Married to the system
In 2003, Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson were married in Canada, but found that, after the Civil Partnerships Act came into force in the UK last December, their relationship had been classified as a civil partnership here.
Earlier this week, the university professors failed in a High Court bid to have their marriage recognised as such in this country.
Now, quite apart from the issues about whether or not this is 'fair', why on earth would gay or lesbian couples want to get married?
Civil partnerships are understandable, conferring, as they do, the same legal rights as marriage; rights that lesbian and gay couples have not previously had access to.
But marriage itself – disregarding the principle of the thing – what else does that confer? It is hailed as sacred by religions, so why would you want to adhere to an institution that is so admired by something that has a rabidly homophobic history and remains, in large parts, rabidly homophobic?
A gay friend, having struggled for some time with the idea of bisexuality, eventually reached the conclusion that 'straight' was really those people in heterosexual, monogamous marriages. Swingers (gay, straight and bi), the kinky and festishistically inclined, trannies – none of these people were 'straight'.
It's an interesting definition.
Marriage is an institution, created by state and church in the days before DNA tests, to ensure the passage of title, property and wealth to the legitimate heirs.
Human beings are not naturally monogamous animals, but marriage is an artifice that attempts to make them so, whether they're happy with that or not.
It's no coincidence that Mary Whitehouse didn't start her 'decency' campaign because of a flash of naked flesh on her telly, but because she disagreed with someone else's opinion of marriage.
It was Dr Alex Comfort, the author of The Joy of Sex, in a late-night interview on BBC2's This Nation Tomorrow in 1963, who dared to suggest that the institution of marriage was propped up only by adultery, and that chastity was no more a virtue than malnutrition.
Whitehouse was galvanised into action. So much for a democratic right to voice an opinion, then.
Marriage is about control and restriction and playing society's 'game' by society's 'rules'.
So why would gay and lesbian couples wish to buy into such an institution?
Come to that, why would anyone want to buy into such an institution?
And who really wants to be 'straight'?
Earlier this week, the university professors failed in a High Court bid to have their marriage recognised as such in this country.
Now, quite apart from the issues about whether or not this is 'fair', why on earth would gay or lesbian couples want to get married?
Civil partnerships are understandable, conferring, as they do, the same legal rights as marriage; rights that lesbian and gay couples have not previously had access to.
But marriage itself – disregarding the principle of the thing – what else does that confer? It is hailed as sacred by religions, so why would you want to adhere to an institution that is so admired by something that has a rabidly homophobic history and remains, in large parts, rabidly homophobic?
A gay friend, having struggled for some time with the idea of bisexuality, eventually reached the conclusion that 'straight' was really those people in heterosexual, monogamous marriages. Swingers (gay, straight and bi), the kinky and festishistically inclined, trannies – none of these people were 'straight'.
It's an interesting definition.
Marriage is an institution, created by state and church in the days before DNA tests, to ensure the passage of title, property and wealth to the legitimate heirs.
Human beings are not naturally monogamous animals, but marriage is an artifice that attempts to make them so, whether they're happy with that or not.
It's no coincidence that Mary Whitehouse didn't start her 'decency' campaign because of a flash of naked flesh on her telly, but because she disagreed with someone else's opinion of marriage.
It was Dr Alex Comfort, the author of The Joy of Sex, in a late-night interview on BBC2's This Nation Tomorrow in 1963, who dared to suggest that the institution of marriage was propped up only by adultery, and that chastity was no more a virtue than malnutrition.
Whitehouse was galvanised into action. So much for a democratic right to voice an opinion, then.
Marriage is about control and restriction and playing society's 'game' by society's 'rules'.
So why would gay and lesbian couples wish to buy into such an institution?
Come to that, why would anyone want to buy into such an institution?
And who really wants to be 'straight'?
posted by Amanda Kendal at 3:04 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home