THE BADGER CULL: THE ANSWER SHOULD BE AS CLEAR AS BLACK AND WHITE. AN EXAMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENTS CONTROVERSIAL RECENT DECISION TO ALLOW THE TRIAL OF BADGER CULLS IN THE UK.

Abstract

The United Kingdom over the past decades has been at the forefront of protecting many varieties of animals. However this article considers a recent decision made by the government authorising a six week experiment permitting licensed farmers to shoot badgers in two trial areas to try and combat the issues with the transfer of Bovine tuberculosis (bTB). It has been suggested though, that the government should reconsider the way in which it wishes to deal with bTB crisis as there are wider implications relating to cost and public opinion. There’s also a huge backlashed from animal welfare campaigners with regards to the cull with many arguing vital scientific evidence, headed by Professor John Bourne and carried out by The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), is being ignored.

Keywords: Bovine Tuberculosis, Badger Cull, Scientific Evidence, Cost

Introduction

Bovine tuberculosis is a chronic, contagious disease which can affect all animals. Due to the seriousness of the disease, farmers take great care to minimise the risk of their cows catching it. Research shows that one cause of infection is through contact with infected badgers. Currently farmers can only try to stop contact between badgers and dairy cows, including 'badger-proofing' buildings and feed stores. However, in December 2011, the government, headed by Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, backed plans to go ahead with six week trials, taking place in autumn 2012, allowing licensed marksmen to shoot badgers in two trial areas. This could lead to a wider cull across the country as part of efforts to tackle the bTB crisis. Conversely many people are against this arguing scientific evidence, costs and general animal welfare as vital reasons not to go ahead with the government plans.

Discussion

Bovine tuberculosis has been a growing issue in this country over the last decade. Results from 2010 show more than 28,000 cattle having the disease and of which 25,000 were slaughtered costing tax payers approximately £90million in compensation payments. The government has recently gone as far as to say that in ten years the compensation figures could reach £1billion.

However Kaminski (The Guardian 2011) argues it wasn't always like this and by 1970, bTB was almost eliminated completely with only about 1,000 cases seen in the UK. Eleven years of localised badger culling failed to reduce the toll further. The end of annual cattle testing in the mid-80s, and the effects of BSE and foot-and-mouth meant that testing was abandoned altogether at that time, meaning that many farms lost thousands of animals. Afterward there was a rush to restock the farms and regulations were relaxed. Cattle were regrettably moved all over the country which spread bTB drastically. These relaxations of the movement and testing regimes of the cattle themselves can be said to be to blame for the bTB situation in this country now, and not the badgers.

Badgers have been unfairly labelled as the main problem within the transfer bTB to cattle and already thousands have been killed, many of which were perfectly healthy. A scientific trial of badger culling was carried out by DEFRA and led by Professor John Bourne. It took over nine years and cost the taxpayers £49m. In the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RMCT), there was a ‘reactive’ culling strategy where badgers were removed from farms in which bTB outbreaks had occurred. This made bTB incidences rise by approximately 25% due to the perturbation effect, where disease spread is actually exacerbated by culling. This strategy was immediately abandoned. ‘Proactive’ culling was also used, where large areas were trapped once a year for five years, which reduced bTB incidence in cattle in culled areas by 25%. However this beneficial effect for cattle was offset by an increased incidence of the disease in surrounding unculled areas by the same amount. This leads to a greater spread of the disease to other badgers and the infection therefore becomes more widely dispersed.

The RMCT study is now being painstakingly ignored with the government backing the cull and somehow basing their support on the outcome of this trial. This is hard to comprehend for many as in June 2007 the Secretary of State received a letter in which DEFRA stated perfectly clear their findings from the trial which identified that while badgers are clearly a source of bTB, ‘careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.’ To most people this is perfectly clear, culling is not effective. Culling does not make the problem any better. So how have the government managed to interpret this in a way to support the badger cull?

