The Times keeps up attack on equal marriage opponents
After officially backing equal marriage rights for gays this week, The Times has published a comment piece today on benefits of such a move, gently cajoling opponents for the quality of their arguments.
Columnist Hugo Rifkind writes: “Donāt take this the wrong way, but Iāve been trying to find a reason to be against gay marriage. There arenāt any. Thereās just God and the āeeeuwā factor.”
Rifkind says while they may be strong arguments for some, they “shouldnāt do it for the country”.
PinkNews.co.uk has taken the view that it is time for newspapers, politicians and faith leaders to make their views clear.
In his column, Rifkind continues: “Thereās just a pro side, which is right, and and an anti side (which some polls suggest may be larger), which is wrong. And, by āwrongā, before you get sniffy, I donāt mean āthinks something with which I disagreeā. I mean āthinks something which doesnāt make any sense at allā.”
Rifkind dubs civil partnerships an “act of political genius, possibly Tony Blairās greatest […] A couple could say āweāre married!ā and bishops could say āno you arenāt!ā and neither would be wholly wrong. This was, literally, the third way.”
But the difference between straight and gay couples’ rights when it comes to marriage cannot be supported “without very good reasons, and in the case of gay marriage (unlike, say, sibling marriage) there arenāt any. There arenāt even bad reasons. There are no reasons at all.”
As to being equal but different, Rifkind argues such a difference must be justified.
On the idea that it would undermine marriage, he says: “This is what a philosopher would call circular reasoning. You are arguing from your own conclusions. If same-sex relationships were wrong and perverse, then they would undermine marriage. But if they arenāt, they wonāt. Donāt you see? This isnāt a reason, either. Itās a declaration of prejudice, disguised.”
Rifkind says that the argument from “Eeeeuw” is, along with God, “at the root of all anti-gay marriage arguments. Literally, all of them. Those who make them ought to admit this, at least to themselves, and also admit that neither is a basis for policy. The State should not see a difference between a gay union and a straight one. Calm down and think about it. You know Iām right.”