The scene: A suburban dinner party.
“Oh Chlamydia darrrrling, Haven’t seen you for ages. Mwah mwah (etc. etc.) and how is young Tarquin these days?”
“Oh, he’s just got engaged.”
“Oh wow when’s the happy day?”
“Well his civil partnership is formally ratified in October. They’re both very happy”
“Civil partnership? Darrrling, he’s not a sodomite is he?”
The scene: A classroom.
“So as you can see guys, marriage forms an important role as a stabilizing block in society. I hope you will all take advantage of that situation in due course. Apart from Daniel here of course, who as the class bender will have to have a civil partnership instead.
(Outburst of laughter and shouts of “Bender!! Bender!! Daniel can’t get married.”etc.)
Don’t take it too hard Daniel. It’s what God wants and at least your claims to legal equality are covered .”
“Yes, sir. So when your formalized your matrimonial contract with your wife, did you use that terminology?”
“No, we got married. Simples.”
“So why the f–k should I have to then?”
Something I have been noticing rather a lot recently are quite a few people batting on our side saying that civil partnerships are all that gay people need and marriage isn’t needed as all legal and civil rights are covered within the civil partnership legislation. (Ben Bradshaw and Christopher Biggins to name but two recent examples). Fine guys, so let’s abolish marriage and let everybody live in civil partnerships then. Oh, wait, your not advocating that? You mean there IS a difference. Perhaps that’s the difference that is being used to discriminate against us then? Well, who would have thought it?
Let’s not beat about the bush, the problem, here, is that we have an institution that has been set up by straights for straights dependent on the straight view of the world. The issue here is consummation. How can a marriage that does not involve rupturing hymens be said to be valid? David and Jonathan may have become “one in spirit”, but a marriage isn’t a marriage without vaginal blood and penetration. That is rather a tricksy one for people like myself who don’t rate penetrative sex highly on my list of personal needs but would still love to tell people that my partner and I are having a wedding do in the spring as opposed to using sterile terminology designed to mark us out as different and somehow abnormal.
Because, let’s face it, that is exactly the point of drawing such a distinction is it not? The mainstream is still saying that long term gay relationships are acceptable to a certain point but still don’t qualify as marriage. Even though you may call your civil partnership a marriage dears, your still a pair of benders faking it but thanks for your registration fee, it has certainly boosted the local economy.
Sorry, guys, but I am not buying your “civil partnership is all we need” mularky. I am not going to sit around at tables with my other half talking in terms of “ratifying our civil partnership next Tuesday”. No we are going to get engaged and married like everybody else. As I have stated elsewhere on here, heterosexuals have been more than happy to change the marital rules to suit their own interests throughout the centuries so there is no reason why the rules cannot be changed again to embrace gay kids. If that doesn’t suit the Platonists who dominate our churches then that’s their problem