THEGAYUK

Category: Topics

  • OP ED | Can a gay guy ever be turned straight?

    After the recent remarks by Colin Murray and Bob Mills about ‘turning’ Clare Balding during a live radio broadcast on BBC Radio 5, writer Barry Heap discusses whether ‘I’ll Have A Go At Turning You’ is an offensive thing to suggest.

    At a recent friend’s wedding, an older glamorous cougar type whispered into my ear

    “I’d have a go at turning you”

    As she slid my tie in a suggestive manner I laughed at Mrs Robinson.

    The statement was meant in a flirty good humoured form of banter. We spent the rest of the night drinking whisky and dancing to northern soul. I took the statement as a huge compliment, I’m not offended.

    But I’m informed that I should be, apparently I was degraded as a man. My sexuality was disrespected and it was implied that I was free and easy to choose my sexuality as easily as I had chosen the trio of lamb for the wedding breakfast.

    The truth is if we are to say that this statement is offensive to gay people, we need to cast an eye closer to home or become hypocrites. After all that is where many of us began back is high school, following the unattainable straight boy at high school. But things progress from there it only takes a quick search on the internet to find thousands of pages of slash fiction written about straight characters on TV series having gay sexual encounters. There’s also the endless speculation on the sexuality of celebrity’s such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta

    Taking a further look into the internet, there are many gay porn sites that feature performers who identify as “gay for pay”. This means that off camera they are straight but on camera, they are quite happy to perform with other guys. Yes, it’s exploitive but there is clearly a market for it as many pay sites offer the illicit thrill of seeing a straight jock “turned”.

    On the flip side of the coin, many straight friends are happy to discuss celebrities that they would like to “experiment” with. Russell brand, Robert Downey Jr and Eric Bana are all mentioned. I have no doubt that if any of these unlikely scenarios were to present themselves that nothing would happen; it is fantasy because they are straight. I respect their sexuality as much as they have respected and supported mine. What they may be uncomfortable in saying is that they find these men very attractive and appreciate their beauty I can see their point of view, I find Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman absolutely stunning but I would never fantasise about them sexually, the ways I look at them, are Very different to how I think about Hugh Jackman (which are not fit for publication)

    So where does this leave us? I think that we can find other people attractive of either gender, sexuality is fluid but maybe sexual orientation is less so. For people identifying as gay or straight, we can be sure who we would sleep with and the line between fantasy and reality.

    When it comes to the attraction we are not interested in the others person’s orientation.

    Maybe we should just all relax, it’s easy to judge and be oversensitive over what is meant as a bit of banter. Perhaps Thatcher would not appreciate the irony of the phrase “the lady’s not for turning” being used in this manner,

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OP ED | Gay PDAs

    During a recent online discussion about holding hands in public, I was criticised for expressing the point of view that even though I was comfortable doing this but I don’t always feel like it. The argument levelled to me is that I had missed the point.

    Around 70 countries still hold penalties for same-sex activity and 7 carry the death penalty. On the contrast the UK is one of the more tolerant and supportive countries. To address this, I appreciate that we are lucky to live in a country where we even have the choice.

    I have been called “queer “ and “faggot” for carrying out the outrageous act of holding my boyfriend’s hand in a city centre, but the truth is I do not care. They are the words that they choose to define me with, which is their perception of me, it is not me. Their poison does not drip into my life. They do not dictate my relationship and how I choose to live my life. Sadly the bitchy comments and stares are not only from the straight community, I’m 11 years older than my partner and overweight. My boyfriend is 22 and leads an active lifestyle. I joke with friends that I’m punching above my weight but we’re happy and the relationship works for us. However, within the gay community we can attract as much negative attention because we don’t seem it fit within the gay cookie cutter.

    Part of the criticism is that because I live in a country where I am able to hold my partner’s hand, I should. However this is not me either, sometimes I’m up some days I’m down. Sometimes I will be the more affectionate in the relationship and initiate contact, others times I value my space. I’m a walking messy contradiction of a person, I’m human after all. And so is my partner. I’m secure in the relationship so I don’t need to be tethered to him 24/7. When we are out and I see other guys checking him out I can smile inwardly and outwardly, because I know we belong to each other.

    I have no need to be insecure. I don’t need to walk everywhere hand in hand together to feel that I am with someone, because mentally and emotionally I am.

