The new gay conservatism | Suzanne Moore | Comment is free | The Guardian

By

The only way is marriage?

A romantic partner for life and a white wedding with all the trimmings … as long as you conform, even the Tories are prepared to embrace homosexuality. But gay marriage, as proposed by David Cameron, is utterly conservative

Henry Edmont Cane, left, and partner Christopher Patrick Flanaghan
Happy ever after Henry Edmont Cane, left, and Christopher Patrick Flanaghan outside City Hall, Belfast, in 2005. They became the first male couple in Britain to have a civil partnership. Photograph: Peter Morrison/AP

Some of my best friends are married. Some of them are gay. Some of them are gay and in "civil partnerships". And I don't even mind! Aren't I bloody marvellous? And so very modern! Yes, I am just so wonderfully tolerant. Approving of gay marriage or being "gay-friendly" is, after all, the key signifier of modernity. "Can we get a Gok?" asks my 10-year-old. "No darling," I have to say. "There is more to gay people than fashion. And Spanx."

I know this as I was in Manchester a couple of weeks ago at the Tory party conference. Cameron was doing his gay shtick, which is considered rather daring. "So," he said. "I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative." He is right, and this is exactly why I don't "support" gay marriage. Yes, of course there were the naysayers who can't even abide the word gay, but on the whole, the Tories are pretty gay. Maybe it's not them, it's me, but this is my experience of them. Every year at their conference I find myself either talking to openly gay Tories or talking about who is in the closet. Certainly, the political closet must be like the Tardis, otherwise how could they all possibly fit in?

As we cannot assume real correlation between the left and gay politics any more, we ought to perhaps ask what a progressive line is. Yes, much has improved for gay people. But is it enough? Hardly.

The whole Liam Fox affair has been most peculiar in that the implication that he is gay was everywhere and yet he has referred to this in the past as "smear territory". In 2005 he talked of these smears: "They'd say, 'Why are you not married? You must be a playboy or a wild man or gay'." I have no idea what he means by "wild man" but anyway, he got married/tamed. The same kinds of innuendo have been made about William Hague. All of it gets somewhat tedious. But it very much looks like Fox's downfall may be over a friendship that reveals nothing at all about his sexuality and way too much about his spectacular lack of judgment. We don't know all the details, nor do we need to. We know enough, surely, to be happy that he is no longer in charge of weapons of mass destruction. His "impression of wrongdoing" certainly blurred public and private boundaries.

Indeed, the Tories' newfound "liberalism" depends on an absolute split between public and private. A set of attitudes are in play that are totally sexually prescriptive. The right does its best always to depoltiticise sexual politics. You can be gay as long as you are domesticated and committed to the idea of "normality". One cannot be curious about sexuality or even a dabbler. There isn't a lot of flexibility. But in real life people explore. Michael Portillo had gay affairs. Does that mean he could not be happily married? Do we think any less of  Christopher Hitchens, who has revealed dalliances with two men who would become Tory ministers in Thatcher's cabinet?

Now it seems homosexuality is as fixed as heterosexuality. It's not about what you do, but who you are. No longer a spectrum, instead people have to choose sides. A gay identity, amplified by consumer choice, has become something of a straitjacket. A narrative has been set in stone. The conventional discourse is that a young person may be unsure and experiment for a period. They then must face up to who they "really" are, as though sexual preference determines everything else, and then have the courage "to come out". Liberal society will tolerate them as long as they stay in the box they have ticked, and if they behave themselves, they can then have what straight people desire. A romantic partner for life. Who knows? Maybe even a white wedding. Zip-a-dee-doo–dah. I don't want anyone not to enjoy themselves, but isn't it all depressingly straight-edged?

Gone are the days of transgression or even deviation from the norm. Marriage is an institution set up to protect property and patriarchal rights that we choose to overlay with our need for sex, romance, passion and companionship. Extending this right to gay people may seem generous, and may still be seen by the haters as destroying the sanctity of marriage, but something else is going on. This is not about conservatives accepting homosexuality, but about making homosexuality conservative.

If two people want to publicly affirm their love and have a celebration, why is a civil partnership ceremony not good enough? What exactly is missing here? Surely one can only regard such partnerships as "marriage-lite" if one believes in marriage–heavy, which many of us don't, looking at the divorce rate. If one is religious I guess it makes more sense, but again we know it's the acceptance of homosexuality that within the church divides the modernisers from the traditionalists.

