Gay Marriage: Shunned

Mail Online.

That's maybe because it's a rather sensible contract regarding inheritance, and not just some young fool marrying their current fuck buddy and divorcing a year later.

Civil Partnerships: The World's Most Boring Middle Class Couple Vow To Fight On

Zzzz....

PS Note how the right-wing fuckwits at the Express think is important.

Civil Partnerships: Happy Anniversary

It is ten years to the very day since the first civil partnerships took place.

This thrilling moment is marked by pieces in BBC News, The Guardian, and The Independent.

No-one else seemed that bothered.

And nor am I.

Though a feature on some of the most acrimonious dissolutions could have been amusing.

Civil Partnerships: Upgrade

Today you can upgrade your civil partnership to a full-blown gaymarriage.

This is the first cringey insufferably posh couple to do so at Brighton Town Hall.

Words fucking fail me.

Civil Partnerships: "Divorcing"

THE number of gay couples “divorcing” has soared as the seven-year itch hits civil partnerships. Following a boom in 2006 after the ceremonies were introduced, the past year has seen a 20 per cent rise in split-ups.

The rate of dissolutions in England and Wales rose from 663 in 2011 to 794 last year. The number of new UK civil partnerships was also up to 7,037, a 3.6 per cent rise on 2011. This compares with a peak of 9,648 in 2006.

Alison Hawes, a family lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, said: “It’s expected that these relationships will follow the general trends of heterosexual marriage and divorce.

“It is a common generalisation that there is a seven-year itch when relationships supposedly become more difficult. The statistics show that the first 10 years are the most vulnerable in a marriage, and the same seems to be true of civil partnerships.”

Mirroring heterosexual divorces, women were most likely to opt for splitting, with almost six out of 10 dissolutions involving lesbian couples, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics. Since civil partnerships were introduced, a total of 60,454 gay and lesbian couples have opted to form one...

Daily Express. 

Most of the nationals went for this angle - the rise in dissolutions.
Possible Express subtext: "Hurrah! Told you so..." 

Though surely much of this can be accounted for by the simple fact that civil partnerships have only been going seven years, and the more that there are, the more "divorces" there will be.

[Fagburn was crap at maths at school, so if any boffins out there think I've felched this up, please let me know].
[Edit: The Times noted more soberly on Thursday, the rise "is no surprise and mirrors the general trends in divorce, with couples being most vulnerable in their first ten years of marriage, family lawyers said this week"].
The Independent emphasised; Lesbian couples twice as likely as gay men to end civil partnerships...

But that did let them illustrate it with a photo of two fruity lesbians snogging...

Gay Star News managed to spin it into good news; UK gay civil partner rates hint marriage will be a hit.
Which is equally valid, I guess.
(Though, for the record, the original government estimates in 2003 for people who'd be living in civil partnerships by 2050 was 850,000, admittedly pretty daft, it was later downgraded to about 90,000, which GSN cite - so their line about the current rates "soaring far beyond original government expectations" isn't strictly true).

And well done to the taboo-busting Express for illustrating their story with the photo above of two fellas together in a bed. 

Two fellas!!! IN A BED!
Thankfully they managed to find one in the stock photo library where they're both wearing t-shirts, lest we all become driven wild by disgust and/or desire.

Their four (4) readers' comments say, in full; "Weirdos", "Stomach churning", "They probably realise that it's a bit weird and it's about time they should get a proper boyfriend/girlfriend" and, "There is no such thing as same sex marriage and to say there is, is preposterous."

So now you know.

Gay Marriage: The End Is Nigh!

On Monday and Tuesday, the Commons will be debating the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. Doubtless there will be the usual appeals to biblical texts and church teaching and complaints about the immorality of “redefining marriage”. We will be threatened with plagues of pink locusts, swarms of rainbow-coloured frogs and the end of civilisation as we know it. Exaggerated concerns will be raised about teachers in religious schools being forced to mention the existence of homosexuality.
Some will even complain that civil registrars will be required to perform same-sex marriages, even though registrars are civil servants employed expressly to register that which is legal, and we would never allow them to refuse to marry divorcees just because of any personal convictions they may have about the indissolubility of marriage.
Despite all the huffing and puffing, there will be a hefty majority in favour of the Bill, and I hope that when it comes to it, the unelected House will remember that the Commons is more representative of the country...
In the end, though, the issue is simple: everyone should be treated equally under the law and nobody should be discriminated against merely because of their sexuality.

