriage equality would make things far clearer for travellers and emigrants to countries with equal marriage. Religious Freedom Marriage equality, true marriage equality, would allow for religious same-sex marriages to be carried out by supportive religions. Right now we have the newly created religious civil partnerships but, typically, the registration charges for this are far higher than for marriage! Why should religions have to pay more to "marry" same-sex couples than opposite-sex ones? They shouldn't, and wouldn't if marriage was gender neutral. Separate But Equal

The other day one of my work colleague's was abused on the train home because he was gay. Being openly gay/bisexual still has it's drawbacks in life. Being forced on most official forms to declare whether you have a marriage OR a civil partnership outs someone's sexuality and I find that most uncomfortable even if I, speaking for myself, don't mind someone knowing my sexuality. And why should I be covered by a different law to the one that covers the relationships of my family and friends? I'm not looking for a pretend marriage, or a gay marriage, or an "I can't believe it's not marriage" marriage. I want simply a marriage, to the person I love, covered in the same way the marriages of others I care for are covered. I pay my taxes and abide by the law of the land so why does the Government get to decide which consenting adults can enter a marriage? The Legal Nitty-Gritty The laws covering civil partnerships have no concepts of consummation or adultery. There is no requirement to take any vows. Marriage case law doesn't necessarily cover civil partnerships. Civil Partnerships Are Discrimination

As announced in this court ruling. To the extent that by reason of that distinction it discriminates against same-sex partners, such discrimination has a legitimate aim, is reasonable and proportionate, and falls within the margin of appreciation accorded to Convention States.

So yes, civil partnerships and marriage are different, there are rights that differ too.
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

http://jaekaygoesforth.blogspot.com/2012/05/differences-between-civil-partnerships.html

Domestic partnership
A domestic partnership is a legal or interpersonal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by marriage nor a civil union. In some jurisdictions, such as Australia, New Zealand, the American states of Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and California, a domestic partnership is almost equivalent to marriage, or to other legally recognized same-sex or different-sex unions, while in other jurisdictions such as the American states of Wisconsin and Maine, domestic partnerships may confer lesser relationship rights than other jurisdictions' civil unions and more than de-facto cohabitation. The terminology for such unions is still evolving, and the exact level of rights and responsibilities conferred by a domestic partnership varies widely from place to place. Some legislatures have voluntarily established domestic partnership relations by statute instead of being ordered to do so by a court. Although some jurisdictions have instituted domestic partnerships as a way to recognize same-sex unions, domestic partnerships may involve either different-sex or same-sex couples. In some legal jurisdictions, domestic partners who live together for an extended period of time but are not legally entitled to common-law marriage may be entitled to legal protection in the form of a domestic partnership. Some domestic partners may enter into domestic partnership agreements in order to agree contractually to issues involving property ownership, support obligations, and similar issues common to marriage. (See effects of marriage and palimony.) Beyond agreements, registration of relationships in domestic partnership registries allow for the jurisdiction to formally acknowledge such agreements as valid relationships with limited rights, although agreements and registries have often been legalized in separate legislation. One of the purposes of domestic partnership relation is to recognize the contribution of one partner to the property of the other. In the common law, devices such as the constructive trust are available to protect spouses in legal or common-law marriages. In civil law jurisdictions, such trusts are generally not available, prompting courts to find alternative ways to protect the partner who contributes to the other's property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership

Marriage, cohabitation and civil partnerships: your rights

Couples that are married, living together or in a civil partnership have certain rights. Find out what you need to know on the practical and legal issues surrounding getting married, living together and civil partnerships (for same-sex couples).

a civil partnership. Once you've done that, notices are publicised by the registration authority for a period of 15 days, similar to marriage notices. A civil partnership can be formed in England and Wales at register offices or other approved locations. You can get a list of approved places from your local register office.

Search for your local register office Opens new window

Cohabitation - living together

There are over four million couples living together in England and Wales in cohabitation, and they are given legal protection in several areas. However, they and their families have significantly fewer rights and responsibilities than people who are married or who have formed a civil partnership. Many people think that, after living with their partner for a few years, they become 'common law husband and wife' with the same rights as married couples. This is not the case. In fact, couples who live together have hardly any of the same rights as married couples or civil partners. There is no such thing as common law marriage. If you are living together as a couple, there are steps you can take to protect yourself and your partner. There are also ways to minimise the legal and financial problems which may arise if you decide to separate, or if one of you dies. You can find out about the current rights of cohabiting couples from Advicenow an independent website offering information on rights and legal issues. Their Living Together campaign is intended to make both opposite and same-sex cohabitants more aware of their legal status. The campaign also provides advice on how to protect yourself and your family, should you wish to do so.

Download 'The Rights of Cohabiting Couples - an introduction' from Advicenow (PDF, 176K) Opens new window

Help with PDF files

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_10026937

Characteristics of a Healthy Marriage

The following healthy characteristics apply to all marriages.

Commitment to the Mutual Welfare of Each Partner

One of the reasons people marry is that they believe they will be better off as part of a team than they would be alone. No matter how the terms of the partnership (marriage) are defined, its very essence is a commitment to the welfare of BOTH parties (spouses). Healthy marriage, on the other hand, guarantees that the fruits of the partnership benefit both, if not equally, then at least enough so that the benefits of the partnership are better than those of being along..

Mutual Respect
While it is in some sense true that two shall become onethat is, they give up a certain amount of autonomy to be part of a unionit is also true that the partnership is made up of two people who consent to the union. Healthy marriages involve partners who recognize and honor each others uniqueness and value. In unhealthy marriages, the members lose sight of each other as respectful individuals. Each becomes instead an extension of ones self or an extension of ones own ideas about the other. Too often, the other person then becomes who we think they are, and we treat them accordingly, rather than accepting who THEY say they are and treating them with respect as a separate individual.

Openness to a Check up on the Relationship

From time to time, healthy marriages take an inventory to assess how they are doing. In unhealthy marriages, one or both parties resist any evaluation. Furthermore, any insufficiencies that are expressed are experienced as a threat, lending each spouse to become very defensive whenever reflection is attempted.

Willingness to Submit to a Informal or Formal Grievance Process

Relationships get into trouble for a variety of reasons. Healthy marriages are willing to submit to some kind of process to address difficulties. Sometimes, that process is very informal, such as talking to a friend or relative. At other times, more formal processes are explored, such as marriage counseling, mediation or talking with a member of the clergy. The willingness to engage in some form of grievance process actualizes all the above characteristics of a healthy marriage.

Non-abusive and Non-violent

The exercise of power in a marriage is legitimate as long as it does not exceed certain parameters. Emotional, verbal and sexual abuse goes beyond the bounds of our socially acceptable behaviors in this society.

Flexible
Sharing a life with another gives rise to innumerable obstacles related to value differences. A certain amount of flexibility is necessary to find ways of dealing with and living with natural differences. In unhealthy marriages, the solution to problems is made

difficult when the parties tightly hold to their own way. One cannot live the same way with a partner as one would live alonebeing flexible enough to create a life together is essential.

Loyal
Being in a marital relationship means forsaking all others. This concept is closely related to the first, commitment to the mutual welfare of each party. One cannot adequately service the needs of another when compromised by other loyalties. Conflicts of interest destroy the ability to honor the well-being of the partner, and healthy marriages are made up of partners who are loyal to the union.
Prepared by Ronald W. Heilmann, LCSW, BCD Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist

Copyright 2005

Additional Characteristics of a Healthy Marriage When the Partnership is Between Equals

Commitments Beyond Mutual Welfare
1. Commitment to mutual well-being. It is not enough to only be committed to mutual welfare. Healthy marriages between equals must also be committed to mutual wellbeing. That is only realized when each party, from a subjective point of view, experiences their own lives as being as well-off as their partners. 2. Commitment to resolving significant conflicts in mutually acceptable ways. All serious conflicts must be resolved in ways that meet the approval of both parties. This puts a premium on conflict resolution and communication skills that are evident in healthy marriages between equals. 3. Commitment to the development and growth of each spouse. In healthy marriages between equals, the emotional, spiritual and intellectual growth of each partner is supported and encouraged. Growth often precipitates conflict, but these difficulties are seen as being in service to the betterment of the individuals and the partnership in the long run.

Honesty
Honesty is the most essential ingredient to a healthy marriage between equals because the primary focus of such a marriage is to generate intimacy. To the degree that one is not completely truthful, one cannot really be present for intimacy. The part that is not truthful remains outside the relationship and unavailable. Also, since one cannot be any more truthful to another than one can be to oneself, it is paramount to tell the truth to oneself and then be willing to tell that truth to the other, even if it may threaten the relationship.

Boundary Maintenance
Boundary maintenance requires more attention in a relationship between equals than one between un-equals. In a relationship between un-equals, it is common for one party to make certain sacrifices for the mutual welfare of the partnership, either consciously or unconsciously. Furthermore, the necessity for the sacrifice is usually determined by only one of the partners. In a relationship between equals, however, sacrifices must be carefully balanced between the partners so as not to destroy the very essence of equality. Since making a sacrifice allows an intrusion into the well-being space, careful consideration must be given. Also, in a relationship between equals, each party is equally

responsible for maintaining his or her own boundary, deciding when and how much to let that boundary be permeable to the other and when to make it impermeable. The responsibility for maintaining this boundary is independent of the other spouse. Healthy marriages have flexible, permeable boundaries.

High Tolerance for Conflict

Marriages between equals must tolerate considerable conflict. Since the definition of equality implies that neither party has more control over the way things should be done, everything is up for negotiations that must come to mutually acceptable arrangements. Since even similar people have differing values and certainly different value priorities, the situation is ripe for conflict. Good marriages between equals feed on the management of conflict to nourish the growth and development of the individuals AND the partnership.

Ability to Live with Ones Own Flaws

It is one thing to live with the flaws of another, but it is another thing to live with ones own blemishes. In a relationship between equals, each partner must be able to maintain an adequate sense of self (Ego), even when it becomes clear that personal standards have not been lived up to.

Emotional Autonomy
None of the above is possible without emotional autonomy. This means that one spouses emotional state is not directly tied to the others; that there is some room for one party to be upset without the other becoming upset immediately. It also means that ones opinion about oneself is independent of the others opinion. One can listen to the criticisms from the other without immediately buying into the opinion or getting defensive. Ones sense of self is stable but open to input and influence. Good marriages between equals have a good deal of emotional independence.
Prepared by Ronald W. Heilmann, LCSW, BCD Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist

Copyright 2005
http://www.healthymarriagecny.org/pdf/Characteristics.pdf

Equal Partnership in Marriage I came across an LDS website which uses Gottman's materials extensively to build equal partnership relationships. This is their summary of an equal partnership marriage, Benefits of Equal Partnership An equal partnership benefits marriages as a whole and benefits husbands and wives individually. Happier marriages. Equal partnership fosters closeness between husband and wife, resulting in a stronger and happier marriage. Spouses feel better about themselves and each other, which makes them more likely to share their thoughts and feelings. This greater emotional intimacy leads to greater physical intimacy, an important element of a happy marriage. Couples with an

equal partnership also report more stability in their marriage, less conflict, less dependency, and less resentment. Researcher John Gottman found that husbands who accept their wives influence are four times less likely to divorce or have an unhappy marriage.

Benefits to men. Men benefit emotionally from equal partnership because there is greater openness and they feel better about their marriage. They also benefit from the greater physical intimacy that comes with equal partnership. Physical intimacy improves physical health and reduces stress. Men in happy marriages also are more productive at work because they are less distracted by concerns at home. Benefits to women. The closer communication and emotional intimacy in an equal partnership greatly benefit women. Research shows that having an equal say in decision making is the most important contributor to wives perception of their marriages as happy and satisfying. Wives are happier when their husbands appreciate them for the work they do in the home and when their husbands are copartners in home matters. They feel better about themselves, are less angry or depressed, feel their relationship is more fair, and are more happy with their marriage. I am still puzzled at how Gottman's research has been used by Eggerichs to support hierarchy in marriage. If this is the case, then any advice that the wife does not need equal say is deliberately teaching unhappiness in marriage. The husband needs equal say also, BTW.
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2009/04/equal-partenrship-in-marriage.html

IS IT EQUAL PARTNERSHIP?
I am handling a marital case where there is a lot of conflict happening. It is an arranged marriage and the couples are finding their feet, so to speak. There are a lot of expectations and some of them are not being fulfilled. So there is disappointment for both. The lady in question is more a live wire. She is a go getter and she prefers all chores done as they arise. She has to remind her husband to get his share done. In the end she ends up doing the chore. She is mad and says it is a marriage for both, so he has to pull his weight. He takes refuge in his work, says he is busy and can help only when he is not having any assignments or projects. He seems to be a person who does not know how to balance his work and life and also does not know to multi-task. I have noticed this aspect in most men. They get distracted when having to accomplish more than one job at a time. Coming to this case, she was upset why she had to pull the house hold chores. He does help, she said he is not a shirker, but either he has to be reminded or he does it when it is too late. Of course she did come across as a perfectionist, but still felt he should contribute more.

When he said he was not always free to help, why she gave him work, she told him she did not create the jobs, it was already there. She is right, when you marry and have children, automatically your old life pattern changes. You have to accommodate a whole lot of new issues and you cannot take refuge in work or other activities. She felt her work load was increasing and she wanted him to contribute because he wanted to. Not because she asked him to. There is subtle line here, not many men understand this. It was at this juncture that I made a statement that though marriage is an equal partnership, normally one partner gets to do more than his/her share of the work. The more dynamic or live wire partner ends up doing the maximum share and the marriage moves on. She told me it was not fair. I agreed with her, but then is life fair? I gave her an example, in my marriage my husband pulls more load. He is more capable than me, faster and being a bit of Type A personality, he believes in doing a job, not waiting or postponing. It is not fair to him but he accepts his side of scale tips more. I have seen many marriages where the dynamic partner ends up doing more and moving ahead or getting frustrated. When things have to be done, the dynamic one gets it done. And since the job is being done, the other partner tends to slack and take it easy. This is a fact, and I feel it is the universal rule of the opposites attract. Imagine if both the partners were dynamic, or both were laid back! It is generally accepted that a man has to be dynamic of the pair. But if women feel they are equal to a man any time, then sometimes they get saddled with more work. When you want an equal footing, you have to put up with some unfair balance. It does not make the doer feel good, but other than prodding and nagging, what can be done? When the less dynamic one is reminded once too often, he/she tends to fly off the handle. This partner does not see the rush, does not feel there is an urgency for everything. Because in an emergency, this partner does pull his/her weight. Only this partner does not see the urgency in all issues. The dynamic one wants a thing done, it has to be done. And till the job is done, this partner will feel restless, and when the patience wears out, he/she gets it done. Sometimes waiting will get better results. But sometimes waiting can lead to losses. So is the lesson, the dynamic one must learn to slow down and the not so dynamic one must learn to speed up? But who decides the urgency? Maybe the person is not being slack deliberately. But if he/she slips up, he/she is termed a slacker because he/she has always waited long. There can be genuine reasons for not getting the job done on time, but since this only leads to arguments, the slower of the two prefers the other partner get the job done. It is a question of who is more dynamic. No two people are same, a dynamic person gets more jobs done. They are wired that way. But the other partner is also capable. Maybe in other fields.

Coming back to the case, this inequality has made her think. She expects a lot from her husband, but he is a single track person. Also his job requires more concentration, more analysis and his job is time consuming. She too works, but she can take off. The sooner she accepts her husband is not really capable of fast foot work, she will settle down in the relationship. And her husband has to be counseled on managing his time better. He must learn to balance his work and personal life. It does sound good in theory that marriage is an equal partnership. But when it comes to handling home and hearth, it is not so. Earlier men pulled more load, but times are changing and women are also beginning to pull more. The roles are changing, boundaries are blurring and so work load for women is increasing. It is not that in all marriages there is unequal partnership. There are plenty of marriages where the responsibilities are equally divided and both the partners contribute equally. Here also balance is maintained and each does contribute more when the situation arises. Contribution becomes situational. The other partner pitches some other time. This is an ideal partnership. There is no weighing of the scales to see who is contributing more, because each pulls his/her load. But in some relationships, the scales are not equal. One partner ends up doing more than his/her share. And this will cause friction and conflicts. And the one who pulls the extra load will get tired some day and will decide to just give up. It is a sobering thought.
http://betweenus.bharatmatrimony.com/?p=574

N DECEMBER 2005, THE NEW

Civil Partnership Act came into force in Britain. For the first time, same-sex couples are now able, through registering their relationships with the state, to receive virtually all of the rights and benefits of civil marriage. Many individual lesbians and gay men, and activist groups such as Stonewall which campaigned long and hard for this legislation are understandably delighted. It is a giant step forward for lesbian and gay rights, making a huge practical difference in our ability to protect our loved ones, and marking the beginning of a new era of acceptance of non-heterosexuality.

But civil partnership is not enough. It is the result of a painful compromise between genuine equality and no rights at all a fallback solution which acknowledges that were entitled to rights, but which continues to withhold the symbolically-charged name of marriage itself. We are committed to equal access to marriage itself for same-sex couples. Our conviction that only equal access to marriage is good enough is based, in part, on our own experience of marriage and the opportunity we have had to make international comparisons. When Sue was based in Canada for two years during the period that same-sex marriage became legally available there (first in Ontario and British Columbia, then across other provinces and territories, eventually culminating in full federal recognition), we got married. This was largely for practical reasons, since Celia was living in the UK and we were trying to continue our relationship across international boundaries, with all the legal problems of immigration, health care provision, wills, power of attorney, and so on, entailed in this. Marriage solved, in a 10-minute ceremony and at the cost of around $200, what would otherwise have taken hours of solicitors time and thousands of dollars to fix. Having married in Canada, we were outraged to find that our marriage is apparently unlikely to be recognised as legal in the UK. We are legally married in Canada. Any different-sex couple with a legal Canadian marriage has that marriage legally recognised in the UK. This is not equality. During the initial period in which Celia shuttled between England and Canada to be with Sue, we were struck by the difference between LGBTQ campaigns in the two countries. The starkest difference was this: in Britain the introduction of civil partnerships was widely hailed as a victory, whereas in Canada it would have been seen as a defeat. The campaigning platform in Canada was always equal marriage, and it was the rightwing and religious fundamentalist opponents of lesbian and gay rights who argued for civil partnerships as a compromise solution. It was truly extraordinary to hear, in Canada, conservative politicians and evangelical Christians arguing for the introduction of civil partnerships for same-sex couples (as a way to avoid granting us marriage rights). Marriage may have seemed a step too far for Stonewall, but for Egale (its Canadian equivalent), it was the non-negotiable hallmark of true equality:

Any alternative status that nonetheless provides for the same financial benefits as marriage in and of itself amounts to segregation. This case is about access to a deeply meaningful institution it is about equal participation in the activity, expression, security and integrity of marriage. Any alternative to marriage, 54 The Psychology of Women Section Review Vol. 8 No. 1 Spring 2006 The British Psychological Society ISSN 14663724

