The Guardian
I, Reg, take thee David
At last, recognition and
respect
Civil partnerships
are divorced from reality
The Observer:
We'll celebrate our love, but others live
in constant fear
The Daily Telegraph:
Some of my best friends are
gay... but they shouldn't wed
The Times:
Very civil partnerships
from The Guardian:
I, Reg, take thee David
Sobriety and dark suits, but a spectacle nonetheless
Patrick Barkham
Thursday December 22, 2005
There were two feather boas, a motorised leopard-skin sofa and a
spangly silver jacket but the man affectionately described by his
fans as a "raving queen" sprang a surprise yesterday. Leaving high
camp to the crowd, Sir Elton Hercules John registered his civil
partnership with David Furnish wearing an impeccably restrained dark
suit.
Civil, understated and in the shadow of Windsor Castle, it was a
partnership the Queen would probably approve of. The house of Windsor
could also learn a trick or too from the celebrities that
increasingly eclipse it. Bowing before his audience like a portly
stationmaster pleased to have won a tidy platform award, Sir Elton
blew kisses and waved back the crowd's affection.
The middle-aged women clutching Marks & Spencer's bags en route to
their Christmas shopping agreed it was a spectacle far superior to
the royal wedding, when Charles and Camilla had grimaced and gurned
before fleeing their fans gathered on the narrow high street.
The entertainer formerly known as Reg Dwight showed the royal family
how to work a crowd. "Thank you so much everyone," he said. "Thank
you. Fantastic." No protesting voices were raised outside the highest
profile of the 678 civil partnership ceremonies held by gay and
lesbian couples across England and Wales yesterday. Instead, Sir
Elton's determination to have a low-key private day was politely
sabotaged by a mob of curious, accepting and terribly genteel
onlookers who made room for each other on stone doorsteps. "We came
for the fun and a little bit of razzmatazz," said Carole Hewett from
Maidenhead, surveying the grey hulk of Windsor castle behind the 17th
century Guildhall, where Sir Elton "married" Mr Furnish, his partner
of 12 years. "This is living in the 21st century."
In many ways, it was; media-made celebrities doing royalty better
than the family born to it and a popular acceptance of "gay
marriage" - or celebrity gay marriage at least - that even stretched
to teenage boys. "I thought it was really good," said Drew Freezer,
13. "His car looked pretty nice and I reckon he's got a really nice
lifestyle. I hope he has a good life," his brother, Luke, 11, added
solemnly.
This was largely a girls' day out. "My husband is totally against
it," said Mrs Hewett. "When we got up at six this morning he
said 'you're mad'. He knows I'm here but he doesn't want anything to
do with it."
"I'm not into his music but I like his style," said Bob Charles, 66,
who with Roy Williams, his partner of 39 years, was one of the few
gay couples outside the Guildhall. "He's just a typical raving
queen." They agreed that as gay activists in the 1960s they would
never have imagined a day like this would come. "If old Quentin Crisp
had been alive now - and I remember sitting with him in the 60s - he
would have been over the moon," said Mr Williams.
The lack of kitsch disappointed some. "I like reading about him - his
wobblies and tantrums," said Kelly Trevisani. "I thought he would
wear a more flamboyant suit, all glittery and white, but it doesn't
matter," said Melanie Freezer. "It was better than Prince Charles'
wedding. He just seemed to get in the car. Elton wanted to be here."
Despite the understatedness of the £560 ceremony - with the
notoriously extravagant Sir Elton receiving a £100 bonus because he
is a local resident - showbiz is an irresistible force of human
nature. He peered at a pyramid of photographers from behind purple
shades and sported a glitzy brooch on his jacket.
Out of sight of the crowds, the couple first went into the mayor's
parlour to sign the register. Then they entered the Ascot Room, where
the ceremony took place before the registrar, Clair Williams - who
married Charles and Camilla - seven guests and one beast: Sir Elton's
mother, Sheila, and stepfather, Fred; Mr Furnish's parents Jack and
Gladys; the artist Sam Taylor-Wood and art dealer husband Jay Joplin;
publisher Sandy Brant and Sir Elton's black and white spaniel Arthur.
