This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/21/guardian-view-equal-marriage-better-sex-for-everyone

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on equal marriage: making sex better for everyone The Guardian view on equal marriage: making sex better for everyone
(1 day later)
In Friday’s referendum on equal marriage, the people of the Irish Republic face a historic moment. On Wednesday night, as the 24-hour pre-poll silence began, the taoiseach, Enda Kenny, said a yes vote would “obliterate prejudice”. That may be optimistic after the legal battle between the conflicting freedoms of a Northern Irish bakery and a gay couple. Laws on their own never obliterate prejudice. Yet if Ireland votes yes, it would join what has become a world-historic shift in morality. In Friday’s referendum on equal marriage, the people of the Irish Republic face a historic moment. On Wednesday night, as the 24-hour pre-poll silence began, the taoiseach, Enda Kenny, said a yes vote would “obliterate prejudice”. That may be optimistic after the legal battle between the conflicting freedoms of a Northern Irish bakery and a gay couple. Laws on their own never obliterate prejudice. Yet if Ireland votes yes, it would join what has become a world-historic shift in morality.
Thirty years ago the notion that marriage was by its nature an arrangement between men and women was unquestioned. Even 20 years ago no one seriously proposed that women and women should marry. Ten years ago it seemed that civil partnership would be enough. Now the majority in the west can’t see what the fuss is about. It’s difficult to think of a precedent for a shift this fast and profound. Thirty years ago the notion that marriage was by its nature an arrangement between men and women was unquestioned. Even 20 years ago no one seriously proposed that women and women should marry. Ten years ago it seemed that civil partnership would be enough. Now the majority in the west can’t see what the fuss is about. It’s difficult to think of a precedent for a shift this fast and profound.
This transformation is not universal. In those parts of the world historically resentful of western domination, resistance to equal marriage – and to gay and lesbian rights – has, if anything, grown in reaction. In much of sub-Saharan Africa an angry persecution of gay people has come to stand in for all that is missing in public morality. In Russia, too, gay-bashing is a quasi-official policy, a mark of claimed superiority over the west. Even in the west, the Irish referendum might still fail. In the US, the supreme court may yet rule equal marriage unconstitutional. But both developments are unlikely. This is a moment to stop and reflect. This transformation is not universal. In those parts of the world historically resentful of western domination, resistance to equal marriage – and to gay and lesbian rights – has, if anything, grown in reaction. In much of sub-Saharan Africa an angry persecution of gay people has come to stand in for all that is missing in public morality. In Russia, too, gay-bashing is a quasi-official policy, a mark of claimed superiority over the west. Even in the west, the Irish referendum might still fail. In the US, the supreme court may yet rule that same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right. But both developments are unlikely. This is a moment to stop and reflect.
The acceptance of equal marriage is the consequence of three great inter-related shifts in the relationship between men and women. First, the movement away from the medieval and early modern understanding of marriage as a property transaction, in which a father gave away a daughter to another man for dynastic purposes, towards a contract of equals for the relief of loneliness and “conversation”, to use Milton’s word. The second was the separation of sex from procreation, thanks to cheap, reliable contraception. The third was the scientifically based understanding of homosexuality as a naturally occurring variation of human desire. Taken together, these made the traditional assumptions against equal marriage incomprehensible. The opponents have not just lost an argument. The ground they stood on has disappeared. The acceptance of equal marriage is the consequence of three great inter-related shifts in the relationship between men and women. First, the movement away from the medieval and early modern understanding of marriage as a property transaction, in which a father gave away a daughter to another man for dynastic purposes, towards a contract of equals for the relief of loneliness and “conversation”, to use Milton’s word. The second was the separation of sex from procreation, thanks to cheap, reliable contraception. The third was the scientifically based understanding of homosexuality as a naturally occurring variation of human desire. Taken together, these made the traditional assumptions against equal marriage incomprehensible. The opponents have not just lost an argument. The ground they stood on has disappeared.
Same-sex love, understood as friendship, has always been treasured. It has been understood not just as a good for the men or women involved but for the wider society around them, giving an example of trust, faithfulness and the mutual cultivation of a moral life. What’s new is the idea that same-sex sex can contribute to these goods. That shift required the moral revolutions of the 20th century. It also needed us to think about what it is that distinguished human from animal sex, and to some degree what it is that distinguishes humans from animals. Many animal species are more or less monogamous, but it is only humans that have marriage, and only humans who have the webs of meaning within which marriages – and human sex – exist. We have language and imagination, and they mean that what we do with each other and with each other’s bodies is always a kind of communication, something that carries or makes meanings. We are creatures for whom there’s nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. Same-sex love, understood as friendship, has always been treasured. It has been understood not just as a good for the men or women involved but for the wider society around them, giving an example of trust, faithfulness and the mutual cultivation of a moral life. What’s new is the idea that same-sex sex can contribute to these goods. That shift required the moral revolutions of the 20th century. It also needed us to think about what it is that distinguished human from animal sex, and to some degree what it is that distinguishes humans from animals. Many animal species are more or less monogamous, but it is only humans that have marriage, and only humans who have the webs of meaning within which marriages – and human sex – exist. We have language and imagination, and they mean that what we do with each other and with each other’s bodies is always a kind of communication, something that carries or makes meanings. We are creatures for whom there’s nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
Equal marriage, then, is valuable because it allows gay people the public recognition that enables them to enjoy, and to contribute, the benefits of friendship, of conversation, and sometimes of shared children, which traditional marriage brings. It allows for and encourages loyalty and love.Equal marriage, then, is valuable because it allows gay people the public recognition that enables them to enjoy, and to contribute, the benefits of friendship, of conversation, and sometimes of shared children, which traditional marriage brings. It allows for and encourages loyalty and love.
• This article was amended on 22 May 2015. An earlier version said incorrectly that “In the US, the supreme court may yet rule equal marriage unconstitutional”.