The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Legalising same-sex marriages is conservative, not liberal

It's time for the Conservatives to say the decision to legalise same-sex marriage is motivated by conservative thinking.

By Ryan Shorthouse Published 23 September 2011 16:04

In Birmingham, Liberal Democrat MPs and senior advisers were nodding to journalists that legalising same-sex marriages was a Lib Dem victory against archaic Tories. But it's very important for the Conservatives to claim ownership of this welcome policy, for philosophical and political reasons.

Growing cultural liberalism has certainly helped bring this about, but the logic for extending marriage to same-sex couples is not in fact liberal.
Liberals believe in the autonomy of individuals to conduct their lives free from external constraint so long as they do not undermine the rights of others. So the state should be morally neutral. When it comes to marriage, therefore, liberals argue that the state is not being neutral when it only grants the title of marriage, and the benefits that come with it, to heterosexual couples.

But this new policy is not extending those privileges to everyone. Consensual polygamous partnerships, for instance, are not being allowed to marry. A truly liberal position would be that the state does not sanction marriage at all as the benefits from it discriminate against those who do not marry.

The real reason why marriage is being extended to gay couples is because government - shaped by the changing attitudes of the public - now believes same-sex couples are worthy, that they fulfil the purpose of marriage and deserve marriage's associated benefits. This is Aristotelian, not liberal, logic.

This is why the policy is more conservative than liberal. First, Conservatives more strongly believe that justice depends on what individuals deserve. Many liberals, notably John Rawls, believe that moral desert cannot be the grounds for determining the just allocation of titles and resources.
Second, Conservatives, unlike liberals, are sceptical of introducing new rights based on abstract arguments: they prefer to grant rights and implement change based on the evolution of public opinion, to ensure support for and the stability of government, which is what this policy amounts to. So it's time for the Conservatives to say the decision to legalise same-sex marriage is motivated by conservative thinking.

This is important politically too. Recent analysis showed that the Conservatives failed to secure a majority at the last election because they did not convince floater voters the party shared their values. An increasingly liberal-minded electorate need reassurance that the party is in touch with modern Britain, not reluctantly dragged into the twenty-first century by Liberal Democrats.

Cameron, of course, knows this. Hence why Downing Street told the press, despite the Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister formally announcing it, that the PM had "personally intervened" to introduce the policy consultation. Expect more noises from Cameron on this in the weeks ahead, especially to counterbalance more traditional message he is likely to trumpet at the forthcoming Conservative Party Conference.

Ryan Shorthouse is a spokesman for Bright Blue

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Gay Marriage Marriage

More from Ryan Shorthouse

21 comments

Fri, 2011-09-23 20:23 — A. Cole (not verified)

So Lox you would also agree that the state should 'butt out' and not challenge religious organisation who dont pander to gay interests??

Fri, 2011-09-23 20:56 — Paul Hillyard (not verified)

You need to buy a new library Ryan if you think this is a conservative notion.

Fri, 2011-09-23 21:30 — Flashbuck (not verified)

"same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms. Fact.

Fri, 2011-09-23 23:29 — Baron

two things are undeniably true about sex, we procreate by it, we enjoy it whether because of love, lust or whatever, the State has no business in the latter, whatever any change in law does, changes nothing.

Sun, 2011-09-25 15:31 — Yonmei

Semyon Suslov: "...from a medical position, homosexuals are at high risk for bodily damage and disease because same-sex interaction involves human physiology that’s not designed for that purpose."

If God had meant us to have anal sex, He would have given us assholes.

...oh, wait.

Sat, 2011-09-24 00:04 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Personally I wonder if the real reason the government is enabling any two people to get married is because it's so much easier to controll everyone if we 're all lumbered with a contract. It's about liability I daresay, or the risk of liability. Obviously firms will find risk easier to manage if it can be shared via some consent type process between two individuals rather than one. Thus any ordinary member of the public who doesn't comply with the contractual model of life may as well be missing completely.

So much for our rights to be treated as individuals rather than herds kept in agricultural type householdings.

Sat, 2011-09-24 01:05 — Dickie1

@Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley

"So much for our rights to be treated as individuals rather than herds kept in agricultural type householdings."

I think you are right. This is sham politics; not accepting differences but attempting to 'normalize' other groups. I'm afraid that too many gay couples seek the rather dubious path of assimilation.

Sat, 2011-09-24 02:47 — Ivan Miletitch

Same sex marriage... or when society lost its mind....Our descendents (thats if we still have heterosexual marriages of course!)some 200 yards down the line will be asking themselves what kind of drugs we all were on .....

Sat, 2011-09-24 09:20 — tolga zafer TR (not verified)

while same-sex is weird, ı don't know what to say about same-sex marriage. this illness must be treated folks.

Sat, 2011-09-24 09:52 — Semyon Suslov (not verified)

The overwhelming majority rightfully believes that homosexuals deserve the respect, courtesy, and individual rights and liberties to which all are due. Providing homosexuals anything less is denying a true civil right because they’re human beings, just like everyone else. There is a distinction, though, and it’s a very important one that goes to the heart of our Constitution and living in a free and orderly society.