Boasting an address book that would be the envy of many a royal, Sir
Elton chose Ms Taylor-Wood to take his wedding photographs and shower
the couple with confetti. "It was very normal," she said. "There were
tears. They kissed at the end. It was very, very happy. It was like
any other couple getting married," added Mr Joplin.
For a man who once nursed a £4,000-a-week fresh flowers habit, the
white roses and lilies twinned with green leaves were tastefully low-
key and left behind for the second gay couple of the day, who
registered their partnership in the afternoon.
Held up inside while a BT van extricated itself from the congested
street, Sir Elton and Mr Furnish bowed and waved regally and accepted
a cake and a kiss from two girls desperately promoting their local
Ben & Jerry's shop.
Sir Elton surveyed his audience and puffed out his cheeks in
amazement. "God bless," he whispered into the darkening sky and
ducked into the black Rolls-Royce: groom and groom, bound for home
and the serious business of celebrating.
from The Observer:
We'll celebrate our love, but others
live in constant fear
Elton John, who will marry his partner this week, says there is a lot
we can do to help the world's victims of homophobia
Sunday December 18, 2005
It has been a long struggle for equal rights for gay people in
Britain, but now, in the 21st century, we have real civil rights,
tolerance and final acceptance of our lives.
Next Wednesday, on the happiest day of my life, when I celebrate a
civil partnership with David, I will be thinking, however, about
those less fortunate than we are. In many countries, having a same-
sex partner is still outlawed.
I have long been a supporter of Amnesty International, which
estimates that around 80 countries still have laws that criminalise
adult same-sex relations, from the Caribbean and Latin America, to
Africa, the Middle East and even Europe.
Last month 26 men were arrested at a hotel in Abu Dhabi, capital of
the United Arab Emirates, for allegedly holding a 'gay wedding
ceremony'. The authorities say they are to be charged with criminal
offences. If convicted, they could face imprisonment and flogging and
there are worrying reports that they could be subjected to hormone
treatment to 'cure' them of their 'disorder'.
Sometimes you hear people here argue that punishments such as these
are none of our business, because they are part of another
local 'culture' or religion. In fact, they are a clear violation of
international human rights law, which forbids discrimination against
people because of their sexuality.
Steve Harvey, a leading Jamaican gay rights and Aids campaigner, was
murdered on World Aids Day, 1 December. Eyewitnesses say his
attackers asked Steve if he was gay before they abducted him and shot
him dead. Amnesty has reported that violence against gay men and
women is at catastrophic levels in Jamaica; you are in danger of
vigilante violence as soon as your sexuality becomes known. The
police are more likely to join in than offer you protection.
What is happening in Jamaica shows us how important it is for
governments and the law to set a good example. It is precisely
because homosexuality is a criminal offence, punished with up to 10
years' hard labour in Jamaica, that ordinary people feel it is OK to
hate and exclude gay people. It does not take long for this hate to
turn to violence.
In Africa it is not uncommon for leaders to build their reputations
as 'strong men' by using a platform of homophobia. Uganda's President
Museveni has described gay people as 'against nature'. Local police
harass and intimidate gay rights activists such as Juliet Mukasa, who
has had her house raided in the middle of the night, while her
colleagues have been arrested and ill-treated. In Iraq, the desperate
security situation and a very unpredictable future, has meant that
the recent issuing of a fatwa against gay people by Ayatollah Sistani
went largely unreported. But it is significant because of what it
represents - a declaration that gay people will not be part of Iraq's
future.
In Poland, the man who will become President this year, Lech
Kaczynski, banned a Gay Pride 'Equality Parade', saying it would
be 'sexually obscene'. Several Pride marches have been banned in
Poland. Predictably, there has been a simultaneous growth in
harassment and intimidation of gay people by right-wing groups.
