Same-sex marriage
Sylvia Hilken takes a different perspective on Equality and Truth
Yearly Meeting last year at York took a significant step forward in committing to achieving equality for same-sex couples wanting to tie the knot in a Quaker Meeting. I was not present myself, but listening to Friends, I have no doubt that the process was both deeply moving and sensitively and skilfully clerked. I am glad of the commitment to progress that emerged. Nevertheless, I doubt that the way chosen is the right one. A large Meeting can establish a general direction, but is not the place to consider the implications in depth. That is the stuff of discussion and threshing. The way the Society hopes to achieve equality for same-gender couples is in keeping with our history so far. It is my conviction, though, that quite a few important points have been ignored or not thought through rigorously beyond the comfort zone of traditional Quaker discourse. So it is entirely possible that a deeply gathered Meeting can arrive at a decision that may later have to be rethought. I abstain from giving examples; most of you will know some. Bluntly put, the way currently adopted to achieve equality for same-sex couples to me looks like a cop-out and a fudge. I will try and sketch out why below.
The Society is trying to make the State responsible for achieving equality by changing the law to include same-sex couples in our Privilege (of solemnising legally valid marriages). In the meantime, we can ‘play’ at equality but not deliver it.
However, If we could bring ourselves to give up our Privilege, which I have come to regard as past its ‘justify by date’, there could be automatic equality in our treatment of couples.
As a registering officer, I have appreciated playing my part in Quaker weddings, but now question their legal basis. The mere thought of giving up our Privilege seems to provoke shock and pain – but I really don’t think we can just sail ahead without even considering it. I have read no discussion of this matter, just passing references, as if it was something not worth addressing seriously. I challenge Friends to start doing so and to widen the discussion of Quaker marriage and its future.
How well does it sit with Equality that we want to hang on to a privilege granted by the State over (most) other denominations and religions?
Do we really think the State is the appropriate authority to decide which denominations and religions are ‘respectable’ enough to be granted such a privilege?
Think of the enormity in this age to ask a (mostly) secular State to study and decide such matters. It implies accepting that the State has the right to do so. Just because an old privilege has been to the advantage of Quakers for a long time, that hardly means that it is justifiable now (bad luck for Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, etc.).
But if we gave up our Privilege, Quaker couples would have to have a civil ceremony first (just like most others) and lose the precious all-in-one celebration we have treasured so long!
Well, would it really be incompatible with our deepest values? Do we think British Quaker marriages are in any way ‘better’ than those of other European Quakers, who are not ‘cumbered’ with our peculiar and rather anachronistic arrangement?
Quakers have traditionally asserted that the secular and the sacred belong together – is our traditional Quaker marriage process necessarily the only way to show that? Up to now all Quakers have either felt like that or not questioned it.
More radically: What is marriage in Britain in our age?
The fact (and the words of the dictionary definition): a legally recognised personal monogamous union (entailing property and inheritance rights). No mention of religion. It is open to agnostics and atheists, who can have a civil wedding – compulsory in most European countries before any church ceremony. Marriage has spiritual/religious significance for some, but that is no longer implied by the term.
Quakers at least recognise in practice that the civil contract is an essential part of a marriage – no Quaker wedding can go ahead without the certificate from the Registrar. As this bit is a prerequisite, how honest is it to dismiss state recognition as ‘secondary’? It certainly is not secondary in the view of all those couples who, having been denied such rights, can now enter a ‘civil partnership’.
Idealistic married couples, while everything is going splendidly, may dismiss the legal implications as not important, but during crises (illness, death, divorce) they come to the fore and individuals look to the law to defend them against injustice. Not always successfully, but it is their only hope; looking to Quakers would not help much!
What about ‘Marriage being the work of the Lord only’ and ‘we are but witnesses’?
I hope nobody is seriously suggesting that the ‘work of the Lord’ can be limited to what any religious community chooses to witness! Or for that matter keep the Spirit of Love and Truth out of the civil marriage of those who have no religious allegiance or even vocabulary?
Is this really such revolutionary stuff? I have not noticed any discrimination among Quakers against couples who have been through a civil ceremony only, with or without a blessing afterwards or those having had other religious weddings. So in practice – thank goodness – we already seem to regard such unions as equally valid with a traditional British Quaker wedding and as open to the Spirit.
So why do we hang on so tenaciously to our Privilege?
Are we afraid that we would be left with nothing of real weighty significance? Are we afraid to lose status? (How Quakerly would that be?) Is it fear of abandoning a tradition that has served us well in the past? Fear of the task of having to replace it with a new practice, still embodying our most cherished principles? It is certainly easier to stick with what we have got and fiddle around at the edges, rather than think things through radically and see where we might be led.
I myself do not doubt that a religious celebration of the commitment of a couple (regardless of gender) having already made a civil contract is significant enough for a bright future of Quaker weddings. If you don’t think so, what are your reasons?
The usual argument in favour of our marriage practice is that it combines the secular and sacred. However, not all ingredients that are both essential to one thing need necessarily always be mixed up in a mush, any more than the colours of the rainbow or our food and drink. They often are more appreciated for what they are when dealt with separately. Also, a healthy union of two people respects the separate identities of the partners. Let us think about togetherness and separateness, not just chant old mantras.
These are just some of the thoughts behind my hope that British Quakers will ultimately dare to be a lot more courageous in their efforts to achieve equality than so far.
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.