As many of you know, I travel the country running courses to strengthen marriages. At an event this past weekend, I was asked if the marriage debate is over. It isn’t. Here’s why.
In America, Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licences in 2015, has again challenged the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling. Her petition calls the decision “egregiously wrong” and a “legal fiction”, urging the Court to overturn it. Her case highlights how quickly the redefinition of marriage collides with freedom of conscience.
This petition is part of a wider push across US states to reassert that marriage should be defined by law as the union of one man and one woman. Even if the Court declines to hear it, the very fact that Obergefell is under formal challenge shows that the debate is far from finished.
And closer to home, it’s important to remember that same-sex marriage in the UK had no democratic mandate. Senior Conservatives themselves said it was not in their party’s manifesto and that there was ‘no mandate’ for it. Civil partnerships already existed, offering broadly the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage – see the Government’s website.
Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is like redefining the term square to include triangles. It is a category error that has sown confusion and undermined the family. Marriage is more than a loving relationship. In the Church of England’s own canon law it is a lifelong union of one man and one woman “for the procreation and nurture of children”.
One reason this matters is child stability. UK longitudinal data show that among parents of first-born children, 60% of cohabiting couples who never married had separated by their child’s 14th birthday, compared with 21% who married before the birth of the child.
C4M calls for renewed UK recognition in law and policy of the unique, lifelong, exclusive union of one man and one woman. That means starting with marriage-friendly tax and benefits. It means education guidance that celebrates mothers and fathers. It also means stronger protections for freedom of speech and belief, so supporters of real marriage are not penalised at work or in public life. In parallel, support should be built with MPs for a future Bill to restore the historic definition of real marriage.