That distinction is the difference between a human being and human behavior. A human being simply is. He/she has no ability to be anything but a person, and is, therefore, deserving of rights, which no one can remove by vote or decree. The natural and immutable – or fixed – conditions of race and gender fall into this category because they’re purely genetic. One can’t willfully change one’s genetics and become white one day or black then next or become male the first day and female on the second day, even with reassignment surgery, which may change the outward manifestation of sex (to some degree) but not the underlying genetics. In other words, once a male always a male, no matter how much surgery you undergo or how many hormones you take.

A person's behavior is another matter. Unlike the human condition, it begins with an urge, which many perceive as having little to no ability to control and often have no recollection of choosing. Yet whether it concerns anger, kleptomania, smoking, drinking to excess, or drug addiction, behavioral urges are the driving force behind the behavior. However, what is clearly under our control is our ability to decide whether we’ll act on the urge and engage in the behavior resulting from the urge.

Sometimes this conscious decision results in a beneficial behavior; other times it does not. For these reasons, the Constitution assigns the public or its elected representatives the right to pass laws governing human behavior for the benefit of the individual and society. In general, the intent of such laws ranges from prohibiting to encouraging different behaviors, based on their merits or lack of them. For example, some behaviors furnish positive benefits to individuals and society, and should, therefore, be encouraged with financial and legal benefits. Examples in this first category would include going to college, starting a business, buying a home, giving to charities, and entering into marriage. Other behaviors have the potential for harm but banning them would cause an undue burden on personal liberty. So, we limit these behaviors to consenting adults. Examples in this second category would be smoking, drinking, gambling, and human sexual relations outside marriage. Finally, some behaviors are so egregious that we prohibit them. Examples in this third category would be the taking of life or property.

As the medical, psychological, and sociologically research irrefutably proves, homosexual behavior clearly lies in the second category of human behavior. First, from a medical position, homosexuals are at high risk for bodily damage and disease because same-sex interaction involves human physiology that’s not designed for that purpose. The result is that practicing homosexuals are at far greater risk on a per person basis for HIV/AIDS (nine to 44 times more susceptible than straights), hepatitis, STDs (especially syphilis), human papilloma virus (HPV), certain cancers, and gastrointestinal ailments. Second, from a psychological viewpoint, homosexuals experience a higher rate of emotional and mental ailments than heterosexuals, a rate that doesn’t vary whether they live in are accepting of homosexuals (the Netherlands) and those that are less so (United States). Finally, from a sociological view, homosexual behavior poses a risk, if it’s officially recognized in same-sex marriage (SSM), because of the negative impact it will have on society (1).

The reason has to do with the institution, itself. Marriage is considered a positive and worthwhile goal. As such, we seal it in joyful ceremonies; celebrate it with sometimes lavish receptions; and register it with the government, which, in turn, bestows financial incentives, such as tax incentives to keep us married. For heterosexual marriage, these activities are warranted, because it improves the finances and health of both parties, reduces to almost zero the potential for STDS; eliminates promiscuity in 75 to 85% of all marriages; and provides the best environment for raising children, which naturally result from heterosexual interaction (1). So we hold marriage in high esteem (or try to), so that other men and women will enter into it.

In comparison, no such benefits would result from SSM. Besides the health risks, other reasons involve the origin and inherent nature of homosexuality. Like every other behavioral urge, homosexuality results from a complex mix of genetic, biologic, and social factors that vary in significance among individuals (1). Consequently, homosexuality may be more genetic in some, more biologic in others, and more cultural/social in another group. What all these categories have in common, though, is that none guarantees homosexuality. Rather, they impart a greater tendency than the general population for a homosexual outcome and all are subject in varying degrees to outside influences that either encourage same-sex behavior or mischaracterize it as normal and healthy.

SSM is such an influence because of the social approval surrounding marriage and because the urge for same-sex behavior is at least partially due to an influence like this one. Thus, those who wouldn’t otherwise develop homosexuality or engage in the behavior will be more likely to do so now that SSM is recognized in some areas or countries. This outcome not only exposes them to the risk of bodily damage and disease to which homosexuals are highly susceptible but others, who they might influence through their behavior. This is why it’s so important to oppose SSM and not endorse it.

(1) “The Case for Limiting Government Recognition to Traditional Relationships”

Link:

http://marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-for-limiting...

Sat, 2011-09-24 11:39 — Flashbuck (not verified)

Same sex sodomy is contrary to The Laws of Plumbing. Fact.

Tue, 2011-10-04 15:49 — Nigel Woodcock (not verified)

""same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms. Fact."

Well, no. If it gets legalised that it won't be a contradiction in terms. It'll be a fact. Fact.

"tolga zafer TR" says that homosexuality is an "illness". One could equally argue that attitudes such as hers are a sickness. The truth is that it's only those who claim that their imaginary friend says it's wrong who are bothered. The rest of us just say, "live and let live". Gay people are perfectly capable of being good parents and loving partners.