Throughout history, gay people such as myself and David have often
been made scapegoats by those who fear that we are a threat to the
status quo. I strongly believe we can make a difference if we show
solidarity with those who are bullied and ill-treated for their
sexuality by bombarding the authorities with letters, faxes and
emails making it clear that we know about these abuses and calling
for them to end. Amnesty International has found that shining this
kind of spotlight on human rights abusers really does work.
While David and I enjoy and celebrate our freedom on Wednesday, we do
not forget our brothers and sisters who still live in fear.
from The Daily Telegraph:
Some of my best friends are gay...
but they shouldn't wed
By Tom Utley
(Filed: 22/12/2005)
Many years ago, I wrote an extremely offensive article about
homosexuals and homosexuality, which I have bitterly regretted ever
since. It was in my early days as a columnist on this newspaper, and
I suppose that I was trying to make an impact. In that, I succeeded
brilliantly.
I received more than a thousand letters from readers who shared my
distaste for homosexual intercourse, and a handful attacking me. I
can't decide which shamed me more - those from my supporters, many of
whom expressed themselves in language even nastier than my own, or
those from homosexuals who wrote in sorrow to rebuke me. I was hailed
as a hero on obscure American websites, broadcast from the Bible
Belt. It struck me that almost all my most vociferous admirers used
their religion as an offensive weapon, a means of sanctifying their
hatred of their fellow man. I didn't want friends like these, but I'm
afraid that I deserved them.
My intemperate article had a wide circulation among homosexuals who
did not normally read The Daily Telegraph. This meant that there were
many people for whom that piece was the one and only thing of mine
that they had read. To this day, I meet Guardian readers at parties,
who tell me when I have introduced myself: "Oh, yes. Tom Utley.
You're the gay-basher, aren't you?"
One gay colleague, whom I have always liked very much, refused to
speak to me for a full two years after that article appeared. I shall
call him Desmond. When I muttered "good morning" to him in the lift,
he would turn his back on me. It was all terribly embarrassing. A
couple of months ago, Desmond asked me to a party, and no invitation
has ever given me greater pleasure. At long last, the big freeze was
over, and I was at least partially forgiven.
I hope that Desmond will believe me, therefore, when I say that I
genuinely, wholeheartedly, rejoiced when I saw Sir Elton John on
television yesterday, tying the knot in Windsor with his long-time
lover, David Furnish, in one of the first civil partnership
ceremonies in the country. I found myself actually chuckling with
pleasure, because the couple's happiness was so palpable, and
happiness is so infectious. Women, I know, tend to cry at weddings; I
laugh - but the feeling is the same. I will not pretend that I have
changed my views about what Sir Elton and his partner get up to in
private, but that is absolutely none of my business - and I dare say
that they would find some of my habits pretty disgusting, too.
I cannot think of any other Act passed by this Government that has
given so much pleasure, at so little cost, to so many people. True,
Tony Blair has pleased a great many of those who get their kicks out
of denying pleasure to others. I think of the hunting ban and the
proposed ban on smoking in what the Government likes to call "public"
places (by which it means mainly private property). But the Civil
Partnership Act (CPA) has caused very little distress to anybody
apart from a few religious fanatics - and even they get a warm,
righteous glow from their distress.
There is a cost to the rest of us, of course. The Treasury will lose
a bit from the new dispensation that allows civil partners to leave
their property to each other on their deaths, free of inheritance
tax. But I bet that it will not be very much - and most money, these
days, finds its way into the Chancellor's coffers in the end. The
price of pensions will also increase, now that homosexuals have the
same right to benefit from their partners' funds as widows and
widowers have enjoyed in the past. But, again, I would be surprised
if any of us noticed the difference. All in all, then, the Civil
Partnership Act is probably one of the least bad measures that this
Government has put into law.
Now I am going to spoil it all, and risk being frozen out again by
Desmond, by repeating my belief that the CPA is an utter nonsense, in
the most literal sense of the word, and that gay marriage can only
ever be a ludicrous parody of the real thing.
Sexual intercourse has three functions: to make babies, to give
physical pleasure and to give us a means of expressing our affection
for each other. Only that first purpose should concern the state. The
other two are no more the Government's business than Sir Elton's
bedroom practices are any business of mine.
