Does the California gay marriage ruling mean it’s time to reconsider ‘civil partnership’ terminology in the UK?
It could be argued few of those New Labour queers were all that progressive, especially Peter Mandelson whose accidental outing on TV was met with such discomfort on his part, he gave the impression of carrying a weight of very old-school shame. However, this government did introduce a raft of equality measures and presided over a radical shift in social attitudes which, of course, could change back under the Tories if they gain power and decide to go on the offensive as they did throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
Many gay people forget all it takes to undo the good that has been done is a few tabloid headlines produced under the watchful eye of a sympathetic and prejudiced administration. We cannot stand still and become lazy about our achievements, any more than black people or the disabled or Jews and Muslims. We should push for more severe sentencing for hate crimes, and marriage for all.
But that’s not happening, in part because the major gay campaign groups such as Stonewall are composed in part of New Labour sympathisers and people who have worked so hard, and so closely, with the government that it is probably hard for them to contemplate risking a cosy relationship by pushing for still more.
Marriage is, they might say, just a word. We get everything marriage provides—legal recognition and rights—from a civil partnership. This is true. But marriage is more than just a word. It is a ritual, a signifier, a sacred union—and denied to gay people because of those who would argue we have no right to access this spiritually resonant ceremony.
This is a multi-page entry: page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4
tags: ceremony, civil partnerships, comprehension, equality, gay marriage, inequality, love, marriage, parenting, partnerships, perception, rights, ritual, society, surrogacy
2 comments on “Does the California gay marriage ruling mean it’s time to reconsider ‘civil partnership’ terminology in the UK?”
May 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I’m all for allowing anyone who so desires to get married, but let me stand and not forever hold my peace.
I’m not a fan of marriage — the legal side of things, that is. Frankly, I don’t need a government body to validate my love and caring for someone. I realize there are a few benefits in allowing the government to sanction the union, but what a mess of the people grow apart.
My thinking is it’s all down to choice. Everyone should be allow the opportunity to choose who they want their relationship to develop and grow and those choices should be done mutually between the two lives involved.
If they choose to have a government agency “validate” their relationship, they should also be well informed of the consequences of getting out of it if things go sour or the two grow apart.
That’s it, the answer to everything is education! With this epiphany, I shall solve all the world’s problems!
May 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
@Howard: The answer to everything IS education. Which is why politicians always pretend to see it as important but always ensure that what is taught doesn’t involve anything that would rock the boat…
x
have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment. Registration is quick and easy. Just click here to get yourself a free account.