    Have I missed the point? I don’t think I have, I have the choice to hold my partner’s hand, to hug him and kiss him in public. I have the same rights and freedoms as any straight person in public. Sometimes I will choose not to because I am a person not a living breathing political agenda.

    The fact that this is even a conversation in 2013 says that we still have a long way to go but that will be decided by governments and politicians, not me. My individuality and sexuality are 2 different parts of me, they are for me to decide, no one else.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OP ED | Action (Wo)Man

    Tesco has become the second major retailer to be criticised in recent months for gendering the sale of its children’s toys.

    Boots previously displayed science toys for boys and ‘domestic games’ or Tea Sets for girls. Clearly boys or men do not drink tea and girls cannot be expected to understand the science behind every day things? It is not only sexist, it is socially damaging

    Segregating toys by gender, and denying children the chance to develop their interests, damages formative education and perpetuates gendered constructs into later learning. The World Bank’s 2012 report on Gender Equality and Development argues that it is “stereotypes within the education system, norms governing gender roles in the household that constrain a woman’s choice of occupation.” Indeed, early learning impacts educational and academic choices and leads to limited talent pools for ‘atypical’ occupations.

    Children’s author Megan Peel writing in the Guardian highlights that “Boots is a science-based company that employs many female pharmacists, opticians and chemists and should know better than to discriminate in this way.” Indeed Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) suffers from low representation of women in their sector and therefore compete for the few candidates in order to attract a diverse workforce. A 2011 report by the U.S. Department of Commerce found only one in seven engineers is female and less than 20 percent of bachelor’s degrees in computer science go to women, even though female graduates hold 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. Industry news site The Engineer suggests that women constitute just 8.7% of professional engineers in the UK – much lower than China where more than a third of engineers are women. So Tesco’s defending of their chemistry sets as ‘for boys’ and toy cookers as being ‘for girls’ is aggravating existing gender imbalances; which are clearly socially constructed.

    What also perplexes me – why is it always down to the women to challenge unconscious bias? I watched the BBC Breakfast covering this story and Suzanna Reid proudly asserted that ‘there is nothing wrong with a boy playing with dolls’ but she was met by a stifled sneer from Bill Turnbull who quickly deflected to a spokesperson from @LetToysBeToys. Even the sample of ‘everydaypeople’ spoken to on the street reflected a very gendered approach – one man said that he didn’t expect a boy to play with Barbie while a young mother (her baby boy in tow) said ‘if he wants a doll, he’ll have a doll!’ Why do men feel they have to police gender?

    This also has further implications for the LGBT communities. Men feel they are expected to reinforce the differences between them and women, with gay and bisexual men seeming to blur these boundaries; whether through alternative choice of toys, clothing or employment.

    The Gay British Crime Survey 2008 conducted by Stonewall highlights that the majority of victims of homophobic hate crime are young gay men, administered by males under the age of 25. For me gendering toys is homophobic and misogynistic, the two often linked. Every gay friend of mine at university had a My Little Pony. In fact when I had my tonsils out as a child I was rewarded with a toy of my choice – and what did I choose? Yes, a My Little Pony. Despite some initial reservations, my parents did not deny their child his wish and I feel that their support for my ‘different’ behaviour has helped my creativity and ability to seek out what I really want in life, rather than what I feel is expected or demanded of me.

    Institutional gendering of toys perpetuates negative and limiting constructions of gender. They also reinforce the binary of male or female, thus excluding those along the gender spectrum leading to the disproportionately high levels of isolation, depression and suicide amongst the transgender community. The National Centre for Transgender Equality (NCTE) estimates that between 30-50% of the transgender community has attempted suicide at least once. Although this is not immediately correlated with gender construction alone, it does highlight one barrier to be overcome by those transitioning between one gender and the other, especially when considering the young.

    The EverydaySexism.com site lists reams and reams of cases where prejudice against the gender spectrum is enacted on a daily, and often unchallenged, basis. Much of the examples are ignored or disregarded as too widespread, low-level or unchangeable. But if we all do not challenge these consistent inequalities and unfairness then they will not change. It is not ‘petty’ to demand equal pay (as it was deemed until 1975), women and men are not simply ‘acting up’ if they do not want to be spoken about as sexual objects and it is not acceptable as a mother or father to deny your daughter a science kit or your son a tea set; if they prefer an Action Man or Barbie then at least you have a child who knows and speaks their mind – isn’t that what a self-fulfilled adult is all about?