Context is important, and that is shifting. The struggle to end discrimination and to give gay people the same rights as everyone else has been long. Equality before the law is part but not all of it. The politics of sexual liberation, be they gay or straight, challenge both law and culture. An equality predicated on sameness not difference is doomed. Women cannot achieve equality by acting as if we are the same as men. We have seen what that produces: total exhaustion. The same applies to gay politics that loses any radicalism if it has to spend all its time reassuring the heterosexual world we are all exactly the same. Out goes the fight just when confrontation is needed.

The law is never a guarantor of equality. A culture of homophobia cannot be legislated against. As the Tory party is ramming marriage down all our throats at the moment, its own rightwing is openly hostile. Tory councillor James Malliff, a cabinet member of Tory-controlled Wycombe district council, Buckinghamshire, tweeted after Cameron's speech: "We may as well legalise marriage with animals, crude I concede, no apology." This is not very big society of him, is it, even though that is his brief? But then we have seen some particularly nasty homophobic attacks in public recently. Homosexuality is still punishable by death in seven countries. There are battles to be fought, so patting gays on the head and giving them big, fat gay weddings is somewhat insular. Equality surely means more than a lifetime of monotonous monogamy.

Such conservatism is hardly new. I remember in the mid-90s debating with Andrew Sullivan, who had written Virtually Normal. Even then I could not understand why gay men in particular focused on being accepted into the most oppressive of institutions – the holy trinity of the military, marriage and men in frocks, the church. But then the title of that book tells you a lot. Gays are just like us. Nearly normal. Normal being so totally ideal. Sullivan reassured his readers that all the changes he wanted could happen without any change in behaviour or "sacrifice" from heterosexuals. This is not true and the point at which this all breaks down is over the issue of gay adoption, which many "normal" people will not countenance. Do not mistake begrudging acceptance for liberation.

When arch-Conservatives started leading this charge in the 90s, something else was also going on: queer theory. For all its madness – and it was often fairly insane and prone to disappearing up its own barely metaphorical backside – it was preaching a new kind of politics. This, lest we forget, was born out of anger and loss. It was a response to many deaths from Aids-related illnesses. In the age of antiretrovirals it is necessary to remember what a politics of transformation might resemble. The HIV epidemic was not about how you identified yourself sexually but what you did. Queer politics challenged heterosexuality by saying there is no such thing. All of us are in flux, just performing different roles. Sexuality is messy, fluid. Difference, even freakery, was to be celebrated. The residues of queer theory still resonate in popular culture. Look at Lady Gaga and her embrace of drag. Look at the tattered remnants of the alliances between feminists and gays.

What remains valuable is the understanding that homophobia and misogyny do not exist in a vacuum but are propped up by fearful mythology. The precise mythology that says love and parenting can exist only within certain kinds of families and those families can only be created via marriage.

The limitations of queer theory, not least its denial of basic biology – women give birth, men don't – meant that much of its radicalism became purely academic. But what remains valuable was its assertion that one could argue for a set of rights that bypassed cultural assimilation.

Now, in the time of this self-proclaimed "liberalism", we should ask who benefits in this arranged marriage. Yes, gay people can go far if they tolerate a system premised on denying their existence. Even to the altar. Note: I haven't even used the word lesbian. Why would I? No one mentions it. Women don't figure in this discussion much. Because the righteous new Victorians of traditional politics simply offer crumbs from their table to the deserving, not undeserving, homosexuals. State-endorsed coupling for all is as conservative as they come! The dulling of a gay dream.

Again I do not resent anyone's "big day", but any progressive would not waste time arguing the case for gay marriage. Quite the opposite. Instead, the right to civil partnerships should be extended to everyone, whichever bits of our bodies we chose to stick in other people's bodies.

'Civil partnerships are an advance, but they're not equality,' says Peter Tatchell

How would you feel if the government banned black people from getting married and made them register their relationships through a separate system called civil partnerships? Most of us would condemn it as racist to have different laws for black and white people.

Well, black couples are not banned from marriage but lesbian and gay couples are. We are fobbed off with civil partnerships.

Personally, I don't like marriage. I share the feminist critique of its history of sexism and patriarchy. I would not want to get married. But as a democrat and human rights defender, I support the right of others to marry. This is a simple issue of equality. The ban on same-sex marriage is discrimination and discrimination is wrong, full stop.

