Readers may be interested in this forthcoming event:
With Peter Tatchell; Professor Jeffrey Weeks, OBE; Dr Kath Holden; Professor Sasha Roseneil; Professor Alison Oram; and Dr Matt Cook.
Monday 17th December 2012, 6.30 – 8.00pm
Places still available but numbers are limited so book soon!
The last decade has seen incredible changes in attitudes towards lesbians and gay men and their relationship to home and family. From legislation on adoption, civil partnerships and access to fertility treatments to representations on sitcoms like ‘Modern Family’ and home make-over shows, there has been a marked domestication of queer men and women. If Clause 28 famously saw all this as a pretence, these home lives are now, arguably, being taken seriously. In this panel discussion we ask what precedents there are for apparently unconventional home and family formations; how far recent shifts reflect broader changes in expectations and experiences of home and family; what they might portend in terms of assimilation, radicalism and difference; and why history might matter in all this.
Please come and join the discussion.
The debate is free and open to all, but booking is essential. To reserve your place please contact Katy Pettit k.pettit@uel.ac.uk
The event is convened by the Raphael Samuel History Centre, hosted by the British Library and supported by the AHRC.
Don't ever try and edit a post on your iPad. I managed to delete this whole post earlier when trying to correct a typo. Huge thanks to Alex who saved me by sending through the original text which is now back below. Phew!
The Guardian carried a number of 'gay' Tories yesterday as part of their magazine 'gay issue'. A number of people have already commented on various social media platforms that the issue was very gay male focused and I think that's right. Although lesbians were covered (as the reference to 'sleeper-lesbians' demonstrates on the paper header) they didn't seem to be the central focus. Indeed, 'sleeper-lesbians' made them sound like a team of crack terrorists, ready to attack the nearest male meat vendor and disrupt the phallic dildo distribution network. We also had Alan Carr decked out as 'The' Queen on Liz's very own birthday. Republican/gay pride and all that.
Anyway, on to the content. The main piece was by the ever lovely Evan Davis - the openly gay presenter of the popular morning BBC Radio 4 show, Today. He wrote a piece 'Glad to be Gay, Glad to be Tory' which attracted quite a bit of RT action but for me seemed a tad meandering. The central question - which Davis fails to answer - is how such a historically homophobic party has also been stuffed full with homes (at least gay men at any rate). As someone who joined the Tory party at 15 (I'm now a member of the LibDems and a candidate in the local elections) and was also a member of TORCHE (the gay Conservative group before LGBTory) my reasons are as helpful - and as flawed - as any. I was interested in politics and in my neck of the woods that meant choosing between two parties - the Conservatives or Labour. The neighbouring constituency did have a strong LibDem group and so I took a punt and left a message for them as that was were I felt instinctively drawn. Of the other two, I was faced between a choice of a party that seemed to want to tell people what to do, and to treat everyone the same (Labour) verses a party that talked about opportunity, had a leader who genuinely knew what it was to work hard and succeed on your own endeavours and took an approach of giving people more control over their lives. Of course, the following years so the Conservatives drift to the right, and my own views (I think) have remained pretty much in the centre (although maybe more centre left these days). At no point was the issue of sexuality an influence on joining a party. However, I did manage to make the front page of that illustrious Lancashire rag, the Accrington Observer, in 1998 by calling for more people who identified as gay to join the party in a bid to make it more in touch, and more reflective of society. I was forced for resign and as I moved to university, I became disengaged from party politics, working instead first against top-up fees and then for the repeal of Section 28. My story is a personal one but it shows how perfectly rational joining the very party that introduced Section 28 can seem. It is for these reasons of complexity that - I think - Evan failed to find a clear and simple answer to his starting question.
On we move to a piece about gay parenting. I confess, I skim read most of it. This is as far away from my life and interest as reading about straight people and their children. This reaction served as a harsh reminder to me that although we still talk of 'the gay community' - always a problematic label - it is becoming more diffuse than ever before. What did strike me about the piece however were the images. They look very, well, posh. I felt like I was trapped in a Waitrose parenting supplement. I just know they will bore me with talk of granola and skinning holidays in real life. I don't sense any of these kids going to the local rough comp but I could be being entirely unfair. Of course, this is important not as part of some class bashing rant, but because it goes to the heart of our contemporary gay rights discourse. There is an assumption that we can all engage in surrogacy, and create this new families of choice. In truth, many of us - especially men - can't. It's a middle class homosexual activity. The rest of us are looking in, our noses pressed against the glass like some disgruntled street urchin seeking out the promised warmth inside. Oh well, back to the bareback party for the rest of us.