Every time I think of the Civil Partnership Act, I think of my two
sisters - one of them a single mother - who have shared a house for
most of their lives and bring up my niece together. They are
expressly forbidden by the CPA from forming a civil partnership, for
two reasons: (i) they are siblings; and (ii) they have not the
slightest sexual interest in each other.
If Sir Elton dies before his partner, Mr Furnish may now inherit all
his property, free of inheritance tax - and all because they fancy
the pants off each other. When one of my sisters dies, the other will
almost certainly have to sell their house to pay the tax bill. Where
is the justice in that - and how does it serve the interests of the
state?
The state has an obvious interest in keeping parents together. The
evidence is now overwhelming that stable marriages offer the best
conditions for bringing up the children that this kingdom so
desperately needs. But I cannot see what possible difference it will
make to the well-being of society whether Sir Elton and his partner
stay together or not.
The sentimentalist in me rejoices at Sir Elton's happiness. The dyed-
in-the-wool bigot says that I will never approve wholly of civil
partnerships until inheritance tax is abolished for everyone -
including my sisters.
from The Times:
Very civil partnerships
A revolutionary social change that is conservative in character
Sir Elton John stole the show (and not for the first time) but the
entertainer and his partner, David Furnish, were simply one of
hundreds of couples who entered into civil partnerships in England
and Wales yesterday. This innovation is not without its controversy
and there will be some left uncomfortable at what has been glibly
(and inaccurately) called "gay marriage". Yet the point of civil
partnerships is both to allow homosexuals to secure legal rights over
property or pensions and to symbolise a degree of commitment to each
other. It is not a threat to heterosexual couples strolling down the
aisle in a formal religious ceremony.
The response of most of the public to civil partnerships appears to
be to wish the couples well and not to think more of it. After the
publicity given to the first of these partnerships fades, the process
will hardly be noticed by the wider country. It will be a matter of
obvious interest to the friends and families of the gay men and
lesbian couples involved, but will become unexceptional. This would,
therefore, be a very British social revolution.
Yet revolutionary it is in many ways. It was barely a decade ago that
the proceedings of the House of Commons were interrupted by
protesters as MPs voted to lower the age of consent for homosexual
acts from 21 to 18, rather than 16 as those campaigning for change
wanted. On reflection, however, those angry activists might agree
that traversing in careful steps smoothed the path to equality. When
the transfer from 21 to 18 did not create the turmoil that had been
predicted in some quarters, the shift to 16 proceeded relatively
peacefully and then Parliament - with Tony Blair and Michael Howard
in the Ayes lobby - moved on to civil partnerships.
This measured approach has permitted public opinion to be carried.
That has been most striking in Northern Ireland where the first civil
partnerships were signed on Monday. Homosexuality in the Province was
not made legal until 1982 and this year a DUP councillor declared
that God had sent Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for
organising a gay pride march. But those who demonstrated against a
les-bian couple forming a partnership this week did so with apparent
humour.
The paradox of what would have seemed once such a radical change is
that it is essentially so conservative in character. Most of those
who travelled to town halls yesterday to have their relationships
codified in law did so because they wanted to signal their loyalty to
each other and to add further to the stability they had already
accumulated during many years together. In an age when, for various
reasons, heterosexual couples often choose not to exercise their
right to enter a civil or a religious bond, and when divorce rates in
this country remain close to the highest levels in the world, the
determination of couples to buck the trend is surely to be admired.
The alternative, and it would be a curious moral position, is to
contend that unstable homosexual relationships are preferable to
civil partnerships that celebrate love and involve significant legal
commitments. The reform enacted offers society at large a better
outcome. The Prime Minister declared yesterday that the change in the
law had been a "modern, progressive step forward for the country and
I am proud we did it". He is entitled to his pride, but the step
which he rightly encouraged is in many respects as conservative as it
is progressive
from The
Guardian:
Civil partnerships are divorced from reality
Today's rich variety of relationships and lifestyles is not reflected
by this new one-size-fits-all legislation
Peter Tatchell
Monday December 19, 2005
The Guardian
Hundreds of same-sex couples will this week tie the knot in Britain's
first civil-partnership ceremonies. In registry offices all over the
land, lesbian and gay partners will, at last, gain legal recognition.