Chris Bryant MP, writing in his column in The Independent.
Oh, how I dream of the day when we're not discussing this and the whole silly pantomime is finally over...

Full Disclosure: I've cut out a section in the middle where he argues for straight people being allowed civil partnerships.
I agree wholeheartedly, and did so merely for reasons of space, so please don't write in.

Letter Of The Week: The Independent

The Independent.

And how about a final separation of church and state in the UK, too?

EastEnders: Spoiler Alert!

Syed and Christian are getting gaymarried in tonight's episode.
And then - obviously - it all ends unhappily ever after, because they're queer. 
Marc Elliott, who plays Syed, tells the Sun about his reason for quitting the soap.
“I didn’t want to be remembered as that lad from EastEnders, the gay muslim. That’s why you get into the business, to find new characters."
The guy who plays the gay muslim in Eastenders continued;
“Playing Syed meant I’ve had loads of letters from people of all religions coming to terms with their sexuality. “That’s what I am proud of most, portraying a normal, loving gay relationship.
“That’s quite an important thing, it’s normalising it, two men being affectionate with each other.
“And when someone tells you they’ve found the strength to tell their parents, you feel proud.” And despite the BBC receiving complaints about his steamier scenes, Marc insists he’s nearly always been warmly received.
“The biggest fans of Syed and Christian’s storyline are women who love the love angle.
“The BBC and myself anticipated an adverse reaction. I had only one comment in the street in Manchester. Someone called me a n** jockey in the street, which I thought was hilarious."

Soap opera as therapy, there.
Interesting spin The Sun have given this - he had no problem with playing a gay muslim, just recognises if you stay too long in soapland you can't break free of the character you played. 

PS "N**"??!

Olympics: Is That It?

Well, if even a miserable old cynic like me enjoyed Danny Boyle's Olympics Opening Ceremony spectacular, it must have had something going for it.
One point though - which I hope doesn't sound too parochial (or like a knee-jerk gay journalist's Dave Spartism).
The ceremony was clearly trying to show what a wonderfully diverse and inclusive place modern Britain has become - particularly the second half.
And it picked as two of a handful of historic moments that made modern Britain, the Suffragettes and Windrush.
So where were we?
It seems incongruous as so much of the soundtrack (Kinks, Queen, Bowie, Frankie...)* hinted at what a queer old place this is.
I may have missed something, but all I saw was a snippet of the "Brookside lesbian kiss".
But this was so brief I doubt hardly anyone would realise what was going on if they didn't know of the fabled "Brookside lesbian kiss". **
[The kissing segment is 1.05 in here. I'd estimate the Brookside bit is two or three seconds long - out of an 80 minute show! If anyone's fast enough to actually time it, please let me know].
There was one other thing, that I'm not too sure about - again it was a blink-and-you'll-miss-it-moment.

As the Queen and James Bond flew over London there was a few fleeting seconds of the scene on the right.
It could just be some men in their best suits drinking Champagne - or is it meant to be a civil partnership?
As with the above was it deliberately brief, and vague - and thus really a quite pointless gesture.
Wouldn't this have been something to go big on, if you wanted to show the world how much this country's changed for the better?

Update: Unfeasibly right-wing Tory MP Aidan Burley calls the ceremony "leftie multicultural crap". Not a patch on Berlin 1936, eh Aidan?

* There was a distant clip of Bowie doing Starman on Top Of The Pops, which you could call a pretty seminal gay moment, but this had no context.

** Postscript: The Guardian online calls the kiss a "Little-noticed 'special statement'" - it's hardly much of a statement if hardly anyone noticed it. I think this was intentional.

Stupid Poll Watch: You And Me Both

"A FIFTH of gay Brits are planning to become civil ­partners this year and almost half would like to marry in a church.

"Nearly two-thirds of grooms-to-be want to wear an engagement ring, a poll by dating site Gaydar.co.uk found..."