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Ages of Ignorance

    Although the ‘yoots’ of today are feared by much of the majority culture, it is often believed that it is the older generations who hold ‘outdated’ homophobic views.

    But are the young really more liberal? Do Generations Y and Z hold more enlightened beliefs when it comes to sexual orientation and (trans)gender diversity?

    With the announcement this week that Paris Brown, Youth Crime Commissioner for Kent Police, will escape criminal prosecution I can’t help but question whether she is simply a misguided, isolated individual or worryingly representative of her demographic. Were violent, racist, homophobic and drug endorsing rants on Twitter really just “showing off”? Using homophobic language such as “fags,” the 17-year-old also tweeted that she wanted to “cut” someone.

    Despite a welcomed apology and publicly denying she is homophobic, it is her excuse which leaves me concerned.

    Brown insists she “can’t imagine that [she is] the only teenager to have done this.” Even Kent Police’s local Crime Commissioner Ann Barnes defended her, going so far as to suggest “many young people go through a phase during which they make silly, often offensive comments and show off on Facebook and Twitter.”

    Really? So we should expect and excuse this? If that is the expectation of a police commissioner then what hope do we have for other ‘average’ young people? Do we really think it is common and acceptable to make offensive and aggressive comments on social media or indeed in schools, the street – at work? Especially as she wasn’t simply teenager in their room on a computer or smartphone; she was paid to support and represent the diverse communities that Kent, and other forces, serve. She was in a position of responsibility.

    Was this behaviour just typical of the young as dismissed by her lawyers and employer? I really hope not as it means we have an even harder task on our hands. Indeed Stonewall’s annual Equality Walk taking place again in Brighton this year will need to raise even more money if Brown is your average teenager.

    The walk aims to raise awareness and funds to help tackle homophobic bullying in schools, an institution that produces many average teenagers, many just like Brown. It is truly timely and necessary work they are doing. But to reach this group is it not pertinent to represent them, much like Kent police attempted to do with Brown in the first place? How many school-aged, young people are actually designing the ways which Stonewall and teachers engage with them? To catch a monkey you need to think like one (and it’s not always slowly).

    At the Stonewall Equality Dinner last week Deputy Chief Executive for Stonewall Laura Doughty highlighted that “[h]omophobia remains a huge problem in Britain’s schools… We know we face a huge challenge in making homophobia thing of the past.”

    The event was supported by several key figures in the LGBT and wider community – but how many were from this target, younger generation? Although integral to the fight for equality there needs to be more resilience amongst the fundraising elite.

    Where is the next generation of campaigners at these events? Sir Elton John, Graham Norton, Gok Wan and Clare Balding but no sign of anyone actually part of the young communities they are also seeking to support. I should imagine that Ian McKellen doesn’t need protecting from homophobic bullying in school anymore.

    Active support from straight allies such as MPs John Bercow, Nick Herbert and Diane Abbott is not mirrored by heterosexual supporters amongst the next generation. Although I appreciate this event is a fundraiser – and perhaps prices out the younger audience – its press coverage sends a message that can appear disproportionate and unrepresentative.

    Looking forward it is important not to dismiss the young as naive and ignorant. They are the next leaders and agents of socio-political change. We cannot afford to ignore the misdemeanours of those in power but we also cannot forget who is next into those positions of responsibility and influence. So as Paris goes back to her average life who is the next Youth Commissioner? Will we have higher expectations of this one? But also, who is next on the invite to the Stonewall awards or popping up in schools to talk to people of their own age?

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Attacked For Being Gay or Attacked For Being There?

    In my last article I talked about the rise of online ‘trolls’ but something that has been around for much longer than trolls are perpetrators of hate crimes; either through the press or via the traditional old fashioned face to face method.

    Unfortunately it’s something that goes on far too frequently and has probably even gone on in front of you without you ever realising. But what is a hate crime? And how is a hate crime any different from any other sort of threatening or violent behaviour?

    In a previous life I used to work in a gay bar and you would get all walks of life through the door on any given night. Some nights, namely mid-week when drinking on a school night is usually a bad idea, it used to be fairly quiet and it gave you the opportunity to catch-up on any cleaning or get chatted up by the regulars. Well, they would try to chat you up… can’t blame them for trying right?

