Gay marriage opponents are on the wrong side of history

In Scotland today we are proud that we live in a modern, civilised democracy - one that upholds the values of tolerance, liberty and equality. These values are important to our culture, our parliament, and to our international reputation.

With social attitudes towards LGBT people having improved significantly in recent years, it is easy to forget a darker past. Homosexuality was only decriminalised in Scotland thirty years ago, and only taken off of the World Health Organisation’s list of mental illnesses in 1990.

Since then the legal rights of LGBT people in Scotland have improved exponentially. It is no longer legal for employers or service providers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the age of consent has been equalised, the ban on serving in the armed forces has been lifted, and schools are finally starting to tackle homophobic bullying. LGBT people are no longer effectively excluded from popular culture, ‘faggot’ is no longer an acceptable term, and thanks to changing attitudes most of us are now aware of close friends and family members who are able to be open about their sexuality.

The introduction of Civil Partnerships was among these great steps forward, but it did not bring equality. Not because there is anything wrong with the institution but, because as history has taught us, separate is not equal. A segregated system of family law, where there is one law for same-sex couples and another for mixed-sex couples, can never be described as equal and sends out entirely the wrong message if we are serious about challenging homophobia. How can we teach in schools that LGBT people should be treated equally, if the law of the land treats them as inferior?

3,500 couples have registered a civil partnership in Scotland since 2005, and if it was open to mixed-sex couples this number would be higher still. Yet for many, particularly same-sex couples of faith, only marriage will do. Civil Partnership is seen by some as having a second-class status, in part because of the cultural significance of marriage, but also because it was deliberately introduced as a separate institution in order to avoid a show-down with gay marriage opponents; providing recognition and rights without social and legal equity.

Six years on, Scots are increasingly aware that this segregated system is unacceptable. When apartheid was dismantled in South Africa, there would have rightly been an outcry if the government there had said, “Some people here still don’t approve of mixed-race marriage, so we won’t let mixed-race couples marry, but that’s not unfair, because we’ll invent a separate institution called civil partnership just for them.” That would be clear discrimination, and so is the ban on same-sex marriage. The South African government understand this well, and introduced same-sex marriage in 2006.

The current system also poses a problem for those of us who believe in religious freedom. Scots law treats faith groups as though they are incapable of deciding for themselves whether to solemnise same-sex marriage. This disregards the wishes of the Unitarians, the Quakers, Liberal Judaism, Buddhists, the Metropolitan Community Church, Spiritualists, Pagans, and the Humanists, who perform more marriages in Scotland each year than the Catholic Church. If the opponents of same-sex marriage truly believe in religious freedom, they will support a change in the law so that each faith group can decide for itself without the interference of the nanny state.

Politicians have nothing to fear from doing the right thing and backing equality. Alex Salmond’s public support for gay marriage did not prevent the SNP securing an historic majority government in the 2011 election. When it comes to public opinion equal marriage is an undeniably popular policy. The respected Scottish Social Attitudes Survey shows that 79 per cent of Scots either support, or do not oppose, same-sex marriage, including a clear majority of respondents from all major faith groups and political parties. Unsurprisingly, support is highest amongst young people, suggesting that generations of future voters are likely to take a dim view of those that stand in the way of equality, just as Section 28 has damaged the reputation of its proponents for the past two decades.

History is firmly on the side of equality, and the momentum is with equal marriage. Since the Netherlands became the first country to lift the ban in 2001 same-sex marriage has been legalised in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Portugal, Norway, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Mexico City and six US states. The list grows every year.

Same-sex marriage has not brought about the apocalypse, and evidence shows that once it is legalised opposition continues to dissipate. In time it will be a non-issue. Just as it is now unimaginable that any government would reverse the hard-fought progress made on racial equality, future generations will look back in disbelief that there was ever a time when LGBT Scots were denied full equality under the law. The decidedly camp hyperbole being issued on a daily basis by ultra-conservative lobbyists and doomsayers will be treated in much the same way that history students currently view those bizarre arguments once used to deny women suffrage.

Scotland’s politicians have a clear choice. Those who follow their conscience and do the right thing will be rewarded by history and at the ballot box. They can lift the ban and proudly make Scotland a leader on this progressive, forward-looking change. Those who give in to the threats and power games being played by the opponents of gay marriage will set Scotland on a dark path, risking their own reputation and that of a nation.