The Daily Star. 
Regular viewers will know nothing - nothing - gladdens Fagburn's heart more than a press release about a stupid poll turned into news FACT!
Sure beats journalism. 
Okay, let's do the maths on this one...
The number of male civil partnerships over the last few years averages out at 3,000 a year - that's 6,000 gay men getting hitched.
Let's be generous and say we have three-quarters of 2012 left - so we might expect 4,500 gay men in the UK to get civilly partnered this year.
So if "a fifth of gay Brits are planning to become civil ­partners this year" that means there are only 20,250 gay men in the UK.
That's less than one in a thousand adult males. 
Admittedly this is somewhat lower than previous estimates about how many gay men there are, but you can't argue with science, can you?
The survey also begs the obvious question of what exactly all these soon to be happily "married" men are doing on Gaydar? 
Fagburn's mind is positively BOGGLED!

Church Of England: Still Bonkers After All These Years

"A gentlemen's outfitter is not required to supply women's clothes. A children's bookshop is not required to stock books that are intended for adults.
"And a church that provides a facility to marry is not required to provide a facility to same-sex couples for registering civil partnerships."

From a statement by the Church of England's legal office on their decision that they doesn't want to allow civil partnerships ceremonies to be held in their churches.
According to BBC Radio 4 News the practice of applying to the General Synod would be "so time-consuming it would in practice be impossible" to hold them...

Civil Partnerships: Knight-Knight

When religious civil partnership registrations are finally introduced there will still remain one right that married couples have that civil partners are denied.
The civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the wife of a peer or knight is entitled.
One presumes this holds true for monarchs too; and a queen would not be Queen.
But what would the male partner of a knight be called?
Or the "husband" of a big gay Lord?
May Fagburn most humbly suggest... Ladyboy.

Gay Marriage: The Next Step

Here's the Government Equalities Office statement/press release, so you can see what they've actually said.
In fine:

"As part of its commitment to advancing equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGB and T) people, the government will today announce that religious buildings will be allowed to host civil partnership registrations...
"Ministers have also identified a desire to move towards equal civil marriage and partnerships, and will be consulting further how legislation can develop, working with all those who have an interest in the area."

Fagburn was right, as per, but even an old cynic/sceptic like me has to say the wording is more hopeful than I feared.
I haven't the foggiest what they need to "consult" anyone about though*, if you want to introduce gay marriage then just do it.
And as before, there is far less resistance to same-sex marriage than there is (was?) to allowing religious CP registrations, so the only thing that's really standing in the government's way is the threat of causing a schism in the Conservative Party by alienating the dinosaurs of the Tory hard Right, which would threaten an already very shaky coalition.
I really hope we get marriage equality soon - mainly so I don't have to look at any more articles about gay marriage illustrated with two sodding little groom figurines on top of a wedding cake.
More later...

* In a statement, Stonewall's Ben Summerskill wonders aloud; "If there’s a genuine commitment to making progress in this area, it is painfully slow. Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone has explicitly said she would consult on proposals the government intends to implement in the lifetime of this parliament. If that is to happen by 2015, then consultation should begin now."
Stonewall criticising the government for being "painfully slow" on gay marriage? How painfully ironic!
Update: Peter Tatchell issued a statement on Friday; 'Gay marriage delay "unnecessary and disappointing" - Consultation not needed, public support marriage equality now'. I've posted it in full in the comments section.

** The Daily Mail's spin on this story today; 'Christian backlash after gay couples given right to 'get married' in churches' Snore!

Newsflash! Churches Yes! Gay Marriage No!

The Equalities Office will announce at midnight a lift on the ban on holding civil partnerships in religious buildings, and that the government have no plans to legalise gay marriages, but will look at the case for it.

Just as Fagburn has predicted in

Gay Marriage: Waiting At The Church (Monday February 14th) and

Gay Marriages: Promises Promises (Sunday, February 13th)

I think this is a WORLD EXCLUSIVE!!! by the way...

UPDATE: It was!!!