We also had a mea cupola from someone who tried to 'cure' gay people. The Times (£) also wanted to get in on the act and so the gay columnist - and former Tory MP - Matthew Paris who questions the simple tribe division between 'straight' and 'gay'. He is of course absolutely right in this regard and comes close to applying a queer critique. Unfortunately, he doesn't and instead the piece becomes rather muddled. Nonetheless, it does make a challenging and alternative intervention, worthy of a read.
Many on the usual social media sites and LGB advocacy and campaign groups sprang to life seeking to motivate people into responding to the consultation. I deliberately held off. I wanted to see how the debate initially shaped up and - something I'm not convinced everyone who is commenting has done - read the actual consultation document.
Let's deal with the politics of this first off. The Conservatives need this. Ever since Cameron announced he was in favour of 'gay marriage' at the Conservative Autumn conference last year, it's been a done deal. It's win-win for Cameron. He has a majority to pass a bill on same-sex marriage of some description. if the party does it with just one or two dissenters, he can claim it to be a further sign that the party has genuinely changed. Something that LGBTory - the LGB group of the party - has been keen to establish as a narrative.
Peter Bone
On the other hand, he may have a fight on his hand. I don't think this is likely but let's explore the scenario. In this situation, the comments of Peter Bone (the MP famous for introducing Mrs Bone at PMQs and looking like a man who once ran a football team and slept with Ulrika Johnson) would gain wider support among MPs and party activists in the same way that the NHS Bill did for for LibDems. This would give Cameron a sort of 'Clause IV moment', defeating his party and able to demonstrate he is a true reformer. Either of these scenarios also allow the Tories to knock on the head the developing narrative that the Lib Dems are a moderating influence on the coalition. Tory strategists know this is an effective line and this would go some way to neutralising it.
This brings us to the Liberal Democrats themselves. Long committed to this reform - and long before it was popular to be - this will probably appear on lots of LibDem election literature as an achievement. Unfortunately, it doesn't take them any further forward in terms of support in off-setting tuition fees or NHS reforms, and the Tory strategy outlined above removes any possible 'credit' for the LibDems. The one plus is it does enable them to do is to say that a minister in government has achieved something. It's a questionable narrative but the party needs every crumb of comfort they can get. The LGBT+ LibDems have however created a useful resource supporting the bill and telling people step-by-step how to respond to the consultation.
For the Labour Party, this is the natural extension of their reforms. That narrative - which has not yet been clearly articulated - enables them to reach out to the New Labour voters who have deserted the party since 2010 (arguably in stages since 2001).
So politically, everybody - more or less - backs the idea of same-sex civil marriage. It's a done deal. The real politics and the real legal debate should therefore be about the nature of the law, and what it embraces.
Puzzlingly, few activists have engaged with this. Peter Tatchell has called the consultation out on this issue but seemingly everyone else - notably Stonewall - are fighting what I would describe as the 'wrong war', and seeking to argue for a law on civil marriage.
Every Government figure I've seen on and in the media since the consultation emphasises the same line - this is about 'civil marriage' and not 'religious marriage'. This is a bid to neutralise the challenge from religious lobbies - notably the Catholic Church - to attack legal reform. Don't be fooled by the media brouhaha, the Government need not cave in as dramatically as they have.
The proposals on the table - and this aspect is not up for debate as the consultation makes clear - prohibit religious same-sex marriages or to be more precise, do not change the present arrangements in that regard.
Let's revisit the overall aims of the legal reform, as set out by the Government:
To remove the ban on same-sex couples being able to have a marriage through a civil ceremony.
To make no changes to how religious organisations solemnise marriages
To allow transsexual people to change their legal gender without having to legally end their existing marriage or civil partnership
So, even if a religious institution wanted to solemise a same-sex marriage they would prevented from doing so by law. The Government had two alternative approaches. Firstly, they could have enabled religious institutions to choose not to conduct marriages. However, as the Church performs a combined civil and religious ceremony, LGB activists could have argued that it was discrimination that only they were begin rejected by a particular church as a class (expect a legal case revolving around comparison to divorcees and so on). So, the chance of a legal challenge down the line would be high and the churches would have seen this. Not an attractive option for anybody.
