The conservative case for gay marriage

16 July 2012 by

The current debate on legalising gay marriage was sparked by one of the more memorable speeches of this Government, when Prime Minister David Cameron saidI don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.” 

What has been missing from the debate since that speech has been a convincing, measured discussion from the political right on what he meant. Until now, that is. Today the Policy Exchange, a leading conservative think tank thank, has published What’s In A Name? Is there a case for equal marriage? Don’t be fooled by the question mark in the title. This report represents the best and most carefully considered case for equal marriage from a conservative (with a small ‘c’) perspective so far.

I highly recommend the report, which is full of interesting historical context and subtle (as well as not-so-subtle) cues for the political right. In essence, the report’s case is that marriage is good for society as it encourages a stable family life, which is itself good for all sorts of reasons. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that this applies as much to homosexuals as it does to heterosexuals. With such a clear social benefit (and one which fits well with conservative championing of ‘family values’), the only real case against legalisation is the distaste of others. And there is no law against offending others.

Here are some highlights:

On recent advances for homosexuals in the UK:

Only a handful of Conservative MPs voted to legalise homosexuality in 1967 – amongst them were Nicholas Ridley, Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher.

On less recent advances for homosexuals in the UK:

1785 – Jeremy Bentham is one of the first people to argue for the decriminalisation of sodomy in England

On Conservative radicalism through the ages, and the radicalism of  modern conservatism’s founding father:

Disraeli’s support for the Second Reform Act, as well as his legalisation of trade unions and substantial social reforms, such as slum clearance, can also be seen as examples of this tradition, as were the 1918 extension of the vote to women, and social reforms instituted by Joseph Chamberlain and Harold Macmillan. In many cases, Conservative Governments made ‘progressive’ changes because they felt that they were the right thing to do

On public support for change:

In the late 1980s… the proportion of people who regarded sexual relations between two adults of the same sex as “always or mostly wrong” stood at more than 70 per cent; now it is just under 30 per cent…. A 2012 Populus poll showed that 76 per cent of people agreed that gay couples should have “exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples.”

On the remaining arguments for opponents:

The burden of proof is on the opponents of marriage equality to say, in the language the law understands, why gay people do not deserve the same liberties as their fellow citizens. The only justification for such a restriction of liberty is if harm is done to others. The only possible ‘harm’ remaining is the harm of offence caused. There is no right to freedom from offence in this country.

On the vexed question of whether human rights law will ultimately force religious authorities to perform gay marriages against their will:

Some have suggested that a change in the law will require religious institutions to marry gay people, contrary to the beliefs of that religion. This is not what a change in the law would do.


There is therefore no obvious legal case for marriage equality to be found in human rights law… Religious groups should be able to exclude gay people from marrying as part of a religious ceremony on their premises if they wish. On the basis of the rule of law, they should not be able to exclude gay people from entering into a civil marriage elsewhere.

The Government has recently consulted on equal marriage and is considering the responses. Meanwhile, a number of religious organisations, notably the Church of England and the Chief Rabbi, have expressed their disapproval for the plans. It is a shame that following the early support from the Prime Minister, the contribution from the right has been somewhat muted. The Policy Exchange report is therefore well-timed and should be read by anyone who is concerned about the potential effects of legalising gay marriage.

With the left and right of the political spectrum aligning on the case for a particular social change, it is increasingly hard to take seriously the arguments against that change. Hopefully, this Government will follow through with the Prime Minister’s early commitment. Even the White House supports the case for change, in a country where social conservatives are much fiercer than our own. Perhaps social attitudes really are aligning, and the New Yorker’s recent prediction will ultimately prove true:

One day, not long from now, it will be hard to remember what worried people so much about gay and lesbian couples committing themselves to marriage.

Sign up to free human rights update s by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:



  1. Ashley Casas says:

    I support gay marriage and I don’t see wrong in that case. We have to face the reality that there are gays and lesbians in this world. Accept what is in the real life as we cannot change them for what they want to be. Start to adapt things you don’t usually see.

  2. Jane Thomas says:

    I recommend conservative politicians on the continent thake heed and agree to similar legislation. Germany has a same-sex partnership law guaranteeing many rights available to marrying heterosexual couples. The time has now come that the government accept that for complete equality civil marriage should be provided to both homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: