There’s recently been a lot of brouhaha over the UK government’s suggestion of making marriage available to (male and female) homosexual couples.

The Christian churches are up in arms because they see it as devaluing (or worse) the sacrament of marriage.

Put plainly, this is bollox.

Neither the church, nor any other religion, owns marriage. Arguably it may have done once, in the days before developed civil government, but no longer. In almost every civilised country there is a civil marriage option available as well as a religious one. The churches may have a ceremony which they call marriage. This does not mean they own the concept or the sole rights, although it does give them the right to choose who to allow to partake in their ceremony.

A heterosexual couple can have a civil marriage, so why can’t a homosexual couple? No-one is suggesting that the churches have to be a part of this if they wish not to. They are not to be obliged to marry homosexual couples and indeed they may choose (as they do now) who can marry under their aegis. Many heterosexual couples are denied a religious marriage for a whole variety of reasons.

And of course no couple has to marry or enter into any officially sanctioned partnership arrangement. And quite right too. So a coach and horses has already been driven through marraige as originally conceived by the churches.

I fail to see a problem.

There are couples who will choose a civil marriage and couples who will choose a religious marriage. Civil marriage will be available to all; religious marriage will only be available to those who can jump some arbitrary set of church defined hurdles. Just as now.

And come couples will choose to ignore the whole idea of marriage (by whatever name) and just live together. Horses for courses, and all that.

No change, really, except that the civil marriage net is being widened.

Although there is the suggestion of an anomaly with civil partnerships. As gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has pointed out the current proposals now discriminate against heterosexuals by allowing same-sex couples the option of marriage or civil partnerships but only marriage for heterosexual couples. Which is ludicrous!

I see no purpose in continuing with the civil partnership sham. Let’s drop it altogether and have just civil marriages. Either that or we have to keep both civil partnerships and civil marriages for all.

Or of course we could just ban marriage altogether — for everyone.

For other sane views you might like to read Betty Herbert’s blog, John Bingham in the Daily Telegraph and Marie Jackson on BBC News.