    One night however a guy came in who, on the face of it, seemed like a general body from the street that was coming down to the local gay bar to escape the wife / girlfriend / home life; someone that you wouldn’t turn away or guess that they were out to cause trouble or had issues. As the night went on he became more and more frustrated and pushy with staff and customers so was eventually asked to leave. Upon leaving (after much protest and farting about) he proceeded to through all 16 odd stone of himself against the bar door in an attempt to break it down all the while shouting profanities. When that didn’t work, he moved onto the bin outside and tried to throw that against the bar windows.

    Somehow he missed the windows (I’m still not sure how) and as if by magic (or really bad luck) managed to hit and dent the front bonnet of my car.

    Now, anyone that takes any pride – at all – in their car would know the pain and distress that I went through in that moment. What had my car done to him? And how did he know it belonged to me? Or was it a case of “wrong place, wrong time”?

    The police were called, he was duly arrested and statements were taken and on the whole the support the police provided was fairly helpful and engaging. However, when it came to processing the attack under a relevant law it was classed as ‘criminal damage’ and not as a hate crime. This baffled me somewhat as it transpires he wasn’t escaping the family home for evening but instead had just been ‘released’ from the local homeless shelter and was, by all accounts, looking for a target for his next attention fix. The argument at the time was that they didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute under hate crime legislation however there was more than enough for criminal damage and were more likely to get a positive result at the Magistrates Court.

    In that regard they were correct, it went to court and he was forced into a programme, several hours community service and forced to pay mine and the bars repair bill and a small amount of compensation. While I don’t question the outcome (as he was made to pay) for me it raises questions of, well has the reporting of hate crime become a side thought because it just doesn’t lead to “justice”? In this instance, we were more likely to get “justice” by pursuing another criminal offence? What do you need to do therefore to prove that a crime is a hate crime?

    Another example was of a local magazine (although the more accurate term is “local rag”) that usually printed ‘laddish’ type articles designed to make the lads laugh and girls look at the wedding and pampering adverts that were often in there. Usually it printed run of the mill every day jokes or funny stories, nothing that would cause mass offence. Except in one addition, the editor decided to print an article on “10 signs that you aren’t manly”, or something along those lines. One of which stated that if you looked after yourself, or went down the gym or took care of your appearance in any way you were clearly not worthy of the title ‘real man’, and was indeed a ‘homo’.

    A few local LGBT groups, including myself as a private citizen and some friends, all wrote to said editor and asked, politely, that he issue a retraction and reconsider his general approach to the tone of his magazine. These emails and letters went ignored for a week or two until instead he chose to publish each and every one of them and add his own personal commentary about how we all lead sad lives and ‘trust the homos to get their knickers in a twist’.

    Naturally we weren’t happy, even more so as he had just printed out letters with no prior notification or consent (Data Protection breach anyone?). We complained to the local police and were quoted some clause of the Hate Crimes law that said what he had done didn’t qualify as a hate crime. If I recall, they were trying to say that because he hadn’t targeted a person it didn’t qualify? But he was targeting a group of people? Surely that’s what a hate crime is? (Apparently not).

    We also wrote to the Press Complaints Commission who said that because he wasn’t registered into their “opt in” regulation that they couldn’t help or intervene. All we could do was encourage people not to buy the magazine and seek support from some of the shops that had the stands in the windows and doorways. We couldn’t stop him from circulating his nonsense but at least we stopped it being handed out in key places in town.

    Apart from the incident at the bar I have never suffered a “major” hate crime against me. For this I am very appreciative, but I ask myself the question – what about all the times someone has called me “FAGGOT” or hurled abuse because I’m walking to the cinema holding my boyfriend’s hand? Technically would these be classed as hate crimes? They never cause offence to me personally because I don’t value or respect their opinion. Therefore it just washes right off my back. But when you see some of the nastiness in this country (or indeed the world), not only to the LGBT community but also ethnic minorities and social classes, you think why would you do such a thing? Where does that “hate” come from? What has caused you to hate in such a way?

    Last time I checked the LGBT community wasn’t an historic empire that had occupied your lands, or been slave owners or even caused any wars. So what makes a “hate criminal” do the things he does? Should we feel sorry for them as they clearly have some deep rooted issue that uses any distinction as a scape goat to vent at?

    I’ve always been curious about why people do the things they do. Why someone is shy, or why someone is confident. Sometimes its genetics, but sometimes it’s what their life has made them. And in these instances what sort of a life could create such a willingness to hate in such a way?

