The fuss over Kate Forbes’ opposition to gay marriage shows that the concept of marriage has become a serious muddle. The depth of the muddle tends to be evaded, as pundits don’t generally want to admit that a basic thing like marriage is really confusing.
But it is. It’s oddly hard to say what marriage is. Does it still have a religious dimension? Or is it an essentially secular thing that only has a religious dimension if you’re religious?
It’s oddly hard to say what marriage is. Does it still have a religious dimension? Or is it a secular thing?
Until recently, such questions troubled no one. Marriage was a mix of religious and secular elements, but the ambiguity was unproblematic. It was agreed to be a legal contract with a religious dimension that was variable; one could choose one’s level of religiosity. For non-religious couples there was still a faintly audible religious hum, created by centuries of religious symbolism.

Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in