Taking a step towards a more equal society

I’m not religious, I don’t like parties or events where the focus is on me and I’m not really a big fan of dresses that cost more than I spent on my last car.

But I can appreciate the tradition, commitment and sense of finality that comes with a marriage and a wedding. I look forward to introducing my now girlfriend as my beautiful wife, to being cosily referred to as a husband – being half of a relationship that, as a marriage, is globally recognised as a serious and permanent bond.

Like me, my brother was born in the Island. But he can’t get married in Jersey. (Yet.)

He had the poor foresight to be gay, you see. As a homosexual man, marriage is currently off the agenda over here – though he could enter into a civil partnership – and there are no existing plans for it to change.

It is a baffling inequality and in the same week that the UK government, led by a surprisingly strident David Cameron, chose to change their law, allowing gay people to be married, it is surely time for Jersey to take the same confident step towards a more equal society.

Senator Philip Ozouf, the only openly gay States Member, has already laid down the gauntlet by asking Jersey to follow suit within the next two years.

I seldom agree with the Treasury Minister but I am in total accordance with him over this one and think that, now more than ever, Jersey needs to look to the UK for inspiration.

It is unfortunate that the Senator’s openness about his sexuality has been in the past patronisingly referred to as ‘brave’ – especially when he is in a high-pressured, public job that demands he be judged on his decisions, political acumen and results rather than his personal life.

But while we would love to think that Jersey is a tolerant, 21st century place where gay people are equally as accepted as straight folk, I think we all know that there is still a prudish, sniggering attitude to homosexuality – be it in the classroom or the boardroom – which is little helped by allowing obvious divisions to exist in something as prominent as our basic marriage laws.

As such, Senator Ozouf’s bold stance and prompt response to the UK’s proposed shift should be applauded, especially when political feeling among Jersey’s public probably leans heavily to the right, aligning them with many of the UK politicians who earlier in the week door-stepped the Prime Minister with a petition of protest at the bill.

As has been pointed out already, the anger, outrage and sheer panic demonstrated by the fusty dinosaurs in the Conservative party was so over the top that one had to hope it had been made clear to them that under the new law marrying a gay person would not actually be compulsory for all.

Some say that it is just an issue of semantics and there is no need to get worked up over a trivial matter.

But imagine, if you can, a world where the word ‘love’ was only allowed to be used for the emotion felt between a man and a woman. Imagine if gay couples were forced to use a different word when they wanted to share their feelings. It would be a nonsense. But that is where we are in terms of marriage in Jersey – it is a privilege afforded to some but not all, based purely on whether or not the object of their love is a member of their own sex.

Laws, restrictions and bans exist to protect us from ourselves or from each other. That is why you have to be 18 before you can get married – it prevents people from taking advantage of youngsters. But who is being protected by a law that restricts gay people from marrying?

If we can accept that things must be outlawed if they are generally injurious to other parties – theft, violence and murder – it follows that there exists no reason not to allow gay people the right to be wed. It harms no one, spare the delicate sensibilities of far-right religious groups and angry politicians who think the modern world should consist of traditional 2.4 families, complete with a Labrador, Volvo and a neatly mowed front lawn.

Jersey’s civil partnership law was warmly welcomed when it was introduced last year – though there was a murmuring of discontent among some that marriage was still not available – and following an amendment to the law last week civil partners will have the same rights as married couples in the Island.

Well, surely that’s far enough, some people will no doubt think. They’ve got the same rights as straight people, so why do they need marriage?

It’s simple.

I have as much right to proudly introduce people to my wife as my brother does to introduce people to his husband. They are important words, ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, and for some people they bring with them a comforting sense of solidarity that is not achieved with the potentially loaded alternative, ‘life partner’. This does not detract from the solemnity or worth of civil partnerships or mean that I feel everyone should be forced to walk down the aisle – it is about ensuring that everyone has the same options, the right to choose whether they wish to be a husband, wife or civil partner.

But it is not just an issue of semantics, of labels and words that have no inherent meaning.

When it comes to the thorny issue of gay marriage ceremonies taking place in religious buildings, which seems to be at the root of some of the opposition, the UK has negotiated the problem by proposing a caveat whereby all ministers and religious institutions would retain the right to refuse same-sex partners and be protected from legal action.

But some congregations and priests are tolerant and welcoming towards gay people and creating the option will enable same-sex couples the opportunity to celebrate their love in a place where they already worship – a huge step forward.

We have a long way to go before we can say we live in a world where all people are treated equally, but if governments have any role to play in it, giving every member of the public they serve exactly the same rights, opportunities and protection, whoever they share their bed with, is a good place to start.