While this milestone is a cause for celebration, it also has a
downside. For the first time in modern British legal history, instead
of repealing discrimination parliament has reinforced and extended
it. Civil partnerships are for same-sex couples only. Straights are
excluded. Conversely, marriage remains reserved for heterosexuals, to
the exclusion of gays. The differential treatment of hetero and homo
couples is enshrined in law. Welcome to segregation, UK-style.
The homophobia of the ban on same-sex marriage is now compounded by
the heterophobia of the ban on opposite-sex civil partnerships. It's
official: one law for heterosexuals and another for lesbians and
gays. Since when have two wrongs made a right?
Imagine the outcry if the government prohibited black people from
getting married, and established a separate partnership register for
non-whites. It would be condemned as racism. Is the segregationist
nature of marriage and civil-partnership law much different? By
legislating a two-tier system of relationship recognition Labour has,
in effect, created a form of legal apartheid based on sexual
orientation. In a democracy everyone is supposed to be equal in law.
Separate is not equal. The gay community has always insisted on
equality. Why should we now accept partnership laws that perpetuate
discrimination?
Many of us are not satisfied. According to a Pink Paper poll, half
the lesbian and gay community believe "civil partnership is second
best to marriage". When Denmark and the Netherlands introduced civil
partnerships, less than 15% of same-sex couples registered their
relationship. A similar low take-up is likely in the UK. Some won't
register because they want the gold standard, marriage. Others will
remain unregistered because they don't want to mimic straight
lifestyles or to get lumbered with the legal straitjacket of wedlock.
This queer scepticism is echoed by many heterosexual couples. They
are increasingly deserting marriage in favour of cohabitation. Time,
surely, for a new legal framework of relationship recognition?
Instead of legislating a second-rate version of marriage for gays
only, the government could have created a truly modern system of
partnership rights for everyone, covering all relationships of mutual
care and commitment.
Supportive, caring relations - whether between lovers or friends -
are good for the people involved and have a wider social benefit.
They enhance a person's wellbeing and offer support in times of need,
as well as diminishing dependence on the state. It is therefore in
society's interest to encourage and reward all such relationships
with legal validation and protection.
My proposed civil-commitment pact would allow people to nominate as
their next of kin and beneficiary any "significant other" in their
life. It could be a lover, but it could also be a sister, carer,
housemate or lifelong best friend.
Many non-sexual friendships are as sincere, loyal and enriching as
relations between people in love. They, too, should have legal
recognition. Restricting partnership rights to people in sexual
relationships discriminates against close friends who support each
other but are not in a traditional love coupling. If an elderly
brother and sister set up house together and care for one another,
why shouldn't they have legal rights?
Unfortunately, few partnerships last a lifetime. Single people
account for nearly a third of all households. Friends now play an
increasingly important role in people's lives and support networks.
It's wrong to deny legal rights to close friends who have a strong,
supportive bond, just because they are not lovers and don't have sex.
Similar legislation exists in Tasmania. Legal rights are granted to
all relationships of mutual devotion and support, including gay
couples, carers and unmarried heterosexual partners. It works Down
Under; why not here?
As well as allowing people to nominate any significant person in
their life, my civil-commitment pact would offer flexibility and
choice. Partners could pick and mix from a menu of rights and
responsibilities. Rights concerning tax contributions and social-
security benefits would have to be linked together to prevent people
claiming the benefits of relationship registration and avoiding the
costs. Otherwise, there is no reason why two people should not be
free to construct their own unique partnership agreement, tailored to
their needs.
We see around us a huge variety of relationships and lifestyles.
There are couples who live together, and those who live apart. Some
share their finances; others maintain financial independence. The law
should reflect and support these diverse relationship choices. The
one-size-fits-all model of relationship recognition - exemplified by
marriage and civil partnerships - is no longer appropriate.