In 2010 the government held a public consultation to discover public opinions about the cull.  The figures showed that, of those who responded, 69% would not want a cull and 31% were in favour of culling but alongside vaccination. This is the general trend in many other polls too. The public have made their opposition clear, 97% voted against in a 2007 poll for the Labour government and 90.9% against in a Guardian poll in July 2011. Even a poll by Countryfile, which largely has a farming audience, polled more than 60% against a cull. Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the government's proposals (Harvey 2011).

It is argued by many that badgers are not the main reason for the outbreak of bTB. On the Isle of Man they have bTB in cattle; however they do not have many badgers. In Scotland they are not experiencing a bTB crisis like we are here in the UK and yet no badgers have been killed to achieve this. Ireland has a worse bTB crisis than we do and yet they have been killing badgers for years, in some cases causing extinction in some parts of the country. So it is easily argued that badgers are not the problem. The problem is most likely caused from cattle to cattle transfers. (Cheeseman 2011)

The RMCT has also tried to focus more on the cattle to cattle transfers, believing that this could be the main form of the diseases transfer. Their argument stated that cattle control could greatly reduce infection. Improved surveillance and more frequent as well as more reliable testing of the cattle could not only lead to a reduction of the disease in the cattle itself but also in the badgers. It is also contended that ways to keep badgers and cattle apart would be a better place to start trying to combat the problem rather than murdering many badgers, most of whom are not infected in the first place. In the past two years, improved cattle testing, biosecurity and movement controls in England have led to a 15% reduction in the rates of bTB infection. In Wales, during the same period, the number of cattle slaughtered because of bTB has fallen by 36% (Kaminski 2011).

There is no doubt that bTB is a disaster to the cattle, to the farmers, the taxpayer as well as to the badgers themselves. Yet only 11% of the badgers culled in the RBCT carried the disease. Professor John Bourne is adamant that localised culling would not control bTB and most worryingly could, in some cases, make it worse. DEFRA instead proposed vaccination of badgers in 2010 to see if this would reduce the spread of disease. However the government did not agree with this saying that it would take too much time and money.

Cost is seen as a main argument for many for the implementation of the badger cull. Tax payers pay large amounts of compensation to farmers for the loss of infected cattle. However if the cull goes ahead a dedicated team of skilled staff will incur costs of between four to five times more than the economic benefits gained inside a proactively culled area of 100km. It can also be seen that over eight years farmers will pay over £50million for the cull, the tax payers will pay approximately £40million and these costs do not include legal fees when the cull is challenged in the courts and the policing costs which will be incurred for any protests from wildlife and animal rights activists. The total then for the cull dwarfs the £20million that would have been put aside for vaccinations, yet the government still think vaccinations are too expensive.

Despite scientific evidence and the majority of public opinions being against the cull the government has still decided to go ahead with it. However many protests have already been voiced including Human Society International who are submitting a formal complaint to the 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and state that the cull lacks legitimate purpose. In Wales, the cull was successfully delayed through legal challenges as it was argued the government acted unlawfully in interpreting section 21 of the Animal Health Act 1981. Many are hopeful that through legal action and protests the cull will be delayed and eventually stopped all together.


Animal Welfare Implications

Over the years, the UK Government have tried greatly to protect the welfare of animals. Badger legislation can be seen as unique as unlike most other wildlife legislation the primary concern here is the welfare of the badgers and not of conservation.  From badger baiting to possible badger culls it can be said that badgers have not had the easiest time. To try and stop badger baiting from occurring the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 was enforced and strengthened by the Protection of Badgers Act 1973 (and amended in 2002) and was then followed by the implementation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There were initial problems with this Act due to the fact that badgers are not rare and therefore were slightly under protected. However the 1985 amendments reversed the burden of proof which solved many evidential problems. The Badger Act 1991 made it an offence to interfere with a badger sett giving even further protection to not just the badger but also their surroundings. This along with the Badgers (further protection) Act 1991 later became the Protection of Badgers Act 2002. These laws have been strengthened with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 which makes enforcing all of these laws easier (Palmer 2011). However all of these laws now seem inadequate as they do not protect badgers from the cull and the inevitability of them being killed.

