| December
2005
UK: gay marriage in all but name
|
|
|||||
On 21 December 2005, the first gay marriages will be officiated in the
United Kingdom [1]. Officially, they are called "civil
partnerships", as the government wanted to avoid rousing the anti-gay
lobby by using the word "marriage". As a result, instead of
expanding the wording of the law governing civil marriages, they crafted a
parallel law called the Civil Partnerships Act, which gives same-sex
couples virtually the same legal standing and rights as opposite-sex
couples.
These include matters such as inheritance, next-of-kin rights (e.g. in medical situations), immigration privileges and tax treatment. Gay and lesbian adoption has been legal since a separate law was passed in 1997, but now same-sex step-parents will have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex step-parents. Despite, or perhaps because of the clumsiness of the legal term "civil partnerships", it can be expected that colloquially, more and more people will use the words "wedding", "marriage" and inevitably, "divorce" to refer to same-sex situations. With the evolution of language, not to mention the increased visibility of gay and lesbian couples as a consequence of legally-sanctioned public ceremonies, the integration of gay and lesbian imagery into the public consciousness will doubtless, accelerate. The speed at which this social change is taking place is already quite breathtaking. It was only in 1989 that Denmark became the first country to pass a law giving some legal recognition and rights to same-sex couples. It fell well short of marriage. It was only 2001 that the Netherlands became the first country to include same-sex couples within the scope of marriage [1]. Within the last 4 years, Belgium, Spain, and Canada have done likewise. South Africa is likely to be next, as its Constitutional Court has just ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the equality guaranteed by the country's constitution. The Court gave the government a year to amend its laws accordingly, failing which the Court will impose its own interpretation. France, Portugal, Germany, Croatia and all Scandinavian countries have also passed laws giving recognition and some degree of marital rights to civil unions. * * * * * Thus, even as the entire developed world has moved beyond decriminalising homosexual relationships to legalising same-sex marriages, Singapore insists on retaining its Victorian-era, Christian-based laws. What do we lose by this? What do we gain by this?
|
||||||
|
We lose quite a bit, and we will lose
more as the gap widens between us and the rest of the developed world. As
an open economy that is highly dependent on talent and investment flowing
in from abroad, we need always to ask ourselves what quality of life we
offer to those whom we need to drive our economy forward.
Inevitably, some talent will be lesbian or gay. One could even argue that internationally-mobile talent may be disproportionately lesbian or gay, if they tend to have fewer children in tow. It's harder for heterosexual couples with children in school to uproot themselves and move to a different country and it's more expensive for their employers too. Companies have to fork out extra allowances for moving more people, for finding a bigger house, and for subsidising or underwriting medical insurance for more dependents (since foreigners don't get subsidised medical care in Singapore). In contrast, unattached people and childless couples, disproportionately gay, will find it easier to relocate and prove so much simpler for their companies. As gay marriage becomes the norm in other countries, gay couples expect to be treated like any married couple. The shock becomes all the greater then, when they are asked to consider relocating to Singapore. An opposite-sex spouse can expect to get a Dependent's Pass, giving him or her equal residency rights alongside the working expatriate. This policy is based on a recognition of their marriage. If Singapore does not recognise same-sex marriages, how are our immigration authorities going to justify issuing Dependent's Passes to same-sex spouses? But if we don't issue such a pass, aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot even as we are going all out to attract talent? When people are married and expect to live together, how can we tell them they must live apart? This is a matter not just for the person involved, but for the company too. If we insist on complicating staff rotation for companies that we have assiduously wooed to invest in Singapore, are we really being efficient in using our resources?
With a few incidents like this, bad press about Singapore will start, and more international companies will think a bit harder before setting up here. Yet, how do we expect civil servants to rationalise the recognition of gay marriages when at the same time the law against homosexual sex is still in place. Doesn't a marriage presuppose a sexual relationship? Moreover, civil servants do not routinely ignore the unnatural sex law. They refer to it to ban and censor anything that, in their view, "promotes" homosexuality. We are creating an impossible situation when on the one hand we insist on keeping the law and invoking it, and on the other hand, wanting to welcome the world to invest and work here, the same world that expects gay people to be treated with complete equality, including marriage. An even bigger loss than that of potential foreign talent, is the loss of our own. Every year, I hear of gay Singaporeans going abroad vowing never to return. Most of them, unsurprisingly, are highly qualified. In most cases, their sexuality is the unspoken nub of all their expressed reasons for leaving. They may speak of the lack of freedom of expression or political freedom and so on, but what is it that they may want to express but can't? They may speak about economic opportunities too, and you may think that that is a non-gay reason for leaving, but is that because they fear there will be a glass ceiling when people see they're gay?Not only do we lose out by their emigration, we continue to throw money at the problem by sending ministers and civil servants abroad on numerous missions to try to woo them back. Repealing stupid laws doesn't cost money, and is far more convincing. What do we gain by ignoring the world?
|
|
|||||
|
Nothing, except perhaps comfort for a section of the population here, what the government calls the "conservative majority". It is the comfort of the insecure, the comfort of believing that with enough will, the world as they know it will not be permitted to change. By keeping the law on the books, we create the illusion that heteronormativity is eternally correct, and those who want to think so are reassured that their ideas aren't wrong. But they also forget, that as much as some are comforted by this illusion, other sections of the population are discomforted by it. So where's the net gain? Some may argue that by maintaining heteronormativity, we create a "safe environment" for children to grow up (yes, I've heard this before!). To this the question should be posed: why is the presence of gay and lesbian people in society, out, married and well-adjusted, a safety issue? Do they mean "safe" in the sense of not challenging their heterosexist and homophobic nostrums? In that case, it's no different from the first "gain" – comfort for the "conservative majority" at the expense of another section of the population. And when these children grow up, seeped in a heterosexist and homophobic culture, how are they going to acquit themselves in the wider world where gay people expect to be treated with respect? Where they may invite you to their wedding? * * * * * It is not as if there aren't homophobes in Britain, for example. As soon as the new law was passed, a number of civil servants across the country said they would refuse to officiate at gay marriages, citing conscientious objections. A few town councils announced that while gay and lesbian couples could come in to sign papers, they would not be allowed to hold public ceremonies within the registry office. Since heterosexual couples were allowed to celebrate within the government premises, such a policy would be blatantly discriminatory. The government in London immediately told these municipalities off. And that's the key difference. In most developed countries, the guiding principle is justice and equality. It is a principle that is ultimately respectful of everybody within the country. Navigating by this Pole Star, courts and governments are able to find a way through contentious issues by appealing to this higher moral standard, than to kneejerk prejudices. And when they appeal to his higher standard, even those who may personally be uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality, can accept that fairness dictates equal rights. Time and again, this principle has been used to correct great social ills, from slavery to the subordination of women, to the abuse of industrial workers, to the exclusion of racial and religious minorities. The problem with Singapore is that we only pay lip-service to the principle of justice and equality. My belief is that this stems from the need of the ruling party to achieve certain desired political outcomes, not least of which is their staying in power, which in turn depends on manipulating our racial politics and pandering to their risk-averse (read: conservative) constituency. The result over the years has been a habit of ignoring the test of justice and equality whenever social and political questions arise. Everything gets skewed to merely a question of expediency. For this reason we see so much bias in laws and regulations all around us, from the Films Act to the Elections Act. As a polity, we no longer consider bias unacceptable. Which is another way of saying, we no longer consider injustice unacceptable. So we're stuck in our little mud-hole
pretending that with respect to the gay question, nothing needs to change
in Singapore. We don't even want to acknowledge the mounting cost of being
out of step. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|||||
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
