I have some sympathy with commenter John who writes in response to Rebecca’s post:

I pay my taxes, as you do, and I demand the same right of regulation as you and all your heterosexual companions already expect and have - if you will not grant that then stop taxing us.  

And it is easy to find examples of gay couples who stay together for years in loving relationships, and, conversely, of marriages that end after an absurdly short time. A gold digger who marries an old codger with a nasty cough inherits his fortune, while a gay man whose partner of fifty years dies intestate gets nothing. Is this fair?

On the other hand, I agree with Rebecca’s view, that marriage is “the glue that holds society together” and must be “maintained as a special category”.

Perhaps the US could learn from the Great British tradition of muddling through. Thus, rather than accept gay marriage on “equal rights” grounds, or reject it on religious and moral grounds, find a pragmatic compromise.

Since 2005, gay couples have been allowed by UK law to enter into Civil Partnerships. This is not the same as gay marriage, which in the EU is legal only in the Netherlands and Belgium. From the rather tackily named Government Equalities Office:

Civil Partnership is a completely new legal relationship, exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.

The Government has sought to give civil partners parity of treatment with spouses, as far as is possible, in the rights and responsibilities that flow from forming a civil partnership.

There are a small number of differences between civil partnership and marriage, for example, a civil partnership is registered when the second civil partner signs the relevant document, a civil marriage is registered when the couple exchange spoken words.  Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony as they choose, whereas formation of a civil partnership will be an exclusively civil procedure.

So what rights and responsibilities do Civil Partners have? From the same website:

·         Tax, including inheritance tax;

·         Employment benefits;

·         Most state and occupational pension benefits;

·         Income related benefits, tax credits and child support;

·         Duty to provide reasonable maintenance for your civil partner and any children of the family;

·         Ability to apply for parental responsibility for your civil partner’s child;

·         Inheritance of a tenancy agreement;

·         Recognition under intestacy rules;

·         Access to fatal accidents compensation;

·         Protection from domestic violence; and

·         Recognition for immigration and nationality purposes

It is reasonable for gay couples to have these rights and duties. However, marriage should be a special category referring only to a man and a woman, particularly as regards the validity of a religious ceremony.

Is this compromise merely a matter of words? Have hordes of homosexuals been clogging up the Registry Offices? The short answer is no. In the first year after it was made legal, just over eighteen thousand couples entered into a Civil Partnership in the UK. The figures were at their highest in the first month, falling gradually over the course of the year. Statistics do not seem to be publicly available for 2007, but numbers are likely to have peaked in the first year the opportunity was available.

Has the UK opened the floodgates to all kinds of irregular unions, with people demanding to marry their pet parrot, or, worse still, more than one wife? Rebecca fears that gay marriage will lead to demands for polygamy to be recognised.

There is a big difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriage. Polygamous marriage greatly increases the number and proportion of Muslims. The proportion of gays, on the contrary, remains constant whatever their legal status. So gay marriage is not the threat that polygamous marriage is. Still, the use of the word “marriage” implies an identity with man-woman unions, and this does set a dangerous precedent. Does a Civil Partnership imply the same thing?

There is no evidence that demands for polygamous marriage have increased as a result of Civil Partnership legislation. Such demands, were they made, would come from Muslims. There is a problem with in the UK with unofficial “polygamy”, and there was the ridiculous decision to recognise for the purpose of benefits polygamous “marriages” conducted abroad. But this is not a result of Civil Partnership legislation, and logically it cannot be. Consider the rights and duties of Civil Partners. These rights and duties are fundamentally at odds with the teachings of Sharia on marriage, whether monogamous or polygamous, because Civil Partners are legal equals. Equal inheritance rights, proper maintenance, equal rights on dissolution and, in particular, protection from domestic violence, all go directly against Sharia.

A seemingly minor provision of the legislation, making a gay union purely a civil contract, ensures that religion cannot play a role. Since equality before the law is a fundamental principle of civil contracts, the legislation could not logically be extended to allow multiple “wives” without also allowing multiple “husbands”. Muslims, of all people, would be unlikely to support such a change.

Civil Partnership legislation has worked well here, without much of a song and dance. Perhaps we’re not a song-and-dance people.