In support of equal marriage: Why civil partnership is not enough

Sue Wilkinson & Celia Kitzinger
in my opinion, simply offers the insult of formal equivalency without the [Canadian Charters] promise of substantive equality. (Justice LaFormes landmark Ontario decision, quoted in Egale (n.d.).) While Stonewall limited its campaigns to a call for equal citizenship, Egale campaigned for equal human rights. In seeking equal marriage, rather than registered civil partnerships, it drew explicit and powerful comparisons with other forms of social injustice, such the bans on inter-racial marriage in the southern US states, or the prohibition of marriages between Aryans and nonAryans in Nazi Germany: Registered partnerships are no substitute for equal marriage. Imagine if the federal government prohibited interracial couples or Jewish couples from marrying, but said well let you register your partnership instead. The very idea is offensive and demeaning. (Egale, 2003) Civil partnerships are an enormous advance for same-sex couples, but they represent a compromise solution. We think that Stonewall underestimated the sea-change in recognition of LGBTQ rights underway across the world. Same-sex marriage is now legal not only in Canada but in several European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain, with Switzerland and Sweden currently considering new legislation), and in the US state of Massachusetts. Recent opinion polls suggest that in countries where same-sex marriage is already legal (Canada, Spain), it is supported by a majority of the population, especially younger people; and even in the US, around a quarter of the population are now reportedly in favour, according to three different surveys conducted in 2005 (www.glaad.org/ media/newspops_detail.php?id=3800). The

first African country (South Africa) will introduce equal marriage legislation in 2006, and there are reports that the first Asian country (Taiwan) may also be moving in this direction. Overseas same-sex couples legally married in Canada are now seeking recognition of their marriages in their home countries across the world. Our own case is matched by cases in Ireland, Israel and Hong Kong (see list of web references below). In the international context of increasing recognition of same sex marriage, Britains (belated) decision to introduce civil partnership legislation (and unlike, for example, France and New Zealand to restrict it to same-sex couples only) is too little, too late. The arguments in favour of equal marriage in South Africa a country with a long history of racial discrimination are particularly instructive. In July 2004 the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project filed an application in the Johannesburg High Court challenging the laws that prevent two people of the same sex from entering into a legally recognised marriage, and in November 2004 the South African Supreme Court of Appeal declared that the common law definition of marriage must be changed to include partners of the same sex. The government appealed, but in December 2005 the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of marriage equality and gave parliament one year to make the necessary legislative changes. Black lesbian activists, including Wendy Isaack, Coordinator of the Legal Advice Centre of the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project in Johannesburg (see Isaack, 2005) make explicit links between the racist oppression of the segregationist apartheid policy and the heterosexist oppression of the segregationist civil partnership policy: this separate but equal approach to same sex marriage will not fulfil our obligation to full equality for lesbian and gay people in South Africa. [] Apartheid was pinned on the notion of separate development [] A deceptive discourse was created around all races being separate but equal [] Keeping same-sex relationships institutionally separate only serves to perpetuate discrimination and segregation and needs to be eradicated from our democracy. (Judge & Vilakazi, 2004) The Psychology of Women Section Review Vol. 8 No. 1 Spring 2006 55 In support of equal marriage Our arguments in support of equal marriage are not so much pro-marriage as pro-equality. We are of course well aware

of feminist and LGBTQ critiques of the institution of marriage (see, most recently, Finlay, Clarke & Wilkinson, 2003; Clarke, Finlay & Wilkinson, 2004); and we have written elsewhere (Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 2004) of our reservations about increased state regulation of our relationships and continued prioritising of presumed-sexual relationships over other models of human caring. However, we have also pointed out that such arguments apply equally to civil partnerships as to marriage. And when marriage is universally understood as the key social imprimateur of the couple relationship, it is fundamentally unjust to introduce a parallel system of relationship recognition for same-sex couples. Whatever we think of marriage, access to it is a fundamental issue of equality. As long as marriage is open only to heterosexuals, and civil partnerships only to lesbians and gay men, the British government is maintaining a symbolic separation of straights and gays, and sending out the clear message that our relationships are of less value to society than heterosexual ones. This is insulting, demeaning, and profoundly discriminatory: an affront to social justice and human rights. The Green Party, the first UK political party to support the campaign for gay civil marriage, calls for an end to sexual apartheid(www.pinkuk.com/community/ newsArticle.asp?id=66). And Peter Tatchell, leading gay human rights campaigner and founder of OutRage!, says: The Civil Partnership Bill creates a form of sexual apartheid, with one law for heterosexuals and another for gays. Samesex couples are excluded from marriage and opposite-sex partners are excluded from civil partnerships. This is not equality. It reinforces and perpetuates discrimination. (Tatchell, 2005) What is the way forward? With the support of Liberty (2005) and OutRage! (2005), we have applied to the High Court for a declaration of the validity of our marriage in Britain. The case will be heard in June 2006. It is an important test case for equal marriage. Our lawyers will argue that any failure to recognise our marriage as a marriage is a breach of our human rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 12 (right to marry) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken together with Article 8 and/or 12, of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The social change in progress is not just

legislative, but represents a major shift in public opinion and social attitudes. Media coverage of our case has been overwhelmingly positive (see our webpages which will be regularly updated for a selection of articles) and we have been heartened, and often moved, by the letters and e-mails of support and thanks we have received from lesbians and gay men across the country (and beyond). A 70-year-old gay man wrote about the difference it would have made if he had been able to marry his life partner of 50 years, while a 20-something lesbian planning a civil partnership told us how upset she was that her parents did not understand its significance, and saw it (at best) as a substitute for the real thing. We have been stunned by the change in attitudes even in the seven years since we were involved in setting up the BPS Lesbian and Gay Psychology Section, and received a substantial amount of hate mail (see Wilkinson, 1999); and for Celia, who came out as lesbian in the early 1970s (see Kitzinger, 2004), this sea-change is extraordinary. We would like to see the British government build on the achievement of civil partnership in three ways: 1. Extend civil partnerships to different-sex couples who are seeking legal recognition of and protection for their relationships, but who (for whatever reason) do not want to get married. Civil partnerships are open to both same-sex and different-sex couples in France and in New Zealand. 56 The Psychology of Women Section Review Vol. 8 No. 1 Spring 2006 Sue Wilkinson & Celia Kitzinger 2. Extend marriage to same-sex couples, as a basic principle of equality. 3. Continue to develop social policies and legal frameworks to support other kinds of committed and caring relationships that dont depend either on presumedsexual relationships, or on presumedexclusive coupledom. The feminist and LGBTQ communities are well-placed to take the lead in offering new visions of relating, and in proposing new social structures to support the relationships we envisage - among them, equal marriage.

Correspondence
Sue Wilkinson is Professor of Feminist and Health Studies in the Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University. Celia Kitzinger is Professor of Conversation Analysis, Gender and Sexuality in the Department of Sociology, University of York. The Psychology of Women Section Review Vol. 8 No. 1 Spring 2006 57

In support of equal marriage

References
Same-sex marriage cases in: UK (our own case): www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/depstaff/staff/ bio/wilkinson.html www.york.ac.uk/depts/soci/s_kitz.html Ireland: www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_346/firstroundwin.html Israel: www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/rdeb070505.htm Hong Kong: www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid= 1288&viewarticle=1 Taiwan: www.etaiwannews.com/Perspective/2005/03/03/ 1109815447.htm. (All accessed 24 August 2005) South Africa: www.equality.org.za/features/20050228mainstreaming. php (Accessed 28 October 2005) and wwwafol.com/articles/17515 (Accessed 3 December 2005) Clarke, V., Finlay, S-J. & Wilkinson, S. (Eds.) (2004). Feminism & Psychology, 14(1). Special Issue on Marriage (II). Egale (2003). Registered partnerships are offensive and unworkable segregation. (Press release) Available from www.egale.ca Accessed 28 August 2005. Egale (n.d.). Equal marriage for same-sex couples: The problem with partnership registries. www.egale.ca/printer.asp?item=122&version=EN Accessed 28 August 2005. Finlay, S-J., Clarke, V. & Wilkinson, S. (Eds.) (2003). Feminism & Psychology, 13(4). Special Issue on Marriage (I). Isaack, W. (2005). LGBTI mainstreaming: Inculcating a culture of human rights. www.equality.org.za/features/20050228 mainstreaming.php Accessed 28 October2005. Judge, M. & Vilakazi, F. (2004). Equality is imperative for same-sex couples. www.equality.org.za/features/20041007 equalmar.php Accessed 28 October 2005. Kitzinger, C. (2004). Afterword: Reflections on three decades of lesbian and gay psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 14(4), 523530. Kitzinger, C. & Wilkinson, S. (2004). The rebranding of marriage. Feminism & Psychology, 14(1), 127150. Liberty (2005). www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ press/2005/kitzinger-and-wilkinson.shtml Accessed 28 August 2005. OutRage! (2005). http://outrage.nabumedia.com/ pressrelease.asp?ID=307 Accessed 28 August 2005. Tatchell, P. (2005). www.pinkuk.com/community/newsArticle.asp?id=66 Accessed 22 August 2005. Wilkinson, S. (1999). The struggle to found the Lesbian and Gay Psychology Section. BPS Lesbian & Gay Psychology Section Newsletter, 1(2), 35.

http://equalmarriagerights.org/PsychologyOfW8no1.pdf

Equal Access to Marriage:

Ending the segregation of same-sex couples and transgender people in Scotland
Equality and Human Rights Commission

The views expressed in this report are that of the authors, Cambium Advocacy, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission. Written by Eddie Follan and Malcolm Sayers of Cambium Advocacy on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland www.cambiumadvocacy.co.uk
1

Acknowledgements 3 Foreword from Kaliani Lyle 4 Executive Summary 5 Introduction 10 Section 1: Where Are We Now? 12 EHRC and the European Court Ruling 12 Scottish and UK Developments 14 Political Context 15

Public Opinion 17 Section 2: Why Change? 18 (A) Discrimination and Detriment 18 Religious detriment 18 Detriment to transsexuals 19 Practical and social detriment 19 Summary and Recommendation 1 20 (B) Changing Public Attitudes 21 Change over time 21 Age 23 How does Scotland compare 24 Party affiliation 25 (C) Religious Attitudes 26 The Congregations 27 The Church Bodies 30 Catholic Church 30 Church of Scotland 31 Quakers 32 Secular or religious law 32 Religious freedom 33 Conscience Clause 34 Summary and Recommendation 2 35

Contents
www.equalityhumanrights.com Equal Access to Marriage 2

Section 3: Options for Change 36 (A) International Comparators 36 Legal consequences and religion 37 The meaning of marriage 37 Summary 38 (B) Scotland and the UK 39 Civil Partnership on religious premises 40 Summary and Recommendation 3 41 Equal access to marriage 41 Summary and Recommendation 4 42 Civil Partnership: What happens next? 42 Summary and Recommendation 5 44 Civil Partnership and mixed-sex couples 44

Summary and Recommendation 6 45 Section 4: How Should Change Happen? 46 Legal challenge 46 Summary and Recommendation 7 47 Holyrood, Westminster or both? 47 Summary and Recommendations 8 & 9 50 What legislative instrument? 51 Summary and Recommendations 10, 11 & 12 51 Legislation and religion 52 Section 5: A Way Forward 53 (A) An Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill: opening up marriage to same-sex couples 53 Consolidating and building political and parliamentary support 53 Keeping options open 54 Addressing the consequentials 54 Recognising and respecting beliefs 55 Legislation to open Civil Partnerships for mixed-sex couples 55 Summary 55 Conclusion 56 Appendix 1 58 The Speakers and Panellists Biographies 58
3 www.equalityhumanrights.com

Acknowledgments
Cambium Advocacy would like to thank Tim Hopkins, Director of The Equality Network, Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at Kings College London, and Simon Stockwell, Head of the Family and Property Law Team at the Scottish Government for giving their time so freely to be interviewed for this report. Thanks are also due to Professor Kees Waaldijk of Leiden University in the Netherlands for making his research available.

Foreword
The Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland has a remit to champion equality and human rights for all, work to eliminate discrimination and reduce inequality. Our daily task is to help Scotland develop in a way that values the ideals that most of us hold dear respect, freedom, equality, dignity and fairness. These are also the core principles that underpin human rights the basic rights and freedoms that belong to us all. We

work with policymakers, stakeholders and the Government to make sure that social policy and the law promote equality. The Commissions Scotland Committee support the introduction of Equal Marriage in Scotland and, in partnership with LGBT Youth Scotland and the Equality Network, hosted a symposium which looked at the political, legal, religious and social aspects of equal marriage from a Scottish perspective, examined the perceived barriers to equal marriage and identified possible solutions for legislators. Scotland currently has a segregated family law system in which marriage is available only to mixed-sex couples, and civil partnership to same-sex couples. In England and Wales, however, the UK Government has announced a public consultation on proposals to hold civil partnerships on religious premises. It has also stated that sometime later it intends to consult on opening up civil marriage to same-sex couples and civil partnership to mixed-sex couples. Because marriage and civil partnership are devolved issues, these proposals apply to England and Wales only. We hope that this report will provide a springboard to moving this issue on in Scotland. Kaliani Lyle Scotland Commissioner, Equality and Human Rights Commission Equal Access to Marriage 4 5 www.equalityhumanrights.com

Scotland currently has a segregated system of family law. Same-sex couples do not have the legal right to marry and are restricted to civil partnership. At the same time the law excludes mixed-sex couples from civil partnership.

Executive Summary
To fully consider how this segregation could be addressed and equality brought to the institution of marriage, the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland, in conjunction with the Equality Network and LGBT Youth Scotland, held an Equal Marriage Symposium. The report from the Symposium, supported by wider research and interviews with key stakeholders,

considered a number of key questions: Where is Scotland and the UK in relation to equal access to marriage? Why change and why change now? What are the options for change? How should change happen? What is the best way forward? This report makes a series of recommendations aimed at legislators at Holyrood and Westminster, and for campaigners.

Where are we now?

Section 1 looks at the changing legal status of same-sex relationships in Scotland, the UK and Europe. Progress towards equal access to marriage in Scotland and the UK has been steady since 2003. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 allows same-sex couples to have their relationships legally recognised, and for the legal impacts of these relationships to be almost identical to marriage. However, this has not satisfied demands for equality, and political and public support in Scotland for same-sex marriage continues to grow. Marriage and civil partnership law is devolved, although some consequences of marriage and civil partnership are reserved. The Scottish Government has so far insisted that any further legal change must take place at Westminster.

Why Change?
Discrimination and public attitudes It is argued in Section 2 that current legislation discriminates against same-sex couples and transgender people, and has significant detrimental impacts. Same-sex couples cannot involve their faith in the process for formalising their relationships. Transgender people are required to divorce if they wish to gain full gender recognition, as the law does not allow Equal Access to Marriage 6 same-sex marriage or a mixed-sex civil partnership. In addition there is evidence

to suggest that civil partnerships are seen as something less than marriage, with less value and status. At the same time, public attitudes on same-sex relationships generally and same-sex marriage in particular have become steadily more supportive since the late 1980s. Polls show that in Scotland 53% supported same-sex marriage in 2006, this had grown to 62% in 2009. Support is more marked within younger age groups and therefore likely to continue to grow as they replace older cohorts. Evidence also shows a clear majority of voters across all the main political parties in Scotland support same-sex marriage. Therefore, while discrimination provides a powerful case for change, growing public support gives a useful context for delivering it. Religious Attitudes Marriage has traditionally contained a religious element which has been central to the institution. As a result religious opinion is often central to the debate surrounding same-sex marriage. However, evidence from the Scottish Social Attitudes Surveys shows that in all of the major denominations in Scotland there is a clear majority supportive of same-sex relationships and marriage. Moreover, within and across church bodies, a range of views can be found, from the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) who formally support same-sex marriage, through the Church of Scotland which has an ongoing debate on its approach to same-sex relationships in general, to the Catholic Church whose teachings unambiguously view homosexual acts as disordered. The report therefore concludes that religious communities need to be consulted and their views given weight. However, the evidence shows that views within and across congregations and church bodies are diverse, and no one

viewpoint should be taken as religious opinion. Religious Freedom Two aspects of religious freedom are explored. On the one hand there are those who feel celebrants would be unable to act in accordance with their faith if same-sex marriage was made legal. On the other hand there are same-sex couples of faith who are excluded from involving that faith in the formalisation of their union. To address these conflicting aspects a conscience clause is proposed. This could allow church bodies, individual churches, and celebrants the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples. This would enable faith communities to act in accordance with their doctrines, and same-sex couples to involve religion in their marriage. Recommendation 1: Current law discriminates against same-sex couples and transgender people with significant detrimental effect. To address this discrimination a change in the law is required. Recommendation 2: The law requires to change in order to increase religious freedoms and allow same-sex couples to commit to their relationships in a religious 7 www.equalityhumanrights.com ceremony. Any change in the law should include a conscience clause which gives those churches and celebrants who do not wish to carry out same-sex marriage the ability to opt out.

Options for Change

There are many examples across the world of different approaches to same-sex relationships. The equivalence approach is common, where civil partnerships are open to same-sex couples, and which have various levels of legal consequence making them, more or less, the equivalent of marriage. In many cases, such as in

Norway and the Netherlands, this approach has been followed by equal access to marriage as the equivalence approach failed to address wider cultural and religious issues. There is no reason to believe that Scotland or the UK will differ from these international comparators and be satisfied with legal equity in a segregated system cultural and religious drivers will continue to fuel the demand for change. There are a range of options for change in Scotland and the UK. The majority of participants at the Symposium, and in a recent survey of LGBT people, favoured marriage being available to same-sex couples and civil partnership being opened up to mixed-sex couples. This appears to be the most rational route to deliver equality. Recommendation 3: In Scotland, the continued focus should be on campaigning to have legislation introduced which allows same-sex marriage and includes the ability to carry out civil partnerships on religious premises. Recommendation 4: Legislation should be introduced to allow samesex couples to marry. Full consideration must be given to what other measures need to be taken to complement this legal change and ensure all aspects of discrimination are addressed. Recommendation 5: To ensure the widest possible choice, civil partnership should be retained alongside equal access to marriage. Recommendation 6: The Westminster government should legislate to open civil partnership to mixed-sex couples.

How Should Change Happen?

Internationally, equal access to marriage has been achieved in a variety of ways. In some cases this has been through legal

challenge, in others it has been as a result of pressure on legislatures. In the UK, the Equal Love campaign has applied to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that having a segregated system violates the European Convention on Human Rights. At Westminster, incremental advances are being made and a consultation on allowing civil partnerships to be carried out on religious premises should shortly be underway. However, the litigation approach is not certain to succeed in the near future, while the Westminster proposals will not, as they stand, deliver full equality. Equal Access to Marriage 8 The report therefore recommends that proposals for legislation are brought before the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for equal access to marriage. However, certain aspects of the legal consequences of marriage are reserved to Westminster such as tax, immigration and pensions which will require some degree of co-operation. Recommendation 7: Priority should be given to campaigning for the Scottish and UK Parliaments to change the law to allow same-sex marriage and to allow mixed-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership. Recommendation 8: Following the election in May 2011 an Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill should be brought before the Scottish Parliament that would allow samesex marriage in Scotland. An Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill would open up marriage to same-sex couples. However, consideration will need to be given to how the Bill would deal with the issue of transgender people having to divorce to gain full gender recognition. As

well as considering how the issue could be dealt with in Scottish legislation the Scottish Government may have to work with Westminster to develop a mechanism to address the issue. In addition, an amendment would need to be made to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to allow for Scottish same-sex marriages to be treated as civil partnerships in England and Wales and for reserved matters in Scotland. If the Scottish Government does not bring forward a Bill, consideration should be given to a Committee Bill or a Members Bill being introduced at Holyrood. Recommendation 9: In advance of an Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill becoming law the Scottish Government should work with the Westminster Government to ensure a mechanism is in place that means a transgender person living in Scotland does not have to divorce, or end their civil partnership, to gain full gender recognition. Recommendation 10: Following the 2011 election, the Scottish Government should bring forward legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry. Recommendation 11: If the Scottish Government fails to introduce legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry, the possibility of (a) a Committee Bill or (b) a Members Bill should be explored. Recommendation 12: Regardless of the mechanism used to create equal access to marriage, a statutory instrument should be used to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004. This would allow Scottish same-sex marriages to be recognised as civil partnerships in Scotland for reserved purposes and in England and Wales for all purposes. 9

www.equalityhumanrights.com

A Way Forward
There is clearly a great deal of momentum in the campaign for equal access to marriage. Consolidating and building political and parliamentary support is essential. This is of particular significance in the pre and immediate post-election period, both to encourage a new Government to come forward with a Bill, and to identify new supporters in Parliament. There is a real need to keep options for change open and preparations should account for the possibility of a Government Bill, a Committee Bill or a Members Bill. Moreover, it is important that whatever option is taken it addresses the wider consequences of passing legislation in the Scottish Parliament. Any Equal Access to Marriage Bill should contain a conscience clause which enshrines in law the rights of those churches and celebrants who do not wish to carry out same-sex marriage, the ability to opt out.

