Same-Sex Marriage

I wrote Friday evening on the rumours of a same-sex marriage announcement.  As became public a short time after my post, the rumours were confirmed.  Of sorts.  The eventual announcement came in Lynne Featherstone's speech on Saturday at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Birmingham.  Featherstone is Equalities Minister, and one of the few 'left' Liberals in government.  Her speech can be read in full here, and as you'll see, gay rights came in a short section at the end of her speech.  If you were to believe some of the media coverage (based on the preemptive leak, rather than the actual statement), you would think her announcement was to reveal that a new same-sex marriage bill would be imminently introduced, passed, and address current equality concerns.  In reality, it won't be imminently introduced, it probably will be passed, but it won't address current equality concerns.

At the end of her speech, Featherstone remarked:

'And while on my travels as a Champion for Women’s Rights, I am and will be a Champion for Gay Rights too.
 

I will be raising the issue with Governments all over the world and will continue to push everyone, from allies to adversaries, to recognise what we know is true: 

That Gay Rights are Human Rights. No excuses, no exceptions, no compromises. 

But, conference, as with the treatment of women, Britain must not get complacent. 

We are a world leader for gay rights, but as this conference made clear last year with your call for equal marriage, there is still more that we must do. 

That is why I am delighted to announce today that in March, this Government will begin a formal consultation on how to implement equal civil marriage for same sex couples. 

And this would allow us to make any legislative changes necessary by the end of this Parliament. 

Civil partnerships were a welcome first step – but as our constitution states, this party rejects prejudice and discrimination in all its forms. 

And I believe that to deny one group of people the same opportunities offered to another is not only discrimination, but is not fair.'

Curiously, the announcement fell rather flat among the blogging and tweeting liberal types (i.e. folks like me) who far from praising the move, were critical of the move.

The first wave of criticism is focused upon the lack of action - that this is a consultation rather than a an announcement of legislation.  I have some sympathy with this view but the coalition has been rather useless when it comes to rushing through ill-thought through legislation (e.g NHS reforms and privatised forests - remember that?) so taking time to get this right, is a welcome shift.  That said, the Government could have announced a Green Paper this Autumn with a White Paper next Spring and legislation introduced in Autumn 2012.  That would at least give the feel of this moving forward.

However, the second criticism - that this is merely about creating same-sex marriage and NOT extending civil partnerships to different-sex couples, suggests the government has pretty firm ideas about what will and won't be involved.  In other words, they must be at the White Paper stage now in their thinking.  They know broadly speaking what the options are, and what they've ruled out.  They could therefore get on with this now rather than wait.

However, I think the timetable for their reform - a 'consultation' (no reference to whether a Green or White paper)  next Spring provides an opportunity for lobbyists to pressure the government into a re-think.  This is an opportunity to take a serious look at civil partnerships, same-sex marriage and relationship recognition in a holisitc way.  The Liberal Democrats should be driving this issue and not merely accepting what David Cameron - the Conservative Party leader and PM - has said he would do anyway - presumably regardless of whether the Liberal Democrats were in coalition or not.

A third level of criticism was that this was something already known.  Indeed, Stonewall were quick to publish their response and a detailed response to a  consultation (which doesn't according to Featherstone start until next Spring) and that response was dated July 2011, suggesting that something is amiss.  Either Stonewall possess remarkable powers, or an insider deal has already been cooked with select groups.

Peter Tatchell and the Equal Love Campaign are already challenging the move.  Tatchell tweeted after the announcement the following:

Curiously, the move to extend same-sex marriage but NOT civil partnerships would create a very clear position of inequality - potentially strengthening the human rights legal action.  Thi9s practical argument, more than ideological arguments may persuage minsiters to have a re-think of civil partnerships.  This could however, back-fire with the total abolotion of civil partnerships to avoid the entrenchment of legislative inequality.  This would force same-sex couples to become 'married' even for those who fidn the term undesireable.

