As far as I have read and heard it appears that most Humanists approve of the recently legalised so-called gay or lesbian weddings, or same-sex-partnerships as they are more often called in this country. But most homosexuals think that does not go far enough (because those homosexual partnerships do not yet have the same legal status as heterosexual marriages in the UK); they say there should be no difference between heterosexual and homosexual legally registered personal unions. In this case I disagree with the Humanist majority, as I do have some reservations about extending our current official marriage laws to include homosexual unions as well.

Many persons opposed to same-sex marriages are also opposed to all homosexual acts as such, i.e. they display a narrow-minded and intolerant attitude. Of course I don't accept those ridiculous arguments brought forward by many theists and many communists, who oppose homosexual relationships because they are prohibited in some "holy book" (as stated by conservative Christians and orthodox Jews and most Muslims) or because homosexuality is considered a perversion which only exists in degenerate capitalist societies (as was the official Soviet explanation for many decades in the 20th century). As a Humanist I do defend the right of all consenting adults to indulge in any type of voluntary sexual activities in private, i.e. heterosexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals alike ought to be free to perform any sex act they like with willing partners as long as they don't hurt anybody else in the process.

But marriage? That has been defined as a legal contract between one man and one woman, and has been so for a very long time. So I find it a bit preposterous for two persons of the same gender to call their relationship by the same name. By all means let's have some form of legal contract between 2 men or 2 women, but give it a different name. (In some countries they use the same word, so that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriages, but in the UK there are still different names and different laws.)

Many people say "Why should homosexuals not have the same rights as heterosexuals?", and indeed this does seem a fair question. So what reasons are there against gay and lesbian marriages? Basically the same as there are against heterosexual marriages: In the UK and USA and some other countries the marriage and divorce laws are extremely unfair. Those laws allow the poorer spouse to rip off the richer one, even if the richer person has done nothing wrong. The properties of both married partners are added together and are considered the common property of both. This is of course unfair if one person brought in, say, 90% of the combined value and the other person only 10%. So when the couple splits up the joint property is usually not divided in the same ratio as it was brought into the marriage (and/or in the ratio the value had increased or decreased during the marriage), but possibly at a rate of 50-50 between the two partners (the exact figure depends on various factors and is decided by the judge in a rather arbitrary fashion in this country). So it is easy to see that if a pauper marries a millionaire the pauper usually wins a fortune when they get a divorce. One does not need a convincing reason (such as suffering physical abuse or repeated infidelity) for getting a divorce, and then winning a fortune, but anyone can instigate a divorce for whatever trivial reason (whether real or invented). In other words: these divorce laws are a blessing for gold-diggers (of either sex).

Another weakness of our current marriage laws is the opportunity to misuse them for immigration scams. Many people from poorer and/or less free countries marry citizens of richer and/or more democratic countries (e.g. the UK or some other EU country) primarily for the purpose of being allowed to live there. The two partners may actually never have lived together, but as they are legally married the foreign citizen can now stay in the new country and work here and/or claim social benefits. (Surely it is a great improvement of one's living standard if one can work for a relatively low salary at a supermarket in London or McDonalds in Stockholm or obtain a similar amount after queuing at the DHSS office, compared to begging in Karachi or earning a miserable wage as a factory worker in Tashkent.) The citizen of the more desirable country may or may not knowingly participate as regards that immigration scam, he or she may happily co-operate with the immigrant partner, or on the other hand may have hoped it would be a genuine marriage but then is cheated and taken advantage of by that other person. In fact the two schemes could even be combined, where a gold-digger marries a well-meaning citizen and then, when he/she has won the right to remain in the new country, sues for divorce to win a lot of money from the hapless victim.

So what has this got to do with homosexual marriages? Nothing. I just wanted to point out the injustice of our current (heterosexual) marriage laws. Should we therefore extend those unfair laws to include more marriages (i.e. same-sex marriages as well)? It would just mean that there will be even more people misusing the law and exploiting innocent persons. Imagine if, to give an example, some unemployable Ukrainian (or Brazilian or Algerian, etc.) disco-creep cannot find a well-off British (or French or Dutch, etc.) lady to marry him, he may look for a well-off homosexual gentleman instead whom he hopes to cheat and exploit. That will be one effect if same-sex marriages are permitted: more scams and more rip-offs.

It is a similar situation as with faith schools. Some people argue if the Church of England and the Catholic Church are allowed to have their own religious schools (and decide the syllabus to be taught), then why should the Muslims and Hindus not have the same right? However the Humanist attitude is that there should be no faith schools at all: no C of E schools, no Muslim schools, etc. I therefore propose to apply the same logic as regards marriage, rather than having unfair heterosexual marriage and unfair homosexual marriage, there should be no unfair marriages at all, neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Maybe we should abolish marriage as it is at present, or rather reform the marriage laws to make them fair for all parties involved. Until that has happened I oppose introducing any new kinds of marriage (which are not yet legal here), such as same-sex marriages (which are now legally recognised in several other countries) as well as child marriages (which are still practised in India) as well as forced marriages (fairly common in Muslim and Hindu societies) as well as polygamous marriages (normal practice in Muslim countries).

Now you may argue that most people getting married have no such wicked intentions (to exploit somebody) but want to marry somebody because they love that person and hope to stay together for the rest of their lives. But about a third of all marriages in the UK end in divorce, and even if not planned in advance, one party may use those unfair divorce laws and exploit the other partner during and following the legal divorce proceedings (often encouraged to do so by eager lawyers). Reforming the marriage laws to make them more just would not affect any existing happy marriages in an unfavourable way; honest persons would benefit from it while typically the greedy freeloaders with malicious intentions would be disadvantaged.

Why do we need marriage at all? Many couples choose to live together without any legal arrangement, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I can understand those who say that some legal protection is needed in some situations. Certainly parents should be obliged to take care of any children they produce and provide for them until they are adult, though this can be done with or without marriage. And some financial provisions will be justified in some cases, e.g. where one partner stays at home looking after the children and doing most of the domestic chores while the other partner goes out working and earning all the money. But different contracts would be required for different situations, not one general law which covers all couples in a way which is fair in some cases but unfair in some other cases. Therefore as long as those laws are so unfair I oppose them, both the existing (heterosexual) marriage laws as well as their recommended new usage for homosexual relationships. Once new fairer laws regulating cohabiting couples (or three or more persons living together) are introduced then I have no objection if they apply to all adults regardless of sexual orientation.

Alex Hill