Conclusion

For me it seems the argument against the cull is about science and not sentiment, although for many it is both. I would suggest that the sensible and sustainable way forward is through vaccines, improved cattle testing, and better cattle biosecurity. It seems logical to question the sense of a disease control initiative that has been scientifically proven to actually spread the problem geographically and if I was a farmer on the edge of a proposed culling area, I would be extremely worried about the increased risk of cattle TB outbreaks that will result from the cull. It seems shameful that the government would consider and eventually back an initiative that might ultimately make the situation worse.

Bibliography

Brooman and Legge, 1997, ‘Law Relating to Animals’, Cavendish Publishing: London, UK

Colin T. Reid, 2010, ‘Wildlife reforms in Scotland’, Environmental Law Review

Craig Whelton, 2010, ‘Bats, badgers, beeching and bus-ways’, Scottish Planning and Environmental Law

Dr Chris Cheeseman, 15/03/11, ‘Culling badgers will make TB worse’, South Wales Evening Post

Fiona Harvey, 11/07/11, ‘Badger Culling is ineffective, says architect of 10-year-trial’, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/11/badger-culling-ineffective-krebs last accessed 11/01/12

Headed by Professor John Bourne, 2007, ‘Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence. A Science Base for a Sustainable Policy to Control TB in Cattle’

Julia Kaminski, August 2011, ‘Badger culls don’t stop tuberculosis in cattle- the evidence is clear’, The Guardian

Julian Palmer, 2001, ‘Animal Law’, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd; London, UK

TBFree England, http://www.tbfreeengland.co.uk/

The Badger Trust, http://www.nfbg.org.uk/Content/Home.asp

‘The Equal Love Campaign is to be commended. The law should be reformed to allow opposite and same-sex couples to choose whether to marry or enter a civil partnership.’ Critically analyse this statement.

Same-sex marriage has been a prominent topic of debate in the United Kingdom for over a decade now. This essay will discuss the current legislation regarding same-sex ‘marriage’ and the struggle it has taken to get where it is today. The Equal Love campaign will be discussed and then an analysis on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry will be debated. The essay will also show why some opposite-sex couples would wish to opt for a civil partnership and not a marriage. Finally a conclusion about whether the Equal Love Campaign should really be commended will be drawn upon.

Traditionalists define marriage as, ‘the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’[1]. Currently in the UK, marriage is only available to opposite-sex couples as stated in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which declares that marriage is void if the parties involved are ‘not respectively male and female[2]’. However the Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities similar to those in a civil marriage. Civil partners are entitled to the same rights as married couples in relation to property, exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. Therefore this would open the debate on why same-sex couples are unhappy with the current legislation if they gain all the same rights. Nevertheless, if it is the same, why does it have to have a different name?  Many would contend that equality is the issue at the forefront here.

Lord Nicholls in Bellinger v Bellinger[3] stated that “Marriage is an institution, or relationship, deeply embedded in the religious and social culture of this country. It is deeply embedded as a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex.’ He went on to say that now, “there are those who urge that the special relationship of marriage should not now be confined to persons of the opposite sex.” Nicholls’ statement is shared by many who agree that the law should be reformed as opinions throughout the country and even the world change.

The Netherlands led the way when in 2001 it provided legislation for same-sex marriage[4] and this same stance was adopted by a number of other countries.[5]  However some other jurisdictions embraced the compromising solution of forming a new type of relationship, the civil or registered partnership, which carried with it many or all of the legal consequences of marriage, but this appeased many, mainly religious, opponents by not using the term ‘marriage.’ On the other hand many feel this compromise fails to deliver true equality and the debate continues.[6] The UK has an uncodified constitution which promotes change and the evolution of laws. It can be seen that throughout the years many laws have been reformed as public opinion changes yet this has not been the case for same-sex marriage.

An opinion poll conducted in June 2009 by Populus, for The Times[7], reported that a significant majority of the British public supported same-sex marriage. It revealed that 61% agreed with the statement, "Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships" while 33% disagreed. Support was unsurprisingly highest among those aged between 25 and 34 where 78% agreed and 19% disagreed. It was lowest amongst those over 65 where 37% agreed and 52% disagreed[8]. This shows the change in opinion in the different generations and could highlight the need for a change in legislation to reflect the demands of the current generation.

