Sometimes, it’s just precious when anti-gay magazines write editorials trying to put the best face on their prejudice. For example, UK’s Christian Today editors are trying to convince people that it’s not bigotry to reserve the word “marriage” for heterosexual couples and call all those “gay marriages” civil partnerships.
But being different doesn’t have to mean bad or discriminatory. Relationships can be held in equal regard by the state and society, but accommodated by both differently – a single mother may receive different benefits from a married mother but both are respected as mothers.
The argument here for “separate but equal” is specious on many fronts. I suspect those who didn’t want to eat at lunch counters or go to school with those of other races could make the same argument. “Those black and brown people get the same food and the same comfortable booths to eat at, why do we have to have equal public spaces? Those black and brown people will get the same education that we get, why do they have to get it sitting next to my kid? Why do we need to redefine ‘equality’ when we can give them the same thing somewhere else, away from us?”
But, history has revealed that separate but not equal does not work — separate waiting rooms, cafeterias, bathrooms and water fountains simply made the divisions deeper, the animosity toward the “other” greater. Education levels in minority schools were not the same as in majority schools.
It works the same way here – gays and lesbians may have a “civil partnership” but so far, here in the United States at least, they are not treated equally thanks to the federal restrictions of the Defense of Marriage Act. But, even if DOMA were repealed and all the benefits were the same reserving one word for heterosexuals and another word for gays and lesbians continues to make the distinction that one is “better” and one is “less than” the other. If they truly are the same — if there is a difference with no distinction — then it’s all one thing: marriage.
One other point made in this editorial brings that message home.
There is no getting around it: the natural order of creation — prior to human meddling — made the coming of children into this world the result only of a man and woman coming together (as Christians we can presume God had in mind for children to have a mother and father). There is nothing obscene about recognising or celebrating that.
What makes a “marriage” a “marriage,” then, is that one produces children and the other doesn’t. If a heterosexual couple then does not, will not, or cannot produce children, will they then be relegated to a “civil partnership,” or can they still have a “marriage”? If they can still get married, then that would make them “more equal” than gay and lesbian couples who are not producing children simply because they are a heterosexual couple
Try as they might to paint the distinction between “marriage” and “civil partnerships” as something to celebrate, Christian Today merely reminds us why no one is truly equal until we all are.