Conclusion
The current system segregates people into separate institutions based on their sexual orientation and is therefore discriminatory. That this discrimination has detrimental impacts is evident. Therefore, for those who want a society where people are not segregated and stigmatised because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, there is a clear need for change. What is required first and foremost is the political will to change, and the willingness of politicians and political institutions to take on the task of delivering this change. A significant and growing majority of the Scottish public, 62%, support same-sex marriage and this majority is likely to continue to grow over the coming years. Therefore politicians should have nothing to fear from a widespread

backlash from voters. Only change that fully tackles the discrimination against transgender people, which maintains, extends and equalises religious freedoms, and ends the discrimination inherent in the terminology of a segregated system, should be considered. An Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill dealing with all of these aspects should be introduced in the Scottish Parliament following the election in May.

Scotland has in the past shown that we and our government can be a pioneer in equalities legislation and in equalities practice, and I think that encourages us, that is part of the reason we are here today, to make the challenge to our legislators and also to draw on that strength. (Angela OHagan, Symposium Chair)
The Symposium included contributions in a main session which looked at: Why the Symposium was taking place and consideration of what legislation needs to change Equal marriage as a matter of religious equality The international perspective An overview of the political landscape Panel question and answer sessions included the consideration of what equal marriage should look like, a contribution from representatives from political parties, and a discussion on the way forward to achieve equal marriage in Scotland. Participants attended workshops considering: Defining the goal The legal changes required

Generating public and political support Implications for faith/religion Young peoples perspectives Scotland currently has a segregated system of family law. Couples of the same sex do not at present have the legal right to marry and are restricted to civil partnership. At the same time the law excludes mixed-sex couples from civil partnership. The Equal Marriage Symposium, organised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland in conjunction with the Equality Network and LGBT Youth Scotland, brought together a wide range of experts, opinions formers, representatives and individuals to debate the current situation and examine ways in which a non-segregated system could be devised and implemented, bringing equality to the institution of marriage.

Introduction
Equal Access to Marriage 10 This report draws on and highlights the key themes from the day and is supported by desk-based research and interviews with some key stakeholders. In writing this report it has been the intention of the authors to extract the main themes from the Symposium and clearly set out the arguments for creating equal access to marriage in Scotland. www.equalityhumanrights.com 11 Building on these themes and arguments, the report contains a series of recommendations. These recommendations are primarily aimed at legislators in the Scottish and UK Parliaments. There are also some recommendations aimed at those campaigning for equal marriage in Scotland. Finally, the report suggests a

way ahead aimed at helping achieve gender-neutral marriage in Scotland.

Section 1: Where Are We Now?

12

ECHR and the European Court Ruling

In Austria in 2004 two gay men Schalk and Kopf applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) on the basis that Austrias failure to legally recognise same-sex marriages constituted a violation of their Human Rights.1 It is important to look at the current situation in the context of developments with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) before considering the key developments in Scotland and the UK, the current political context and changing public opinion. Equal Access to Marriage 1 Specifically Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family). They also complained under Article 14, (rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention should be secured without discrimination), taken in conjunction with Article 8 (there should be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of the right to respect for private and family life) see Council of Europe The European Convention on Human Rights (1950)

Same-sex couples in Scotland can enter into a civil partnership but cannot get married. Civil partnership has virtually the same legal rights as marriage with some minor differences. The law does not allow a religious element to a civil partnership registration ceremony (although this is about to change in England

and Wales where, as a result of an amendment to the Equality Act 2010, civil partnerships will be able to be formalised on religious premises). Married transgender people who wish to have full gender recognition are required to divorce before a full gender recognition certificate can be issued.
13 www.equalityhumanrights.com The basis of their application was that they had been discriminated against on account of their sexual orientation, since they were denied the right to marry. In June 2010 the ECrtHR ruled against both applications. The Court did however note that: There is an emerging European consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples. Moreover, this tendency has developed rapidly over the past decade. Nevertheless, there is not yet a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples.2 The inference in this element of the judgement is that the ECrtHR may be inclined to find in favour of such applications should there be a majority of states which legally recognise same-sex couples. Professor Robert Wintemute of Kings College London, who acted as Counsel for the non-governmental organisations in the case, believes that, overall, the judgement is a positive one: for the first time same-sex relationships are recognised as family life. Its is a significant step forward that the court found that a cohabiting same-sex couple, living in a stable partnership falls within the notion of family life just as the relationship of a different-sex

couple in the same situation would.3 During his presentation Professor Kenneth Norrie also highlighted other benefits of the judgement: I think the case is hugely positive, and there are a number of positives in the judgement. We got recognition of family life which was hugely important. We also got recognition that in due course, as different countries open up marriage to same-sex couples, the court may require it of all countries. In addition, for those countries which have opened up marriage the court said that for those countries, Article 14, the non-discrimination provision, applies. In other words, if you open marriage to same-sex couples you have to do it in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Clearly the situation is not static in Europe. Indeed, with the inference from the ECrtHR judgement above, it may be that in time ECHR signatories will be required to introduce legislation that applies equally to people regardless of their sexual orientation. 2 European Court of Human Rights: Case of Schalk and Kopf v Austria, Judgement, Strasbourg June 2010 3 Cambium, interview with Professor Robert Wintemute (January 2011) Equal Access to Marriage 14 In Section 3 (A) we look further at developments abroad and for lessons which may be useful in the Scottish context.

Scottish and UK Developments

Although marriage law is devolved to Scotland, the legal change, establishing civil partnership, was made at Westminster. Below are the key events that have brought us to the situation we have today. In 2003 Patrick Harvie, a Green Party

MSP, introduced a Members Bill proposal in the Scottish Parliament. He proposed that the Civil Registered Partnerships (Scotland) Bill would establish civil partnership registration for same-sex and mixed-sex couples and provide registered partners with legal protection, rights and responsibilities similar to those provided to married couples. The Bill did not progress but helped to put civil partnership on the political agenda. In 2004 the Scottish Executive confirmed it would seek the Scottish Parliaments agreement to include Scottish provisions in a UK Civil Partnership Bill4. The UKs Civil Partnership Act 20045 was passed and became law in 2005. In 2005 the Gender Recognition Act 2004 made provision for the legal recognition of transsexual peoples true gender. Following application to the Gender Recognition Panel, and meeting several criteria, a person can legally change their gender. However, if that person is married or in a civil partnership this is not the case. As the UK Government refuses to allow same-sex marriages to be created by gender recognition, the Gender Recognition Panel can only issue them with an interim gender recognition certificate. Interim recognition does not change a persons legal gender. The person can only obtain full gender recognition, with legal effect, by ending their marriage. The same rule applies in a civil partnership. It is necessary to apply to court to dissolve the civil partnership before full gender recognition is granted, otherwise gender recognition would create a mixed-sex civil partnership, which the UK Government also refuses to allow.6 In 2009 two petitions were submitted to the Scottish Parliaments Public Petitions Committee: Petition 1239 (Nick Henderson on behalf of LGBT Network), calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish

Government to amend the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 to allow two persons of the same sex to register a civil marriage and a religious marriage if the relevant religious body consents.7 4 Scottish Executive News Release Responses to Civil Partnerships (2004) 5 The Civil Partnership Act 2004 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents 6 Gender Recognition A Briefing from the Equality Network (2009) http://www.equality-network.org/Equality/website.nsf/webpages/ 5EE4DEF17100142280256FE40035CC90 (accessed February 2011) 7 PE1239 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/petitions/docs/PE1239.htm (accessed February 2011) 15 www.equalityhumanrights.com Petition 1269 (Tom French on behalf of the Equal Marriage Campaign), calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend legislation to allow same-sex marriage and mixed-sex civil partnership.8 The Committee closed the second petition and considered the issues as part of petition 1239. After a range of correspondence between the Committee, stakeholders and the Scottish Government, the Committee closed petition 1239 in January 2011 on the grounds that: The Scottish Government has repeated on six successive occasions that it has no plans to change the law in this area and that it is not a priority. In addition, in response to specific points raised by the Committee, the Scottish Government has responded that it does not consider it necessary to conduct research to ascertain how the constitutional difficulties attached to same sex marriage can be resolved and that it does not consider it helpful to establish an advisory committee at this point in time.9 The Equality Act (2010) includes (in section 202) a provision for civil partnership ceremonies to be held on

religious premises. This applies to England and Wales only. As this report was being written, the UK Government announced that the part of the Act relating to this is to be commenced. The change will be entirely voluntary and will not force any religious group to host civil partnership registrations if they do not wish to do so.10 In June 2010 the Equality Network published the results of a survey on marriage and civil partnership. Of more than 400 LGBT respondents, only 6% were happy with the law as it stands. 8% thought that allowing civil partnerships to be conducted by religious organisations would be the answer. 85% said marriage should be opened to same-sex couples. 54% thought this issue is a high priority, and a further 31% that its a medium priority11. In February 2011 the Westminster Government announced it had a desire to move towards equal civil marriage and partnerships, and will be consulting further on how legislation can develop.

Political Context
Legislative developments dealing with discrimination over the past few years are a useful barometer of political opinion in Scotland and the UK. Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network noted that: 8 PE1269 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/petitions/docs/PE1269.htm (accessed February 2011) 9 Scottish Parliament Official Report (January 2011) http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/petitions/or-11/ pu11-0202.htm#Col3365 (accessed February 2011) 10 Government Equalities Office, New push for LGB and T equality will allow civil partnerships in religious buildings Press Release (Feb 2011) 11 Equality Network Marriage Survey (2009) Equal Access to Marriage 16 Recent legislative developments at both a Scottish and UK level have tackled a number of areas of discrimination. Extension of legislation to tackle age and gender

[discrimination] at a UK level, the Hate Crimes Bill passed in the Scottish Parliament and the recognition of male rape in the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act have all been very positive, and leave the fact that same-sex couples cannot marry as the last area of discrimination needing attention.12 At UK level, equal access to marriage is party policy of the Liberal Democrats, whilst the Conservatives 2010 equalities manifesto said they would consider the case for allowing civil partnerships to be called, and classified as, marriage. During his leadership campaign the UK Labour leader Ed Milliband said: Separate but equal is not good enough and PinkNews.co.uks own recent poll demonstrated the huge support in the LGBT community for a right to marry. The cruel consequence of the current compromise is trans people forced to divorce their partners before they could be legally recognised in their new gender. I want to see heterosexual and samesex partnerships put on an equal basis and a Labour Party that I lead will campaign to make gay marriage happen.13 In Scotland the Green Party joins the Scottish Liberal Democrats in adopting equal access to marriage as party policy whilst Scottish Labour, the Conservatives and the SNP have no official party position on the issue. At the Symposium there was recognition that, whilst there are supporters of equal access to marriage across the political parties, there was still a great deal of work to be done to achieve it. Patrick Harvie commented that: theres a role for those of us in every political party who support equal marriage to make sure that we lobby as hard as we can within our political parties and lobby within

our constituents, to be proud of the fact that we support equal marriage and try and change opinions which still exist [against equal marriage]. Although having no party position on equal marriage, the SNP Government does not favour a change in the law: The approach to the Civil Partnership legislation was that it should offer same sex couples the same rights and responsibilities across the UK and we would not wish to depart from that state, so any change would have to be made across the UK.14 12 Cambium, Interview with Tim Hopkins (December 2010) 13 Milliband, E. Labour must listen and lead in the fight for LGBT equality (2010). http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/25/comment-labour-must-listen-and-lead-inthefight-for-equality/ (accessed February 2011) 14 Scottish Government, Letter to Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee (August 2009) http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/petitions/ petitionsubmissions/sub-09/09-PE1239K.pdf (accessed February 2011) 17 www.equalityhumanrights.com 15 NatCen and ScotCen, British/Scottish Social Attitudes Surveys, and presentation from Prof. Curtice. Nick Henderson of the LGBT Network expressed frustration at this position: The Governments position for the last two years has been to put their fingers in their ears and their head in the sand, not wanting to engage with the issue, or with same-sex couples, or the LGBT community in general. And added [we] have to make sure that the next Scottish Government realise that we are not a community that can be ignored, this is an issue we are passionate about and we are not going to sit there and let ourselves be ignored like this government has. Simon Stockwell, Head of the Family and Property Law team in the Scottish

Government confirmed there is currently no inclination to legislate on the issue. The preference would be for legislation to be introduced at Westminster which would, he felt, avoid complications regarding reserved and devolved issues. This is explored in detail later in the report. However, it is Simons belief that: It is down to political will. If after the elections we discover there is a political will [to legislate on equal access to marriage], the civil servants will go away and do it. Whether we do it at Westminster or the Scottish Parliament will depend on where the political will lies. If you gave me the ideal choice, I would probably want to do it for Westminster, I think we can sort it... if the political will isnt there at Westminster, that option may not be available to us. It would appear then that while there is some political will to support changes allowing equal access to marriage, at both Scottish and UK levels, it is not yet clear whether we will see government-led legislation to allow equal access to marriage. However, as is the case internationally, this situation is not static and approaches to shaping this political and legislative context are covered in section 4.

Public Opinion
There has been growing public acceptance of same-sex relationships in the last two decades. The Scottish and British Social Attitudes Surveys show a substantial increase in those who feel same-sex relationships are rarely/never wrong. The surveys show that in Scotland in 2006, 53% of people agreed that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry while 21% disagreed.15 There is therefore a significant and growing majority of people who see nothing wrong with same-sex relations

generally, or equal access to marriage in particular. Public attitudes are explored in detail in section 2(B). Equal Access to Marriage 18

(A) Discrimination and Detriment

Participants were clear that, as it stands, the law discriminates against, and is detrimental to, same-sex couples and transsexual people. Tim Hopkins commented that: [Civil Partnerships] were specifically introduced to deny same-sex couples marriage because there were too many opponents, for example, the Church of England, and the UK government six years ago felt we cant go as far as samesex marriage, so well introduce civil partnership. It is an inherently second-class status. Some people feel its better, thats fine, but the segregation is what causes the discrimination. Laura McLachlan of LGBT Youth saw the struggle for same-sex marriage as a fight for equal rights: I agree with fighting for the right to choose either a marriage or civil partnership. I would love to say Im legally married. I agree we should be able to have the choice and wouldnt be standing here if I didnt want to change what is not right. Not only do I agree, but Im fighting for what others want and ultimately equality is about choice for everyone. It was argued that this discrimination led to various forms of detriment. Religious detriment Same-sex couples cannot marry and cannot have their legal relationship solemnised by a religious or humanist celebrant. Civil partnerships can only be performed by a registrar. The ceremony

cannot have any religious content and cannot take place on religious premises. An amendment to the Equality Act 2010 will allow civil partnership ceremonies in England and Wales to take place on religious premises, although the section of the Act relating to this provision has not

Section 2: Why Change?

There are compelling reasons for addressing the current legal situation as it relates to same-sex marriage. The discrimination experienced by samesex couples and transgender people provides a strong basis for changing the law, whilst shifting public and religious attitudes provide a supportive context for such change.
19 www.equalityhumanrights.com 16 Equality Network, Marriage Survey, (2009) been commenced. Following a listening exercise the UK Government announced on 17th February 2011 that this part of the Act will be commenced. The Scottish Government has no plans to extend this to Scotland. For the Rev Sharon Ferguson it is a matter of involving God in committing to her relationship: I believe that God is love and therefore love can only come from God, therefore for me, making a commitment entering into a covenantal relationship with another person should be done in the eyes of God. The exclusion of religion from the process of committing to a relationship is a fundamental issue for those of faith. Therefore, this issue is more fully assessed

later in this section in the context of the debate on religious freedom. Detriment to transsexuals Under section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the persons gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender. This means that a transsexual who has obtained a certificate under the Act will be entitled to marry or enter a civil partnership according to his or her acquired gender. The key issue, however, is that transgender people must divorce, or end their civil partnership, to gain full gender recognition. This is clearly detrimental and is direct discrimination. During the debate James Morton of the Scottish Transgender Alliance argued that, not only should there be legislation to introduce equal marriage, but that it will not be truly equal unless the requirement to divorce in the Gender Recognition Act is dealt with: It simply isnt equal marriage unless there is an amendment to the Gender Recognition Act. If the issue of transsexual requirement to divorce is not dealt with, we have not implemented equal marriage. In addition transgender people who are required to divorce and enter a civil partnership may have their pensions adversely affected. This is set out below. Practical and social detriment: Discrimination was further evidenced in findings from an Equality Networks survey of 427 LGBT people. When asked whether they were treated equally, with the same respect that married couples were, 58% of respondents in a civil partnership said no.16 Tim Hopkins expanded on this finding: The kinds of discrimination faced were things like, were not going to recognise your civil partner as your next of kin in hospital. Work colleagues bought cards and

presents for colleagues who got married and ignored a colleague who got a civil partnership. Expressions of distaste when people said they were in a civil partnership or people saying, its not a proper marriage. Equal Access to Marriage 20 These are the experiences people reported. Real discrimination is going on. If same-sex couples could marry, that is not going to stop discrimination, but it removes an excuse, the excuse that a civil partnership is not really a marriage, so we dont have to treat you equally. In addition there are anomalies in how some in a civil partnership are treated in relation to payments of survivors benefits and state final salary schemes.17 Many occupational pension schemes do not, as yet, recognise same-sex, or civil partners or unmarried couples.

Summary and Recommendation 1

The establishment of civil partnerships has created a segregated system which discriminates against LGBT people. From this flows a clear detriment. Same-sex couples are prevented from acting in accordance with their faith thus limiting their religious freedom. 17 There are some differences between how those in civil partnerships and those who are married are treated in relation to pension provision. In terms of those in a civil partnership, state final-salary pension schemes will only pay out survivors benefits for years of service after 1988, although widows pensions in most schemes, and widowers pensions in some, are based on years of services starting from earlier dates. In addition if an occupational pension scheme is contracted in to the State Second Pension Scheme, a surviving civil partner must be treated as a surviving spouse, but only in relation to their partners service after the amended Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations came into force December 2005. There is not the same right as in other schemes to have benefits calculated on service from 1988. Benefits are calculated on service from December 2005, irrespective of the date the member

registers a civil partnership. 21 www.equalityhumanrights.com Moreover, requiring people to divorce from an existing marriage before their gender can be recognised has an obvious detrimental impact, not only on that individual but their husband/wife and wider family members. Being excluded from using the term marriage bars couples from the meaning attached to this and their relationships are subsequently viewed, and often treated, as something less. The detriment can also be financial where in some cases civil partners will lose out on pension payments where married couples would not. Such detriment to same-sex couples and transgender people provides a powerful case for change. Recommendation 1: Current law discriminates against same-sex couples and transgender people with significant detrimental effect. To address this discrimination a change in the law is required.