    By the way, is it a crime to flirt with a police officer when he’s taking your statement? I didn’t mean to, he was just very nice and comforting in my time of need. I don’t think he noticed… well he didn’t arrest me or even ask me out for a drink. Which is a point, must work on my flirting strategy…

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Infamous 5 – the Reform Section 5 campaign

    I’m curious about the genuine aims of the campaign http://reformsection5.org.uk which is seeking to remove the potential to criminalise ‘insulting words or behaviour.’

    The campaign wants to influence the Home Office to amend Section 5 of the Public Order Act but I am perplexed as to whether this group, a disparate band of crusaders, is keen to promote positive, free speech or simply want the right to insult whoever they want without consequence.

    Is Section 5 really so abused by the authorities? Does it actually limit our ability to challenge each other? Or is abolishing the rights of the public to be offended and ‘insulted’ in favour of a right to freedom of speech justified?

    The Public Order Act 1986 is an Act of Parliament which was designed to stop actions which can undermine the order and safety of society. It criminalises ‘disorderly behaviour,’ and aims to prevent the use of ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ or the use of signs and displays which are likely to cause ‘harassment, alarm or distress.’ Sections 1-4 of the Act cover several elements including riot, violent disorder, affray (fighting), fear or provocation and causing intentional alarm or distress.

    It is Section 5, with a particular focus on ‘insulting’ language and behaviour, which has curiously united several, often warring factions of British society; I struggle to remember a time where The Christian Institute, National Secular Society and indeed Peter Tatchell have agreed to such an extent.

     

    Why would any group protest against a piece of legislation which, if removed, would essentially allow their critics the right to undermine and verbally abuse them?

     

    Is it that this law truly undermines freedom of speech as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights? Not necessarily. Are the irregular and carefully selected examples used by the campaign representative of the law’s use? I doubt it. Even the website’s choices are not accurately representative of the situations cited.

     

    Let’s look at one which may impact TheGayUK readers. The campaign describes ‘an elderly street preacher [who] was convicted under Section 5 for displaying a sign which said homosexuality was immoral.’ Actually, the sixty nine-year old’s sign said ‘Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism’ which could be a call to action, a threat, an incitement.

    Equally, the campaign misrepresents the Vegelenzangs case as simply ‘a conversation with a Muslim guest about Mohammed and Islamic dress for women’ in which they actually undermined the hijab as ‘bondage.’

    In fact, of the three thousand convictions between 2001-2003 under Section 5, the site can only name a few where the law was seen to be stretched or maybe misinterpreted. Does that mean the law should be abandoned or elements dropped?

    Perhaps it should be a case of advising and guiding the public, police and courts on how the law should be used. The Police have been accused of misusing the powers in Section 14, notably during the 2009 G-20 protests in London where journalists were forced to leave the protests – but that still exists!

    Another argument of the campaign is that ‘insults’ are not important. Leader of the UKIP Party in the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage even feels that ‘people must be free to insult and be insulted’ – glad I don’t know/socialise with/work for him! Several other endorsers of the campaign rightly highlight that higher levels of harassment and discrimination are criminalised elsewhere by the Act or the New Equality Act 2010.

    Further Sections of the Public Order Act also require any protests to have provided written notice to the police who can still impose conditions or indeed prohibit a procession if it will cause ‘serious disruption to the life of the community.’

    Section 16 Part 3A of the Act specifically protects the public from words, signs and actions which may incite harassment based on race, religion and sexual orientation.

    So maybe we are all still protected without Section 5 but it has to be of this level.

    Do you want to be protected from a protest outside your house? Of course. But what if your neighbour decides to greet you with an insult each morning and won’t stop if you ask them to? Should we all be able to withstand a few insults? Sure. But how many insults are too many? Look at the disproportionate rate of LGBT teen suicide – is that one way of telling us that insults hurt?

    But does it have to get to that level before the authorities notice or can help?

    Let’s get down to what matters here. What is this all about? Do we really care – and will it impact me? I think it will and I’ll tell you how. I am concerned that the broader legislations above do not cover the more creative abusers. If a fellow bus, train or tube user decides that you might like to be reminded that you are in fact ‘gay’ does that mean they should be arrested? They weren’t inciting hatred, just stating the obvious perhaps? Or what if ‘poof’ is their choice today but not accompanied by any further undermining or personal perspective on whether that is a good or bad thing – can we complain?