Schalk and Kopf v Austria [9] presented the European Court of Human Rights with its first opportunity to address the issue of same-sex marriage directly. It was not unsurprising, though maybe disappointing for some, that it did not find member states under any obligation to make marriage available to same-sex couples. When deciding whether states were to be obliged to provide same-sex couples with an ‘alternative means of gaining legal recognition of their relationships’, the Court was split 4-3[10]. Here, the Court broke new ground in finding that the right to respect for family life[11], and not just the right to respect for private life[12], now applies to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex ones, signifying that member states must provide a way of legally recognising same-sex relationships.

Same-sex relationships in the UK have become increasingly accepted over the last decade. Gay rights activists have brought the issue to the head of debate in many countries and the anti-discrimination laws that have been introduced in Europe and many parts of America have made discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation illegal.[13] However the acceptance so far has not been sufficient for many.

In Wilkinson v Kitzinger & Others[14] two British women were legally married in Canada and then decided to move back to the UK. Upon their return they were told that their marriage would be converted automatically to a civil partnership due to the laws of the UK regarding same-sex couples and the definition of marriage. They did not agree that what was once a marriage should now be called something different and one of the women involved stated, ‘I do not wish my relationship with Celia to be recognised in this way…offering the ‘consolation prize’ of a civil partnership to lesbians and gay men is offensive and demeaning.’ Their argument was eventually rejected by the High Court and due to legal costs an appeal was not possible. However it has made the issue of same-sex marriage the forefront of many debates in the UK and it can now be seen that governments are also getting involved in trying to stop discrimination and uphold equality.  

The previous Labour government headed by, then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown maintained that same-sex marriage is ‘intimately bound up with questions of religious freedom’ and Gerald Howarth, a Conservative MP, has argued that same-sex marriage would be, ‘a step too far.’ [15] However in 2010 Liberal Democrats became the first major political party to formally endorse same-sex marriage. At their party conference in Liverpool a policy motion called ‘Equal Marriage in the UK’ was approved.

In November 2011 the Home Office confirmed that they will allow civil partnerships to take place in religious buildings by the end of the year. The report released detailed regulations which needed to comply with the 2010 Equality Act[16]. These stated that civil partnerships should be allowed in religious buildings. Many religions have come forward and said that they are willing to hold civil services in their buildings but the Catholic Church and Church of England have said that they will not allow gay ceremonies in their churches. Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone said: “The government is advancing equality for lesbian/gay/bisexual people and ensuring freedom of religion for people of all faiths. No religious group will be forced to host a civil partnership registration, but for those who wish to do so this is an important step forward.” [17]This shows an increased acceptance towards same-sex marriage and is confirmed by the current government who in February 2011 expressed its intentions to introduce same-sex civil marriage by the next general election in 2015.

The Equal Love campaign aims to overturn the current bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships. Their goal is to end sexual orientation discrimination in marriage and partnership law. In late 2010, four same-sex couples filed applications for civil marriages at register offices, and four straight couples applied for civil partnerships. All were refused. On 2 February 2011, all eight couples made a joint application to the European Court of Human Rights to strike down this inequality, with a view to securing a change in UK law.[18]

Equal Love argues that a combination of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 creates a system that ‘segregates couples into two separate legal institutions, with different names but identical rights and responsibilities.’[19] In other words, same-sex couples are excluded from marriage, and different-sex couples are excluded from civil partnership. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, all differences in treatment affecting other Convention rights must have an ‘objective and reasonable justification’ which in this case relates to the rights to marry in Article 12 and to respect family life in Article 8. [20]

Debates over gay marriage involve both legal and social arguments, for and against. Many people would argue denying same-sex couple’s marriage is a clear sign of minority discrimination and can be considered a violation of religious freedom.  Naomi Phillips of the British Humanist Association argues, ‘The primary reason why same-sex couples do not enjoy the same rights to marry as couples of the opposite sex is because of religious opposition to gay marriage. Although civil partnerships are a step in the right direction, they are not equal to marriage and send a clear message that there is one system for gay couples and one for straight couples. There is no legitimate argument for maintaining a system that, on grounds of sexual orientation, bars couples from marriage or from civil partnerships and the continuing discrimination on those grounds is unjustifiable.’[21] 