(B) Changing Public Attitudes

... we are in a society where we dont believe there is anything wrong with same-sex relationships, it is a recent climate of opinion, but it is probably one that is going to continue further. (Prof Curtice) This section deals with changing public attitudes towards same-sex relationships and marriage. It is based largely upon Professor Curtices presentation to the symposium which is in turn based on analysis of data from the Scottish Centre for Social Research (ScotCen) and the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) Social Attitudes Surveys. Additional statistics from Gallup, ICM/ Observer and Populus/Times polls are also used.18 The main findings are: There is an increasing acceptance of homosexuality generally and same-sex

marriage in particular, Opposition to same-sex relationships is concentrated within the older age groups, A majority of voters for each of the main political parties support same-sex marriage. Change over time Figure 1 shows changing public attitudes towards same-sex relationships in Britain since 1983. 18 Gallup, Gay Rights Poll (2004) http://www.gallup.com/poll/13561/Gay-Rights-US-More-Conservative-Than-BritainCanada.aspx ICM/Observer, Sex Uncovered Poll (2008) http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/26/relationships Populus/Times, Gay Britain Poll (2006) http://www.populuslimited.com/the-times-the-times-gay-britain-poll-100609.html (all accessed Feb. 2011) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Equal Access to Marriage 22 19 NatCen, press release Scotland takes relaxed attitude to sex (Feb 2011) http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2011-press-releases/ scotland-takes-relaxed-attitude-to-sex It can be seen that from 1987 there has been a steady shift in attitudes and, for the first time, from around 2002, there was a majority who felt there was nothing wrong with same-sex relationships.19 Figure 2 shows that this acceptance of same-sex relationships has been reflected in growing support for same-sex marriage. Since 2002 more people supported samesex marriage than opposed it, this support continued to grow to 2006. These findings from NatCen are reflected in data from other polls showing 61% in the UK (62% in Scotland) supported same-sex marriage by

2009 (Figure 3). Figure 1 Are relationships between adults of the same sex wrong/mostly wrong or rarely/not at all wrong? Britain, 1983-2007 (%) Source: NatCen,/ScotCen Social Attitudes Surveys reproduced from Prof. Curtice 1983 1984 1985 1987 1989 1990 1993 1995 1998 1999 2000 2003 2005 2006 2007 Mostly/Always Wrong Rarely/Not at all wrong 62 64 69 74 68 69 64 55 50 49 46 40 39 32 36 21 18 16 13 17 19 23 29 31 35 41 43 46 49 49 23 www.equalityhumanrights.com 20 Populus, op cit. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 46% 48% 50% 52% 54% 56% 58% 60% 62% Source: see footnote 18 Age Acceptance of same-sex relationships is more marked within younger age groups. Figure 4 shows 77% of the 18-24 age group felt same-sex relationships are rarely or not all

wrong, while a Populus poll of 2009 showed the 25-35 age group most supportive slightly ahead of the 18-24 age group.20 Figure 2 Same-Sex couples should be allowed to marry 2002-2007 (%) Source: Scotcen/NatCen/Curtice Figure 3 Support for same-sex marriage various polls UK, 2002-2009 (%) Scotland 2002 Scotland 2006 Britain 2007 Agree Disagree Gallup 2002 ICM 2008 Populus 2009 41 29 53 21 47 28 52% 55% 61% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Equal Access to Marriage 24 Professor Curtice therefore argued that, while events can change opinion, such as the HIV scare in the early 1980s, it was likely that all things being equal, we should expect acceptance of same-sex marriage to continue to grow as younger cohorts replace older ones: there is plenty of reason to believe that attitudes will continue to become less censorious there is a clear relationship between attitude and age [but] it is not the case that people become more censorious of same-sex relationships as a result of getting older. It is also argued that the changing context within which we grow up plays an

important part in shaping attitudes. The over 65s grew up in a time where homosexuality was illegal. They are also less likely than younger cohorts to know someone who is openly gay. It is such factors which shape attitudes throughout our lives. It is therefore unlikely the younger cohorts will become more homophobic as they age, and likely the trend of increased acceptance will continue. How does Scotland compare Figure 5 shows attitudes in Scotland were more supportive of same-sex relationships than in England. It would appear there is very little difference between attitudes in Scotland and the UK generally. This led Professor Curtice to conclude that: In so far as a politician believes the law should conform to public opinion, there is no reason why the law in Scotland should be different from that of England and Wales... (Prof Curtice) Figure 4 Attitudes towards same-sex relations by age group 2007 (%) Are relationships between adults of the same sex wrong/mostly wrong or rarely/not at all wrong? Source: NatCen/Scotcen/Curtice 18-24 Scotland 65+ Scotland 18-24 Britain 65+ Britain Always/ Mostly wrong Rarely/ Never wrong 17 77 57 24 26 62 60

20 25 www.equalityhumanrights.com Party affiliation Figure 6 shows that among party voters there is a clear majority in favour of same-sex marriage in every party. Figure 6 Same-sex couples should be allowed to marry by party, Scotland 2006 (%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 5 Attitudes towards same-sex relations by country 2010 (%) Are relationships between adults of the same sex wrong/mostly wrong or rarely/not at all wrong? Source: NatCen/ScotCen/Curtice Source: NatCen/ScotCen/Curtice Scotland England Mostly/Always wrong Rarely/Never wrong Con Lab Lib Dem SNP Agree Disagree 37 58 37 53 42 30 54 21 61 22 49 23 Equal Access to Marriage

26 In a message to politicians Professor Curtice pointed out: So in truth its not clear any party necessarily has much to worry about so far as their own ideological flocks are concerned... Therefore, my conclusion is, and its not very often I give politicians quite such stark advice is that, well, there probably isnt much reason you shouldnt act already, given the state of public opinion, but in the not too distant future you wont have an excuse at all.

(C) Religious Attitudes

The church is still the main bastion that is opposed to marriage between people of the same gender. (Rev Sharon Fergusson) Traditionally, marriage in the UK has contained a religious element which has been central to the institution. As a result churches are often central to the debate surrounding same-sex marriage. This section looks in detail at the attitudes of followers of the main faiths and again draws on Professor Curtices presentation. Additionally, we look at the varying stances taken on the issue from church bodies. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Source: NatCen/ScotCen/Curtice Figure 7 Are relationships between adults of the same sex wrong/mostly wrong or rarely/not at all wrong? faith groups Scotland, 2006 (%) Presbyterian Catholic Other

Prot. Xian No Denom None Always/ Mostly wrong Rarely/ Never wrong 37 44 29 55 41 45 33 53 22 67 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 27 www.equalityhumanrights.com The Congregations Within some religious teachings, homosexuality is seen as something less than heterosexuality. This is explored below. It could be reasonably expected, then, to find followers of some faiths holding a negative attitude towards samesex relationships. Indeed Figures 7 and 8 show that acceptance of same-sex relationships generally, and marriage in particular, is highest amongst those professing no faith at 67% and 62% respectively.21 However, a somewhat unexpected finding was that a clear majority in each denomination felt there was nothing wrong with same-sex relationships or marriage (Figs. 7 & 8). Catholics were the

most accepting of both same-sex relations and marriage. Professor Curtice and participants in the symposium felt this highlighted the distance between the views of the various church leaderships and their congregations: ... we have to bear in mind in some religious organisations that what leaders may be saying publicly is not necessarily the views of the majority of their followers. (from the floor) Professor Curtice went on to drill deeper into the attitudes of congregations. As many may profess faith but rarely attend a place of worship, he assessed the views of those who might be seen as most devout, that is those who attend a place of worship at least once each week. Figure 8 Same-Sex couples should be allowed to marry faith groups, Scotland, 2006 (%) Source: NatCen/ScotCen/Curtice Presbyterian Catholic Other Prot. Xian No Denom None Agree Disagree 43 24 57 25 44 38 53 26 62 14 21 Only data for the main denominations were statistically significant and are covered here. Equal Access to Marriage 28 Figure 10 Same-sex couples should be allowed to marry regularity of attendance at place of worship Scotland 2006 (%) Figure 9 Are relationships between adults of the same sex wrong/mostly wrong or rarely/not at all wrong? regularity of attendance at place of worship Scotland 2006 (%)

Source: NatCen/ScotCen/Curtice 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Source: NatCen/ScotCen/Curtice 52 32 28 55 30 55 24 62 Once a Week Once a Month Irregularly Never Always/Mostly wrong Rarely/Not at all wrong Once a Week Once a Month Irregularly Never Agree Disagree 31 43 58 24 55 21 58 15

29 www.equalityhumanrights.com Figures 9 and 10 show a majority of those seen as most devout do not accept homosexuality and disagree with same-sex marriage. The majority in all other categories, those going once per month or less regularly, are accepting of same-sex relationships and marriage. However, on this most devout group (Fig. 11) Professor Curtice noted: ... even here public opinion has shifted quite noticeably during the course of 20 years. Therefore, a community that was in truth 20 years ago pretty much united that same sex-relationships were wrong is now a community which is divided. As older Catholics and Anglicans and Protestants are no longer going to church, because they are no longer with us, we may discover that opinion gradually changes. Figure 11 Are relationships between adults of the same sex wrong/mostly wrong or rarely/not at all wrong? Change in attitudes based on regularity of attendance at place of worship Britain 1989 2007 (%)

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 05 10 15 20 25 30 35

14 24 30

34 -18 -24 -30 -31 Always/Mostly wrong Rarely/Never wrong Once a Week Once a Month Irregularly Never Equal Access to Marriage 30 important, but public opinion and polity are not the same things. How decisions are made [within the church], and what people think are not the same thing necessarily. Also Peter Kearney, spokesperson for the Catholic Church in Scotland, recently pointed out: Ultimately, the role of the Church is to lead not to follow. Much of what it has to say is counter-cultural and challenging, but this is its strength not a weakness.22 Here we give a brief overview of the publicly expressed positions of the main church bodies, the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church. The position of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is also briefly outlined. What is clear is there are a wide variety of views across and within churches. I think from outside, faith communities look more homogeneous than they are. ... There are huge differences in the way decisions are made and the kind of decisions that are open to individual practitioners within different faith communities. (Rev Ian Galloway) Catholic Church In Catholicism marriage has two stated purposes the good of the couple involved and the procreation and education of children. It is a sacrament, involving the

activity of God making sacred the relationship between a man and a woman. When considering the role public attitudes play in shaping public policy Professor Curtice pointed out that the most devout are a small minority, with only 13% of respondents attending church weekly, and that of those only a small and diminishing majority felt same-sex relationships were wrong: The other thing to bear in mind is this: the vocal are not necessarily the numerous. We are in truth a secular society. 63% of people in Scotland now do not, or hardly ever, attend any kind of religious institution. Those who regularly attend are one in eight of all Scots. So one question is: what is the point where you say you really are a minority and we do have to consider the majority opinion? Therefore the message to MSPs and political parties considering changes to legislation was there should be little to fear from a large-scale backlash from voters within the churches. However, it is not only the views of a religious public which might exert influence but those of the church bodies and leaders themselves. It is to these we now turn. The Church Bodies While it may be argued public opinion should to some degree shape public policy, it should be noted this does not necessarily follow for church policy. As Rev Ian Galloway noted: We were looking earlier on at public opinion Of course, that is 22 The Herald, Scots relaxed attitude to sex (9/02/11) 31 www.equalityhumanrights.com In addition, Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality is unambiguous: Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as

acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.23 Therefore, marriage and homosexuality can be seen as incompatible in the eyes of the Catholic Church. There are, of course, dissenting views, such as those recently expressed in a letter to a German newspaper signed by 140 Catholic theologians from Germany, Switzerland and Austria suggesting, among other things, that the priesthood might be opened up to homosexual people: The high value that the Church places on marriage and a celibate form of life should not be called into question. But this does not demand that we exclude people who live responsibly with love, fidelity and mutual respect in a same-sex partnership24 Because of the Catholic Churchs authority structure such views may be regarded as incompatible with the catechism. However, it is clear that disagreements exist within the Church and there are views at variance with current religious teachings. Given this, and the fact that of all the major denominations Catholics are the most accepting of same-sex relations and marriage, support from some individual Catholics for same-sex marriage is likely. At the same time considerable opposition from the institution of the Catholic Church is inevitable. Church of Scotland The Church of Scotland is divided over the issue of homosexuality. Whilst it has not

endorsed homosexuality as a valid way of life, it has resisted attempts to condemn it. Rev Ian Galloway stated that if there was a change in law allowing for same-sex marriage: I think, in my own denomination, youd have the same kind of split that there is at the moment, which is probably down the middle, around people who would want to be able to act out of that change in the law and people who would not. Following the Civil Partnership Act 2004 some ministers were being asked for a religious blessing for partnerships. They sought clarification on the churchs position on this pastoral request since there was a fear some would seek to bring disciplinary proceedings against such ministers. 23 Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357 24The Local, Catholic theologians call for end to celibacy for priests (4/02/11) http://www.thelocal.de/society/20110204-32883.html (accessed February 2011) The Legal Questions Committee of the Church stated: The committee believes that it is important to recognise the existing freedom of pastoral conscience of ministers and others, and to guarantee that they do not face censure in the wake of providing a service in this context. A vote permitting this clarification was narrowly passed but had to be approved by all presbyteries in Scotland, which it was not. The status quo therefore prevails where ministers can respond as they see fit but risk the possibility of disciplinary action. In 2009, amid conflict, the General Assembly voted narrowly to approve the appointment of an openly gay minister, Scott Rennie, in Aberdeen. A moratorium on similar appointments was then declared until May 2011 when the General Assembly will consider the issue again.

There has been an extensive consultation with local congregations and presbyteries, the results of which will not be known until May but will be of considerable significance. There is therefore ongoing debate within the Church of Scotland and its current position is not, as it were, set in stone. Equal Access to Marriage Quakers As the Quakers were the first members of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland to sanction the official blessing of samesex relationships, it is worth looking at their policy here. In July 2009 Quakers agreed to carry out same-sex marriages on the same basis as marriages for mixed-sex couples, saying: we are being led to treat same-sex committed relationships in the same way as opposite-sex marriages, reaffirming our central insight that marriage is the Lords work and we are but witnesses. The question of legal recognition by the state is secondary.26 Secular or religious law? Within and across churches there are wide-ranging, shifting and divergent opinions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. However, whether or not churches can come to an agreed position within their own structures may not be the issue. As Rev Ian Galloway pointed out: if the law is to change, then the law needs to change for the reasons that the law needs to change. Then faith communities would need on the other side of that to work out what their response is to a change in the law. 25 See Onekirk, http://www.onekirk.org/cofs_sexuality_reports.html (accessed February 2011) 26Minute 25, Britain Yearly Meeting 31 July 2009 http://www.quaker.org.uk/sites/default/files/YM%202009%20Minutes.pdf (accessed February 2011) 32

33 www.equalityhumanrights.com 27 The Herald, Letters (1/01/11) His view was that churches would adapt to the legal context within which they exist. However, he did stress that churches have their own cultures and should be given the space and time to adapt to such changing contexts: if we get to the point where faith communities are excluded because they cant immediately respond to a change in the law or where theres compulsion under the law, and for example a catholic priest would be in danger of being prosecuted for refusing to conduct [a marriage], thats a problem. It is clear however that society is becoming increasingly secular and, even amongst those who hold a religious faith, a growing majority accept same-sex relationships. It must be asked then: Firstly, in an increasingly secular society, should the law surrounding sexual relationships be driven by religious beliefs at all? and Secondly, if religious beliefs are to be taken into account when framing laws, should one view point, from what is clearly no homogenous or static world view, be given prominence over other views? It is the premise of this report that the law does need to change, and it needs to change for reasons partly secular (i.e. the discrimination faced by transgender people and the second-class status afforded the term civil partnership) and partly religious (the desire of those of faith to have the freedom to involve God in their commitments to each other). Our view is that in considering a change in the law, secular drivers must have prominence but not to the exclusion of other views. Religious communities, as

with other communities, need to be consulted and their views given weight. However, the evidence shows that views within and across congregations and church bodies are diverse, and no one viewpoint should be taken as religious opinion, as Professor Curtice argued the vocal are not necessarily the numerous. Religious freedom Religious freedom means different things to people. One meaning was expressed recently by the Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti: It would be unwise of society not to see the possible implications for religious freedom in redefining civil partnerships as marriage or indeed by any other subterfuge undermining the rights of faith communities to act in conformity with their legitimately held doctrines and traditions.27 Here the status quo maintains religious freedom. Equal Access to Marriage 34 An alternative view was given by Rev Sharon Fergusson outlining what she felt was a denial of religious freedom by the status quo: for me this should be about us all having the same choices to be able to decide for ourselves whether marriage is a religious commitment or not, and to then have the opportunity to celebrate it in that way... the commitment is not only between me and my partner, but also involves God... Additionally, Tim Hopkins asked: Why? Why do people think marriage should be opened up? One reason is freedom of religion. If youre a Quaker or a Unitarian or liberal Jew all of your religious

bodies would like to be able to conduct a same-sex marriage for you and for it to be legally effective. Whose religious freedom is then is more important those who fear being denied the choice to act in accordance with their faith, or those who are currently excluded from doing so? Conscience Clause One very simple option for tackling this apparent dichotomy was put forward, a conscience clause. A conscience clause could be designed to allow church bodies, individual churches, and celebrants the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples. This clause exists in various formats in legislation in several countries including Canada and Norway. It is possible to require that only celebrants from church bodies who agree can sign up with a registrar to perform such ceremonies. This would allow faith communities to act in accordance with their doctrine and allow same-sex couples the freedom to involve religion in their wedding. Two objections were put forward to a conscience clause. Firstly, it was argued that, as individual celebrants already have the right to refuse to perform a marriage if they believe the couple are unsuitable, it is not required. Secondly, it was suggested an opt-out clause was unacceptable as it would not be thought acceptable if celebrants refused mixed-race marriages, so why would it be fine to reject same-sex couples? The first objection needs to recognise that not only individual minsters can be covered by such a clause, but entire faiths. Therefore if the Catholic Church, for example, chose not to perform same-sex marriages, then individual Catholic priests could not do so. The clause is about allowing church bodies, as well as celebrants, this opt out. While this may be an issue for an individual celebrant who wishes to perform same-sex marriages,

it is an issue that needs to be resolved between that individual celebrant and their church body. The second objection is more problematic. This is about maintaining in law a level of discrimination against homosexual people. However, attempting to force celebrants to act against their faith is neither desirable, if one believes in protecting religious freedom, nor achievable, in any practical sense. Therefore, while both civil and religious marriage can be opened up for all, church bodies and individual celebrants should be left to deal with their own internal conflicts and respond as they see fit. www.equalityhumanrights.com 35

Summary and Recommendation 2

It is not only those who have a faith who wish to marry. The term marriage is itself of wider cultural significance and denying people access to it is to deny them this meaning. Alongside this there is the issue of discrimination against transgender people. For non-religious same-sex couples to face continued discrimination due to the views of some elements of some faith communities seems unjustifiable. Moreover, there are churches, individual celebrants of various faiths, and individuals of faith who wish to use religious ceremony to formalise same-sex marriage but who are not free to do so. Equal access to marriage would allow celebrants and same-sex couples to use the same terminology and follow the same ceremonies as mixed-sex couples while a conscience clause, allowing individual minsters and church bodies to opt out, would allow all people to act according to their own doctrines. In an increasingly secular society, and a society where a growing majority, within both religious and secular communities, see nothing wrong with homosexuality, it

must be considered whether the views of a minority should be allowed to restrict the freedom of others, both the faithful and secular, to act according to their own world views. Recommendation 2: The law requires to change in order to increase religious freedoms and allow same-sex couples to commit to their relationships in religious ceremony. Any change in the law should include a conscience clause which gives those religious bodies and celebrants who do not wish to carry out same-sex marriage the ability to opt out. Equal Access to Marriage 36

(A) International Comparators

Globally there are examples of almost every possible approach to same-sex relationships, ranging from equal access to marriage, to the criminalisation of homosexuality. Here we give a very brief overview and seek to highlight the main lessons for Scotland. Ten countries have equal access to marriage, seven of which are in Europe,28 whilst a number of sub-national jurisdictions have equal access including several US states and Mexico City.29 Additionally, there are over 20 jurisdictions where some form of civil partnership exists.30 Professor Norrie noted three approaches around the world to increasing equalities for same-sex relationships. 1. The formalisation of cohabitation. The legal rights in cohabitation can be extensive, as in Victoria, Australia. However, it is neither legally binding nor exclusive. One can ultimately walk away. 2. The equivalence approach. This is civil partnership open to same-sex couples bearing some level of legal consequences. These are legally

exclusive relationships and require to be ended through legal processes. 3. The marriage approach. This is where marriage has been made gender neutral and where almost all legal consequences for same and mixed-sex couples are the same. Professor Norrie noted several paths were followed to deliver the equal marriage approach. In Portugal, Argentina, parts of Spain and Canada, and three US states they developed same-sex marriage without any prior creation of civil partnerships. Same-sex marriage followed civil partnerships, which continued to co-exist, in the Netherlands, South Africa and Belgium. In Iceland, Sweden and Norway same-sex marriage followed and replaced civil partnerships. Clearly the UK currently fits into the equivalence approach.

Section 3: Options for Change?

