When equal treatment is extended to minorities, everyone benefits

national | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis Wednesday October 11, 2006 12:57 by Steve Conlon, Kelly Mackey - Union of Students in Ireland

The United Nations defines the right to marry as a human right – the definition of a human right being one that applies universally and equally to all humans.

When equal treatment is extended to minorities, everyone benefits

The United Nations defines the right to marry as a human right – the definition of a human right being one that applies universally and equally to all humans. According to this definition, the human right to marry must mean the unqualified right of all adults to wed whomever they choose and are chosen by in a civil marriage recognised by the State. You and I have the human right to dwell in our country wherever and with whomever we choose, without prejudice to our claim to equal treatment.

Yet while numerous countries honour and support marriage as a human right available to all (gay people no less than heterosexuals), in Ireland the institution of civil marriage continues to be treated as though it belonged not to people, but to the government of the day. Irish citizens are barred from marrying whom they choose – except when that choice is to marry someone of the opposite gender (as Henry Ford reputedly said: “choose any colour you like so long as its black”). You and I have the chance to marry if, and only if, the State approves of our sexual orientation. Thus a human right is subverted into a method of authoritarian social control.

There are different possible interpretations of the denial of a human right to a minority. Perhaps the UN is wrong and marriage is not a human right after all, but a ‘favour’ that states may legitimately ration. Or perhaps gay men and women should not qualify for all human rights because they are not fully human (as the Nazis argued). Lastly, might it not be possible that Ireland is wrong to deny the human right of gay people to marry, while (by contrast) Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands are morally correct to recognise a right to marry that is universal? The latter possibility is what majorities in a growing number of jurisdictions now recognise to be true.

Thankfully in Ireland, there is widespread acknowledgement that people are intrinsically equal. From this understanding, we all wish to live in a society that supports, fully and equally, the intellectual and physical freedom of every inhabitant, and equally facilitates every person in unlocking their potential for success and happiness. But we cannot ignore the fact minorities excluded from equal treatment cannot be completely free – and freedom denied is equality scorned. When minorities are treated as second-class citizens, majorities cannot be completely free either. “No one should be denied rights that in turn none of us wish to be denied[1]”: for if the former comes to pass, the latter is not unthinkable.

Make no mistake: by recognising marriage as a human right, Irish society as a whole would benefit. Regardless of sexual orientation, every one of us would benefit from an additional safeguard to our right to differ from the majority in some area, and not be penalised for it. Legal recognition for marriage as a human right would bring us one step closer to our shared vision for the freest and most just society possible.

The European picture

Doubtless there are those who would question why Ireland should take a ‘radical’ step to granting legal recognition of the universal right to marry. But the reality is that such a step, should Ireland take it, would not be particularly radical in an EU context, since three other EU states have already blazed this trail. And Irish nationals are already legally entitled to marry someone of the same sex should they choose to do so – albeit crucially in Canada (for example), not in Ireland[2].

In the Netherlands, the right of gay men and lesbian women to marry has been recognised since 2001. Catholic countries were the next in Europe to enshrine universal marriage rights: Belgium in 2003, followed last year by Spain. Altogether more than 23,000 Europeans have already benefited from legal reform in these three countries by entering into civil marriage with a same-sex partner[3]. This controverts the false notion that marriage barriers affect few people. For if we intend to respect the principle that all humans are of equal worth, the experiences of 23,000 fellow Europeans cannot be discounted.

It is difficult to predict with absolute precision how many Irish people would take advantage of a change in the law to marry a partner of the same sex. The difficulty arises because the proportion of individuals choosing to marry differs from country to country in line with cultural differences. But if we make a rough prediction based on what has occurred in other EU states, reform of marriage law in Ireland could see 1,000 individuals per year enter into same-sex marriages. Thus, while a fundamental human right is being denied to all 4 million Irish citizens, the dehumanising effects of a barrier to same-sex marriage are borne disproportionately by a new set of 1,000 Irish citizens every year.

Civil union is no substitute for marriage

Why shouldn’t Ireland create the institution of civil partnership as an alternative to marriage for gay and straight people alike, while maintaining a barrier on gay people marrying? Other countries have done this, including the UK. And the option of civil partnership, while rejected by many gay men and women, appears to have been accepted by others on the basis that ‘something beats nothing’.

The idea that civil unions are an acceptable marriage substitute points to a wrongful underlying belief that providing for minority groups with alternative entitlements and institutions is morally acceptable. It is not. The list of human rights is as it is for very good reason. Over centuries, individuals from every background, gender, and sexual orientation have reached the same conclusions about what the fundamental rights are. It is for this reason that the UN has identified these in particular as human rights – rights pertaining to humanity without exception.

The KAL case

Gay people in Ireland are not asking to be granted a ‘favour’ by the majority. Equal treatment privileges no-one while favouring everyone. Hundreds of thousands of young Irish men and women believe in the intrinsic equality of all people and the principle of equal treatment under the law, and this is why we are supporting a test case being brought by two Irish citizens, Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan, who were legally married in Canada and are now seeking recognition of their marriage in Ireland.

The KAL Case, as it has become known (for Katherine and Ann Louise), was due to commence on 3rd October. If successful, the plaintiffs believe the case will create a positive climate for a new legal framework that provides the potential for legal recognition for all cohabiting couples and for the many different types of family in Ireland today. For further information about the case, visit www.kalcase.org.

All adults possess a human right to wed whomever they choose and are chosen by in a civil marriage recognised by the State, and this must be acknowledged and supported by the government of Ireland. Again, a distinction must be made between religious marriage, which is legitimately regulated by the churches according to their doctrines, and civil marriage. Civil marriage belongs to the people of Ireland – every last equal one of them.

Steve Conlon, USI LGBT Rights Officer; and Kelly Mackey, USI Welfare Officer

[1] The Mayor of Amsterdam, Dr M. J. Cohen, in a letter to fellow EU mayors calling on them to support a Europe-wide push for marriage equality.

[2] Irish citizens wishing to exercise their right to marry someone of the same sex can do so immediately in Canada, which imposes no residency requirements for marriages involving two non-nationals.

[3] As of last year, the Netherlands had witnessed 16,254 same-sex marriages; Belgium 4,884; and Spain 2,600; all according to official sources.