The argument most commonly made against gay marriage is related to religion. In most religions homosexuality is considered a sin and should therefore not be a part of society, let alone be recognised and celebrated. It has to be considered though whether anyone would really wish to reinstate the consulting of ‘holy books’ for law-making[22]. There is a huge lack of consistency in the religious argument against same-sex marriage. The presence of a verse in the book of Leviticus is some peoples’ reasoning behind arguing against any rights for gays.[23] However what about the oaths against all sorts of dietary laws in the same book? There is also a verse which states the mixing of fabrics should not occur so should the government also not allow that? It seems that if people are going to argue religion as a cause not to allow same-sex marriage then this country has a lot of other changing to do.

More importantly than the lack of consistency in religion is that, in Britain, religion has suffered an immense decline since the 1950s with currently less than half of the British people believing in a God and the latest British Social Attitudes results saw over 50% say they're not religious_.[24] Between 1979 and 2005, half of all Christians stopped going to church on a Sunday which shows how as a country religion has hugely devalued over the past 30 years. [25] Even those who do recognise religion in the UK are largely inactive. A 2007 poll commissioned by the British Library found that 50% of them "do not practice religion very much, if at all", with Christians being the most inactive. Whilst observing most of the statistics regarding religion they seem to affirm that although many say they are religious they frequently admit they are not practicing.[26] Therefore it can be said that if religion is the key argument for people against same-sex marriage then they can now be seen as the minority. Again this highlights the possible need for new legislation to reflect the current British public. The government needs to assess what the public opinion is and act in a way to reflect that.

It can also be said that the Equal Love campaign and other same-sex couples are not trying to gain religious marriage rights they are trying to gain the rights to hold a civil marriage. Many people in the UK do not get married in a religious ceremony. In fact the number of couples saying their vows before a god has halved since 1991[27] with many more couples now having civil marriages due to a lack of religious beliefs. This again supports the argument that if public opinion has changed over the last few years with regards to religion and with regards to same-sex relationships why is there a problem with regards to changing the law to allow more legislative acceptance.

It is submitted that allowing same-sex marriage would weaken or erode the value of marriage. However many disagree and claim that legalising same-sex marriage would encourage people to have stronger family values and many relationships would become more stable. It can be seen that the problems related to sexuality in our society such as diseases and infections stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles where many people participate in unprotected sex with multiple partners. Marriage, of any people, encourages healthy monogamous relationships and promotes less high-risk promiscuous behaviour.[28] Married people commit themselves to one partner and build a life together. This behaviour should be encouraged regardless of whether it is a man or a woman or two people of the same sex. It will help protect the community and encourage strong family values.  

The idea that marriage is solely for the procreation of children is as equally dismissible as many of the other arguments against same-sex marriage. Anti-equality protestors argue that ‘the importance of marriage is further evident when one considers that men and women can do almost everything alone—we can eat, breathe, think, move, etc. without anyone else. The singular exception is procreation.’ [29] It is therefore argued that men and women were intended to procreate and parent together. The evidence is in the biology, and without the procreative union of a man and a woman, no one would exist, including homosexuals. Procreation alone should tell us about the supreme importance of marriage between men and women.

Although this can be seen as a good argument as to why men and women should get married it does not result in a supreme argument as to why same-sex couples should not be allowed to do the same. Plenty of straight couples, particularly older ones, do not marry to have children. They marry to form a committed and publicly respected bond which is what many same-sex couples are searching for. However if people still believe that marriage is purely to allow a stronger structure to raise children in then it can be seen that in allowing more same-sex couples to commit to each other then it many possibly result in more adoptions.[30] Many couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, might want children after marriage and if a same-sex couple wants children one of the options that are available is adoption. Therefore more children could be adopted as a result of same-sex marriage which most people can see as an advantage.