I am not a big fan of civil partnerships, either. They are marriage-lite – wedlock by another name. That's why I've proposed a new, more flexible legal framework of relationship recognition, a civil commitment pact . It would allow partners to pick and mix from a menu of rights and responsibilities, to create a partnership agreement tailor-made to their particular needs.

Whether we like it or not, marriage is the gold standard. Most young people grow up dreaming of falling in love and getting married. It is the internationally recognised system of love and commitment. Everyone in the world knows what marriage is. Few people outside of Britain have heard of civil partnerships, let alone understand them or want them. They are not recognised in other countries.

Don't get me wrong, civil partnerships are an important advance. But they are not equality. Separate laws are not equal laws. Civil partnerships are a legal form of sexual apartheid. They create a two-tier system of partnership recognition: one law for heterosexuals (civil marriage) and another for same-sex couples (civil partnership).

This perpetuates and extends discrimination. Just as a gay couple cannot have a civil marriage, a straight couple cannot have a civil partnership. Two wrongs don't make a right.

In a democracy, we are all supposed to be equal before the law. Oddly, David Cameron now plans to allow gay marriage but he wants to maintain the ban on straight civil partnerships. Why? Straight rights now!

Peter Tatchell is co-ordinator of the Equal Love campaign: www.equallove.org.uk 

Comments in chronological order (Total 188 comments)

  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • Contributor
    AllyF

    15 October 2011 12:52AM

    That's weird having Peter Tatchell stuck on the end there.

    As it happens, I pretty much agree with both of you! Not a fan of marriage, but the law (and terminology) should be there for everyone if it's there for anyone.

  • SimonNorwich

    15 October 2011 10:45AM

    If two people want to publicly affirm their love and have a celebration, why is a civil partnership ceremony not good enough?

    Are you directing that question at people of all sexualities, or is it just directed at homosexuals?

    I find the idea of anyone wanting to publicly celebrate their love and have it officially rubber-stamped by any kind of authority as both nauseating and weird, and I object to the pressure society puts on people to follow that path. However, I think whatever institutions may exist, we can only have a fair and equal society if they are open to everyone. The problem that needs to be tackled is ensuring that nobody is pressurised into having to conform by following one particular path.

  • Samsaung23

    15 October 2011 11:13AM

    Christopher Hitchens on same-sex marriage: "this is about the socialisation of homosexuality, not the homosexualisation of society."

    Gay marriage is a conservative thing, and I think it's good for society to encourage people to make bonds and come together.

  • Contributor
    teaandchocolate

    15 October 2011 11:13AM

    It's all about boxes Suzanne. Conservatives like boxes. They like neatness. Symmentry. Boxes that people can be placed into.
    Regulation haircuts. The church. Uniforms. Marriage. Dresses for ladies. Suits for men. You can be gay as long as you wear a suit and get married. Have pink hair and just be single and have partners... whoa... steady on.... get in a box.

    The fact that the UK is more creative and progressive during times of freedom of expression is neither here nor there to a conservative. Wackiness screams socialism!

    For conservatives, children should be seen and not heard, women should be tidy and married, men should be great thumping jolly suit wearing regimental haircut types, who enjoy trips to Dubai and have chums, but as long as they are married, that's ok.

  • QuietRiotGrrl

    15 October 2011 11:20AM

    I don't understand the point about lesbians. 'Gay marriage' includes lesbians.

    The people who are actually erased from this use of 'gay' marriage are bisexual people. Because actually a bisexual man for example could 'marry' another bisexual man. But would it then be a 'gay marriage'?

    As Mark Simpson does, I prefer 'same sex' or 'cross sex' marriage. This reduces the emphasis on sexual identity and focuses on how marriage is changing to include men and men marrying, and women and women, regardless of their orientation.

  • downbythewater11

    15 October 2011 11:27AM

    Now it seems homosexuality is as fixed as heterosexuality. It's not about what you do, but who you are. No longer a spectrum, instead people have to choose sides. A gay identity, amplified by consumer choice, has become something of a straitjacket. A narrative has been set in stone. The conventional discourse is that a young person may be unsure and experiment for a period. They then must face up to who they "really" are, as though sexual preference determines everything else, and then have the courage "to come out". Liberal society will tolerate them as long as they stay in the box they have ticked, and if they behave themselves, they can then have what straight people desire. A romantic partner for life. Who knows? Maybe even a white wedding. Zip-a-dee-doo-dah. I don't want anyone not to enjoy themselves, but isn't it all depressingly straight-edged?