28Holland 2001, Belgium 2003, Spain 2005, Norway 2008, Sweden 2009, Portugal
2010 and Iceland 2010, with the other 3 being Canada 2005, South Africa 2006 and Argentina 2010. 29Including Washington DC, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. 30For a full list see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union (accessed February 2011) 37 www.equalityhumanrights.com 31 Waaldijk, K. More or less together: Levels of legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnership for different-sex and same-sex partners. A comparative study of nine European countries. (INED 2005). The country where the legal impacts were most similar was the Netherlands. However by this time same-sex marriage existed in the Netherlands. Also, as marriage is only a civil institution in the Netherlands it is disregarded for this comparison. 32 New York Times, Dutch Views on Same-Sex Marriage (09/11/09) based on interview with M. V. Lee Badgett, author of When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, (accessed 25/01/11)

In terms of the way ahead, if it were to legislate for equal access to marriage, it would be similar to those countries such as Norway and the Netherlands, which developed civil partnerships first and then moved to equal marriage. Legal consequences and religion A 2004 study of nine European countries found that the legal consequences of same-sex civil partnerships were broadly similar to those of the separate institutions of mixed-sex marriage in Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark31. However, in these countries only marriage (mixed-sex) could be formalised by a religious practitioner in a church. Civil partnerships could only be performed in a civil ceremony. Therefore, despite the extensive legal rights afforded civil partners in these countries, the campaigns for equal access to marriage continued and were ultimately successful in all except Denmark where the campaign continues. Similarly, as Professor Norrie demonstrated, there are very few legal differences between civil partnerships and marriage in the UK. He argued therefore that, from an atheistic and legally pragmatic point of view, civil partnerships as they currently stand are adequate. However, there are clearly other drivers of change such as the desire to involve religion in the ceremonies formalising a union, as was seen in the Nordic countries above. Therefore there is little reason to believe legal edifices alone will satisfy the demand for equality in the UK. In all of the countries that moved to equal marriage, conflict with various churches occurred. Several countries responded with a variety of conscience clauses where churches and/or individual minsters could opt out, including Canada, Sweden and Norway. The meaning of marriage In another study, based on the Dutch experience of civil partnerships, the term

marriage itself was what was seen as important, as having cultural meaning beyond partnership. Only marriage has the social understanding to back up the legal status, and the social meaning is as important as the legal rights. Civil unions just dont have that social meaning. One woman I interviewed put it this way: Two-year-olds understand marriage. Its a context, and everyone knows what it means. 32 38 Equal Access to Marriage It is noteworthy that this study was based in the Netherlands where, with Belgium, Germany and France, marriage starts as a civil union by a public authority rather than religious celebrant. It is not therefore the religious element of the process of getting married which drives this demand for change, but the desire for the ability to use the term itself due to the cultural value attached to it: the word marriage matters. The Dutch same-sex couples I interviewed saw their civil unionlike status as a bit of nothing, as one person called it, or as a political compromise that an accountant might invent... So the drive for equality goes beyond legal consequences and into religion, and beyond religion into wider cultural values. As the Equality Network in Scotland points out, a variety of court rulings in the USA and Canada found that a segregated system for marriage and civil partnership based on sexual orientation is discriminatory. The Equality Network goes on to argue that this reflects the practical fact that civil partners do not always get treated with the same respect for their relationship as married couples do, and in part it reflects the fact that a segregated system, by its

very nature, stigmatises people and reinforces a second class status.33

Summary
In the countries where equal access to marriage exists, this was driven by the demand for equality across all aspects of marriage. Legal equity alone has not proved adequate in the countries which first adopted an equivalence approach. This approach has been followed by equal access to marriage in countries such as Norway, Iceland and Sweden where civil partners were initially denied access to religious ceremony to formalise their union. In the Netherlands, marriage is civil, but even here civil partnerships were seen as inadequate partly because of the cultural significance of the term marriage. Similarly, in court rulings in the USA and Canada it was this cultural meaning of the term which was seen as central and a segregated system as discriminatory. It is clear that in the UK the almost identical legal consequences in civil partnership and marriage have not been enough to quell demand for equal marriage. The evidence from abroad suggests that all aspects of marriage legal consequences, religious ceremony, and cultural status drive the demand for equality. There is no reason to believe that an advance in any one of these on its own will be viewed as anything but partial equality. 33 Equality Network, http://www.equality-network.org/marriage (accessed January 2011) 39 www.equalityhumanrights.com

(B) Scotland and the UK

During the Symposium participants were presented with five options regarding civil partnerships and marriage and asked to vote on which one they favoured. The options were: The current system is fine

The current system would be fine if a civil partnership could be registered in a ceremony carried out by a religious or humanist leader Marriage should be available to all couples (same sex and mixed sex), and civil partnerships will not then be needed at all Marriage should be available to all couples and civil partnerships should be kept for same-sex couples only Marriage and civil partnerships should both be available for all couples (same sex and mixed sex) to choose between Put to a vote almost 70% (37 of 53) of participants favoured the option of marriage and civil partnerships being available for all. As can be seen in Table 1, the support for this option was even more pronounced than in the 2009 Marriage Survey carried out by the Equality Network. Table 1 Statement Agree The current system is fine 6% The current system would be fine if a civil 8% partnership could be registered in a ceremony done by a religious or humanist leader Marriage should be available to all 31% couples (same sex and mixed sex), and civil partnerships will not then be needed at all. Marriage and civil partnerships should 54% both be available for all couples (same sex and mixed sex) to choose between Equal Access to Marriage 40 Debate at the Symposium focused on allowing civil partnerships to take place on religious premises; allowing same-sex couples to marry; keeping or abolishing civil partnership when equal access to marriage is achieved; and the implications of opening civil partnership to mixed-sex couples. Each of these areas is examined

below. Civil Partnership on religious premises The optimistic view of the amendment to the Equality Act 2010 (section 202), making provision for civil partnerships to be carried out on religious premises, would be that it was a step closer to equal marriage. However, it should be judged on a) whether it is what people want, and b) whether it addresses the discrimination highlighted in section 2 above. In terms of the desirability of this option, it is clear that it would not address the wishes of the majority of the LGBT communities polled by the Equality Network nor during the vote at the symposium. In terms of the solutions looked at in England, to open up civil partnership so it can be done on religious premises, but still keeping it as civil partnership, only eight per cent thought that was a good longterm solution. In other words, most people didnt think it was equality, although it might be a step forward. (Tim Hopkins) However, Rev Sharon Ferguson pointed out that civil partnership carried out on religious premises may be desirable as it avoids some of the baggage carried by the institution of marriage: For some people its about having a religious element to the civil partnership... What they want is to have God in that relationship and recognised in their commitment, but without that baggage [of marriage]. Also, without feeling theyre just emulating a straight relationship. Theyre recognising their relationship is different in some ways because its based on equality of their gender as well as in other areas.

Therefore there would appear to be a role for civil partnerships to be carried out on religious premises allowing people of faith to have God involved in their commitment while avoiding the term marriage. However, unless the law barring celebrants from carrying out same-sex unions is changed, it must be assumed that a registrar will be required. Perhaps, having a celebrant carry out a ceremony with a civil registrar in attendance to make it legal, would make it feel more like a marriage. However, it is not clear that all people would be satisfied with a ceremony which in reality remains different, but which has been made to look more like marriage. It seems a convoluted route which does not deliver equal religious freedoms for those of faith. Moreover, it does not address the other elements of discrimination namely the exclusion from the cultural meaning of term marriage, and the detriment 41 www.equalityhumanrights.com suffered by transgender people forced to divorce. At this time the Scottish Government has no plans to allow civil partnerships to take place on religious premises in Scotland.

Summary and Recommendation 3

Allowing the formalisation of civil partnerships on religious premises is at best a partial solution to part of the problem. It seems a convoluted way of creating the illusion of marriage for samesex couples while denying its reality. Moreover, it will not address the broader aspects of discrimination mentioned above. On its own it would seem to the current authors to be a distraction from the desired end and may prove counterproductive by allowing for illusion of equality. However, as part of broader legislation on gender-neutral marriage, it may prove useful for those of faith who do

not wish to carry the baggage of marriage. Recommendation 3: In Scotland, the continued focus should be on campaigning to have legislation introduced which allows same-sex marriage and includes the ability to carry out civil partnerships on religious premises. Equal access to marriage: marriage for same-sex couples The key concern of participants at the symposium and those responding to the marriage survey was that same-sex couples should be given the right to marry. Tim Hopkins gave three main reasons why equal access to marriage was wanted and needed: Freedom of religion Transsexual people being forced to divorce before they can get gender recognition The importance of status and symbolism and the effect of these on the prevalence of discrimination These are discussed in detail elsewhere in this report. Equal access to marriage must, like the provision to hold civil partnership on religious premises, be judged on whether it is what people want, and whether it addresses the range of discrimination set out in section 2. On the first point, there appears to be no ambiguity among those in the LGBT community that equal access to marriage is what they want. On the second point, making marriage gender neutral would go some way to addressing the different aspects of discrimination and detriment experienced by same-sex couples. Beyond religious objections, and more general discriminatory attitudes, discussion focussed on how change should be delivered and who should deliver it. Simon Stockwell argued that process was important: To instigate change it is important

to think about what process we need to ensure that the change, which theres a political will for, would come about, and how best to reach a view what that change should be, and that all the implications are considered, and that we make sure we bring Westminster with us. Equal Access to Marriage 42 Whilst process is important, particularly as full consideration needs to be given to the impact of legislating, the primary focus for campaigners should be to use the favourable changes in public, political and religious opinion to establish the political will for change amongst key decision makers. Suggestions for the most effective processes to achieve the desired change are detailed below.

Summary and Recommendation 4

There is a clear appetite among LGBT communities for legislation which creates equal access to marriage. Allowing samesex couples to marry would address many of the issues of discrimination and detriment experienced by same-sex couples and transgender people. Nevertheless this will depend on what other measures are taken. Legislating for same-sex marriage will also require legislation in other areas and may well require action at both the Scottish and UK levels. To ensure that all aspects of discrimination are addressed, this is not an option that can be carried out in isolation. Recommendation 4: Legislation should be introduced to allow samesex couples to marry. Full consideration must be given to what other measures need to be taken to complement this legal change and ensure all aspects of discrimination are addressed.

Civil Partnership: What happens next? It was highlighted in section 3 (A) that in countries with equal access to marriage, different approaches were taken to civil partnerships. Four main options exist: end civil partnerships and allow partners to convert to marriage; close them to new entrants but allow existing ones to carry on; retain them for same-sex couples only; retain them and allow access for all. One argument against the retention of civil partnership is that, if marriage is open to all, there is little point in having two institutions with the same function. Why have two institutions to achieve the same effect. Peoples answer is choice. But why dont we have choice between marriage, civil partnership and tiddly plonk? That is exactly the same as civil partnership. I want that. People say its the same. You call it you what want to call it. It doesnt matter. Legally, if the consequences are the same for the two institutions, its unnecessarily complicated in law to have [those] two institutions. That is my view. (Prof Norrie) So, if we have marriage as it stands, open to all, or develop a new form of civil marriage, as was suggested by Professor Norrie, there may indeed be no need for anything else if all the legal consequences are the same. Another argument was made that civil partnership should be abolished on the basis it has less cultural meaning than marriage. Tim Fell, representing the Conservative Party group LGBTory argued: Civil partnership feels too much like a contractual agreement. I think a marriage is an agreement based on love and commitment and long-term 43 www.equalityhumanrights.com

monogamy. I think a marriage is an incredibly powerful act. I would like to get rid of civil partnerships, have marriage for everyone, equality for all and I dont think there is a need for civil partnership. In terms of overcoming the discrimination and detriment outlined in Section 2 these are attractive arguments. If one institution was open to all, regardless of sexuality or gender, the issue of transgender people having to divorce would be dealt with. The religious discrimination against same-sex couples would also be dealt with. Applied across the UK it could simplify the legal situation. Finally, it would overcome issues arising from differing status given to the two institutions. However, this approach is also problematic in two interconnected respects. Firstly, the view that a formalised union is only a legal relationship ignores the wider cultural meanings of such a union. Secondly, the view that this cultural meaning of marriage is attractive to all is a mistaken one. For many couples civil partnership is preferable to marriage. This was reflected in the survey carried out by the Equality Network: We also said to people if we introduced same-sex marriage and youre already in a civil partnership and you can convert your civil partnership to a marriage by some simple process would you want to do that? 58 % said yes but 42% said no wed rather stick with the civil partnership. So you can see if we abolish civil partnership, wed be taking something away from people who want to keep it. What we should do, therefore, in the Equality Networks view, is have both available to everybody. (Tim Hopkins) Rev Ferguson explained some objections to marriage:

I also understand the objections to marriage, it is very much based in patriarchalism She continued, I understand for a lot of gay people and lesbians that marriage has the heteronormativism aspect to it as well. They feel they are mimicking straight relationships and they want something different. So, while the establishment of equal marriage accompanied by the abolition of civil partnership may achieve an end to discrimination, marriage is not the preferred option for all. Patrick Harvie, MSP went on to argue that, rather than narrowing the choices available to people, the states role was to be as flexible as possible: I think we need to be clear about what is the states business here. The states business I think is to offer support on the basis of family law to people on their own terms, in a range of different ways, because people are different. James Morton agreed that the rights of transgender people would be best served by having a range of choices: Civil partnerships need to be retained. [There are] issues around having to divorce or dissolve a civil partnership to get [gender] recognition. People are clear they want civil partnership and marriage open to all couples, regardless of gender, by having the options remaining, so people have the choice and the least interference in their existing relationships. If they have made a civil partnership, they shouldnt be forced to change the nature of their relationship and the legal situation theyre in.

Summary and Recommendation 5

It is clear therefore that the legal consequences can be almost identical between marriage and civil partnerships and there is little legal reason to maintain both institutions. However, it is also clear that marriage has a wider cultural meaning beyond the law which many couples desire. It is also clear that many other people do not want to use the term or be associated with its wider meanings. For them civil partnerships are clearly more desirable. We therefore recommend expanding upon peoples choice here and maintaining civil partnerships in the context of equal marriage. Recommendation 5: To ensure the widest possible choice civil partnership should be retained alongside equal access to marriage. Civil Partnership and mixed-sex couples I thought if we were creating a new institution it was bizarre to create one that had inbuilt prejudice from day one. (Patrick Harvie MSP) A key argument for opening civil partnership to mixed-sex couples is that it is in line with an approach of equality for all. Patrick Harvie noted his Members Bill proposal in 2003 would have opened up civil partnership to mixed-sex couples on the basis that legislation aimed at eliminating inequality in one way should not create it in another. He also felt equal access to marriage was tied up with allowing mixed-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership: I think it is clear, if we do win the argument on opening up marriage to same-sex couples it is likely that civil partnership will be opened up. A majority of the politicians attending supported civil partnership being open to all. Shirley-Anne Somerville, MSP argued that denying mixed-sex couples access to civil partnership was equivalent to denying same-sex couples access to

marriage: People should have the right to choose between either. If straight couples want to enter into a partnership as a different way of marking love and respect for each other, that is fine. I wouldnt tell them that they cant do that anymore than we should be telling same-sex couples they cant get married. 44 Equal Access to Marriage 45 www.equalityhumanrights.com Margaret Smith, MSP outlined the Liberal Democrat position: Our position is that we would have equal marriage open to samesex couples and civil partnerships opened to straight couples. While there are technical issues about opening up civil partnership to mixed-sex couples in Scotland within the context of devolution, explored later in the report, there was little disagreement that this was desirable.

Summary and Recommendation 6

Opening civil partnership to mixed-sex couples ensures a truly equal approach. In addition it would mean that transsexual people in a civil partnership would not have to dissolve the partnership to gain gender recognition. The diversity of human relationships, and the various meanings attached to these, mean the law should include a range of options allowing people to access institutions which best match their circumstances, needs and beliefs. Equal access to marriage and civil partnership for both mixed and same-sex couples would seem the most rational way to deliver this. Recommendation 6: The

Westminster government should legislate to open civil partnership to mixed-sex couples. Legal challenge In a number of countries equal marriage has been delivered through legal challenges. However, in Europe the introduction of equal marriage has been achieved solely by pressure brought to bear on legislatures who have responded with legislation. On 2nd February 2011 the Equal Love campaign in England made an application to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that banning same-sex marriage and mixed-sex civil partnerships violates Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The campaign is described as the legal bid to overturn the twin bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships in the United Kingdom.34 Peter Tatchell, a key member of the campaign, describes the law which stops same-sex civil marriages and mixed-sex civil partnerships as a form of sexual apartheid, arguing that gay and heterosexual couples should be equal before the law.35 It is believed that the legal challenge has the potential to force a change in legislation at a UK level, as Professor Robert Wintemute said: I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UKs system of segregating couples into two separate but equal legal institutions violates the European Convention. I predict that same-sex couples will be granted access to marriage in the UK and that this will be because the UK Government will eventually accept that it cannot defend the current discriminatory system.36 Tim Hopkins believes that in light of the

decision in relation to Schalk and Kopf v Austria the litigation approach is making progress, albeit slowly: The point is the European Convention is a living instrument. The way the court interprets it depends on the social situation across the whole of Europe. What the court effectively said was, in the 46 Equal Access to Marriage

Section 4: How Should Change Happen?

34Equal Love Campaign Website, http://equallove.org.uk/ (accessed Feb. 2011) 35 Equal Love Campaign Press Release (2011) Legal bid for gay marriages and
heterosexual civil partnerships see http://equallove.org.uk/2011/02/ equal-love-case-filed-to-european-court/#more-276 (accessed February 2011) 36Cambium interview 47 www.equalityhumanrights.com future when a significant majority of European countries allow same-sex marriage, the court may say now all of you have to do it, but we could be waiting up to 30 years before a significant majority of European countries do allow same-sex marriage. Professor Wintemute, when interviewed, welcomed any legislative pressure from Scotland and believes it can only add to the growing movement for equal access to marriage. As legal advisor to the Equal Love campaign he believes the UK Government will, when asked to respond by the ECrtHR, legislate to make equal access to marriage a reality. He believes the direction of travel makes change inevitable: Although Schalk and Kopf was lost it does represent another step in the evolution of the legal status of samesex

couples in Europe, from criminals risking death or imprisonment for their private same-sex sexual activity, to fully equal citizens entitled to marry. Tim Hopkins believes that campaigning to get the Scottish Parliament to legislate is the best option here: Because of the situation at the moment, we think the way forward in Scotland is to try and change the law through the Scottish Parliament. We think it will take less time to do that than it would take to take the cases to the European Court of Human Rights and wait for them.