Homosexual relationships always deny children either their mother or their father. Same-sex couples could argue that two men or two women can do just as good a job in parenting as a man and woman because men and women offer nothing unique to children. [31] However research by social scientists, although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behaviour than children raised by couples who are not of the same-sex.[32] This would lead to an argument against same-sex marriage for many who believe that homosexuality is wrong. It would result in possible future discrimination for that child with the chances for him or her of becoming a minority vastly increased.  Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse writes, “[Homosexual] adults are entitled to have what they want. Children have to take what we give them,”[33] and as a society children should get the greatest start they can out of life. However a main flaw in this argument is that it is not definitive. Many against same-sex marriage rely on studies like this to prove their point. However others need to look in the real world and it can be seen that many same-sex couples raise children who are not homosexual and lead happy healthy lives.

Even if the issue of procreation is ignored, evidence shows that homosexual unions are medically inferior to those of opposite sex couples. There were reports in the 1980's which appeared to suggest that male homosexuals had an average life expectancy of less than 50 years. This was more than 20 years less than the overall male population’s life expectancy at the time. However in the late 1980’s and the 1990’s the government pushed for "safe" sex and improved treatments for AIDS. With these government initiatives it could be expected that the life expectancy might have increased since then, however a Canadian study in 1997, based upon a prevalence of 3% of the male population, found that male homosexuals still have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the general male population[34]. Using several different measures two large random sexuality surveys, in the USA and Great Britain, and a survey relating to those never married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway,[35] indicated an average age of death of less than 50 years old[36]. There has also been a third study which was published in 2002 and this found that the median age of death of 88 homosexually partnered men was 45 years, while for 118 single homosexual men it was 46 years.[37] Therefore this put the average life expectancy of male homosexuals nearly 30 years less than the general male population. This argument, backed up by statistics in many different studies, shows that homosexuality is not a healthy way to live your life and should therefore not be encouraged through same-sex marriage. However many feel the complete opposite and the counter argument would be that if we allowed same-sex couples to marry then it would put an end to a lot of promiscuous sexual behaviour and therefore begin to slowly increase the life expectancy through the decrease in sexual transmitted infections or diseases. It can also be said that some of these studies are extremely inconclusive due to the fact that such a small percentage of the population was researched. Another main counter argument is that the study showed that partnered homosexuals lived roughly the same amount of time as single homosexuals so it highlights that same-sex marriage would make little difference in this situation.

As well as apparently reducing your life expectancy many anti-equality activists would argue that homosexual behaviour significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders. This has been revealed by a scientific study in the Netherlands. It shows that homosexual youths are ‘four times more likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide.’[38] This, for many, would reinforce the previous argument of homosexuality causing unhealthy behaviour that should not be encouraged. It could be said though that if the country were to accept homosexuality and not see it as a ‘problem’ then these people would be less likely to suffer from such problems due to the decrease in stress surrounding the situation. Therefore it can be argued that the reasoning behind many of these disorders is the lack of acceptance received from the country and the public. If same-sex marriage were to be legalised then this may help reduce the numbers of mental illnesses.

Same-sex relationships have been described by some as wrong and ‘going against nature’. Howeverresearcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in the animal kingdom in close to 1,500 species and is well documented for 500 of them[39]. One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs is that of domesticated sheep, "about 10% of rams refuse to mate with ewes but do readily mate with other rams."[40] Therefore this research shows that same-sex relationships can be seen as perfectly normal behaviour that should not be discriminated against.

Many who do not believe in same-sex marriage argue that it would weaken marriage and the respect for the institution itself. It is argued that amending the law to allow same-sex marriage would simply increase the number of divorces which has already made a big impact on the sanctity of marriage[41]. It may also result in ‘sham’ marriages such as friends getting married merely for tax benefits. If the protection of marriagewere the true drive of anti-equality activists, then it can be disputed that people should focus more on celebrity couples who are allowed to marry but use it as a show for media and public attention and many of which result in a high profile divorce.[42] Same-sex couples just want to express their love, they do not wish to gain magazine deals therefore it is not them who can be seen as weakening same sex marriage.