Whatever happens next, this is an important step, but it could be an incredible opportunity.  It would be a mistake for Featherstone and her allies to think that it's a case of 'job done' for if this really is about addressing equality, the work has a long way to go.

New York, Marriage and a Bucket of Cold Water

I previously posted a brief blog post on the legal developments in New York which have enabled same-sex marriage. As the celebrations were in full swing, the academic George Chauncey reached for a large bucket of water to pour over proceedings:

“Most of the time, an awful lot of the nation doesn’t want to be like New York at all,” Chauncey told the New York Times. “I suspect that many people will take this as one more sign of what happens in the Northeast, and in New York in particular, that they don’t want to have happen in their own communities.”

He is of course probably right. Passing of gay rights in the diverse and arguably, more liberal Northeast is one thing but it is not representative of America, in much the same way that London does not represent the UK.

His comments were joined by those of veteran campaigner and writer Larry Kramer. Today, he increasingly appears like some ghost of Christmas past who happens to share a wardrobe with Steve Jobs. So he appears rattlign his chains in a black turtle neck and is easy to dismiss as an angry old man. Of course, that doesn't make him wrong - and far far far from it! Also according to the NYT:

“These marriages, in whichever state, are what I call feel-good marriages,” Mr. Kramer said. “Compared to the benefits heterosexual marriages convey, gay marriages are an embarrassment — that we should accept so little, and with so much hoopla of excitement and self-congratulation.”

He's absolutely right. Someone asked me earlier this week how the new right to marry might impact on immigration rights, say a Brit now wanting to marry someone in New York. It makes no difference. Nada, nilch. Why? Well, we have to thank that piece of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law and which Obama has said he'd like to see repealed - the Defence of Marriage Act or DOMA.

DOMA means that same-sex marriages are not recognised at a federal level - presenting a huge limitation on same-sex marriages in the USA and also meaning that the federal law can't recognise such a marriage for immigration purposes.

The developments in New York are therefore an important step but the challenge is to both repeal DOMA and ensure the continued spread of same-sex marriage (and other forms of legal relationship recognition) outside the existing pockets of progressiveness.

The recent developments in New York are an important step, but merely a step.

Cradle Snatching and the Kiwi Swimmer

Curious story in The Times today (apologies, it's behind the paywall) about the New Zealand swimmer Justin Wright. Justin is 17 and in a relationship with his girlfriend, and fellow swimmer, the 24-year-old Rhi Jeffrey, much to the disgust of Wright's parents. The Times reports:

'Mr and Mrs Wright were reportedly not happy about the pair’s relationship because of the age difference, and sent e-mails to club members demanding the club coach intervene. The correspondence became so abusive that David Wright hired a lawyer to put a stop to them.
The Wrights later withdrew their consent for Justin to compete at Swimming New Zealand events, destroying his chances of qualifying for the Swimming World Cup in November and potentially thwarting his Olympic ambitions.

'In what is believed to be a legal first in New Zealand, Justin — who turns 18 in three months — this week won court permission to be a member of Swimming New Zealand against his parents’ wishes.

'The high school student said he was “annoyed” his parents had tried to prevent him from competing, and now the court had ruled in his favour he planned to try and qualify for World Cup events in Asia.

'Justin, who has moved out of the family home and now lives with Ms Jeffrey, said he was not sure if he could mend his relationship with his parents but he would not give up his girlfriend.

“I couldn’t believe they had done that,” he said. “But now that we have been through the court and I can swim I am pretty happy.”'

I find myself wondering whether the same relaxed tone with flow through the article if the genders had been reversed, or (shock horror) we were talking about a same-sex couple (especially a male one). What do you think?

The story is also reported in The Metro.

Constructing the Family

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.

Slutdom and the Marriage Mirage

Divorce rates are falling. The Office for National Statistics tells us that divorce rates are at a 29 year low. According to their site: 'In 2008, the divorce rate in England and Wales fell to 11.5 divorcing people per 1,000 married population compared with the 2007 figure of 11.8, a fall of 2.5 per cent. The divorce rate is at its lowest level since 1979 when it was 11.2.'