Summary and Recommendation 7

Legal challenges to laws discriminating against same-sex couples have been successful in other countries. However, as yet, there have been no successful legal challenges in Europe. All same-sex marriage in Europe has been delivered through governments and parliaments acting to change the law. Nevertheless the ruling on Schalk and Kopf gives some hope that in the future the ECrtHR may require signatories to the Convention to allow same-sex couples to marry. The challenge to the UK from the Equal Love campaign may well add momentum to this process. It is clear, however, that this may take considerable time and the opportunities afforded by growing political and public support should be grasped. The ongoing legal challenges are therefore useful but they should not detract from attempts to influence the UK and Scottish Parliaments. Recommendation 7: Priority should be given to campaigning for the Scottish and UK Parliaments to change the law to allow same-sex marriage and to allow mixed-sex couples to enter into a civil

partnership. Holyrood, Westminster or both? The Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate to introduce equal access to marriage. However, although marriage is a devolved issue, certain aspects of its legal consequences are reserved to Westminster such as tax, immigration and pensions and would therefore require some level of cooperation between the Parliaments. The opening of civil partnership to mixedsex couples would also require amendments to legislation at Westminster. The Equality Network has suggested three possible ways forward: Co-ordinated legislation at Holyrood and Westminster where both parliaments introduce legislation to establish equal access to marriage and civil partnerships. This would deal with issues around tax, pensions and immigration. This type of legislative approach has not been done before. Legislation at Westminster that covers Scotland, England and Wales. This would require the political will at Westminster to legislate for equal access to marriage and civil partnerships, and for the Scottish Parliament to pass a Legislative Consent Motion (LCM) to allow Westminster to legislate on devolved matters. Introducing an Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill at Holyrood. This could provide for equal access to marriage for same-sex couples and be effective for all devolved purposes. A statutory instrument would be required at Westminster to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to treat Scottish same-sex marriages as civil partnerships in Scotland for reserved purposes and in England and Wales for all purposes. Options one and two would require the cooperation of the UK Government to bring forward or amend legislation. The Liberal

Democrats have adopted equal access to marriage as party policy. Additionally, as this report was being prepared, the UK Government announced that, Ministers have also identified a desire to move towards equal civil marriage and partnerships, and will be consulting further how legislation can develop.37 Marriage is, however, devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The move by the UK Government will add weight to arguments that a new Scottish Government should take option three above and move to create equal marriage. Politicians attending the symposium held slightly different views on the way forward. Lesley Hinds, Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Scottish Labour Party, felt that achieving equal access to marriage required Westminster and Holyrood to work together: We want to make sure if were going to bring it through the Scottish Parliament its done in partnership with Westminster. With Ed Milliband making a commitment I think we could work within all the political parties hopefully within Westminster. But the first step is to get people interested in all political parties, and within the Scottish Parliament soon after May, and decide a timetable and how well do this and actually make sure it gets through the Scottish Parliament, and also work with Westminster. 48 Equal Access to Marriage 37 Government Equalities Office News release 17/02/11 http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=418069&Subject Id=2 49 www.equalityhumanrights.com Patrick Harvie felt that if the Scottish Parliament seized the initiative it would pressure the UK government into acting: Id be delighted if the UK

government was to move on this and also surprised if it did in the near future, but one opportunity that devolution gives us is the opportunity to crack on here and start drafting legislation and making it clear to the UK government they have to face that situation. I think if we cracked on and said, Youre going to have to respond to this one way or the other, I think then they would move because they already have to recognise relationships registered in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage elsewhere in Europe is allowable and they already have to respond to that. Margaret Smith for the Scottish Liberal Democrats argued that Westminster was the first port of call, however she also noted that: I think Patrick is right. I think if the UK government dont address this, then I think the option is there that the Scottish Parliament can and should. She felt strongly that it should be done in partnership to avoid any harmful anomalies arising: Whichever option we take, there has to be a lot of discussion about how we make sure that we dont get into the situation that weve got at the moment in terms of the transgender community, where there are anomalies after the civil partnership legislation. Legislating at the Scottish Parliament does appear to leave open some anomalies. Tim Hopkins believes many of these can be dealt with without primary legislation at Westminster: An Equal Marriage (Scotland) Bill would open up marriage to same-sex couples and would be effective for all devolved purposes, whilst

Scottish same-sex marriages would be recognised in other countries with equal access to marriage. A statutory instrument at Westminster could give a Scottish same-sex marriage the same status as a civil partnership for reserved purposes in Scotland and for all purposes in England and Wales. It is also important to deal with the issue of transgender people having to divorce to obtain gender recognition. In relation to the Gender Recognition Act, James Morton proposed solutions which could address this issue either at Westminster, or in a Holyrood bill: The way we could change the Gender Recognition Act depends on whether the legislation is done at a Scottish Parliament level or UK level. The ideal solution would be to remove the requirement to divorce from the [Gender Recognition] Act, so that anybody who can show they have been living in the new gender role for over two years is eligible for legal recognition, regardless of their marriage circumstances. If we were doing [same-sex marriage] through the Scottish Parliament, and it was only changing what would be the case of people in Scotland and not for England and Wales, then you could make it a simpler process by still having the interim certificate but saying in Scotland perhaps that if somebody came with their interim gender recognition certificate to the Sheriff Court in Scotland they could have a declaration from both parties and instead of them going through a divorce, the sheriff would say, right, I grant you the full gender recognition certificate and Im not requiring you to do the divorce first. So there are solutions to enable it to

work in Scotland, even if not implemented across the whole of the UK.

Summary and Recommendations 8 & 9

There is clearly some political support for creating equal access to marriage for same-sex couples in Scotland and the UK. In Scotland, pursuing legislation through the Scottish Parliament is a legitimate route in itself and can deliver much of what is required to end discrimination in relation to religious equality and the use of the term marriage. The most effective approach would be if legislation was introduced at Westminster that also applied to Scotland through a Legislative Consent Motion. This could then deal with all of the devolved and reserved issues around civil partnership. The solution to transgender people having to divorce should be achieved by the Scottish and Westminster Governments working together to find a mechanism that ends this clearly harmful situation. At Westminster the Liberal Democrats and the leader of the Labour Party have voiced support for equal access to marriage and the Government will be consulting on how to create equality for civil marriage and partnership. These are welcome developments but will only apply in England and Wales. In addition it might be argued that although welcome, taken together, both developments fall short of true equality simply because they maintain a segregated system of family law. As such it is important that an Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill is brought before the Scottish Parliament following the election in May. It will however be necessary for the Scottish Government to work closely with Westminster as this legislation progresses. In particular, the issues surrounding transgender people need to be addressed. Recommendation 8: Following the

election in May 2011 an Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill should be brought before the Scottish Parliament that would allow samesex marriage in Scotland. Recommendation 9: In advance of an Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill becoming law, the Scottish Government should work with the Westminster Government to ensure a mechanism is in place that means a transgender person living in Scotland does not have to divorce, or end their civil partnership, to gain full gender recognition. Equal Access to Marriage 50 www.equalityhumanrights.com What legislative instrument? As both the Scottish and UK Governments are currently opposed to introducing legislation, consideration needs to be given to how an Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill could be taken forward. A Committee Bill Shirley-Anne Somerville believes this could start after the election in May and could take the form of a Committee Bill: Id like to think [a change in the law could happen] within the next session of the Scottish Parliament. A Committee Bill, although not often used, could be used for this. The point was made that this has to be a cross-party issue and I think it is. There are those of us in all parties that want to see this happen and see it happen now, rather than later. There have only been three Committee Bills since the Scottish Parliament was formed and all have been enacted. A Bill of this nature will need cross-party support and if this can be achieved there is a strong chance that the Bill will be passed. A Committee Bill would also have the resources of the sponsoring Committee at its disposal for consultation and drafting.

A Members Bill A Members Bill (MB) could be brought forward by a supportive MSP. Following consultation the MSP can bring forward an MB as long as it is supported by at least 18 other MSPs, representing at least half of the political groups on the Parliamentary Bureau. Therefore the Bill would not need complete cross-party support at an early stage. It is also an attractive option following the precedent set by the introduction of legislation on hate crime. The Scottish Government worked with Patrick Harvie after he introduced an MB in 2008, and this resulted in the passing of the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 which extended hate crimes to cover disabled people as well as those in LGBT communities.

Summary and Recommendations 10, 11 & 12

There is growing support in Scotland and the UK for legislation on equal access to marriage and civil partnership. Change is most likely to be achieved as a result of a range of activities, such as legal challenges currently underway, and more general parliamentary activity at both Westminster and Holyrood. The main challenge then in Scotland is to find a way to bring proposals for legislation before the Scottish Parliament. It remains to be seen whether a new Scottish Government will make legislation in this area a priority. In the absence of a Government Bill, an Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill will have to be introduced as a Committee Bill or a Members Bill. A Committee Bill is an attractive option which, outside of a Government sponsored Bill, would give the best chance of success. It may however take longer to introduce as cross-party support is sought, the relevant Committee identified, and a space is found in the Committee work programme.

A Members Bill could be introduced relatively quickly, although there is no guarantee that cross-party support can be achieved and this could not rely upon committee resources. It is also more open to being blocked by the Government. 51 Equal Access to Marriage Both of these options should be considered. The recommendations below reflect this and contain options for both a Committee Bill and a Members Bill. Recommendation 10: Following the 2011 election the Scottish Government should bring forward legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry. Recommendation 11: If the Scottish Government fails to introduce legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry the possibility of (a) a Committee Bill or (b) a Members Bill should be explored. Recommendation 12: Regardless of the mechanism used to create equal access to marriage, a statutory instrument should be used to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004. This would allow Scottish same-sex marriages to be recognised as civil partnerships in Scotland for reserved purposes and in England and Wales for all purposes. Legislation and religion If a Scottish Equal Access to Marriage Bill was introduced it would have to deal with the issue of churches and individual ministers who did not want to carry out a same-sex marriage. Tim Hopkins believes this can be done by allowing churches to opt out: A celebrant would have to apply to the Registrar General to carry out same-sex marriages but can only do so with the support of their religious body. This allows churches to opt out. As it involves the Registrar

General it can be set out in legislation. Such systems operate successfully elsewhere, for example in Norway and Canada, where churches and celebrants can opt out, and the development and inclusion of a conscience clause in legislation, as highlighted in Recommendation 2, is vital. 52 www.equalityhumanrights.com

Change is the underpinning theme of this report. A change in the law to allow same-sex couples to marry and to open up civil partnership to mixed-sex couples is the predominant view of the LGBT community in Scotland. It was also the overwhelming view of those attending the Symposium. Growing support for this change means the momentum is with campaigners and a number of opportunities will be available in the coming months and years. This section considers what action needs to be taken to make change a reality.
It has not been the intention here to set out a definitive list of campaign methods and objectives, but rather to identify a broad campaign approach that can contribute to current and future campaigning work. What follows is a breakdown of the changes required to ensure all aspects of the current inequalities are dealt with and an overview of the broad approaches that could be taken.

An Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill: opening up marriage to same-sex couples

A Bill could be brought before Parliament either as a Scottish Government Bill, Committee Bill or Members Bill. Regardless of how the legislation is laid there is a need to address some of the consequentials that arise as a result of the Scottish Parliament legislating on the issue. In addition, the Bill will need to contain an important provision to protect religious freedoms. Consolidating and building political and parliamentary support It was mentioned earlier in this report that, whilst there were supporters of equal access to marriage in all parties, there is also recognition that there is work required to build on that support. The preelection period offers the opportunity to influence those parties who do not have a position on equal access to marriage and consolidate the support of those parties who are in favour. Working with current champions of the issue there should be opportunities to identify how parties can

Section 5: A Way Forward

53 be influenced throughout the election campaign. One participant at the Symposium put forward an idea: What would be useful is for there to be some kind of cross-party public event to promote the issue before we get to the elections. The statistics we have been given are very, very clear about where things lie in terms of public opinion. So I dont think that the politicians need to have any fear about speaking out on this issue. This could take the form of a one-off event, or a series of hustings type events. Building a solid base of support in the preelection period will: Help to identify additional champions and supporters in the Parliament and possibly Government

Identify MSPs who would be willing to pursue a Committee Bill Identify MSPs who would be willing to propose a Members Bill and MSPs who would support it Keeping options open The recommendations in section 4 set out three options for bringing legislation before the Scottish Parliament: The Scottish Government should bring forward legislation: It will be important to engage with Ministers at the earliest opportunity after the election. Existing good relationships with officials will help this process. It would seem Scottish Ministers will need to give more priority to the issue of equal marriage given the recent developments in England and Wales on civil partnership and civil marriage. A Committee Bill: Instigating a Bill of this nature will require that significant representations are made to members of the Equal Opportunities Committee. An initial step could be to seek a Committee inquiry, as soon as possible following the election, on the basis that developments in England and Wales will leave same-sex couples in Scotland increasingly disadvantaged and marginalised. A Members Bill: There may be some advantage in identifying a member of the governing party to take a Bill of this nature forward, although membership of the government party is not necessary. In addition, identifying key people for a steering group to support work on the Bill is important, as well as getting cross-party support. If interest in a Committee Bill was to develop as work was being carried out by an individual MSP, it may be possible to pass on the work carried out to the Committee to take it forward. Whichever route is taken it is important that preparatory work goes into allowing

for all three options to happen. Addressing the consequentials There are two main consequential changes which would be required as a result of an Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill being passed in the Scottish Parliament: A section 104 order will be required to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to allow Scottish same-sex marriages to be recognised as civil partnerships in Scotland for reserved purposes, and in England and Wales for all purposes. This order allows for consequential modifications to be made to reserved Equal Access to Marriage 54 www.equalityhumanrights.com law in consequence of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament38. This is a relatively straightforward change that will require support from Scottish Government officials regardless of the legislative mechanism used for an Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill. A mechanism will be required to ensure that a transgender person living in Scotland does not have to divorce or end their civil partnership to gain full gender recognition. This was an issue that current Scottish Ministers were sympathetic to as representations to them were made by the Public Petitions Committee . In the context of any proposed Scottish legislation it is essential there is early engagement with Scottish Minsters and officials. Moreover, it would be useful to make representations to Scottish MPs and the Scottish Affairs Committee to ensure legislators at Westminster are fully aware of the Scottish situation. Recognising and respecting beliefs An Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill should contain a conscience clause which gives those churches and celebrants who do not wish to carry out same-sex marriage the ability to opt out. It is likely

that opposition to the Bill will be centred on faith issues. This clause would require those celebrants who do wish to carry out same-sex marriage to register, with the support of their church body, with the General Register Office. It will be useful to highlight positive international experience in relation to this issue. Legislation to open civil partnership to mixed-sex couples This would require primary legislation at Westminster. Whilst the Scottish Parliament could legislate for mixed-sex civil partnership, it would only be effective for devolved purposes. There should be opportunities to work with the Equal Love campaign who will be pressing this issue with the Westminster Government in advance of any action by the European Court of Human Rights.

Summary
It is likely that some form of legislation aimed at creating equal access to marriage will be introduced in the next Scottish Parliament. There needs to be a continued drive to build political support for the campaign, ensure that all MSPs are fully informed of the arguments for a legal change and that any concerns they have on behalf of their constituents are addressed. Such concerns are likely to be informed by those churches who do not wish to be involved in same-sex marriage. In this event it is important that legislators are fully aware of the two aspects of religious freedom discussed in depth at the Symposium and examined in detail in this report. Although this report recommends legislation be introduced in Scotland, it is clear that in order to deal with all aspects of discrimination, work with the Westminster Government is crucial. This should be central to any specific Scottish approach. 38Scotland Office: http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/37.html (accessed February 2011)

39Cambium Advocacy: Interview with Simon Stockwell, December 2010

55 Equal Access to Marriage The current system of civil partnerships for same-sex couples, and marriage for mixed-sex couples, segregates people into separate institutions based on their sexual orientation and is therefore discriminatory. That this discrimination causes detriment is clear. Transgender people are forced to divorce, or end their civil partnership, to gain full gender recognition. Same-sex couples who hold a religious belief are barred from celebrating their faith during their union and therefore restricted in their religious freedom. The term marriage carries with it wider cultural significance than civil partnership. The status of partnership is therefore often seen as second class and people are viewed, and often treated, differently because of this segregation. These are statements of fact which beg the question what do we do about it? Some sections of society may view this discriminatory and segregated system as acceptable, even desirable, and their answer will be to maintain the status quo. However, for those who want a society where people are not segregated and stigmatised because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the only answer can be change. Before we get into the detail of what should change and how, we stress that change is, for those who believe in equality, desirable, and the technical details of delivery should not detract from the overall argument. However, looking around the world, nongenderspecific marriage law is clearly achievable and not overly complex. What is required first and foremost is the political will to change, and the willingness of politicians and political institutions to take on the task of delivering this change. Professor Curtice pointed out that a

majority of voters for each political party, along with a majority of those of faith in each main religion, agree same-sex marriage should be allowed. A significant and growing majority of the Scottish public 62% support same-sex marriage and this majority is likely to continue to grow over the coming years. Therefore politicians should have nothing to fear from a wide-spread backlash from voters. In fact it may be argued they are obliged to respond to changing attitudes and ensure people are governed with legislation which more closely reflects their moral views. Resistance from some sections of faith communities is inevitable. However, by developing a conscience clause which would allow church bodies, individual churches and celebrants to opt out, it is hoped that this respect for religious freedom can be reciprocated and same-sex couples supported in their efforts to commit to each other within the context of their faith. Otherwise, the doctrines of some serve to limit the religious freedoms of others.

Conclusion
56 www.equalityhumanrights.com Beyond this, it is also clear that society is increasingly secular, and it must be asked whether the world views of some sections of some faith communities should be allowed to impinge upon peoples civil liberties and continue to exclude them from the right to marry. What change is required? Only change that fully tackles the discrimination against transgender people, which maintains, extends and equalises religious freedoms, and which ends the discrimination inherent in the terminology of a segregated system, should be considered. Partial solutions,

such as allowing civil partnerships to be carried out on religious premises, are at best a step in the right direction, at worst, counter-productive. We conclude that nothing short of equal access to marriage should be accepted and the aim of any campaign on this issue should be full equality. Anything else would be a waste of resources and allow the appearance of equality to mask the reality of continued discrimination. How should this change be delivered? In the context of a Scottish audience the answer must be the Scottish Parliament. While work carries on through litigation in Europe, and consultations on civil marriage are launched through Westminster, efforts here should focus on delivering equal access to marriage through the Scottish Parliament. It would give the greatest potential for overcoming discrimination more quickly than litigation, and more fully than what may flow from the consultation on civil marriage. It may be argued that it was for issues such as this that the Scottish Parliament was created, and the very point of having devolved powers is to bring forward legislation in tune with the views of the people of Scotland. An Equal Access to Marriage (Scotland) Bill would be something around which all campaigning groups and individuals could rally and which the Scottish Parliament could deliver. The Symposium demonstrated there were many informed, committed and experienced campaigners working on this and we therefore see no reason why the campaign should not focus on delivering equal marriage legislation within the next term of the Scottish Parliament. 57

The Speakers and Panellists Biographies

Angela OHagan, Equality and Human Rights Commission

Angela OHagan chaired the event. She is a member of the Scotland Committee of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Tim Hopkins, Director, The Equality Network Tim Hopkins is the director of the Equality Network, a national organisation in Scotland working for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality. Laura McLachlan from LGBT Youth Council Laura McLachlan is part of the Rainbow Sisters, Standout and creative writing groups based in Glasgow. She is the representative for the LGBT National Youth Council (NYC) representing the Rainbow Sisters Glasgow group. Reverend Sharon Ferguson, Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement Rev Sharon Ferguson is the Chief Executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. Sharon is an ordained minister with the Metropolitan Community Church and is currently the Senior Pastor for MCC North London.

