Evidence: Homosexual marriage does not strengthen families it weakens marriage
A passionate rallying call, it was supposed to encapsulate David Cameron’s political creed, boldly blending the progressive and the traditional.
‘Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is strong when we make vows to each other,’ the Prime Minister triumphantly declared at the Tory party conference in October 2011.
‘So I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support it because I am a Conservative.’
Speaking yesterday on Radio 4’s Today programme, after the Commons voted on Monday to allow gay marriage in England and Wales, Mr Cameron said: ‘There will be young boys in schools today who are gay, who are worried about being bullied, who are worried about what society thinks of them, who can see that the highest Parliament in the land has said that their love is worth the same as anyone else’s love and that we believe in equality.
'The ties that bind us': For the PM's inner circle of self-styled modernisers, the proposal of legalising same-sex marriage is seen as a key instrument of change, a powerful agent that can 'detoxify' the Tory brand
‘And I think they’ll stand that bit taller today and I’m proud of the fact that has happened.’
Over the past three years, the legalisation of same-sex marriage has become one of the flagship policies of Mr Cameron’s Conservative-led Government, even though it was never mentioned in his party’s manifesto at the 2010 general election.
For the PM’s inner circle of self-styled modernisers, this proposal is seen as a key instrument of change, a powerful agent that can ‘detoxify’ the Tory brand. By embracing gay marriage, the party will be able to shed its ‘nasty’ image and present itself as an inclusive, socially advanced force in British politics.
The policy is also portrayed by its backers as a vehicle for reinvigorating the institution of marriage itself by promoting those values of commitment, loyalty, stability and personal responsibility that are considered vital to the creation of a strong society.
For example, Culture Minister Maria Miller said in February, when putting forward the legislation to enshrine same-sex unions: ‘What marriage offers us is a lifelong partner to share our journey, a loving, stable relationship to strengthen us and a mutual support throughout our lives. I believe this is something that should be embraced by more couples.’
In the same vein, Mr Cameron’s favourite think-tank, Policy Exchange, proclaimed same-sex marriage will ‘encourage strong and stable families, and tackle the social breakdown that leads to poverty’.
But in the real world beyond excitable political rhetoric, we should be very wary of claims that a far-reaching change in family policy will help to strengthen our social fabric.
Maria Miller said in February: 'What marriage offers us is a lifelong partner to share our journey, a loving, stable relationship to strengthen us and a mutual support throughout our lives'
Indeed, it is one of the classic tactics of radical reformers to assert that a ‘progressive’ proposal is actually a means to achieving a traditionalist end. This is exactly what happened over the reform of the divorce laws in 1969/70.
Advocates argued that by making divorce much easier, the new law would do no more than help to end a few ‘dead’ unions that were beyond saving. By allowing this, it was argued, the institution of marriage would be left much stronger and more respected.
As we all know, it has hardly worked out like that. Just the opposite has happened.
Divorce rates have rocketed, marriage rates have plummeted and tens of thousands of children have been robbed of security.
A similarly disastrous outcome arose from another progressive policy — providing state support for lone parenthood outside marriage. Again, this was done with the best of intentions: to remove the stigma on single mothers and to provide for children whose fathers had abandoned them.
The upbeat language of the Tory modernisers is based on nothing more than self-delusion and wishful thinking
But in practice it has offered incentives to help the creation of fatherless families and the remorseless expansion of the benefits system.
The same applies to same-sex marriage today. The upbeat language of the Tory modernisers is based on nothing more than self-delusion and wishful thinking.
Look at what has happened in those countries that have already made same-sex marriage legal. In not one case has there been any indication of a wider revival in marriage. Indeed, in most countries its decline has merely accelerated.
In Scandinavia, where hostility to the two-parent family is central to the ruling political orthodoxy, the widening of the legal definition of marriage has done nothing to stop the institution decaying.
The same applies in Spain, where the Catholic Church still retains significant social influence and state policy has not been so antagonistic to traditional family life. Gay marriage was first sanctioned in 2005, and since then the decline in heterosexual marriage rates has been precipitous.
Likewise in Holland, where the traditional Protestant culture has fought against the increasingly predominant tolerant anarchy so beloved of liberal campaigners.
Since the Dutch legalised same-sex marriage in 2001, the concept of long-term commitment among heterosexuals has been evaporating — not least because of the parallel introduction of ‘registered partnership’ or ‘cohabitation agreements’ for heterosexuals.
Forty per cent of first babies are now born to unmarried mothers in Holland, a doubling of the rate since 2000.
This is tragic proof of the misguided belief that same-sex marriage could help to reinforce the value of traditional marriage. And, in any case, this belief has always been absurd and is wholly undermined by the evidence.
For the truth is that the drive for gay wedlock is precisely the same instinct that wants to destroy traditional marriage. It is part of the pernicious notion of social equality.
It is particularly revealing, therefore, that some of the most outspoken campaigners for same-sex unions, such as the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, do not seem to believe in the importance of traditional marriage at all.
It is particularly revealing that some of the most outspoken campaigners for same-sex unions, such as the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, do not seem to believe in the importance of traditional marriage at all
Notoriously, he once derided plans to support marriage through the tax system as like ‘taking the 1950s model of suit-wearing, breadwinning dad and aproned, home- making mother and trying to preserve it in aspic’.
Perversely, despite the hysteria and emotional bullying of some advocates of gay marriage, there does not even seem to be any great wish among gays or lesbians in any nation for official recognition of their relationships.
According to surveys from Holland, Belgium and Canada, only two to six per cent of homosexuals get married. Similarly, in Norway and Sweden it has been estimated that just one to five per cent of the gay population enter a civil partnership or get married.
The truth is that marriage between two loving parents of opposite sexes has for centuries been the bedrock of Western society, providing the best environment for raising children
Furthermore, research shows that long-term commitment among homosexual couples seems even more elusive than in heterosexual ones, undermining the fashionable belief among policy-makers that gay married couples can serve as role models for the restoration of marriage.
In Sweden, for example, male unions are 50 per cent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and the rate is even higher for lesbian couples.
The truth is that marriage between two loving parents of opposite sexes has for centuries been the bedrock of Western society, providing the best environment for raising children. But the radicals, with all their self-righteous importance, think they know better.
So they seek to denigrate and trivialise the institution, making weddings little more than something couples might like to do in the first flush of excitement at their new relationship.
Marriage becomes an excuse for a party, a bit of fun while it lasts, rather than a lifelong commitment based on the creation of the next generation.
This trivialising instinct is further proved by reformers’ demands for ever wider definitions of wedlock or civil unions. From Brazil to Canada, there are even calls for civil unions to encompass three or more partners.
Here in Britain, the indefatigable campaigner Peter Tatchell has urged that civil contracts should accommodate those who are in close but non-sexual relationships, such as relatives, friends, even brothers and sisters.
He says: ‘Under my Civil Commitment Pact, partners could pick and mix from a menu of rights and responsibilities.’
So this is what the campaign for same-sex marriage has led to: a complete collapse in the power and meaning of traditional wedlock.
In the midst of an epidemic of fatherless families and spiralling welfare bills, we are all paying a terrible price for this dogmatic, posturing nonsense. And self-delusion from the Tories does not help.
Patricia Morgan is a researcher on family policy and author of The War Between The State And The Family.