    Could the police do anything?

    A street preacher can point at you menacingly as you hold your partner’s hand. He can’t be arrested for that. But what if that was the first time you did it and it put you off, or it was detrimental to your relationship, your confidence. Or what if someone else sees this and suppresses their feelings, or worse it reinforces or activates any latent homophobia?

    What if you observed these actions and no one was the target or victim? David Davis, MP for Haltemprice and Howden, wants to know ‘who should decide who’s insulted?’

    I say we all have that right.

    I say insulting behaviour is the grey area that homophobes like to operate in – they think they can get away with it. Is it acceptable to be offended? Of course it is. But, if the law is changed and you complain to a police officer there’s not much they can do about it.

    We all have the right to campaign, protest and provoke thought but do we have this right at the expense of others? I’m curious as to how insulting materials have to be before they are considered a criminal offense or of inciting hatred.

    Is undeterred or unchallenged hurtful language a sign of more physical and violent aggression to come? Gordon Allport (1954) argues that ‘anti-locution’ or badmouthing, insulting and stereotyping is the start of discrimination on his scale for the manifestation of prejudice.

    This then escalates to avoidance, discrimination, physical attack and extermination. How much protection do we need from each other, and at what stage? Maybe it is more about everyone taking responsibility. We should all challenge disorder which may be in the public, and our own, interest as the first level before it escalates.

    What if someone decided to mimic you, standing there looking fabulous with your oversized man-bag draped over your arm? People might laugh – everyone is having a good time – who could be insulted? They are free to insult you, and if you were a reasonable, stable human, you would appreciate it as their right. Or is that what the Reform Section 5 campaign would like to believe? Maybe the campaign should be challenging why people feel the need to insult each other, rather than trying to facilitate for more of it.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • Opinion: Same Sex Marriage; No Brainer Or Political Football

    The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is back before the House of Commons on 5th February.

    So what does the Bill do? Clause 1(1) declares simply that the ‘marriage of same sex couples is lawful’. So far, so good. Clause 9 provides that a civil partnership can be converted into a marriage. So far, rather better. The problems, some might say, start at this point. In somewhat convoluted language, clause 1(3) says that nothing in the canon law of the Church of England providing that marriage can only be between one man and one woman shall be contrary to any other law (i.e. the Church of England’s current ban on same-sex marriages will remain lawful). The Church in Wales is treated rather differently. Clause 8 provides that the law will be changed if and when its Governing Body decides to allow same-sex marriages in the future. No such provision is included for the Church of England. Whilst I am not a canon lawyer, I am told that were the Church of England to amend canon law to allow for the celebration of same-sex marriages, the law (i.e. the real law) would be amended to allow for this (with or without Parliament’s approval). I struggle with the subtleties of this, and suspect the real reason why express provision is not made for the Church of England to ‘opt-in’ later if it wants to is political. The issue of same-sex marriages is now the Church of England’s problem, and given recent debates upon the issue of women bishops and ‘celibate’ gay bishops, I wouldn’t hold your breath (unless you are prepared to do so for another 20 years).

    Finally, nothing in the draft Bill obliges any religious celebrant or place of worship (of whatever religious persuasion) to celebrate same-sex marriages unless they wish to do so. This is provided for in clause 2 and gives rise to the ‘opt-in’ provisions in clauses 4 and 5. Although this has caused consternation for some, I am tempted to justify it as a matter of practicality. However, such logic would also allow discrimination in other spheres on the ground of gender or race, which cannot be right. In truth, a balance has been struck between attempting to avoid discrimination against same-sex couples on the one hand and religious freedom and tolerance on the other.

    As a lawyer, I can live with the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, although there is certainly room for improvement. What concerns me – not as a lawyer, but as a gay man – is that the Bill and the most vocal opposition to it are apparently (party) political. I imagine the government will be pleased that I am pleased that draft legislation has been brought forward to remove what some (including me) consider an obvious discrimination against same-sex couples. I don’t buy into the idea that civil partnerships are ‘good enough’. If a Jewish couple or a black couple or a disabled couple were only permitted to enter into a civil partnership and were denied the right to marry, I doubt anyone could justify such overt discrimination on the basis that a civil partnership is a marriage in all but name. I imagine most of those who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds are appalled to see their objections being overshadowed by regional party chairman threatening to deselect MPs if they don’t vote against the Bill. The real debate is at risk of being lost in internal party politics.