· Peter Tatchell campaigns with the queer rights group OutRage!
www.petertatchell.net
from The Guardian:
At last, recognition and respect
As he prepares to enter a civil partnership, Jerome Farrell
celebrates a long overdue change in British law
Monday December 19, 2005
Wednesday is the first day on which lesbian and gay couples in
England and Wales will be able to register their partnerships, and
Ray and I will be among the first in our west London borough to
register.
The civil partnership law was actually passed in November 2004 -
despite the usual tactics in the Lords to try and wreck it - but a
lead-in period of around a year was needed to make the changes and
preparations necessary for it to be implemented throughout the
country.
My expectations of the register office at our local town hall were
not high. Early in 2005, I sent an email to ask for some information.
No reply. A month later, I sent another ...and then another the
following month.
By May, I was beginning to think I was being deliberately ignored, so
I went there prepared to argue with what I feared might be homophobic
staff. We had, after all, heard of some councils at best dragging
their feet in the implementation of the new law.
But the council officer I spoke to was very apologetic - her senior
colleague had been on long-term sick leave, and no one had been able
to access her email for months. They had not yet been told what the
procedures would be, but I could book a provisional date and contact
them again in November.
When Ray and I went to look around the town hall on December 5, we
were shown two possible rooms for the ceremony. One was a windowless
space only just big enough to hold the registrar, a small table, the
two partners and two witnesses. The other, the grandly-named Norwood
suite, could hold up to 70 people but would cost an extra £10. We
decided to be extravagant.
We have chosen to keep our ceremony simple, and have only invited
four friends as guests and witnesses. Two are another gay couple, the
others a straight couple. Next summer, we plan to have a party - with
rather more people - to celebrate.
We have lived together for four years, and have been committed
partners for six. We both had previous partners: Ray lived with
Jeffrey for 21 years until he died in April 1995, aged 45. I met
Steve in 1986 and he died in December 1995, shortly after his 40th
birthday.
The loss of a partner is indescribable, but Ray and I are fortunate
to have found, in each other, the source of another loving
relationship. We hope to be able to share what may, if we are lucky,
be the second half of our lives together.
December 21, when the first partnership ceremonies take place, is the
day of the winter solstice - a symbolic turning point, with
increasing light each day in the season to follow.
By sheer coincidence, it also happens to be the date on which Steve's
funeral took place ten years ago. When I realised that this was the
first date Ray and I could register our partnership, I went to think.
We talked about it and concluded it would actually be entirely
appropriate for us to book the register office for that day.
We were both born in the 50s, and have seen vast social change in our
lives. Gay men and lesbians are more accepted, more visible and more
integrated into life. Progress towards equality has taken decades
and, although it is not yet complete, the achievement of civil
partnership registration is a big step.
Recognition by the society in which we live of a lifelong, loving and
committed relationship is important in itself, but there are also
practical reasons for wanting a civil partnership.
Couples who are registered partners will now be treated the same as
married couples on all issues. This could be crucial, for instance,
where one person is of a different nationality from the other - they
will no longer risk being split up by immigration laws.
We know couples who have lived together for 30, 40 or 50 years. It is
deeply unjust that, until now, they could not benefit from the legal
advantages gained by straight couples as soon as they marry. Those
advantages include being able to pass on a survivor's pension, or
being exempt from death duties.
Wednesday will be a happy day for Ray and myself. I shall also give a
loving nod to Steve and to Jeffrey - whom I never knew, but who gave
Ray such happiness - and to all the lesbians and gay men who were
unable to share in such an event with their partners during their
lifetimes.
The venue for our partnership ceremony reminds me of the petty
inequalities the new law will eliminate. The day after Steve died, I
went to the town hall to register his death. I explained to the
registrar that I was Steve's partner and lived with him, but she
informed me that only relatives could register a death.
A loophole was found - I was with Steve when he died in our home, and
could register in that capacity with the words "present at the death"
appearing after my name on the certificate to explain how I qualified
as the person registering the information. Had I not been present
when Steve died, his mother or sister (both of whom lived 150 miles
away) would have had to register the death.