Sat, 2011-09-24 16:11 — David Gutteridge (not verified)

Despite the reassuring remarks of David Lindsay above, we must all keep in mind that The Supreme Governor acquiesced in the Church of England's abandonment of traditional Christian ministry in 1987 and 1992 so claiming to ordain women as deacons and priests in the Church of God.

Sat, 2011-09-24 19:31 — R Gallagher (not verified)

Proposing same-sex marriage is not a conservative position. Ideological conservatism is based on the Judeo-Christian notions of patriarchical family and a stable, highly-hierarchical society and state.

The Conservative Party, the Lib Dems and Labour are all directed by variants of liberal ideology. Social conservatism is expressed through a motley collection of Tory backwoodsmen and the occasional social catholic in the Labour Party. Neither tendency has not given much influence on frontbench attitudes to social issues.

Sat, 2011-09-24 20:34 — Lox (not verified)

Hi A Cole, yes, I would. If people don't want to attend churches of whose sexual and social opinions they disapprove, they don't have to.

Wed, 2011-10-05 01:37 — cvthyyn

╭━━灬╮╭━━∞╮　

┃⌒　⌒┃┃⌒　⌒┃　

╰━━━〇〇━━━〇

Looking forward to your visiting

▲ http://www.newflybuy.com ▲　

BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!

SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!

FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!

Believe that you will fall in love with it

╭⌒╮⌒╮.’,”’,,’,.”,,’,”,.

╱◥██◣”o’,”’,,’,.”.”,,’,.

｜田｜田田│ ”,,’,.’,”’,,’,.”

╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬e:→

http://www.www.newflybuy.com

Sun, 2011-09-25 05:47 — Jan Cosgrove (not verified)

Gay marriage conservative? "That is, hot ice and wondrous strange snow. " (Midsummer ND, Act5 sc1) And here was me thinking all the time they were against it? Whatever made me think that? So civilisation won't collapse after all? I'm so pleased ....

Fri, 2011-09-23 17:54 — mike cobley (not verified)

Quote "Conservatives, unlike liberals, are sceptical of introducing new rights based on abstract arguments: they prefer to grant rights and implement change based on the evolution of public opinion."

Really? So its not about doing what is right and just, but staying within the bounds of certain expressions of public opinion, if even its uninformed and reactionary?

Fri, 2011-09-23 18:04 — David Lindsay

The statutory definition of marriage as only ever the union of one man and one woman goes back to the Attlee Government. Before that, it had always been presupposed. But its iron-cladding by means of the Statute Law was the work of the greatest Labour Government, and of the longest-serving Leader in the Labour Party's history. Now, though, from the Prime Minister who wanted to give Peter Tatchell a peerage, comes the proposal for "gay marriage". That proposal would be rejected by Barack Obama, and it was rejected by the voters of California and Florida on the same day as they gave their Electoral College votes to Obama.

Unlike a civil partnership, which therefore ought not to be restricted to unrelated same-sex couples, a marriage has to be consummated. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith (the present title is not the one conferred by the Pope on Henry VIII, but the one conferred by a Protestant Parliament on his son, Edward VI) could not have signed a Bill which, for the first time, actually required, in order to receive some legal benefit or privilege, engagement in sexual relations other than those between one man and one woman in marriage. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith still cannot do so.

Nevertheless, we should seize this opportunity to propose something better. The extension to relatives of the right to contract civil partnerships. The entitlement of each divorcing spouse to one per cent of the other's estate for each year of marriage, up to 50 per cent, and the disentitlement of the petitioning spouse unless fault be proved, thereby restoring the situation whereby, by recognising adultery and desertion as faults in divorce cases, society declared in law its disapproval of them even though they were not in themselves criminal offences.

The entitlement of any marrying couple to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 as regards grounds and procedures for divorce, and to enable any religious organisation to specify that any marriage which it conducts shall be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly. And the statutory specification that the Church of England be such a body unless the General Synod specifically resolve the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses, with something similar for the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, which also exist pursuant to Acts of Parliament, as well as by amendment to the legislation relating to the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy.

That would be a start, anyway. It is astonishing that no major party is opposed to same-sex "marriage", just as it is that no major party gives expression to all sorts of mainstream opinions in the country at large. Ed Miliband is, I suspect, in favour of it. A lot of people are. But by making the above his and his party's conditions for supporting it, then he would both be doing what was right, and, as in so many other ways of siding with Mail and Telegraph readers (even if not writers) against the Government, doing what was electorally opportune. So, Ed Miliband, over to you.

Fri, 2011-09-23 19:21 — A. Cole (not verified)

Just another example of the Government bowing to the interests of minority groups...like the lib dems who want this recognition of deviant unions!

Fri, 2011-09-23 19:41 — Lox (not verified)

Supporting gay marriage isn't conservative-it's liberal. And you're clutching at straws if you think that the tories have backed it because of public opnion any more than labour.
Gay marriage should be supported on the principle that the state should butt out and mind it's own business (and as an aside, that business should be as small as possible). That's a principle that's more libertarian than conservative, and much further away from socialism, isn't it?