The second option I would suggest, would have been to remove civil marriage powers from churches. It avoids the discrimination both in the proposed provisions and the first option I just outlined. It would upset many in faith groups, and would be a more radical or complicated message to convey to the public. It would not stop churches performing religious ceremonies for whoever they wanted but the actual civil - legally binding - marriage would come into existence outside of a religious institution. Although the harder road, I believe this would have been the better solution.
If it worked for them...
If you want a model of how this would look in reality, just look at the marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles. A 'legal' ceremony followed by a religious one. Legally, they became married in Windsor Registry Office but for the Queen and many, they became married in the Chapel at Windsor Castle. This would be genuinely equal under law and would also remove any potential legal challenges. I am sure that this is where we will eventually end up but it's a shame that all three parties are running scared of religious groups this time around.
Thanks to the government proposals on transgender marriage, it is now possible for someone legally defined as a male and someone legally defined as a female to enter into a marriage in a religious building and then for one of those individuals to transition so that there will be some individuals who are legally a same-sex couple and who married in a combined religious/civil ceremony. Don't be fooled, these proposals create as many legal anomalies as they remove.
Speaking of which, the proposals also contain a paragraph (2.16) which will long be a focus for family law student seminars and tutorials in the coming years. It states:
'Specifically, non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law. However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery.'
This is a polite way of saying that the law tends to think of consummation in terms of penile/vaginal penetration (although no orgasm or ejaculation is needed). This paragraph in the consultation is the equivalent of lifting a giant rug, shoving half-baked proposals under it, and hoping that nobody will notice. We did. This could have significant implications for different-sex marriage and the Government knows that but doesn't want to get into that debate. We should.
Adultery too will need to be re-visited and a sensible move would simply be to abolish it. Anything else, and the Government will be lost in the midst of another legal mess. Again, a potentially major reform for family law.
Speaking of half-baked botches, Let's turn to civil partnerships. The proposals set out a way that people can 'covert' from a civil partnership to marriage and answers my question in previous posts about the continued presence of civil partnerships - they stay. Hurrah! Unfortunately, they remain for same-sex couples only, and in doing so fails to address the arguments of the ongoing Equal Love legal challenge. That legal challenge will come and I can't understand why the Government isn't pre-empting such a challenge.
Paragraph 2.20 sets out another wonderful fudge:
'The Government is not considering opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples because we have been unable to identify a need for this. However, we appreciate that there are a number of views on this issue.'
How have they explored this need? What constitutes a need? If civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples fall below some mystery figure as a result of these reforms, will they then be abolished as there is 'no longer a need'? Big questions with potentially hugely significant answers, but who is asking them?
This consultation is a significant document but it's formal questions are limited and fail to engage with the real difficulties. That should not stop the big campaign and advocacy groups from questioning the Government. Yet as things stand, we are failing to provide that scrutiny to these proposals. The legal community similarly needs to wake up to the potentially half-baked and wide-ranging reforms that could come through as a result of these reforms with historic implications for marriage.
Earlier today British Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered his Autumn Statement - a sort of mini-budget/update on how the economy is doing. I'm struck at these moments by the emphasis politicians give at these moment by 'families'. It was particularly striking in George Osborne's speech today. It goes to the heart of how a political class views society at any given time. Osborne's speech makes it clear that this society is comprised of businesses and families. There are no individuals.
This is significant if through choice, or outside forces you find yourself single, or without children. When society seeks to dis-incentivise and punish these choices, it enforces a heteronormative view of the family that fetishes a model of parents (more than one, fewer than three) and children (knock yourself out, but after one, we reward you less).
Osborne was particularly impressive for how the family crow-barred it's way into this statement.
According to Osborne, the plans of the Government have thus far ensured that: 'low interest rates are passed on to families and businesses.' He added that 'at every opportunity [the Government are] helping families with the cost of living.'
We will not take this risk with the solvency of the British economy and the security of British families.
On homes...
The Chancellor stated:
'The Government can use the low interest rates we’ve secured to help young families too, who want to buy a home but can’t afford the very large deposits that banks are now demanding.
We will use mortgage indemnities to help 100,000 such families buy newly built homes.
Families in social housing will be able to buy their own homes at a discount of up to 50%.
And we will use the receipts to build, for every home purchased, a new additional affordable home.
So new homes for families that need them.
New home ownership for families who aspire to it.'
Can individuals not aspire for such things? Of course, individuals get the benefit of this message but it is striking that the government is not interested in promoting it in those terms.
On water bills...
The Chancellor stated:
'And for families across that region facing the highest water charges in Britain, the Government will cut the household bills of all South West Water customers by £50 a year.'