Britain has lagged behind many European countries in introducing this
law - Denmark has had legal same-sex partnership for the longest
amount of time.
A favourite anecdote is that of a Danish friend who was one of the
first to take advantage of this in 1989. Being a bank manager and a
fairly shy type, he did not want any fuss and kept it quiet from his
staff - who somehow found out and turned up to scatter rice and
confetti over the surprised couple.
It may have taken us 16 years to catch up with the Danes, but at last
we are being given official recognition - and with that, one hopes,
respect.
from The Guardian:
Face to faith
Civil partnerships will lead to the introduction of a new morality
into the gay and lesbian community
David Self
Saturday December 17, 2005
Many years ago, I was invited to a Jewish bar mitzvah. Addressing the
boy then entering adulthood, the rabbi suggested that he adopt one of
the 10 commandments as a particular, personal rule. However he might
lapse in other ways, he should vow never to break that particular
commandment. The rabbi smiled benignly: "And if you want my opinion,
I'd choose 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's cattle.' "
The new Christian right would not have approved. Over the past
decade, "relativism" (when applied to morality) has become a dirty
word. For the traditionalist, a personal morality that does not match
a supposed biblical ideal is no better than total amorality.
From Wednesday, the new Civil Partnership Act will allow same-sex
couples (including myself and my Muslim partner Majid) to legalise
our relationships. As is the case with register-office heterosexual
weddings, any ceremony must be secular. In our case, however, there
will be no subsequent religious blessing. Chaplains and bishops can
bless warships and armies, but thanks to pressure from "traditional"
church members, the Church of England will not (officially) be
blessing such commitments.
That hasn't stopped clerical friends from offering one "provided it's
in your own home" or even in church "when it's quiet, say, four
o'clock on a Saturday and provided there's no publicity". Thank you
very much. On those terms, we'll manage without benefit of clergy. Or
an imam.
We both believe in God. We believe it is his will that we are gay and
that he wants us to profess our mutual, faithful love. If he is so
opposed to a condition which, despite the views of fundamentalists,
is either inherited or absorbed at an early age, then surely he could
have bred it out of existence by now? So, although civil partnership
is a significant gateway to the tax, pension and other benefits
enjoyed by married couples, for us it is also a holy step. We shall
become next of kin.
That matters when it comes to hospital visiting or even reporting one
another's death. Very much more important to us is the fact that we
are choosing to vow in public that we shall "cherish and tenderly
care for, honour and encourage" each other. Then we shall exchange
rings prior to legal registration.
One by-product of the Civil Partnership Act is this introduction of a
new morality into gay and lesbian society, traditionally somewhat
casual in its relationships - precisely because its relationships
have hitherto been denied any social glue. Indeed, the act is
dividing the gay community, and not only between those who resent its
not being called "marriage" and those who do not wish to ape
heterosexual ties so closely.
More interestingly, many gay and lesbian partners are hesitating to
make a commitment that can be dissolved only in something very like a
divorce court. The thought of joint bank accounts, legal rights to
property now owned by one partner and, perhaps, monogamy comes hard
to those for whom a long-term relationship means meeting on Friday
night, moving in on Saturday morning, screaming at one another on
Sunday night and arguing on Monday morning who will have custody of
the newly acquired kitten.
Too often the church would seem to be on their side - as, for
example, when it comes to selection for the priesthood. I think of
two men living in the same city who simultaneously put themselves
forward for ordination in the Anglican church. One professed to be
celibate but was often seen in gay bars and clubs - and "not always
with the same young companion". He was accepted. The second, who had
been in a loyal, loving and very suburban gay relationship for nine
years, was turned down.
To those for whom all homosexual expression is simply "disordered",
the new morality being embraced by those registering their
partnerships may indeed smack of relativism. Those of us in the gay
community who give thanks for the new legislation and who value
loyalty and love above secret promiscuity think otherwise.
· David Self is a freelance writer on religious affairs