Appendix 1
Equal Access to Marriage James Morton, Scottish Transgender Alliance James Morton is the Scottish Transgender Alliance Co-ordinator, the only transgender-specific equality and rights post in Scotland. Carl Watt, Director, Stonewall Scotland Carl Watt is the Director of Stonewall Scotland, a charity that works to achieve equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Scotland. Stonewall has developed leading campaigns and programmes to target workplace discrimination, homophobic bullying in schools and hate crime in our communities. Professor Kenneth Norrie,

Professor of Law, Strathclyde University Kenneth Norrie has been Professor of Law at the University of Strathclyde since 1990, having previously been at the Universities of Aberdeen and Dundee. Author of 10 books and innumerable articles on Scottish family law, with particular interests in same-sex families, and child protection. 58 59 www.equalityhumanrights.com John Curtice Deputy-Director of CREST, Professor of Politics University of Strathclyde John Curtice is Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University and Research Consultant to the Scottish Centre for Social Research (ScotCen). He has been co-editor of the annual British Social Attitudes reports since 1994, and a codirector of the Scottish Social Attitudes survey since its establishment in 1999. Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP, Lothians (SNP) After gaining a postgraduate diploma in Housing Studies from the University of Stirling, Shirley-Anne worked as a researcher for Duncan Hamilton MSP before joining the Chartered Institute of Housing as a Policy and Public Affairs Officer. She was Media and Campaigns Officer for the Royal College of Nursing until she entered the Scottish Parliament as an MSP for the Lothians region in 2007. Patrick Harvie MSP, Glasgow (Scottish Green Party) Patrick was elected as a regional MSP for Glasgow in May 2003. He has previously been a member of the Communities Committee, which dealt with housing, planning, charity law, and social issues, but is currently Convenor of Parliaments Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Patrick is the joint

Convenor of the Scottish Green Party, who have a gender balanced leadership arrangement. Tim Fell, Scottish Officer, LGBTory In 1999 Tim Fell was elected to his Students Union Executive Committee as Gay Rights Officer. In 2005 he set up and ran the first Conservative Future branch covering the city of Edinburgh. In 2007, Tim was involved in setting up the gay Conservative group, LGBTory, and has coordinated its Scottish operations since then. Margaret Smith MSP, Edinburgh West (Scottish Lib Dems) Current Political: MSP for Edinburgh West, 1999 present Scottish Lib Dem Education and Young People Spokesperson, Member of the Scottish Parliaments Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, Substitute Member of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Previous : Scottish Liberal Democrats Justice Spokesperson, Member of the Scottish Parliaments Justice Committee, Chief Whip for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Vice-Convener, Equal Opportunities Committee, Parliamentary Spokesperson on Justice. Lesley Hinds, Labour candidate for the Scottish Parliament for Edinburgh Western Lesley was a Councillor in Edinburgh for nearly 26 years and is currently Councillor for the Inverleith ward on the City of Edinburgh Council. Previous posts in Edinburgh Council include Lord Provost and Leader of the Council. She was Convener of Lothian and Borders Police Board for four years and is a past Chair of NHS Health Scotland, a member of Unite, CND, CO-OP Party and Scotmid. Mhairi Logan, LGBT Youth Scotland Mhairi Logan is the Head of Policy and Mainstreaming for LGBT Youth Scotland. Mhairi heads up a team which undertakes

research, training and influencing policy. The current key policy priorities for both LGBT Youth Scotland and the LGBT National Youth Council are Challenging Homophobic Bullying, raising awareness of Hate Crime and Equal Marriage. Nick Henderson, Director, LGBT Network Nick Henderson has been the director of the LGBT Network since it was formed in 2008, and has helped lead its work on LGBT asylum, the blood ban and marriage equality. Prior to that, he was LGBT spokesperson and policy coordinator for the Scottish Socialist Party. 60 Equal Access to Marriage Rev Ian Galloway, Convenor, Church & Society Council Convener of the Church of Scotlands Church and Society Council, Ian Galloway is parish minister of Gorbals. He is Chair of the Board of Bridging the Gap, which is engaged in youth work and integration work on the South side of Glasgow, and a Director of Faith in Community Scotland. Simon Stockwell, Scottish Government Simon Stockwell joined the then Scottish Office in 1985. He has had a variety of posts relating to matters such as teachers salaries, building regulations and local government and has also worked for the Secretary of State for Scotland, on social policy, and had a brief secondment to the European Commission. For the past 18 month, he has been head of the Scottish Government team in Justice with responsibility for family and property law. www.equalityhumanrights.com

.com

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/Scotland/Projects_and_Campaigns/pdf_final_2.p df

Marriage: Its Diversity and Character

1. The Diversity of Marriage 2. Romantic Marriage versus Pragmatic Marriage 3. Western Marriage 1. The Western World is Fully Devoted to the Idea of Romantic Marriages 2. The Short History of Romantic Marriage in the West 3. Western Engagement 4. Polyamory 5. Religion and Marriage 1. Critical Thoughts 2. The Decline of Religious Marriages 3. Christianity and Marriage 4. Islam and Marriage 1. Male Dominance 2. Fetching Marriages and European Immigration 3. Islamic Arguments Against Polygamy in Western Countries 6. Gypsy Marriage 7. Gay Marriage 8. Marriages are Convenient (long-term benefits) 9. Marriage Rates 10. Divorce Statistics 1. Changing Society 2. Christian Divorce Rates 3. Demographics of Divorce

1. The Diversity of Marriage

Marriage means many different things according to the time and place of the culture and people involved. What for some people are obvious assumptions are for others unthinkable. No-one is correct, there are simply different forms of marriage. It is the right of no culture to impose its own ideas of marriage on other cultures, and the right of no sub-culture or religion to control marriage taboos within their own culture. So some believe in multiple marriage partners, some believe in having only straight marriages, some believe in certain age restrictions. None are right, all are different. Governments should allow their people access to all forms of marriage according to peoples' wishes but this is impossible. In order for legal contracts to have legal value, they must abide by certain known specifications. So in the West we have a particular type of marriage that is legal; other forms are illegal. What this does is alienate and standardize marriage, codifying traditions into unchanging legal codes and making them stagnant as society changes. What is worse is that in modern legalized culture, the illegalisation of forms of marriage not recognized by one set of

institutionalized norms causes other unrecognized forms to become taboo, wrong and looked down upon. A problem of modern cultures therefore is that we become biased towards our own form of marriage and come to consider any other form "wrong", "stupid", "silly", etc. So, those who practice arranged marriages consider those who marry freely and romantically to be silly, shortsighted pleasure seekers. This is not how romantic couples see themselves. They probably see arranged marriages as inhuman, inferior and oppressive. Both people lack understanding that other forms of marriage are different and mean different things. When one victim-of-culture argues that another victim-of-culture prescribes an immoral form of marriage, no agreement is possible because in arguing about "marriage" they are arguing about completely different things. In different cultures, marriage means different things. And even within cultures, marriage means different things to different people. So apart from looking at a few forms of marriage outside of traditional Western ones, I also talk a bit about some internal differences in the West of how people think marriage should be. We assume [...] that love is a precondition for marriage. But this assumption is not shared in cultures that practice arranged marriages. Moreover, until recently in North America, marital choices, especially those by women, were strongly influenced by considerations of economic security, family background, and professional status. [...] Cultures vary in the importance they place upon romantic love. "Social Psychology" by David Myers (1999)1

2. Romantic Marriage versus Pragmatic Marriage

2.1. Romantic Marriage

By "romantic marriage" I mean to imply the following general scenario: Two people have met and have a growing friendship, complete with physical attraction and compatibility of character and interests. They may move in with each other after a while. They chose to marry and maybe become engaged for a while first. Principally this is their own choice however their families and friends can exert informal pressure. This is the principal form of marriage of the West in general. Those who live in a culture of romantic marriage frequently consider pragmatic marriage to be immoral, oppressive, inhumane, etc.
1. Romantic marriage is said to be the individual's free choice according to what they themselves think is best for themselves 2. It upholds individual freedom at the cost of social cohesion 3. Devotion to emotional relationships but frequently only short-term commitment (as emotions change)

2.2. Pragmatic Marriage

Pragmatic Marriage is a marriage that is made possible by formal procedures of family or group politics. A responsible authority sets up or encourages the marriage. The authority could be parents, family, a religious figure or a consensus. The former two often start the process with informal pressure, social pressure, whilst the latter two often start the process with a formal system or statement. In both cases, the authority has a compelling veto over the marriage, and this system is socially supported by the rest of community so that to deny it is extreme and drastic. Arranged marriages are a form of pragmatic marriage. Once declared, an engagement is implicit, which follows through with a formal marriage ceremony. Those who uphold pragmatic marriage frequently state that it is traditional, that it upholds social morals, that it is good for the families involved.
1. Pragmatic marriage is said to be traditional, upholding of social morals, and good for the families involved for pragmatic reasons 2. Good for family or inter-group relations at the expense of short-term individual empowerment 3. Devotion to permanent long-term relationship but at the cost of short-term problems during acclimatisation

Forced marriages where one partner has no choice at all are obviously an insult to Human dignity and rights, and should not be encouraged. It is possible to marry pragmatically without it being forced; both sides merely need to agree that such a marriage is good. Forced marriage at worst, is slavery, and at best is something that works (and of course, sometimes it doesn't work and causes misery). Due to its violation of Human rights, forced marriages are frequently outlawed in Europe and countries that respect individual freedom, for example "the Council of Europe has condemned forced marriages in Resolution 1468 (2005) on Forced Marriages and child marriages proposing specific measures to be taken by its Member States to eradicate this practice"2.
2.3. Differences of Opinion If the family as a societal institution is weak, selection of a male from the field of eligibles is likely to be done by mutual volition; if the family is strong, by arrangement. If selection from the field of eligibles is on the basis of mutual volition, it is likely that love will be the basis of choice.

"The Encyclopaedia of Sexual Behaviour" by Ellis and Abarbanel (1961)3 Whether marriage tends to be by the free volition of lovers (i.e., by choice) or is a familial affair, has much to do with how strong the family is in society. In the West, individualism and freedom are valued above the family. Children move away from the home and freely select employment, friends, a place to live and a lifestyle independent of their parents and family. In cultures where the family is strong, all of these things are family affairs: People spend most of their days, every day, in contact only with members of their family and extended family (cousins, etc). Those who believe in romantic marriage will often criticize pragmatic marriage, saying that it is oppressive, inhuman, unfair, immoral and an affront to personal freedom. However it is not. Within cultures that have adopted more pragmatic marriages, the success rate is very high

indeed. Nearly all couples learn to love and care for each other very deeply. It is just that the long-term happiness and stability is given more importance than the short-term. This applies also to marriages that are arranged as a means of increasing the financial stability of a family or the political cohesion of groups. Those who believe in pragmatic marriage also have some traditional criticisms of romantic marriage, saying that it is short-term, overly based on sexual lust, immoral, debased, shortsighted and frivolous. However romantic marriage is not supposed to be the same life-long commitment as pragmatic marriages, the underlying assumptions are simply different. Shortterm happiness is given more importance as a route to potential long-term happiness. Relationships that do not work will end. It is not that this is short-term, but that it is not seen as "worth it" to try out a relationship on the hope that it might work unless there is already an underlying romantic love. Hence personal (relationship) stability, not short-term lust, is the aim of romantic marriage. Cultures that aspire to create relationships after couples marry are those with institutionalized practices of pragmatic marriage. Cultures that come to think that marriages should only be tried once a short-term compatibility already exists adopt romantic marriages. There are no grounds for saying that either method is more correct or that either set of ideas about marriage is more right. Most criticism of the "other" form of marriage to what one person accepts is based on misunderstanding, assumptions about marriage made from different cultural starting-points and personal ignorance about what different groups of people consider marriage to be

3. Western Marriage
3.1. The Western World is Fully Devoted to the Idea of Romantic Marriages

In most "Western" countries, marriage is romantic. It is an individual choice made by couples. However great the pressures of friends and family are against marriage, they are free to do as they want. Romantic Marriage is so institutionalized in the West that other forms of marriage are illegal or borderline illegal. Marriage comes in multiple parts. The first is the legal contract; at its bare bones this is what marriage is. But the culture and reasoning behind choosing to get married is varied. Love, relationships, tradition, family issues, etc, all come into play. It is our cultural expectations that give marriage more meaning than a mere contractual agreement. A good relationship does not need a legal contract to make the relationship good and if a legal certificate was required in order to make a relationship work, then the relationship wasn't a good one in the first place. However there is a major advantage in marriage. It makes divorce a little difficult. Once you are legally bound to someone, separation becomes more difficult. So if a couple go through a difficult patch and it seems hopeless to continue, there is added pressure to carry on because of the effort required to legally end a marriage. If the troubles don't end then the relationship ends as it would with an unmarried couple, if they continue then the marriage itself saved them simply by making it slightly harder to split up! If a couple are sure they want to be together for a long time then marriage therefore has this added, non-legal, benefit.

Our culture, our upbringing and the stereotypes portrayed in the mass media and society all create certain roles that all of us are subconsciously pressurized into filling. Marriage partners are also bombarded with role expectations and stereotypes of what it means to be a 'husband' and 'wife.' In general these 'roles' are detrimental to the relationship. People simply cannot fit into pre-set moulds or roles [...]. Healthy relationships, on the other hand, are entered into and maintained by individuals' free and loving ongoing choice. Rev. Rebecca Deinsen (2001)4 These roles can be disastrous for an otherwise good relationship - the psychology of legal marriage is simply not right for some relationships. But then again, sometimes the psychology is right -- especially if the couple are suited to the roles or are not caught up enough in society's trappings to drift into roles that don't fit. Marriage therefore suits some relationships, but not others. It can be a benefit, or a detriment, to the long term health of a relationship.
3.2. The Short History of Romantic Marriage in the West

Modern marriage, "for love", is a relatively rare and new institution. Not only is monogamous marriage common in only 20% of present-day societies, but romantic marriage itself has only been common in the West for a few hundred years. According to the sociologists Anthony Giddens, Lawrence Stone and John Boswell, even as late as the 1500s modern ideas of romantic marriage had not found common acceptance. Religious authorities regarded marriage as a necessary, pragmatic solution to unhealthy sexual emotions, and not something to be done for pleasure, romance or affection. [In the 1500s] Individual freedom of choice in marriage and other aspects of family life was subordinated to the interests of parents, other kin or the community. Outside aristocratic circles, where it was sometimes actively encouraged, erotic or romantic love was regarded by moralists and theologians as a sickness. "Sociology" by Anthony Giddens (1997)5 In premodern Europe marriage usually began as a property arrangement, was in its middle mostly about raising children, and ended about love. Few couples in fact married 'for love', but many grew to love each other in time as they jointly managed their household, reared their offspring, and shared life's experiences. Nearly all surviving epitaphs to spouses evince profound affection. By contrast, in most of the modern West, marriage begins about love, in its middle is still mostly about raising children (if there are children), and ends - often - about property, by which point love is absent or a distant memory. John Boswell Quoted in "Sociology" by Anthony Giddens (1997)6 The idea of romantic marriage, steeped in personal choice, coincidence and love, had begun to flourish in cities and urban centres. Until the 1800s, marriage was still a deal sought for practical

advantage - a peasant could not maintain his holding on his own, without a committed and hardworking wife. When bereaved, a peasant married almost at once, often to whoever was simply most willing to work hardest. It wasn't until the 1800s that ideas of romantic marriage began to emerge from the cities. The traditional conception of marriage as essentially a business contract, an arrangement based on mutual practical advantage in terms of property-ownership or the labour-power needed to work a peasant holding, the conception which had been taken for granted in pre-industrial peasant Europe, was now rapidly decaying. The idea of it as the result of free individual choice based on individual tastes and preferences was now seeping from the large city into the countryside and the smaller urban centres. In one small French town, for example, during the two decades after Waterloo, the average age of women at marriage was relatively high (about twentyfive) and about a third of brides were older than their husbands. Quite rapidly, however, the average age of marriage fell to twenty-one; and from about 1865 onwards only one woman in ten was older than the man she married. A basic aspect of human nature, the fact that, given a free choice, men prefer to marry women who are younger than themselves and who are physically attractive, was now increasingly able to assert itself. "The Ascendancy of Europe 1815-1914" by M S Anderson (1985)7 Although romantic marriage was destined to dominate the ideas of what marriage should be in the West, it actually has a rather short history of less than 200 years of general acceptance.
3.3. Western Engagement

As with marriage, there are different parts to an engagement. I am talking here of engagement within the social norms of traditional Western marriage only; engagement is so varied in different cultures that it's too much of an exhausting task to document them fairly. Public The societal aspect; once engaged, a couple are displaying to the world that they are a couple. From then on, depending on the specific type of relationship they have, other people are actively discouraged from doing anything that damages the relationship or the wellbeing of the pair. An engagement is a display that signifies that you can no longer take into consideration just one person, but that his special other is always involved. They're a team. Of course many relationships do this without the need for engagement, so, engagement is sometimes used as a "more serious" indicator. Some relationships are not suited to engagement the love is deep enough and the duet work in a way that means that it is superfluous to the relationship. Personal But aside from the extra-societal element, there is the affect that being engaged has on the internal dynamics of the relationship. It means something to many people, and to those people being engaged feels right and helps solidify the relationship. (If the relationship "needed" it, it would be a bad relationship - no relationship "needs" such artificial, arbitrary pseudo-legal binds

such as "marriage" or "engagement"). But for some a declaration of engagement is a declaration of love as legitimate as any other declaration. Setting a date for marriage Some feel that when you are engaged, you should set a date for marriage. But I see them as two completely different things. In a relationship you have the relationship itself; a good relationship doesn't need legal bindings, public displays, arbitrary societal displays, etc, all it needs is love and commitment. Both hold together the relationship. Engagement is one type of declaration of commitment, marriage is another. An engagement is a public declaration of love without the interference of government laws. What place is there inside a loving relationship for the insertion of legalities? It has no place in the relationship proper, and its function can be purely practical. As such, marriage and engagement have different characteristics about them. It might suit a couple to be engaged and they may feel proud and loved to be engaged to their special other... but marriage might not be their cup of tea. It is understandable if people are dubious about letting Parliament dictate aspects of the relationship! But there is no such external element with engagement, it is purely a relationship issue with no legal bindings. Engagement therefore suits some relationships even if they never get married. But in some relationships, marriage *is* suitable, if the practical legal benefits of marriage are wanted and both partners feel the same way about what marriage means. In such a circumstance, setting a date for a formal marriage is normal. (Otherwise it merely adds unnecessary pressure). Sometimes no date is set because a couple honestly don't know when a good time will be to get married. Finance, time, family issues and many other factors can mean that marriage could be indefinitely delayed until situations change. In such a circumstance, setting a specific date is harmful. But often the date has a meaning, so a date should be set. Especially if there is no pressure and the relationship suits marriage. The date itself will become an exciting, eternal event for the relationship and is frequently something to work for, building up the relationship stronger than before. It entirely depends on the relationship and individuals whether or not they choose to engage and set a date, engage forever, or engage and then marry... different relationships will be aided or harmed by the various societal, legalistic and psychological factors of all those things.

4. Polyamory
Polyamory, or "being poly", is the acceptance of the potential for multiple loving partners within relationships. This may include sexual partners. Polyamorous relationships are not "cheating", but mutual love and honesty in relations that are not monogamous. The basis of such relationships are love, stability, compatibility, peace and personal and relationship honesty. Polyamory does not accept secret lovers: this is cheating by poly as well as monogamous standards. Excepting youthful "experiments", which are often just short-term promiscuity and

unstable, gender-equal poly relationships are rare for Human Beings. Most Western cultures and religions are strictly (or at least legally) monogamous. "Human Sexuality: Polyamory: Multiple Loving, Caring Relationships" by Vexen Crabtree (2000) In the West polygamy, the marriage to more than one person, is often illegal. The crime is called bigamy. This illegality is morally wrong, as we said in the opening of this text, and is merely a case of proponents of one type of marriage stamping out other forms that they do not understand. This is likely to be due to the good old predictable reasons of ignorance, bias, bigotry and an unenlightened intelligence in matter of human compassion, imagination and tolerance. There is no fundamental problem with legalizing the practice; it is legal in other countries. It is nearly always the case the when one form of marriage is institutionalized, other forms are oppressed. In the modern democratic world, it is not right to centrally enforce such odd restrictions on love & relationships as long as the practices are consensual. Many religious groups and cultures have practiced polygamy, from major religions such as Islam and some Arab countries, to communistic communes in the USA such as the Oneida Community8, the Mormons (historically, they do so no longer), and many others. Unfortunately in some of its incarnations it has also been misogynistic and oppressive, but modern-day polyamory in Western countries is not so. Despite Western reservation about polygamy, it is normal practice in over 80% of existing societies across the globe. Even where it is accepted, most adults remain in monogamous relationships so it is not as if accepting polygamy will cause cataclysmic social changes. Polygyny (long-term simultaneous unions between one man and multiple wives) is legal in some countries today, and polyandry (long-term simultaneous unions between one woman and multiple husbands) is legal in a few societies. In fact, polygyny was accepted in the great majority of traditional human societies before the rise of state institutions. [...] Even in officially polygynous societies most men have only one wife at a time. "Why is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality" by Jared Diamond (1998)9 The West has adopted a model where monogamy is the only accepted norm for marriage for the last 400 years, but in history, such exclusive legalism is rare. As Western society prides itself on its post-enlightenment tolerance and compassion, its attitude towards marriage is strangely illiberal: Only romantic marriage is seen as "right". In an increasingly multicultural West, however, I foresee future decades where all forms of marriage come to be widely accepted and legalized.

5. Religion and Marriage

5.1. Critical Thoughts

Even more intruding into a marriage than legal elements are religious ones. If a couple are having a religious wedding then there are all kinds of obscure, obscene and obtuse restrictions and pressures that can come into play. It's not the right place to delve into those here, though, and a religion-by-religion look would take a very long time indeed. Many weddings are religious by default - by family tradition. One third of all marriages in the UK in 1994 were Church of England.