    Stop making things up. Yes, the majority of people will either identify as gay or straight, but that's not "choosing sides", it's just how they feel. Who are you to assume otherwise and say that they're restricting themselves to fit into some kind of accepted narrative? And if you really hold these societal 'norms' in such disregard, why are you talking about them like you should care about them? As if we're all waiting upon a judgement from "liberal society" as to whether they'll "tolerate" us. "Liberal society" as some kind of cohesive group of people doesn't really exist. There's no liberal court judging on whether people have "behaved themselves" enough to be allowed the right to be with, enter into a civil partnership with or (at least in future) marry whoever they want. Perhaps on an individual level some people have their reservations. But so what? That's only on an individual level, after all. If you're looking to The People In Charge to tell you how you're allowed to feel about sexuality, then frankly you're doing it wrong.

    To be honest you sound like you have a chip on your shoulder, and one that, being straight, isn't really yours to have.

  • nickmavros

    15 October 2011 11:42AM

    "I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative."

    More bullsh*t playing with words by Dave. He must be taking lessons from Bill Clinton. How about this one Dave, Gay people can't get married unless the Tories legislate for it, but the Tories can't legislate for it unless the gay people are already married.

  • FirmbutFair

    15 October 2011 12:14PM

    O come on Suzanne.

    I’ve always detested the Tory Party and what it stands for but on this issue I welcome David Cameron as a late convert.

    Everyone, not just conservatives has an interest in a stable ordered society – if you want an exciting fermenting society try Weimar Germany or Russia in the early days of the revolution, or perhaps sub Saharan Africa today.

    A society in which most people are married or in marriage like relationships is much more likely to be stable and harmonious – and that included the gay and lesbian minority
    Marriage has its faults sure but it has two great strengths:

    (1) An almost protean ability to adapt over time to meet changing needs.
    (2) Even today the 50% divorce rate that critics scoff at is leagues better than the proportion of unmarried relationships that last till death us do part.

    Of course some relationships will always fail for all sorts of reasons, but it is nearly always a cause of great grief for at least two people – and most people I know, gay and straight would like a life partner – an other half if they don’t already have one.

    I’ve been luck enough to be in a wonderful relationship for more than 20 years – the vast bulk of my adult life. For me this is a marriage in everything that entails except the title and I believe I am a better, kinder and more balanced person because of it.
    If that’s too boring for you then tough. I am weird and rebellious enough in all sorts of other ways. I’m not go to live in some kind of sexual side show just to contribute to the gaiety of the nation.

    In fact the day gay rights will have won will be the day when we have to do or talk about something else even to be remotely interesting.

  • peeps99

    15 October 2011 12:22PM

    Couple of good pieces there, PT more closely reflects my own thinking however.

    SM:

    Even then I could not understand why gay men in particular focused on being accepted into the most oppressive of institutions – the holy trinity of the military, marriage and men in frocks, the church.

    Principle. Simple as that, for this poster anyway. I may or may not wish to join the military; I may or may not wish to get married; I may or may not wish to become a priest. There you see I have the choice, it's my decision. The choice shouldn't be made for me by others, based on the sole criteria of my sexuality.

  • RichJames

    15 October 2011 12:34PM

    Disagree, I'm afraid:

    "I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative."

    I think that's a pretty major step forward for Conservatism. How many Conservatives over the years have done everything they could to undermine the place of homosexuals in society? What was their major claim? That it undermined family life, which they contended was the cornerstone of society. It's vital that conservatism leaves its persecutory tendencies behind.

    I agree that Conservative views on relationships or property etc. are still problematic; and maybe Cameron's words are meant to mollify rather than actually effect change. But he's a Tory prime minister advocating gay marriage - I think that's of major significance, personally. And it may yet contribute to the sea-change required to end the remaining vestiges of homophobic culture.

  • Mangadan

    15 October 2011 12:37PM

    To paraphrase Foucault, yes, why not, but why do you want it? Moore has more or less hit it on the head. It's sad that so few people of all sexualities have used the death of moralism in this sphere to permit experimentation with novel forms of interpersonal relationship.