This essay has discussed the desire for same-sex couples to be granted the ability to get married but has thus far failed to mention the need for opposite-sex couples to be allowed to join civil partnerships.  Peter Tatchell[43] argues that current civil partnership arrangements are "heterophobic" on the same terms that he believes the existing system of marriage is homophobic. Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle are an opposite-sex couple who are hoping to gain the ability to enter into a civil partnership. Tom and Katherine are one of four straight couples involved in the Equal Love Campaign. Their primary reason for not getting married is that they do not want to be part of an institution from which gay and lesbian people are excluded. However they also stated that, ‘the role of the husband and the role of a wife seem very strict and that's not for us.” The traditional views of the husband and the wife derive from an era when women were subservient to men.[44] In the present day people, mainly women, feel these views are not for them. Couples want to feel equal to one another and often feel like ‘partners’ not husband and wife. The Equal Love Campaign isn't a gay rights campaign, it's about equality for everyone.

This may sound like an innovative idea to many people in the UK but places such as France have allowed the equivalent of civil partnerships to be available to gay and straight couples alike since 1999. It has been a huge success in France and in fact, in 2009, 95% of people wanting civil partnerships were heterosexual. Marriages have declined tremendously in France now and the current figures are reducing to the point that there are now two couples entering into their version of a civil partnership for every three getting married. Equal Love supporters would use this statistic to show support for the campaign by demonstrating that many heterosexuals want the legal security of a marriage but without the historical and cultural baggage of it.[45]

In many ways the Equal Love campaign can be commended. It is about equality and that is an issue which many would completely agree with. Nobody or Nothing is better than anyone else. We should all have the same rights and access to the same forms of legislation. If straight couples wish to be in civil partnerships that should be allowed and if same-sex couples want a marriage then that should not be an issue either. Opening up both types to all people would instantly solve many problems and debates.

It can be said that this country has done a lot for same-sex couples in the last couple of years but it can also be seen that there is still a significant change to go. There will always be disagreements over what is or what should be allowed but many people feel that the government should not be making this decision alone. Public opinion has changed drastically over recent generations and politicians are now listening and sponsoring this change. Modernising the UK legislation is all about looking at how Britain has changed and reflecting that. Many people will surely still be against gay marriage but then it took a few brave people to put an end to slavery and battle racism[46]  so there will always be gulfs between those who believe in freedom for all and those who believe in freedom for just themselves and people exactly like them, but no-one else. The Equal Love Campaign should not be discredited in the UK on the grounds of religion due to the massive change in religious beliefs and the rapid rise in agnosticism over recent years. Finally with all the problems and violence in the world, it can be said that those who oppose gay marriage could potentially find something more worthwhile to occupy their time rather than opposing something where love and security is the main goal. All couples, whether same-sex or opposite sex should have equal rights and therefore the Equal Love Campaign should be commended.

---

[1] Hyde & Hyde (1866) L R 1 P&D 130

[2] Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Section 11 (c)

[3] [2003] UKHL 21

[4] Dutch Civil Code article 30 (1).

[5]Other countries which adopted the same-sex marriage were Argentina, Belgium, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden

[6] Elaine E. Sutherland, ‘A step closer to same-sex marriage throughout Europe’, Edinburgh Law Review, 2011

[7] Bennett, Rosemary, 27 June 2009,. "Church 'out of touch' as public supports equal rights for homosexuals", London: The Times, as seen on http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6586450.ece Last visited 07/11/11

[8] Gay Britain Survey. Populus. As seen on http://populuslimited.com/uploads/download_pdf-100609-The-Times-The-Times-Gay-Britain-Poll.pdf. Last visited 06/12/11

[9] App No 30141/04, judgment of the First Section, 24 Jun 2010.

[10] Human Rights Law Centre, http://www.hrlc.org.au/court-tribunal/european-court-of-human-rights/schalk-and-kopf-v-austria-2010-echr-3014104-24-june-2010

[11] Human Rights Act 1989, Article 8(1)

[12] Human Rights Act 1989, Article 8(1)

[13] Holning Lau, ‘Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity: American Law in Light of East Asian Developments,’ Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 2008

[14] (2006) EQHC 2022 (Fam)

[15]Daniel Martin, ‘Gay marriage is ‘a step too far’, says defence minister as Cameron proposes full marriage rights for same-sex couples’, 8^th October 2011,  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046445/Gay-marriage-David-Cameron-proposes-marriage-rights sex-couples.html#ixzz1eAjI0mc0 Last visited 05/12/11

[16] This is basically the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and three major statutory instruments protecting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age.