Melanie Phillips: Petty Hate Machine

Melanie Phillips has gone predictably batshit this week; 'Pinch yourself! A Tory Prime Minister is upholding the idea that traditional morality is bigotry'
Eh?
"On countless occasions, David Cameron has declared that he is a tremendous fan of the institution of marriage. So big a fan, it now becomes clear, that he generously intends to bestow its status and privileges far beyond what most people consider marriage actually to be..."
The best bit?
"If still in doubt, try this thought experiment. Imagine the Government was planning to recognise polygamy and polyandry (marriage with more than one woman or man), or marriage between ‘zoophiles’ (people who have ‘loving and committed relationships with mammals’, or bestiality to you and me) and their, er, partners.
"If you think this is merely grotesque satire, you would be sadly out of date. There are now campaigns in North America to recognise the ‘equal rights’ of such people and end ‘discrimination’ against them.
"If ‘marriage’ were extended to such groups, people would rightly conclude the institution was being turned into a meaningless joke. Yet the argument — that people with different sexual lifestyles must be treated identically — is exactly the same. (And no, before the hate mail starts, I’m not suggesting gays are on a moral par with zoophiles.)"
It's strange, I've seen some gay media going predictably batshit over this column - both were by journalists who are about as radical as a wobbly pink blancmange.
Maybe they were excited about finding someone who it's okay to get angry about?
I'm not sure anymore if it's even worth commenting on or critiquing this confused, cliche-ridden and increasingly incoherent attention-seeking petty hate machine.
But please do carry on sending her hate mail.

Update: The Guardian's Michael White writes online; 'Same-sex marriage cannot be the same as heterosexual marriage'
It's a very strange piece - I can't quite figure out what his argument is.
Only straight people should be allowed to marry because marriage is about reproduction?
Eh?
But then I've never been able to figure out if Michael White is gay or not - on TV he comes across as a rather dapper old queen.
The two things may be connected - and the problem may stem from Mr White being rather mealy-mouthed here.

Thought For The Day: Richard Littlejohn

"As an early and consistent champion of civil partnerships, I can’t get too excited about the announcement that gay and lesbian couples will soon be able to get hitched in church.
"I would, however, have thought that it was a matter for the church, not the Government.
"Meanwhile, in a reaction to the story about the boarding house which turned away a gay couple, a hotelier in Hampshire has put up a sign reading: ‘Poofters welcome here!’
"This was sufficient to stir parish councillors into a fit of righteous indignation, claiming that the sign was offensive.
"To whom, I wonder? [Poofters - Fagburn]
"When I lived in trendy Crouch End, North London (before my name came up on the escape committee), there was a gay bar opposite my local which used to advertise ‘Bona Bevvies’ — in deference to Julian and Sandy from Round The Horne.
"It always raised a smile. No one took offence.
"But Mike Sacqui, of the Penny Farthing, in Lyndhurst, also received a visit from the police over his harmless notice.
"Sometimes words fail even me. There’s no limit, is there?
"Now that civil partnerships are being sanctioned in places of worship, how long before some church puts up a poster advertising: ‘Poofters welcome here!’"

Richard Littlejohn, in The Daily Mail.
You couldn't make it up etc etc.
If only words would fail you, Richard...

• The Lyndhurst hotelier claimed his "Poofters welcome here!" sign was an ironic, Little Britain-inspired, pro-gay comment on the Christian hoteliers who were fined for refusing a double room to a gay couple.
And, yes, that's the actual illustration to Richard Littlejohn's column in today's Mail.