    The way forward on the "gay marriage" issue is simple. As Moore suggests, extend Tatchell's reformed and more flexible civil partnership system to heterosexuals, but then - and this is the crucial step - abolish "marriage" as a legal concept. If you want to be "married" before God, Gods or your maiden aunt, then feel free to go through whatever ceremony you think is appropriate. Private religious groups can retain the sanctity of whatever their own definition of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's edicts happens to be, and legal equality is secured at a stroke.

  • davidabsalom

    15 October 2011 12:39PM

    So sorry to be a disappointment to you, Suzanne. Maybe I should live in a squat and be more flamboyant in order to live up to your image of how radical queers behave.

  • Fiction

    15 October 2011 12:39PM

    @peeps

    I may or may not wish to join the military; I may or may not wish to get married; I may or may not wish to become a priest. There you see I have the choice, it's my decision. The choice shouldn't be made for me by others, based on the sole criteria of my sexuality.

    Spot on. Other people should not get to control my choices in life any more than I get to control theirs.

  • peeps99

    15 October 2011 12:43PM

    Tory councillor James Malliff, a cabinet member of Tory-controlled Wycombe district council, Buckinghamshire, tweeted after Cameron's speech: "We may as well legalise marriage with animals, crude I concede, no apology."

    Ah yes that old chestnut. The same reference is made by at least one poster, sometimes more, in just about every gay-related (marriage) article on CIF. Immensely irritating, but no great surprise.

    Anyway, Cllr Malliff may wish to marry an animal, but he'll just have to campaign separately for that legislation separately. No apology.

  • DouglasLXXXVI

    15 October 2011 1:04PM

    Suzanne

    The thing is, while I'm sure there are still echoes in some people's minds, I'm pretty sure that marriage isn't still seen as 'an institution to protect property rights' by most. For me, it's now just the culturally standard term for people who've made a lifelong commitment to each other. I'm not saying anyone's worse for not wanting to see marriage like that (or, for that matter, for seeing all relationships as long-term and not wanting to buy into 'till death us do part') - but most people do.

    I'm afraid I'm mostly a boring conformist sort of gay man (even if I am a bleeding-heart lefty). I'm actually quite happy with the notion of settling down with someone for the rest of my life. Admittedly I don't want to have children, but I'm in a distinct minority among my gay friends. I have no desire to live my life as some sort of constant walking challenge to 'heteronormative standards': other people have every right to, but I don't want to myself.

    And actually, I really, truly don't see my basic desires on this front as any different from straight people. Sure, there's such a thing as gay culture(s) (though gay people can and do opt in/out); sure, certain dynamics can change in same-sex relationships. But the basic idea - well, the basic idea for the vast majority of gay people I know - really is much the same. And really, what's wrong with saying so?

  • flickeringspark

    15 October 2011 1:10PM

    No two civil-partnerships are the same, no two marriages are either, no two gays and no two people.
    We should hardly be surprised if this party or that scramble for a tidy line, a new concept to grab the headlines, soundbites and PR. Relationships will work or not depending on the people involved and the circumstances of their lives. Everything beyond that is just lines drawn in sand.

  • jekylnhyde

    15 October 2011 1:15PM

    I was brought up to believe that one's sexuality is a private thing. I don't like anyone's sexual lives shoved in my face- gay or otherwise.

  • downbythewater11

    15 October 2011 1:23PM

    I'll say one more thing: Suzanne, it's 2011. There's little need for 'us and them' any more. There isn't an 'us' and there isn't a 'them' (at least in the way you seem to think there is), and we're all the better for it.

  • sceptic3

    15 October 2011 1:31PM

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

  • diddoit

    15 October 2011 1:34PM

    Yes, there is this preachy authoritarian, "Alles in ordnung" permission thing about Cameron's views. "We'll accept you can be gay -but on our terms. Anyone who is bi -sexual is probably persona non grata as far as the tory party is concerned.

    Far from proving that the Tory party has dropped the weird preachy interference in personal /sexual morality, which until very recently it was famous for. It shows they've simply accepted that they've lost the fight to stigmatise homosexuality and therefore have simply moved on, albeit begrudgingly with the times. But only to a new position of imposition.

    Why they think people want politicians to speak on these 'personal morality' matters at all is beyond me. Politicians should simply be freedom guarantors and enablers, beyond that , get the hell out of the way. .