[17]   2 November 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15554683 Last visited 19/11/11

[18] http://equallove.org.uk/about

[19] http://equallove.org.uk/the-legal-case

[20] Steve Richards, ‘Guide to Civil Partnerships Act 2004’, [Emerald Home Lawyers Series; Emerald Publishing; London; 2006]

[21] Naomi Phillips of the British Humanist Association  http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/690

[22]Dan Fielding, ‘Religion justified?’ seen at http://www.spectator.co.uk/7272428/gay-rites.thtml Last visited 07/11/11

[23] Erwin W. Lutzer, ‘The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage’, 2004, Moody Publishers, Chicago

[24] British Social Attitudes Survey, results from 2009 and published January 2011

[25] The Guardian, Dec 2006, "Religion does more harm than good - poll",www.guardian.co.uk/religion/1978045,00, "ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,006 adults aged 18+ by telephone between December 12 and 13. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules"

[26] National Secular Society newsletter, 4/09/07 as seen onhttp://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html#BI_009

[27] Helen Pidd, ‘I don't: Marriage rates crash to all-time low’, Thursday 12 February 2009,www.guardian.co.uk

[28] Joe Messerli  ‘Should same-sex marriage be legalised?’, 19/11/2009,http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm Last visited 05/12/11

[29] Frank Turek, ‘Correct, not Politically Correct’,  http://www.allaboutlove.org/homosexual-behavior.htmLast visited 05/12/11

[30] Jennie Lindon, ‘Child Protection and the Early Years Work’, [ Hodder & Stoughton; Oxton; 2005]

[31]  Kelley O. Beaucar, “Homosexual Parenting Studies are Flawed, Report Says,” July 18, 2001. 

[32] Trayce Hansen, ‘Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality’ June 30 2008, seen athttp://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_prohomo.html  Last visited 08/11/11

[33] Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, ‘Marriage and society and the boundaries of gay adoption’, seen  athttp://www.jennifer-roback-morse.com/articles/gay_adoption.html

[34] Hogg, Strathdee , Craib, O'Shaughnessy, Montaner , Schechter, ‘Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men’ 1997, Int. J. Epidemiology. 26:657-661.

[35]  Rich Deem, ‘Smoking and Alcohol. It’s just another life risk?’ 2009 seen atwww.godandscience.org/homosexuality Last visited 13/11/11

[36]K. Cameron, P. Cameron , ‘Does homosexual activity shorten life?’, 2002, Psychol. Rep. 83:847-66.

[37] P. Cameron, ‘Homosexual partnerships and homosexual longevity: a replication.’, 2003, Psychol. Rep. 91:671-678.

[38] M. Sandforte, T. Graaf, R. Bijl, R. Schnabel, ‘Same-Sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence.’ 2001, Archives of General Psychiatry, 58: 85-91.

[39] Bruce Bagemihl, ‘Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity’, St. Martin's Press, 1999

[40] Max Harrold, ‘"Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity", The Advocate,February 16^th 1999

[41] Jonathan Herring, ‘Family Law’, [Pearson: Longman; London; 2008]

[42] Douglas Murray, ‘Gay Rites: Why conservatives should welcome gay marriage.’ October 2011, As seen on www.spectactor.co.uk Last visited 16/11/11

[43] Peter Thatchell, September 10 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/marriage-true-equals Last visited 05/11/11

[44] Jonathan Herring, ‘Family Law’, [Pearson: Longman; London; 2008]

[45] Erwin W. Lutzer, ‘The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage’, [Moody Publishers; Chicago; 2004]

[46] Douglas Murray, ‘Welcoming gay marriage’  5th October 2011 as seen onhttp://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7288718/welcome-gay-marriage.thtml Last visited 04/12/11