     

    by Philip Marshall QC

    More about the author.

    Philip specialises in divorce and matrimonial finance cases. Called in 1989, he was made a QC in 2012. He is usually instructed in ‘big money’ cases (with 3 cases in the House of Lords) and has extensive experience of drafting pre-nuptial agreements and advising in civil partnerships disputes.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Why I’m anti-anti Christmas

    Whether you like it or not folks Christmas is upon us once more and I seem to find two types of people at this time of year. Firstly there are the upbeat ‘Tis the season to be jolly, fa la la la laaaa, la la la la’ type of folk and then there are the ‘If I could work my will, every idiot who goes about with “Merry Christmas” on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart.’

    It’s the latter I wish to speak of today.

    The people who go out their way to look particularly glum at this time of year. The folk who implode into their own sense of woe that life has treated them so badly by stringing up a few twinkling lights on the lamp posts outside their houses. How dare the children be running around with the excited anticipation of a visit from the jolly fat man in the green suit (As a traditionalist Santa will be referred to in his little green number from now on, and besides it’s a much nicer colour than red!) and whoever dreamt up the idea of turning much loved TV classics into hour long festive specials? 30 minutes of Del Boy selling tat from a van, brilliant, yet put him on for an hour where he travels to Spain to buy diamonds and sits at a sunny bar surrounded by tits and tinsel, pathetic! ‘May the Yuletide log slip from your fire and burn your house down’.

    Yes, these people are among us. Scary isn’t it.

    You see, I get so excited about Christmas. Always have done ever since I was young. My birthday is on the 4th December and as a kid all I ever wanted for my birthday was for my dad to go into the loft to get the decorations down. Of course, this never happened and usually resulted in floods of tears and a ‘fine, forget Christmas then’. (I didn’t have many tantrums!) I would feel this deep heart ache as to why we couldn’t have decorations up after all it was now December. Begrudgingly they would come out of the loft about a week before Christmas, then put up in an uncomfortable air of tension as if you’d asked for a Pyramid to be built in your name, and would be down and back up in the loft as soon as the sound of 12 drummer drumming could be heard on the horizon. Done. It came and very quickly went.

    It was a very emotional time for me. The mixture of excitement, disappointment and E-numbers, that made me hyperactive, all coming together to make one very Christmassy mess of a boy! Maybe it was this anti-Christmas childhood I had that made me so determined to grasp Christmas with both hands each year as an adult. It’s very hard being Pro-Christmas these days, especially as a lot of folk seem to be lost in the commercial nonsense of it all. I don’t have a lot of money to buy folk expensive gifts but that doesn’t matter for me, as Christmas is an atmosphere that should be carried with each of us, uplifting us and each other from the stresses of life. A little like how the Olympics created a London buzz, I feel Christmas can offer the same if people are willing to trust in it.

    So for all those anti-Christmas people out there, I have only one thing to say. I’m anti-anti-Christmas. So if you must spend the happiest time of year tutting, swearing and bad mouthing all things festive, then please do it from the comfort of your own homes and watch out for three visitations when the clock strikes 12!

    May you all have a Merry Christmas and spend some time with someone who cares about you. x

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

     

  • COMMENT: The X-Factory

    This weekend’s shock departure of Ella Henderson from the X-Factor competition has created outrage only a few weeks before the final show.

    The bottom two acts had to perform again for the judges to decide who would leave the competition. Ella blasted out ‘If You’re Not The One’ by Daniel Beddingfield, followed by James Arthur’s powerful rendition of Alicia Keys’ ‘Falling’. With the final result going to deadlock, it was Ella who received the least amounts of votes and left the competition.

    This year there is a clear star, James Arthur, who is a ready-made artist. In some respects, it would have done him a favour to have left the competition this weekend – so that he is able to release a worthy album without the X Factor tagline.

    X Factor is in its ninth year, and is in desperate need of a revamp. However, my real complaint is about the longevity of the acts. There have been a handful of successful acts, Leona Lewis, JLS, One Direction, but what about real music apart from this repetitive commercial factory? Not to mention the irrelevance of Louis Walsh; what is he still doing there?

    There are two acts in my eyes this year who have the ability to really make a difference in the music industry on a global scale. Jahmene and James, with James leading the way. He is a true artist, refreshingly original and it is a relief to see how much credit he is receiving. The real success is how he has been able to retain his integrity without selling out in this X Factor factory.