So, if it was just individuals he wouldn't bother? If you have children, that necessitates specific water 'relief'? Other cynics might note that this also targets the affluent Tory South West but I shall resist going there...
On superfast broadband....
The Chancellor stated:
'The Government is funding plans to bring superfast broadband to 90% of homes and businesses across the country, and extend mobile phone coverage to 99% of families.'
Really? Are we to see mobile phones handed out at birth? Baby hats and cell phones for all?
Council tax...
The Chancellor stated:
'I have already offered councils the resources for another year’s freeze in the Council Tax.
That will help millions of families.
It also helps single occupancy households but I guess we matter less.
Fuel prices...
The Chancellor stated:
'But millions more use their cars to go to work, and pick up the children from school.
Families will save £144 on filling up the average family car by the end of next year.'
How much will I save? I don't have to do those school runs so I suppose I'm laughing already in the eyes of the Government. Here towards the end of a speech we have the vision made clear. Work and family. Work and family. A very Conservative message.
What would I say instead? Well how about 'households', 'citizens' and 'Brits' (if you want to throw in a bit of informality).
The latest issue of GT has a really interesting couple of pieces in its 'Big Debate' section considering whether 'we have destroyed the nuclear family'. The two pieces ('yes' and 'no') are written int he context of the Gay Liberation Front and despite a dreadful introduction by Martin Popplewell, are written in a very intelligent (perhaps too much so for many readers) and engaging way. If the lower half is 'fed' by the 'naked' celeb photos earlier in the mag, this section feeds your mind. Well worth a read.
This is the sweetest story I've read in such a long time. A US Mom has blogged in defence of her son's request (and her consent) that her son dressed up as Daphne from Scooby-Doo for Halloween. Her five year old son can be seen on the right of this post. Christian mothers (Chritains celebrating a pagan festival, surely some mistake?) criticised her decision as she recounts in her post:
“And then Mom C approaches,” writes Nerdy Apple Bottom. “She had been in the main room, saw us walk in, and followed us down the hall to let me know her thoughts. And they were that I should never have ‘allowed’ this and thank God it wasn’t next year when he was in Kindergarten since I would have had to put my foot down and ‘forbidden’ it. To which I calmly replied that I would do no such thing and couldn’t imagine what she was talking about. She continued on and on about how mean children could be and how he would be ridiculed.
“My response to that: The only people that seem to have a problem with it is their mothers.”
Lip Service might be proving a bit disappointing (is it just me?) but Hollywood has a new lesbian film starring Julianne Moore. It's called 'The Kids Re Alright' - read a full review here. Check out the trailer below.
Michael Lucas - CEO of the porn company Lucas Entertainment has posted footage from a recent debate at the Oxford Union on his website and it's been picked up by various porn blogs. Lucas - a law graduate and former porn actor was speaking in proposition of the motion 'This House Believes That the Gay Rights Movement Has Undermined Family Values'. The full speech is below. Annoyingly, I can't find out what the vote was so I'd welcome any info from people on that (I think the proposition was passed). Lucas makes some interesting and compelling points but he seems to send the audience to sleep - which given his speaking style is perhaps understandable. Although a porn CEO, Lucas with his celebrity friends (including the family friendly Graham Norton) is no doubt at the more 'acceptable' end of the spectrum. How would a porn CEO such as Paul Morris have gone down? Would such a figure even be invited?
It might be surprising that I am arguing on the same side as Stephan Greene, whose views I despise. But in this case I am proud to be part of a movement that has undermined family values and continues to undermine them.
To me “family values” is a code word.
Here is what I think when I hear the term family values…. I think of family as “one size fits all”, the Model T of relationships, organized around the holy five: spouse, career, home, church and children, possibly including the occasional dog. I think of my native Russia where it is basically a requirement for a women to get married by the age of 23, which makes them forever neurotic, and insecure. I think of Clinton’s impeachment hearings — because he had an affair with an intern and not for passing “don’t ask, don’t tell”. And I think about many great politicians who lost their careers because of American hysteria over family values.
I also think about St Paul who said, “The husband is head of the wife”.
And we can never escape from hearing daily about family values of sons of Allah, about the treatment of Muslim women by their husbands. The Koran clearly said: “Admonish them to their couches and beat them.” As Borat concluded, ”in my country first is God, then man, horse, dog, then women, then rat”.
So what do the defenders of Family Values really defend, when they repeat endlessly “that the traditional family is the essential building block of traditional society?” They defend the traditional order of society.