  • MattVauxhall

    15 October 2011 1:40PM

    Good article.....Yes youre right about the nature of marriage and conservatism....of course alot of gays were always quite conservative...recall andrew sullivan´s ludicrous "virtually normal"...
    I agree almost entirely with your take on marriage...but hey if some gays want to do it...thats fine.
    I suspect this whole process is in evolution, from the "PC" backlash on, this process of gay rights will be choppy
    The real issue for a larger society is how we equate sexual freedom with child raising.....thats where the issue isharder...kids need stability...how do we give it to them.

  • humanistopinion

    15 October 2011 1:43PM

    It seems entirely unreasonable to criticize David Cameron for being fair and for promoting equality. I am sure that if he would be against gay marriage, a similarly negative piece would have been written about him.

    I believe that societies around the world will ultimately accept that same-sex couples deserve exactly the same rights and opportunities as hetero couples. It is not about whether you think that marriage is generally bad or not, something that the author brings up. Few people will argue that we should get rid of marriage altogether. Marriage is a useful contract that gives many benefits; it is certainly discriminating that the title for this contract differs for homo or heterosexuals!

    It is often argued that religious organizations will be forced to marry same-sex couples in their institutions, but that is non sense. Currently, only the CoE can legally marry people, and one solution would be that in the future all couples must marry in the town hall, just like in most countries in the world (where religious people marry twice, once legally and once ceremonially).

    The UK is behind other developed nations in this matter. The current PM wants to change this. I think it is somewhat surprising, but highly laudable that even a conservative party leader stands up for this type of equality!

  • Mangadan

    15 October 2011 1:43PM

    @sceptic3:

    Personally I would reserve marriage for hetro couples. Generally speaking the female cannot earn as good a living and thereby financial security because of child bearing and associated responsibilities for suitable home and nurturing environment for the offspring.

    Nice scheme. How does it work out for people who don't live in the 1950's?

    @Bengalim:

    Whose definition? Yours? God's? Wikipedia's?

  • SirOrfeo

    15 October 2011 1:57PM

    I'm wary of wading into this discussion once again, but here goes.

    Peter Tatchell:

    I am not a big fan of civil partnerships, either. They are marriage-lite – wedlock by another name. That's why I've proposed a new, more flexible legal framework of relationship recognition, a civil commitment pact. It would allow partners to pick and mix from a menu of rights and responsibilities, to create a partnership agreement tailor-made to their particular needs.

    Okay. We got civil partnerships, which was fantastic. Dave wants to give us gay marriages, which means it will happen - but in my view they're exactly the same thing. And now Peter, still dissatisfied, wants 'civil commitment pacts' as well, just to confuse matters even further?

    I just don't understand why we have to keep raking over all this? On this front, the battle was well and truly won in 2004; and we are fiddling while Rome burns.

  • QuietRiotGrrl

    15 October 2011 2:09PM

    Suzanne Moore said:

    The limitations of queer theory, not least its denial of basic biology – women give birth, men don't – meant that much of its radicalism became purely academic. But what remains valuable was its assertion that one could argue for a set of rights that bypassed cultural assimilation.

    This is actually not true at all. Queer theorists such as Leo Bersani, Mark Simpson and Eve Kokofsky Sedgewick have dealt with the 'biological' differences between men and women. And if you include Butler and Paglia they have too.

    And Foucault's work has enabled others to look at institutional issues around the 'body' in a way no other theorist has. So he didn't go on about women? But women can use his work and apply it to theories of the body.

  • BABELrevisited

    15 October 2011 2:12PM

    Other people's sexuality is their affair and of no particular interest to me beyond the fact that spades need to be called spades, if at all necessary. Approval or disapproval needn't come in to it as long as one doesn't expect especial attention because of one's particular leaning.

  • FirmbutFair

    15 October 2011 2:12PM

    Essentially this should be almost a no-brainer irrespective of your view of marriage.

    If, like me you see marriage as, on the whole, 'A Good Thing' for society, then almost all the arguments for mixed sex marriage also apply to same sex marriage, especially given that (i) increasing numbers of gay couples are adopting or parenting children (and I probably would too if I were a bit younger and lived in a country where I felt I belonged) and (2) we not only tolerate but celebrate marriage between elderly or infertile couples. It's a further vote of confidence in the institution itself.