This week Mark Simpson flagged up a story that had appeared in the New York Times in which new research produced by San Francisco State University is revealed. the research examined how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study followed 556 male couples for three years and about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

Simpson doesn't pull his punches, writing that: 'Given the very real fear of being ostracised and shamed for talking in front of the goyim about how gay relationships actually are, instead of the Disney-esque way that gay marriage zealots would like to portray them, it seems a reasonable assumption that the 50% figure is an underreporting. Probably most gay male relationships in the Bay Area are open. As I’ve said before, in public, in front of the goyim, in my experience probably most gay male relationships are open.'

Monogamy and the notion of slutdom is not just a hetero/homo issue but the attempt by gay men and women to emulate their straight counterparts and their all-to-often mirage of monogamy, marriage and children does raise questions about some form of crushing of the queer identity. Simpson notes that open relationships are 'definitely not an attribute of the vast majority of hetero relationships. Many may have their ‘infidelities’, but very, very few have open relationships. For most the concept is a contradiction in terms. Especially if married.'

I suspect this is in large part because of the institution of marriage. With the introduction and increasing acceptance of Civil Partnerships, quer slutdom is increasingly cast, along with its symptoms - cruising grounds, cottages, saunas and sex clubs as an anachronistic and a shameful one at that. The message I've heard numerous times is " we don't need to do that anymore". Yet, this research seems to suggest (at least in the Bay Area) that as gay men and women form relationships, they construct them in such a way that in many cases, perhaps the majority of cases, they are open. It will be interesting to see if that continues and how law responds to these relationships. Slutdom, so celebrated in queer commerce, culture and porn seems keen to stay - at least for now.

GT Sex Survey

I've renewed my subscription to GT after bit of a lapse and the new issue has just arrived. it includes the annual sex survey which always makes interesting reading. The total number of respondents isn't given but 88% identified as gay, 11% bi and 1% as other or don't know. 64% were aged 18-28%, 30% were 29-45 and the rest over 46.

Only 12% said a big penis was essential for good sex while less than a 1/4 require their body to have a fit body (there was many a cork popping at that news). 16% were always active in bed, 21% passive and 56% were versatile.

I love the relationship stats. 41% were in a relationship, 53% single and 6% weren't sure. lol. 40% have been unfaithful and 43% say they have been cheated on.

The number of sexual partners came as a real shock to me (in terms of how low). A whopping 44% have had 1-10 sexual partners while 25% had been 11 and 50. The figures get less clear with 8% virgins and 10% were beyond 151 - "the 10% club". Just 10%?! This seems v.far out or maybe I only hang around with sluts, I don't know.

The issue also includes an interview with an escort which makes for interesting reading (and gives him a plug on GT escorts) and includes an interview and info about the developing romance between Captain Jack and Ianto in Torchwood (which shifts to BBC1 in July). Girlfriend gets turned into a Cyberman and then you find yourself seeking some action with Captain Jack - who hasn't been in Ianto's position?

Relationships and Identity

The Guardian carried a touching and humorous piece by Mark Dowd yesterday. As I read it I thought "this should be a film" and the author reveals towards the end of the piece that he is planning to do just that. The story is hard to explain but is summed up in the heading to the article - 'I went to my ex-lover's funeral as his son'. It can be read here.

Defining a Relationship

The Guardian carried an interesting piece in their family supplement yesterday concerning Katherine Holden and Helen Kendall. Two women who have shared a home and life for fifteen years. Yet they are just good friends. The interviews and commentary provide an interesting discussion as to the nature of those relationships recognised by society and (by implication) law. They discuss issues from people not knowing whether to send joint cards or not, people seeking to label them as lesbian (they both indicate they are straight) through to who will be the one looking after the other in hospital. These issues were touched upon by the UK Parliament during the passing of the Civil Partnership Act but remain un-resolved in law. The article is well worth a read.