Gay Marriage: Waiting At The Church

At the risk of Fagburn repeating himself...
So far, this is all the Home Office are on record as saying about the possibility of gay marriage being introduced in the UK;
"The Government is currently considering what the next stage should be for civil partnerships, including how some religious organisations can allow same-sex couples to register their relationship in a religious setting if they wish to do so.
"Ministers have met a range of people and organisations to hear their views on this issue. An announcement will be made in due course."
That announcement is expected this week or next.
However, like yesterday's Sunday Times - who may know something we don't - some have already decided to break out the champagne.
And all on the back of one single quote in The Sunday Times from an anonymous Whitehall source.
Here's that quote again in full;
“This is not just about gay rights but about religious freedom. Quakers and liberal Judaism want to do this. Attitudes have changed to gay marriage. We are going to look at what legislative steps we could begin to make gay marriage possible.”
Fagburn wonders if this quote just shows a more general semantic confusion over this issue; using "marriage" in an informal sense when you technically mean "civil partnerships" - as did many papers yesterday and today.
Was the Whitehall source talking about making registering civil partnerships in churches possible?
It's quite possible - that is what the first two sentences in the quote clearly refer to, sometimes in inverted commas, sometimes not.
Whatever, a leader in today's Independent was already celebrating; A welcome blow against discrimination
"Less than 50 years ago, homosexuality was illegal in Britain. The last half-century has seen a revolution in social attitudes since a pioneering Labour home secretary, Roy Jenkins, pushed through the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the Sexual Offences Act in 1967. This week, the Coalition's equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, is expected to knock away another pillar in the ancient and unlovely edifice of institutionalised prejudice by announcing legal changes enabling gay men and lesbians to marry."
But have they though?
The Independent notes;
"Much attention around the expected change to the law will concentrate on whether the churches will now have to allow gay marriages to take place in their places of worship. Certainly, it will be interesting to see how the Church of England, which remains bitterly divided over the ordination of gay priests, responds."
This is interesting - and it could prove instructive.
That allowing civil partnerships or gay marriages in places of worship is the controversial issue now - not that of allowing gay marriages.
On BBC TV's The One Show yesterday, Andrew Marr asked Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop Of York, for his thoughts.
"...I, who believes in a liberal democracy and actually want equality with everybody, cannot say the Quakers shouldn't do it. Nor do I want somebody to tell me but the Church of England must do it, but the Roman Catholic Church must do it because actually that's not what equality is about. You mustn't have rights that trump other rights." [Transcript]
Like other papers today, The Daily Telegraph picked up on this; Sentamu: Don't force churches to conduct gay weddings "Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York and the second most powerful cleric in the Church of England, has warned against forcing vicars to conduct same-sex civil partnerships as the Coalition prepares to grant full marriage rights to homosexual couples."
We're still none the wiser what this really means - allowing partnership ceremonies to be conducted in religious buildings is the last real "right" straight couples have that's denied to same-sex couples.
It would make civil partnership equivalent to marriage, but allowing gay couples to marry is another thing entirely.
The Daily Telegraph later clarifies;
"As The Daily Telegraph reported in December, the Coalition is also considering extending homosexual rights to allow full “marriage” for same-sex couples." [Emphasis added]
Let's step back in time and look at that then.
Coalition ministers consider gay marriage plans Daily Telegraph, December 24th 2010.
"Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister, is expected to announce that same-sex civil partnership ceremonies will be allowed in churches and other religious settings for the first time.
"The move, likely to come early next year, could be a prelude to overhauling the law on marriage itself, which currently applies only to the union of a man and a woman."
And if you still need clarrification, later in the same article this is spelt out again;
"A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said the coalition had no “plans” to change marriage law but a Government source said potential reforms were “being discussed”."
I hate to say this, but that's what Fagburn was arguing yesterday.
There's no evidence of "plans" for gay marriage, only that it will be discussed - and the Tories have been saying as much for months.
I'd be more than happy if they proved me wrong on this one, though.