    And of course even if you don't favour marriage then - as Peter Tatchell conceded that's no more grounds for barring same sex marriage than it would be for a confirmed pacifist to support the ban against gays in the military.

  • nansikom

    15 October 2011 2:15PM

    >>As we cannot assume real correlation between the left and gay politics any more, we ought to perhaps ask what a progressive line is.<<

    Is there such a thing as a 'progressive line'? Who are the members of this group that determine it and can you join it? Do they debate and vote, like political parties? Or do you mean 'what Guardian journalists say is progressive', which is what I suspect it boils down to!

    >>Gone are the days of transgression or even deviation from the norm.<<

    I don't think that you're correct here but, if you are, then I'll be really glad! The sexual revolution was always a self-indulgent project for middle-class university educated lefties. The rise in marital breakdown, unfaithfulness and sexual experimentation produced in its wake has been immensely damaging. Hurting people hurt others. Divorce hurts children. Divorce for a well-educated Guardian-reading member of the middle class is tragic. Divorce for working people just above poverty is a disaster!

    >>Marriage is an institution set up to protect property and patriarchal rights that we choose to overlay with our need for sex, romance, passion and companionship.<<

    Oh please! I can't believe that even you believe what you've written. In C21 there is no compulsion on anyone to get married - people get married because they want to. And it is still the gold standard. Children of a faithfull and happy married couple always do best academically in comparison to other control groups across all classes.

    >>The residues of queer theory still resonate in popular culture. Look at Lady Gaga and her embrace of drag.<<

    If that's you're best example of how 'queer theory' has changed popular culture then it is clearly a theory in deep trouble!

    >>any progressive would not waste time arguing the case for gay marriage<<

    The only thing you say with which I agree. Gay people already have civil unions which give all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. But gay unions are not, by defintion, marriage as thay are unions without physical complementarity.

    This probably doesn't matter to may people on CiF but 'gay marriage' would also require a separate act of parliament to change the definition of marriage set out in the established Church of England order of service for marriage , which includes the much loved words:

    Marriage is a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.

  • Ionie

    15 October 2011 2:16PM

    Peter Tatchell obviously has the best of the argument.

    Suzanne's argument is that heterosexuals should be able to choose marriage or not, living together or not, but gays shouldn't.

    According to her argument, gays are required to be radical, to want a non-conservative life-style. But sexuality doesn't determine personality or social preferences.

    Why is it up to anyone else to decide that gays should be denied choices about radical life-styles or conservative ones open to heterosexuals? It seems to me that is patronising to gays to view their sexuality as determinative of their choices. Why should another person, even if well meaning, decide what gays should be able to choose.

    She finds it irritating that the gay rights movement, once seen as a radical rejection of patriarchal, conventional life-styles is becoming assimilated into such life-styles. But of course it is! All movements based on a demand for equality are likely to lead eventually to assimilation if they're successful.

    Why should gays be forced to be live their lives as standard-bearers for radical lifestyles? Before anything else, including sexuality gay people have widely varying personalities that lead them to want to make widely varying life-style choices.

  • HelenWilsonMK

    15 October 2011 2:17PM

    I don't support gay marriage (who wants to live a ghetto?) I support equal marriage for everyone - straight, gay, bisexual, trans or queer we all deserve the same recognition for our relationships.

    I've been gazing at photos this morning on facebook of two women with transsexual histories who got married/civil partnership yesterday. When you see the photos you cant help but question why they should have to endure this apartheid of legal status we currently have.

  • Contributor
    Rotwatcher

    15 October 2011 2:18PM

    Do we think any less of Christopher Hitchens, who has revealed dalliances with two men who would become Tory ministers in Thatcher's cabinet?

    Depends what you thought of him in the first place. Since he began his hate campaign against Islam I struggle to think much of him.

    On the subject of the article, I can't see why there is any distinction between "marriage" and "civil partnerships". I had a secular marriage in a registry office - I can't see why this should be regarded as any different from a civil partnership, nor why we need two different terms for what is effectively the same thing.

  • Kerrsgirl

    15 October 2011 2:22PM

    @Jeklynhyde - thing is, sexuality never has been private. If you are straight, you are surrounded by public validation - in every book, movie, on every magazine cover and as every hand-holding male/female couple strolls past you in the street. You take it for granted like the air that you breathe - but growing up gay isn't like that.