"Religion in the United Kingdom: Diversity, Trends and Decline" by Vexen Crabtree (2007)

Without religion, marriage is purely about love and relationships, not about satisfying any religious rules. Marriage seems generally healthier the fewer superfluous pressures there are on it, and religious issues are one of those pressures. The least stable relationships are those between two people of different religions, the most stable are marriages between people who are not really religious. Having said that, a wedding is a day of utmost personal importance and in this many people still find use for traditional religious ritual. There is a demand that such a day should be marked by the most dramatic, the most authentic and the most elaborate ritual possible. [...] The wedding by civil registrar lacks all these elements of drama. The tension, the idealism and the anxiety of the occasion are lost, and the civil ceremony fails entirely to enhance the meaning of what is being undertaken. Whilst for intellectuals and rationalists is may seem to be a 'sensible' way of fulfilling the legal requirements of the case, it does not satisfy the demand for some more elaborate external expression of emotion. [...] In an affluent society, where lavish entertainment and spectacle are abundantly possible, it is not easy to devise ceremonial and entertainment to make the wedding stand out from other events. [...] Perhaps, therefore, as long as the Church can retain its sense of majesty and transcendence, its distinctiveness from the mundane and everyday, it will find itself in high - perhaps increasing - demand for the solemnization of marriage. "Religion in Secular Society" by Bryan Wilson (1966)10
5.2. The Decline of Religious Marriages

Although religious marriages continue at one in three, the reason for their use has become largely secular. Marriage is a result of modern secular pressures and not a result of beliefs or belongings to religious churches. Which is fortunate enough, for important lifelong (by common assumption) decisions such as who you choose to wed, are decisions best taken on their emotional worth, sense, commitment to the person; it seems that religion itself would ironically assert unholy, inhuman pressures on relationships. The most telling truth behind the thought that

religion hinders good relationship choices are higher divorce rates of religious marriages, which we see at the end of this page. Between 1993 and 2003, the number of Jewish weddings in England and Wales slipped by 17%, while Anglican weddings fell by 37% and Catholic unions tumbled by 44% The Economist (2006)11
5.3. Christianity and Marriage

Western marriage used to be entirely under the control of Christianity and performed exclusively under Christian clergy. Although in the modern age things are freer and less controlled, Christian marriage was still the ill starting-point from which we have recovered modern ideas of marriage based on love. Although we still suffer from multiple dogmas that still remain from the Christian era of the Dark Ages, many of the following elements are no longer a part of modern society even though they are present in the scriptural heart of Christianity. Christianity was responsible for producing the draconian restrictions of remarriage (i.e., you can't), female inferiority in marriage (both legal and social), and other misogynistic elements. Christian marriage was not a healthy doctrine of love, but one of fear. St. Paul, whose voluminous writings on the subject of marriage and women are entrenched in the New Testament, wrote that marriage is a last resort for the desperate man who could not restrain himself from sex. "Better to marry, than to burn in hell" he wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:9. The ideal was to remain single, but marrying a woman was best done if you really couldn't help yourself. This dysfunctional theology of sex was one of the worst things to happen to marriage; it is only since the Enlightenment and Reformation that more a reasonable, positive, basis of marriage has been brought to the fore. Although many early Christian churches allowed same-sex marriage, as Christianity displaced pagan practices marriage became increasingly restricted to the cold, stoic, oppressive regime as preached by the main Church. Thankfully, nowadays most weddings and marriages are secular; love, romance and commitment now form the three secular bedrocks of modern marriage in the West; Christian ideals have largely been forgotten. Remarriage is now accepted, women have equal rights in marriage, so we are no longer forced by Christian dogma to lead mostly solitary, guilt-ridden lives but can move on once we have left a dysfunctional relationship. This new health has saved marriage from its decline. Strangely, in the New Testament Christians are told by Jesus that in the perfect state, in Heaven, as amongst sinless angels, there is no marriage or exclusive unions between people (Matt. 22:2330). St Paul also says that being unmarried & chaste is better than getting married. Christianity's obsessions over which particular forms of marriage are acceptable is rendered irrelevant by their own eschatology.

5.4. Islam and Marriage 5.4.1. Male Dominance

Islam is another misogynistic Abrahamic religion which contains much that is oppressive towards femalekind. Although at the time, as Muslims like to repeat, Islamic law was progressive and included an element of protection for women, in today's world where equality and fairness are the norm, Islamic law looks as barbaric as did Christian law. In fact, it is often said to be worse, especially as Islamic cultural practices far exceed what is proscribed in the Qu'ran.

Arranged marriages are rife and condoned in Islamic law and in most Islamic schools of thought. Parents typically choose a wife or husband for their child (sometimes at an age that is illegal in the West) on the grounds of (a) political advantage (with regards to family-family relations) or (b) Western immigration law (in order to import people from Muslim countries to Western ones). (More on this below.) Polygamy works solely in the male's favour, with the power to divorce often being purely his. There are instances where wives have over periods of years requested divorce due to abuse, only to be turned down by her husband in front of Sharia courts. On the other hand, a husband who wants to divorce a wife merely has to demand it. This inequality is made even worse when husbands can have multiple wives: his life is secure, their's are not! Male domination in marriage in Islam is multi-faceted and sometimes horrendous. Women face a long list of serious restrictions on basic freedoms such as where they can go, who they can see and what they can wear. Inheritance law: Islamic laws "specify that for every part of an inheritance given to a daughter, two parts must be given to each son"12.

5.4.2. Fetching Marriages and European Immigration

The type of arranged marriage where the purpose is to systematically import family members from Muslim countries to Western ones is called a 'fetching marriage'. The following is an excerpt from "Islam and the West: Pluralism, Immigration and Danger: 5.1. Fetching Marriages: A Strategy of Immigration" by Vexen Crabtree (2011): Muslims are capable of adapting their cultural practices to their Western situations, but sometimes it seems that the West is complicit in undermining integration by putting into practices policies which encourage largescale non-integration, with little or no oversight of the total effect: Traditionally, in Muslim countries, a new wife moves in with her husband's family - never the opposite. Among European Muslims this custom has been entirely overthrown. Nowadays, when a transnational marriage between Muslim cousins takes place, the spouse that migrates is invariably the non-European spouse, whose first residence after migrating is, as a rule, his or her in-laws' home. These marriages - which in Norway have acquired the name "fetching marriages" - accomplish two things. They enable more and more members of an extended Muslim family to emigrate to Europe and to enjoy Western prosperity. And they put the brakes on - or even reverse - whatever progress the European-born spouse might have made toward becoming Westernized.

"While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within" by Bruce Bawer (2006)13 Strange as though it sounds, although some European countries have implemented new laws to curb strategic marriages, others actually make it easier for the system to be abused. Bawer continues: In many Western European countries, indeed, some laws are different for natives than for immigrants. For native Swedes, the minimum age for marriage is eighteen; for immigrants living in Sweden, there is no minimum. In Germany, an ethnic German who marries someone from outside the EU and wants to bring him or her to Germany must answer a long list of questions about the spouse's birth date, daily routine, and so forth in order to prove that the marriage is legitimate and not pro forma; such interviews are not required for German residents with, say, Turkish or Pakistani backgrounds, for it is assumed that their marriages have been arranged and that the spouses will therefore know little or nothing about each other. "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within" by Bruce Bawer (2006) Not only is this reverse discrimination - whereby many immigrants are forced to follow stricter procedures than some (Muslim) others, but it also undermines Western ideas of morality, where marriage is a free enterprise with no element of compulsion. For these two reasons, such exemptions should be removed, and all people and all religions should be treated equally under law, as is the ideal in fair democracies. More of this is discussed on "Islam and the West: Pluralism, Immigration and Danger" by Vexen Crabtree (2011).

5.4.3. Islamic Arguments Against Polygamy in Western Countries

[There are] arguments being presented by female legal experts that the Qu'ranic laws on marriage actually favour monogamy. Azizah al-Hibri refers to legal experts of the classical period, who considered that a second marriage was not recommended if it was prejudicial to the first wife. [...] The Muslim League of Women, assert that since the second wife is no legally recognized under civil law, she cannot be afforded equal status: which means the situation does not conform with Islamic law a priori, given that polygamy is only considered legitimate if all wives receive strictly equal treatment. "When Islam and Democracy Meet" by Jocelyne Cesari (2004)14

6. Gypsy Marriage
Gypsy marriage is different to that of mainstream America. They do not care for legalistic documents such as the certificates of marriage, death, birth, etc, and their customs of marriage are so different that what we consider legal marriage they consider misguided. Gypsy marriage is best done between twelve and sixteen, and definitely before 18. The bride is normally the oldest

and wisest, and helps the groom in all areas as he learns to earn money, etc, for himself. Thus the marriage is more than it is in mainstream Western culture. It serves as a connection between the clan-like families of Gypsies, and the choices of who to marry are based on politics and ambition of the parents as much as the compatibility of the youngsters. Gypsy marriages are generally not life-long, and most will re-marry to more suitable partners later in life. Brides are free to leave their groom and return to their own family. As such, it is a clean and comprehensive synthesis of both pragmatic and romantic marriage types. Kephart informs us8 that the culture of Gypsy marriage changes slowly over time just like other cultures, and that Western-style love-marriages are becoming more popular, and that some adults are openly critical of the more traditional gypsy weddings. As Gypsies view the gadje (nongypsies) as inherently unclean, ritually unclean, intrusive, aggressive and bad in most ways. The most rigid marriage prohibition is against marrying non-gypsies.

7. Gay Marriage
Civil partnerships in the UK allow gay marriage in all but name, and were created in 2005. By half way through 2008 "nearly 60,000 Britons had entered a same-sex union, giving them legal rights virtually identical to those of married couples"15. This generation has seen a wave of legal tolerance sweep the world, where some of the prejudces of history have been trumped. Prejudices against homosexuality were not always encoded into law, however. In the time before the dark ages, European communities were variously accepting of gay marriage. But the Christian age of faith saw violent intolerance sweep the continent as certain types of marriage were made illegal and transformed into social taboos. People could only marry if it fit the Christian prejudices of what marriage should be. Islam arose also, and held to similar monotheistic patriarchal norms. Thankfully, since the enlightenment, much of the religious damage to marriage has been undone and in many countries adults are free to marry whom they choose. Starting with Sweden, Norway, Iceland and the Netherlands the 90s saw the beginning of the gay rights movements victories over established prejudice in an increasing number of developed countries. There is not a single case in all these victories where there have not been multiple large and mainstream Christian groups running campaigns to prevent equal rights for gays. The Catholic Church and the vast majority of Christian denominations continue to battle at local and European levels to repeal those rights already attained. The Catholic Church has gained some ground in 1997 in exempting itself from some European gay rights conventions, and the Church of England has also succeeded in partially exempting itself from UK employment antidiscrimination laws with regards to homosexuality. The traditional churches were wrong about slavery and anti-black racism, and they continue to do wrong on the issue of discrimination against homosexuals. Eventually, when enough of their youth have grown up within gay-tolerant society, the Churches will change to embrace homosexuals equality as they did to embrace abolitionism and race equality. Here is a brief history of all major gay rights victories with regards to the legal rights of marriage:

1987 Sweden

Registered partnerships then full legal rights (1995) granted for gay couples Registered same-sex partners gain same rights as married couples. Due to heavy Christian opposition it is not allowed in churches16. Full legal rights as of 1999. Mostly full legal rights granted to registered gay partnerships

1989 Denmark

1993 Norway Sweden and Iceland

1996

Mostly full legal rights granted to registered gay partnerships16

1996 Netherlands

Gay relationships given full legal rights, then full marital rights in 2000. The local Christian party and the Catholic Church opposed the move which was otherwise supported by the public17 Some states granting limited legal rights to registered gay relationships (Hawaii in 1997, California in 1999, Vermont in 2000 and Columbia in 2002). By 2004 heavy Christian campaigning has reversed many of these and passed anti-gaymarriage laws in some states.

1997 USA

New England is now a hotbed of equality. In 2003 Massachusetts became the first American state to legalise gay marriage. Connecticut followed suit last year, and Vermont last month. [...] Only Rhode Island, a tiny state with a large Catholic population, shows no sign of permitting it. In all, a dozen states now recognise gay unions in some way [...]. California, New Jersey and Oregon allow civil unions that are marriage in all but name. Hawaii and Washington state allow gay couples some of the legal benefits of marriage. The Economist18 (2009)
Since 1999 four states have passed various laws granting legal rights for homosexual relationships (Catalonia in 1998, Aragon in 1999, Navarra in 2000 and Valencia in 2001). 2005 June saw Spain allow full gay marriage despite Catholic opposition19 5 provinces in Canada have legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. Quebec in 1999, Nova Scotia in 2001, Manitoba in 2002. Another two in summer 2003: Ontario and British Columbia20. In 2005 BBC News16 reports that gay marriage is legal in 8 of 10 provinces and 1 of 3 of Canada's three territories. National legislation allowed same-sex marriages from 200521.

1998 Spain

1999 Canada

1999 France

Some significant legal rights given to gay partners16 Recognition of same-sex partners. Notable opposition came from the Christian press, various Christian groups and the African Christian Democratic Party17 The mayor of London runs a local service that allows official recognition of same-sex partners. Full same sex marriage has been sought since 1996 by the government, but strong Christian opposition in the House of Lords has defeated it each time Some significant legal rights given to registered gay partnerships16 Geneva state grants almost all rights to gay relationships, and full legal rights in state of Zurich in 2002 Similar rights for gay marriage and normal marriage Full marriage rights given from January16,20

2000 South Africa

2001 London

2001 Germany

2001 Switzerland

2002 Finland 2003 Belgium Luxembourg 2004 and New Zealand 2005 UK

Civil partnerships grant some rights for gay couples16

Full gay rights via civil marriages22

"The Battle Between Monotheism and Homosexuality" by Vexen Crabtree (2002)

8. Marriages are Convenient (long-term benefits)

Married couples are financially better off than others. This is a hard fact demonstrated by many sociological studies. Marriage itself is a "wealth-generating institution", according to Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe, who run the National Marriage Project at Rugers University. Those who marry "till death do us part" end up, on average, four times richer than those who never marry. This is partly because marriage provides economies of scale - two can live more cheaply than one - and because the kind of people who work hard, plan for the future and have good interpersonal skills - are more likely to marry and stay married. But it is also because marriage effects the way people behave. American men, once married, tend to take their responsibilities seriously. [...] Married men drink less, take fewer drugs and work harder [it raises hours worked quickly and

substantially], earning between 10% and 40% more than single men with similar schooling and job histories. [...] Marriage also encourages the division of labour. Ms Dafoe Whitehead and Mr Popenoe put it like this: "Individuals can develop those skills in which they excel, leaving others to their partner." The Economist (2007)23 Adam Smith, the founder of economics "observed two centuries ago [that] when you specialise, you get better at what you do, and you produce more"23. For reasons of economic efficiency, specialisation and behaviour-change, married couples do better off. There are also legal advantages, housing advantages (money and space are saved when two people share) and other work advantages. A married couple can help each other with work preparation and encourage each other. For this reason, in Europe, divorce settlements tend more towards splitting all of a couples' wealth equally when they divorce, because the courts recognize that much of a workers' success is due to (indirect) support from the spouse. So it is slightly strange that the term "marriage of convenience" is used so negatively. As arranged marriages and pragmatic marriages tend to actually work out quite well in the longterm, it should be reckoned that marriages of convenience will also work themselves out, over time, into the romantic-marriage that Westerners hold as an ideal.

9. Marriage Rates
Percent Marriages in the UK25

Marriage is at its lowest rate in the UK since records began in 186224. The history of marriage rates suggests that secular marriages are showing strong growth, whereas other Christian weddings have been decreasing in number for over 150 years. This prehistory was changed in the period since the 1960s, when the decline of the religious institution in the UK went into full swing. Between 1993 and 2003, the number of Jewish weddings in England and Wales slipped by 17%, while Anglican weddings fell by 37% and Catholic unions tumbled by 44% The Economist (2006)11
Total Marriages, UK 1971-1975: 1976-1980: 1981-1985: 1,996,422 1,822,654 1,734,048

1986-1990: 1991-1995: 1996-2000:

1,726,024 1,491,598 1,350,290

The rise in secular marriages from the teens in the 19th century, to 20-something percent in 1900-1930, was not met by a rise in divorces, as many Christians at the time bemoaned would happen. However, as we will see below, social changes have led to massive increases in divorce rates (above all, amongst Christians) since the late 1960s (ignoring the World War 2 aftermath). The overall marriage rate has decreased over the same period; indicating again that society has moved away from the traditional idea of what marriage is. Total Marriages, UK 1971-1975: 1,996,422 1976-1980: 1,822,654 1981-1985: 1,734,048 1986-1990: 1,726,024 1991-1995: 1,491,598 1996-2000: 1,350,290 The rise in secular marriages from the teens in the 19th century, to 20-something percent in 1900-1930, was not met by a rise in divorces, as many Christians at the time bemoaned would happen. However, as we will see below, social changes have led to massive increases in divorce rates (above all, amongst Christians) since the late 1960s (ignoring the World War 2 aftermath). The overall marriage rate has decreased over the same period; indicating again that society has moved away from the traditional idea of what marriage is. Europe in general has seen similar trends. In 1970 there were almost eight marriages per 1000 people per year, but in 2004 that had steadily dropped to less than five. The average age, like the UK, has also increased across Europe, now being at over 30 for men, and nearly 28 for women.27

10. Divorce Statistics

10.1. Changing Society

The Health of Adult Britain, 1841-199428 Marriage was once a lifelong certainty, like a job or one's nationality29. But, all modern things change quickly and are more temporary. Jobs, like marriage, are no longer assumed to be lifelong bedrocks of stability in the West. In 'collectivist' or community-orientated countries where marriage is pragmatic rather than romantic, marriages last much longer.

Divorce rates vary widely by country, ranging from .01 percent of the population annually in Bolivia, the Philippines, and Spain to 4.7 percent in the world's most divorce-prone country, the United States. To predict a culture's divorce rates, it helps to know its values (Triandis, 1994). Individualistic cultures (where love is a feeling and people ask, "What does my heart say?") have more divorce than do communal cultures (where love entails obligation and people ask, "What will other people say?") "Social Psychology" by David Myers (1999)30 Although the chart shows a massive increase in the divorce rate over a long period, it has since then dropped off. Fewer people are marrying, but, divorces have now dropped to their lowest level since 1981, at a rate of 11.9 divorcing people per 1,000 of the married population31.
10.2. Christian Divorce Rates

Divorce statistics are sometimes a shock for Christians. The average divorce rate for born-again type Christians (27%) and others (24%) are both higher than that for atheism, which is 21%32. Empirically, atheists are more devoted to each other and commit to more stable relationship patterns than theists, yet the theists are the ones who say they stand for family values. Christian theologians have themselves expressed concern over their own rates of divorce and other marital problems such as wifebeating, which are mostly the same as the rates of non-Christians - and stricter Christians have worse rates33. There is a saying that those who shout loudest are the least capable. The Christian Churches shout loudly about love but... atheists are more capable. Seriously though, perhaps it is that atheists only get married if they're sure, while Christians feel pressurized so sometimes marry prematurely in relationships that aren't permanent. Christian culture can exert unnatural pressure on relationships.
Denomination Non-denominational Baptists Mainline Protestants Mormons Catholics Lutherans % who have been divorced 34% 29% 25% 24% 21% 21%

Atheism / Agnosticism < Less

Results from a different poll (charted on the left) in the USA places atheists and agnostics below much of the rest of christendom, not just the fundamentalists /born again Christians: Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all. George Barna commented that the results raise "questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families." The data challenge "the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage." Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said: "In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. ...Just being born again is not a rabbit's foot." Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."

This leads me to consider the words of Jesus in Christian Scripture:

Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Matthew 10:34-37 Jesus said: "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Luke 12:51-53 It is small wonder that atheists divorce less often!
Divorce, n. (1) A resumption of diplomatic relations and rectification of boundaries. (2) A bugle blast that separates the combatants and makes them fight at long range.

"The Devil's Dictionary" by Bierce, Ambrose (1967)

10.3. Demographics of Divorce

Less educated people tend to divorce more often. As religious people are on average less intelligent (Vexen Crabtree 2007), this helps explain why the divorce rate goes up hand-in-hand

with religious dedication. Also, less well-off people tend to divorce more often. Many Christians in the West are immigrants from Eastern Europe and the rest of the world, and such immigrants tend to be poorer and more religious, two factors which increase the likelihood of divorce. If she does find and wed the man of her dreams, [a poor woman from a broken family] will encounter a problem. She has never seen her own father. Having never observed a stable marriage close-up, she will have to guess how to make one work. By contrast [a girl from a stable family] has never seen a divorce in her family. This makes it much more likely that, when the time is right, she will get married and stay that way. The Economist (2007)23 Apart from intelligence, other demographic factors have come into play over the past few years. Divorce rates have levelled off.

Christians have a higher divorce rate, and as Christian beliefs pass away in the UK, divorce rates have dropped significantly. Immigrants tend to have a more conservative attitude towards marriage and divorce less often24; as the UK's populace ages, immigrants make up a higher proportion of marryingage adults who are more likely to stay together. People who marry are marrying older24 after a period of cohabitation, meaning that marriages last longer.