    Let’s get away from being caught up in someone’s sob story, and focus on true talent.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | A Cautionary Tale Of The Unpaid Graduate

    With graduation out of the way, one has to embrace the step into the ‘big wide world’ (even though I detest the patronising tone of that phrase).

    Understandably jobs are difficult to come by, with the back log of graduates who have come out of education in a time of global financial troubles. But the point of this entry is not to radiate this negativity we often hear in our day to day lives. Rather it is an honest attempt to share my own experience; a cautionary tale of the unpaid internship; is it justified?

    Personally, I have been there before, graduating in 2008 from a Fine Art degree. I spent 6 months in London, unpaid, financing myself from savings. Days involved jumping from one position to the next, going application crazy hoping to secure some money. The 3 month internship at Aicon Gallery was experience, but in hindsight was it worthwhile experience?

    Being given a set of keys to a Regents Street gallery within the first week of the job seemed an honour at the time. Opening up the gallery early before the paid directors arrived, and staying until they decided to go home. Some days consisted of sitting behind the desk answering phones and filing, contrary to the original position of ‘Exhibition Intern’ suggested. Full days without a break. Imagine the ‘Devil Wears Prada’ heart pounding feeling of fear. Fear of doing something wrong or out of place in this pristine white gallery (which was probably the best thing about the job, as it was designed by Caruso St John).

    On some occasions I remember eating my lunch which consisted of a spoonful of cottage cheese, with a tomato and half a pepper, as I couldn’t afford to buy food. But it was ok, I was working in an ‘art gallery’ – or so I kept telling myself.

    The lowest point was when I did get something wrong, and sent some parcels by courier rather than by post. I was the only extra worker that day, having to man the phone and gallery at all times. The directors were in an ‘all day meeting, not to be contacted’, and at some point I was supposed to have magically doubled myself, and popped off to the post office while staying in charge of the gallery. From that day onwards, one particular individual make it her mission to make my life hell, finding fault in everything I did. But still, I carried on as a nervous, under fed, unpaid graduate. Not exactly the experience I was hoping to get.

    I would certainly be reluctant to jump at the chance of unpaid work again. And I disagree that all experience is good experience.

    A point came last year when I needed a reference. I asked the gallery for one, surely the least they could have done for someone who worked incredibly hard for them without pay. ‘The reply was, just write one yourself and I will sign it’.

    It strikes me that being able to say you have work experience under your belt to a potential employer can hide the substance of what was actually learnt during that placement. This is the difficulty I am having again, this time as an Architecture graduate. I have no experience in an architects practice, as I had to seek paid work during my summers to afford to continue studying. And surely the point of the Part 1 placement year is to gain experience, and not to be declined because of the lack of.

    I take my stance a little more cautious this time, seeking paid work only. Over the past month I have been offered two more internships, one in Denmark, and the other in Paris. The Paris internship offered 419 euro per month, barely enough to cover rent. The fact is, I would not be able to support myself financially whilst undertaking such a position. Both positions were declined, with a hint of satisfaction.

    Surely it says something about the ethics of a firm who offer unpaid work in the first place. It is making a disgrace out of the profession. This is not ok.

    But what is one to do when there is little option of work, either succumb to the fact of gaining some kind of experience for no money, or stick it out for the foreseeable future in hope of a paid position?

    I do not believe internships to be justified for a lengthy period. It takes advantage of skilled graduates or individuals who are determined to make a career for themselves. We have the ability to learn, and learn fast. Being thrown in at the deep end and having to learn the ropes is indeed a valuable suggestion. I am often alarmed when looking at architecture internships, the stipulations the companies require. For example, proficiency in a lengthy variety of packages, the ability to speak fluent Japanese, 3 years experience in housing, etc. I am also appalled at individuals who wouldn’t stop and question their cost of their free labour. By accepting an unpaid placement makes a suggestion that you agree working for free is acceptable, with someone else benefitting from your efforts. With the expectations of what an intern can do increasing, this means that companies now have a choice of highly skilled candidates to chose from.

    So what can be done about this? I am an avid fan of ‘Don’t just complain, do something about it’. There is a UK government petition,

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/14143

     

    that I would ask you all to sign and be a part of. Let’s help to make this wrong doing illegal, so that everyone benefits in the future.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.