    When gayness is as uneventful as straightness I'm sure things will quieten down, but we're a long way from that right now. For now, everyone who believes in equality needs to keep shouting.

  • FrancesSmith

    15 October 2011 2:22PM

    to be fair, i would agree that cameron's desire to impose marriage on all of us is more about social control than the desire to promote loving supportive relationships.

    however there are people who like being married, and some who like getting married so much they do it several times, so its no good complaining about people wanting to do it. as though it is a force for conservatism it is also, in many ways, beginning to undermine them. what will he do when his first married gay cabinet minister leaves their partner for someone else, try to sack them as he did the conservative party treasurer, when he left his wife. cameron is tying himself in knots on this issue by trying to please both the liberals and right wing of his party, and it is quite entertaining to watch.

  • devonianbrightonian

    15 October 2011 2:29PM

    As we cannot assume real correlation between the left and gay politics any more, we ought to perhaps ask what a progressive line is.

    Of course there are (and no doubt always have been) some gay Tories, but I think it is pushing it a bit to claim that this means there is no correlation between the left and gay politics. Pink News publishes regular polls (at least some of which appear to be properly weighted) showing voting intention of LGBT people, which show the gay community to be far more left leaning than the population at large, with for example support for the Green Party (of which Peter Tatchell himself is now an active member) sometimes approaching 20% amongst LGBT people.

  • Contributor
    MetalDad

    15 October 2011 2:34PM

    Good article

    I think it is more about the attitudes of people than politics.

    People like predictability - they do not like having to deal with everyone as an individual.

    They like stereotypes for this reason. They like to put people in boxes and they don't like them being in more than one box at a time, or even box hopping.

    I think everyone does this to some extent. I try really hard to take people as I find them, then find, as it is overturned, that I had an assumpiton I hadn't realised I had until it was proved false. Example - a few years ago I worked with a delegation from China - it came as a (pleasant) surprise that they had a brilliant sense of humour.

    Perhaps it depends on how charitable and open minded we are about the boxes. For a lot of poor, sad souls, any box other than one the same as they classify themselves in is to be reviled, feared, ridiculed or hated - and so is everyone in it...

  • FrancesSmith

    15 October 2011 2:38PM

    its like cameron is trying to oppress heterosexuals by making marriage compulsory and being wonderfully liberal to gays by letting them get married, it really is quite absurd. the whole tory party needs sectioning they all are all completely bonkers.

  • QuietRiotGrrl

    15 October 2011 2:38PM

    When gayness is as uneventful as straightness I'm sure things will quieten down, but we're a long way from that right now

    I disagree KerrsGirl. I think gayness is as uneventful as straightness. The fact the Tories are supporting Gay marriage supports my view!

    Maybe bisexuality is still interesting, but who on this thread apart from one or two of us have even mentioned that?

  • HelenWilsonMK

    15 October 2011 2:41PM

    What I find amusing about this article is how Suzanne Moore looks a this from her position of heterosexual privilege and equates marriage a conservative act.

    If you are LGBT the idea of it is far more radical given its current prohibited apartheid status to us.

  • rakshawolf

    15 October 2011 2:52PM

    Marriage is for gays :)

    Sorry, couldn't help myself.

    I believe that marriage is between two individuals, and should cease to be a legal institution. You should be able to marry whoever you want, but the government should not be involved. At all.

    Doug Stanhope does a good bit about this, normally I find him a little abrasive. His point is basically that the government should always treat you as an individual, and that he finds marriage a bit weird 'This is so good, let's get the government in on this' and that he finds weddings boring. Just have a lovely party to celebrate your love for another person instead.

  • beauchampkid

    15 October 2011 2:54PM

    I think this article says a lot about the author's views of sexuality. Clearly her concept of gay people is that we only can really exist meaningfully in a world of radicalism and difference. The whole point of movement to towards gay equality for me is to celebrate the fact that in reality there is no difference and we are all the same. A loving relationship between two men or two women should have the same status in society as that between a man and a woman and should not be required only to exist in some alternative radical sphere. I've every right to be as boring as my parents.

Comments on this page are now closed.

via guardian.co.uk

Excellent article, thanks, Maggie.

Posted via email from Moments of Awareness

Extraordinarily ordinary.

Comments

Post a Comment