This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/05/civil-partnership-gay-marriage

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
I am in a civil partnership, but it is no substitute for marriage I am in a civil partnership, but it is no substitute for marriage
(4 months later)
Stand down, please, call off the dogs. Marriage, I promise you, is under no threat. I have been in a civil partnership since the end of 2005 and at the time, as well as being a great joy, it also seemed like a significant political achievement. The ceremony itself was indistinguishable in its language from a marriage, but after more than seven years living in a civil partnership I am sorry to report that it is, in fact, qualitatively different from being married.Stand down, please, call off the dogs. Marriage, I promise you, is under no threat. I have been in a civil partnership since the end of 2005 and at the time, as well as being a great joy, it also seemed like a significant political achievement. The ceremony itself was indistinguishable in its language from a marriage, but after more than seven years living in a civil partnership I am sorry to report that it is, in fact, qualitatively different from being married.
For me, the case for gay marriage is mainly an issue of language and the way society perceives such unions – rather than anything to do with the partnership itself. But language makes the world, and at the moment, language continues to describe an uneven and unequal terrain. Same-sex couples need access to marriage, both as an institution and label, and we need it now.For me, the case for gay marriage is mainly an issue of language and the way society perceives such unions – rather than anything to do with the partnership itself. But language makes the world, and at the moment, language continues to describe an uneven and unequal terrain. Same-sex couples need access to marriage, both as an institution and label, and we need it now.
I have sensed this inequality in all kinds of daily interactions. A married, heterosexual mortgage adviser in Sheffield could not understand the nature of my relationship with my partner; to him I was simply the boyfriend (though I had never called myself this) of the person with the mortgage, and I was forced to sign away my right to the house to protect the mortgage company in case of my partner's death.I have sensed this inequality in all kinds of daily interactions. A married, heterosexual mortgage adviser in Sheffield could not understand the nature of my relationship with my partner; to him I was simply the boyfriend (though I had never called myself this) of the person with the mortgage, and I was forced to sign away my right to the house to protect the mortgage company in case of my partner's death.
A few years later, an estate agent in London demanded to see my civil partnership certificate before she would even agree to show us flats to rent because I was then unemployed. When I asked whether she would make the same demand of a married opposite-sex couple, she became defensive and insisted, unconvincingly, that she was not discriminating.A few years later, an estate agent in London demanded to see my civil partnership certificate before she would even agree to show us flats to rent because I was then unemployed. When I asked whether she would make the same demand of a married opposite-sex couple, she became defensive and insisted, unconvincingly, that she was not discriminating.
Just last year, an investment adviser at a high street bank could not designate us as partners because the software had not been updated for civil partnerships (more than seven years after they became law): if he classified each of us as married, the online forms could not be processed because the two members of the relationship had to be designated as the opposite sex. We could be married, male and female, divorced, or single, and thus we were both labelled "single". He apologised, but it was clear he did not understand what a civil partnership really was, or how deeply alienated by the experience my partner and I both felt.Just last year, an investment adviser at a high street bank could not designate us as partners because the software had not been updated for civil partnerships (more than seven years after they became law): if he classified each of us as married, the online forms could not be processed because the two members of the relationship had to be designated as the opposite sex. We could be married, male and female, divorced, or single, and thus we were both labelled "single". He apologised, but it was clear he did not understand what a civil partnership really was, or how deeply alienated by the experience my partner and I both felt.
I have continued to hope that this is all merely a question of society needing time to catch up, but the slights only continue. A few months ago, when we met with a social worker from a London borough to explore adoption options, she asked how long my partner and I had been together and if we were really in a committed relationship. When we told her we had been together for more than 10 years she said "well I guess that's quite long", but warned us, while confiding that she was not supposed to do so, that we were likely to encounter social workers who would not look kindly on a same-sex couple wishing to adopt.I have continued to hope that this is all merely a question of society needing time to catch up, but the slights only continue. A few months ago, when we met with a social worker from a London borough to explore adoption options, she asked how long my partner and I had been together and if we were really in a committed relationship. When we told her we had been together for more than 10 years she said "well I guess that's quite long", but warned us, while confiding that she was not supposed to do so, that we were likely to encounter social workers who would not look kindly on a same-sex couple wishing to adopt.
Such small instances of bias add up to a very real, lasting and marginalising sense of injustice that leaves one moving through the world bracing always for the next misunderstanding, systemic oversight, eruption of small-mindedness or outright bigotry. The extension of marriage to same-sex couples has nothing to do with religion or "aping" heterosexual relationships, as some would have it. Nor would the extension of marriage to same-sex couples risk forgetting the LGBTQ activism of earlier generations. What is at issue is equality of opportunity, equalising the way same-sex couples are treated by the institutions of everyday life.Such small instances of bias add up to a very real, lasting and marginalising sense of injustice that leaves one moving through the world bracing always for the next misunderstanding, systemic oversight, eruption of small-mindedness or outright bigotry. The extension of marriage to same-sex couples has nothing to do with religion or "aping" heterosexual relationships, as some would have it. Nor would the extension of marriage to same-sex couples risk forgetting the LGBTQ activism of earlier generations. What is at issue is equality of opportunity, equalising the way same-sex couples are treated by the institutions of everyday life.
The one affects the other, and this is, I suspect, precisely what the campaigners against same-sex marriage most fear: a society of greater equality. I am wholly sympathetic to the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples as part of a more radical interrogation of the institution of marriage, but it seems crucial that everyone first has the opportunity to marry. This is, ultimately, about the realities of the society in which we live.The one affects the other, and this is, I suspect, precisely what the campaigners against same-sex marriage most fear: a society of greater equality. I am wholly sympathetic to the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples as part of a more radical interrogation of the institution of marriage, but it seems crucial that everyone first has the opportunity to marry. This is, ultimately, about the realities of the society in which we live.
My domestic life is marked by no intrinsic differences from the lives of my married heterosexual friends, but in daily interactions with the rest of society, a civil partnership lacks the cultural and social capital of marriage. Often it simply does not signify at all, or fails to appear to the heterosexual majority as anything other than two people of the same sex living together.My domestic life is marked by no intrinsic differences from the lives of my married heterosexual friends, but in daily interactions with the rest of society, a civil partnership lacks the cultural and social capital of marriage. Often it simply does not signify at all, or fails to appear to the heterosexual majority as anything other than two people of the same sex living together.
Far too often, media has suggested that two men in particular cannot and will not have lasting, committed and exclusive relationships. As a consequence, a great many people act as though a civil partnership is not worth the paper on which it is written. Call it a marriage, let us call our relationships marriages, and same-sex unions themselves will begin to signify differently in the world.Far too often, media has suggested that two men in particular cannot and will not have lasting, committed and exclusive relationships. As a consequence, a great many people act as though a civil partnership is not worth the paper on which it is written. Call it a marriage, let us call our relationships marriages, and same-sex unions themselves will begin to signify differently in the world.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.