Gay Marriage: Promises Promises

The Sunday Times have quite a scoop splashed on its front page - that's if it's true;
'Gays will get right to marry - Church of England to come under pressure as new marriage law reforms give homosexual couples the same right to marry as heterosexuals'
"Gay men and lesbians are to be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples under marriage law reforms expected to be announced this week.
"The historic change will end the legal definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. A gay man would be entitled to call his spouse his husband, while married lesbians would be able to describe themselves as wives."
But they only back this up with a quote from an anonymous "Whitehall source" - who's actually a bit more vague.
"This is not just about gay rights but about religious freedom. Quakers and liberal Judaism want to do this. Attitudes have changed to gay marriage. We are going to look at what legislative steps we could begin to make gay marriage possible.”
So the government are just "going to look at" it?
Big deal - and various key Tories and Lib Dems have already said they're prepared to "think about it".
A pledge the Conservatives also made in their Equalities Manifesto launched during the election campaign; "We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage."
Other papers, like The Observer today, are only saying that civil partnership ceremonies are likely to be allowed to be conducted in churches.
"The Coalition government is considering a change in the law to allow gay people to have marriage-style ceremonies in places of worship.
"Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is expected to announce later this week that a ban on civil partnerships being conducted in religious venues is to be lifted."
The Observer adds; "It was not clear to what extent the change in law would allow civil partnership ceremonies to be brought into line with traditional weddings between heterosexual partners, or whether the term "marriage" would be officially used."
The Sunday Telegraph are also writing of (warning about?); 'Same-Sex Church Weddings', which they've put as the lead story on today's frot page, and have bizarrely called it an "exclusive".*
As the exact same headline 'Churches 'could host civil unions' appears in countless local papers websites, Fagburn assumes this is the official line/press release from The Equalities Office (It's not on their website, though).
The Independent On Sunday take a different angle; 'Resistance Mounts To Gay Couples Being Allowed To Marry In Church'.
But the IOS actually mean, not gay marriage but; "allowing same-sex couples to have their civil partnership ceremonies in religious buildings".
Interesting to note how common it is becoming to call civil partnerships "marriage", something that Fagburn believes is bringing gay marriage ever closer.
Hmm...
The government's Equalities Office is expected to make their announcement in a week or so.

* Note The Telegraph uses the word "Same-sex" not "gay" in its headline. Because of the economy of page layouts headlines normally use as short words as possible, and often invent abbreviations.
The Telegraph is the only UK newspaper that in its style guide advises journalists to use the word "homosexual".
The Daily Telegraph Style Books states; "gay: permissible in headlines if essential but use homosexual in text."
So Fagburn presumes in this instance they decided they didn't want the dreaded g-word screaming out on the front page...

Gilbert & George: Two Gentlemen Sharing

'About their own relationship they are — publicly at least — unsentimental. I ask if monogamy was essential to them. “That depends whether it is the weekend,” George says. Gilbert giggles. They had a civil partnership recently, which they celebrated with an Indian meal accompanied by their assistant and the bloke who is renovating their house. They say that it was primarily to protect their estate and the museum that they are planning — at their Spitalfields complex — after their deaths.
Gilbert: “Because if one of us died out of the blue, we’re finished. Everything would go to either my family or George’s.”
Me: Did it not mean anything to you as a couple?
Gilbert: “Solid. More solid.”
George: “But we didn’t want to do a straight imitation thing.”
Gilbert: “It felt resolute.”
I ask if they argue and George throws back his head and exclaims. “Ah, the great heterosexual question!” Not even artistic differences? “We have learnt how to deal with them. We have a system that works,” Gilbert says.'

The Times Review interviews Gilbert & George
As ever with features on G&G the subtext is that the fact that they are two elderly men living together and/or in a relationship is the real proof of what utter weirdos they are...

Gilbert & George: Urethra Postcard Pictures White Cube London SW1, from January 14th

Equal Love: With This Spreadsheet I Thee Wed

The Guardian online has produced a fun little spreadsheet of the data on civil partnerships in the UK since they were introduced in 2005.
After an initial splurge it's now fallen to 6-7,000, but at present is dropping by about 1,000 a year - at this rate maybe there will be none in 2016.
One thing that stands out is the numbers for male and female "formations" are roughly the same, but women are about twice as likely to dissolve their CPs as men are.
The website for the Equal Love campaign - OutRage's legal bid to overturn the twin bans on same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships. Equality for all, gay and straight - is here.
The Independent today has a great article by Joan Smith; 'Even the ancient Romans had different forms of marriage'
"...I'm sure Tony Blair meant well when he introduced civil partnerships, but it has become clear that he landed us with is a typical New Labour fudge. Now he has taken himself off to the Catholic Church, we are sorely in need of bolder, braver and more modern politicians to clear up the mess."
Quite.

The illustration is from the Australian group also called Equal Love, who are campaigning for same-sex marriage. It's hard to illustrate a story about gay marriage without having another sodding stock photo of two mini groom figurines atop of a wedding cake.