Tebbit on equal marriage and incest.

Lord Tebbit was a staunch opponent of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. As the Ghost of the Conservative Party Past, whenever he pokes his head through the casement into the modern world to express a minority reactionary opinion, Lord Tebbit serves as a useful reminder of how much society has progressed in recent years.

In an interview with The Big Issue magazine, Lord Tebbit suggested an equivalence between the validity of same-sex marriage and the validity of being able to marry a close member of one's own family, saying:

“It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I’d be allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn’t a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn’t two elderly sisters living together marry each other?”

The objection that equal marriage will somehow legitimise incestuous marriage is a common one presented by opponents of equality, but rather than just accuse them of bigotry - which is nonetheless a very just accusation in my opinion - I think it is helpful to tell them exactly why their contention is invalid.

There is, quite rightly, a very strong social taboo against incestuous relationships. Condoning incestuous relationships would remove that taboo, and lead to a much higher rate of sexual abuse of children by adults in the family, (usually grandfathers, fathers and older brothers). The incidence of sexual abuse of children within families is already serious enough. 

Legalising incest would seriously undermine the bond of family relationships that is one of the bedrocks of society. Brothers, sisters, parents, nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles are there to provide the individual with emotional, social and often financial security through thick and thin, ideally over lifetimes, when marriages and other relationships come and go. Despite inevitable feuds and dysfunctions between family members, these are the relationships that are more likely to provide enduring emotional security and a sense of continuity of personal history. Romantic/sexual relationships come to an end, more frequently than not, and they frequently end acrimoniously and with no possibility of reconciliation or forgiveness. If these kinds of break-ups started happening within families because of incestuous relationships, it would blow the social institution of the family apart, and end the vital functions the family provides to so many of us. 

Of course, in the case of heterosexuals, incest also produces a high risk of birth defects. This is another very important factor, but the above provides the arguments against all such incestuous relationships, be they heterosexual (including between infertile couples), or homosexual.

Those people who compare equal marriage to incestuous marriage may well feel in relation to the former the same kind of visceral aversion that arises when the issue of incest is raised, and aim to evoke that feeling in others in relation to equal marriage. However, those willing to suspend their prejudice and deploy their rational faculties, will find no ally to support this comparison in evidence or logic.

Unfortunately, asking people like Lord Tebbit to suspend their prejudice and look at this matter objectively threatens to wreck the whole interconnecting conceptual edifice they have built on the foundation of a narrow world view. We may never change the minds of many of these people: all to often, only their personal life experience, rather than unassailable arguments, can do that. But it is empowering for those of us who support progress, to know we have logic and evidence on our side, regardless of how impervious to it our opponents show themselves to be.

© Gary Powell, 2013