This is where they clash with the gay rights movement. Gay rights are profoundly subversive of traditional society. They posit a new identity, which is not accounted for in most traditional societies. If gay identity becomes a possibility, then the straight identity becomes a matter of CHOICE and established Family Values become options rather than the “natural order.” That’s why they hate us so much: because we really do undermine their certainties.
We gay people offer CHOICE in the construction of our relationships, freedom and liberation, which is very attractive to straight people. Our lives challenge their certainties every day.
We gay people are broadening and redefining the values, which govern our relationships. That’s not to say that we don’t value family. But we love our partners because we have chosen them out of pure love — and not to meet the expectations of society.
We also prove that remaining single, with a family made of friends, is a viable option to experience love, caring, trust and commitment in a family of choice. One does not have to be in a relationship and can be happy without a partner; one does not have to have children in order to live a wonderful fulfilling life.
Worst of all, perhaps, for the sex-obsessed family values defenders, we undermine the sanctity of monogamy. Some gay couples chose to be monogamous, and others do not. And we have certainly proven that love for a partner is about far more than sexual exclusivity. We have proven that, monogamy is neither necessary nor sufficient when it comes to love and family. What’s required is something emotionally deeper and more profound.
Studies in the US conclude that three in four long-term, stable, committed gay couples have negotiated some form of open relationship. I think both choices are significant. A quarter has chosen to remain monogamous. And three quarters have chosen to base their relationship on trust and intimacy rather than sexual exclusivity. It’s the word “choice” that’s so subversive – Now, where is the choice, where is the room for negotiation according to traditional Family Values?
This is not to say that the gay movement stands for sex without limits, just like the reality of traditional family is not about monogamy. About half of all married women and 60% of all married men have cheated on their partners. (NOTE: Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy) — and so “family values” support norms that include lying about one’s sexual life. We challenge this by coming out of the closet not just about being gay but by aspiring to honesty about our sexual lives.
In fact family values are so artificial that they do not work for their own proponents:
Jim Bakker -head of PTL (Praise The Lord)-cheated on his wife Tammy Faye with his secretary.
Ted Haggard –evangelical preacher –had sex with a male escort while married.
Mark Foley: US representative sent sexually explicit e-mails and text messages to male pages.
Mark Sanford: South Carolina Governor married with children, who disappeared to continue affair with his mistress in Argentina.
Newt Gingrich: former Speaker of US House of Representatives; married three times; had an affair with women who would become his second wife while married to his first. Then had affair with a woman who would become his third wife while married to the second.
Iris Robinson: Northern Irish member of Parliament who cheated on her husband with 19 year old boy.
This list could go on forever.
And our relationships are more equal— there are no blueprints and no traditions, which determine the powers and economic arrangements between each other. Each couple has to develop and negotiate from scratch, what works for them. And again, there is the element of CHOICE, which strikes at the core of what traditional Family Values are all about.
Speaking of choice, the PACS in France and civil unions has been overwhelmingly embraced by straight couples who are seeking a legal framework for their relationships without resorting to marriage and the traditional baggage it carries. Something similar is happening in the U.S.: many cites and towns in the U.S. are allowing couples to register as “domestic partners.” Politicians are offering this to gays, as an alternative to “marriage.” One result has been that straight people are choosing to declare themselves ”domestic partners,” rather then getting married. As straight couples realize that there may be alternative arrangements available to them, family values rooted in marriage are being undermined.
So to my gay counterparts – don’t be so humble! Our fight produced a very attractive role model that scares our opponents to the point of hysteria; that’s why they are attacking us so vigorously. Sometimes those attacks become ugly and desperate. From Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell who said that ”gay people helped the terror attacks on 9/11” to Stephen Greene who supports the death penalty bill for homosexual acts in Uganda. People like Greene would be happy to wipe gays off the face of the Earth to defend their lifestyle.
So our opponents are right when they argue that the state must deter public approval of the gay identity in order to defend traditional family values. We are indeed Family Values’ worst enemy. But the point is this: We are winning and they are losing.
Another interesting post from Gary McLachlan on his blog - this time about the family. Check it out here. I broadly agree with his thoughts although I think family is an even more fluid concept that McLachlan suggests. I would suggest that our construction of identity shifts as our own emphasis of 'who' we are shifts - thus in moments of personal crisis - our conception of family can shift from one minute to the next. It is a constantly flowing river with eddies, rapids and falls.
