Graeme Archer: Love, Actually

Graeme Archer - a blogger and regular visitor to this site - welcomes yesterday's first civil partnership ceremonies...

Do you know what love is? It's one of those objects that is impossible to describe, don't you think? Mozart made a song about it, "Voi che sapete, che cos'e l'amore - " I'm paraphrasing, but the song goes something like "You who know what love is, tell me - is this love?". Alison Moyet sang much the same sentiment some few hundred years later, albeit somewhat more demotically, as befits the original and best Essex girl.

But I think we would agree, regardless of the difficulty of describing in objective terms what love is, when you have it, you recognise it - boy do you recognise it - as your life is transformed, your particles renewed, your vision uplifted and your heart begins to soar. If you haven't experienced that, then I hope one day you do. I shall resist the temptation to quote Belle & Sebastian lyrics - though, it's true, they have described this process in terrific detail (see "If you find yourself caught in love").

Today I watched the first gay civil partnerships take place in Northern Ireland, and on Wednesday I'm fortunate enough to be invited to the first civil partnership in Hackney, when two friends will seal their respective knots. I thought I was a somewhat hard-hearted cynic, but the truth is I find myself emotionally moved by these events.

Why would that be? If you pushed me, I'd say that I never thought this legislation was necessary, and - tell the truth - I thought it had the propensity to be somewhat tacky. "Mr and Mr", "he looked lovely in pink", and all that - and no doubt on Wednesday we can rely on our national treasures, Sir Elton and Mr Furnish, to give Posh and Becks a run for their money.

But a stronger and truer emotion has taken over. I think it is that oldest of all truths: love really does conquer everything. The dignity with which gay couples are publicly embracing their love for one another, the fact that we finally live in a country where such matters are accommodated quietly and without fuss -- all this gives me such pride that I was moved to a few tears this morning.

It's probably neither the time nor the place to list the sound Tory reasons why I feel this is a good step forward - though they are there: sociologically, marriage evolved as a stabilising influence on the sexual drivers of young men and women. The same drivers exist in young gay men and women (I'm using understatement for effect here). It's always seemed ridiculous to me that right-wingers criticise the gay subculture for its sexually energetic mores, while simultaneously denying access to the institution that carries most weight against those drivers! More learned thinkers than I could write about this - Matthew Paris for example.

I once stood in a council chamber in Essex, just elected as a Tory councillor, and to the horror of my colleagues, moved a motion against Section 28 of the local government act. What made me angry about that legislation - forbidding councils to spend money "promoting homosexuality as a pretend family relationship" - was not the bit about promoting homosexuality (how was that to be done? Through a lottery draw? A radio phone-in?) - it was the sneering about our apparently "pretend" family relationships. My dear friends: what is the pretence in the life that Keith and I lead? The shopping for two is real; the housework is very real; the struggle to assemble Ikea flat-pack furniture is real; the fears for our financial future and health and well-being are real; the fact that I would give my life for him is real. How dare some stupid government backbencher, who would never know me, describe our life together as a pretence? If love is FOR anything, it must be to look out for your significant other, to carry them when they need it and to be lifted by their support when you need it. I truly think it's the most amazing gift God gave us. What is the difference, where is the pretence?

Today, years later, I think we have the answer. There is no difference. This is a civilising, overdue piece of quite wonderful legislation - and I never thought I would write that about a Labour government! I celebrate the dignity and joy of the couples who marry today, and I will stand as witness with pride and with love when my dear friends Andrew and Gareth form their partnership on Wednesday morning in Hackney. There's no better time of year, after all, to reflect on the power of love.

Comments

[James Turner]

Couldn't agree more. My mother and father are going to a civil partnership reception on Friday (this in a little suburban town in Worcestershire) and my mum is now dropping hints about me and my partner.

I think that civil partnerships will be transformative for the lives of young gay people. I can't tell straight people how shockingly alienating it is to think you're forever excluded from building a family (which unless you come from an astonishingly liberal family is how many gay kids feel at first). For many years the most effective lobbyists for gay rights haven't necessarily been gay people themselves, but their loving and accepting parents and families. This is one of the last pieces of the puzzle that'll bind us back into our families properly. Even my intensely church going grandmother is looking forward to our ceremony, pencilled in for July 2007.

[Louise]

Completely agree Graeme. I have always found one of the most distasteful elements of our party to be the attitude many members take towards those who are not exactly as they are. I am glad that we are now able to celebrate civil partnerships - either our own, or those of our friends - and look forward to the bold policy announcement of support for gay couples adopting.

Our leading lights are falling over themselves to say how inclusive we now are, let's prove it with some policies that will show that we mean it in a truly practical way.

[malcolm]

I have no strong feelings either for or against gay rights, to be honest I hadn't until recently given it much thought at all.
Reading your post Graeme left me thinking what a nice bloke you are.I'm glad our party has so many people like you in it.

[Charlie]

I wish no ill will to anyone. Gay people should be free to pursue their lives as they see fit, as straight people are. I'm in favour of civil partnerships.

So let me ask this: why am I uneasy? And why does the possibility of two men walking down the aisle of a church (not catered for in the CP legislation, I know) feel so wrong? Am I simply wrestling with residual bigotry or is there something more?

[Louise]

Charlie, I completely understand your feelings.

I would tend to think that civil governments shouldn't interfere with the role of churches and churches shouldn't impose their ideologies onto the state.

As a Catholic, albeit very lapsed, I would feel very unhappy about the Government forcing the Church to accept any policy.

[Graeme Archer]

Charlie, I had that feeling of uneasiness too if I am honest. It's natural I think - this is new territory after all, and people have genuine concerns that this new institution might be a cheeky mimic of one of the institutions we most hold dear. We wouldn't be Tories if we didn't have that sensible feeling of conservatism about change!

I think against that, is the sheer happiness involved. I think the government did the right thing by separating the civil, legal commitment out from any feelings one might have about "marriage" - any religious overtones are up to individuals and their own church. That seems like a nice British compromise (dread word) to me.

[Nuala]

If we Conservatives stand for anything, then it has to be the family. I am concerned at the promotion of so-called alternative lifestyles to this extent. What these people get up to in private is their business, but it is no business of our party to be promoting it.

I see this as yet another example of worrying direction Cameron is taking us in. I voted for him over Davis as he seemed to offer a fresh face to the voters, but you wonder where all this will end. What's the point of having a Conservative Party in power if it isn't conservative?

[Graeme Archer]

Nuala, I hope we do increase the support we give to the family, as a party, through changes to the state welfare system. But please remember that gay people themselves are part of families -- there's an old joke "it takes two heterosexuals to make one homosexual" - a bit panto, I know, but we're in the right season!

So there's two aspects of this change that fits totally with a Tory view of the world and the family.

The first is that we are increasing the amount of happiness available to families. My friends who are "civil unioning" on Wednesday -- they both have families who are over the moon about this event! Neither of them are preventing any other marriage happening, so I can't see how a bit of happiness for gay people and their families is limiting the supply of happiness for others.

The second is that the institution will promote stability in the personal lives of a great many people. This is surely a sound Tory aim? The more we encourage people to live and save together, the less the overall dependency on the state. That's the "low level" reason why we support the marriage institution, I think - what's sauce for the heterosexual goose should be sauce, I think, for the homosexual gander.

[Nuala]

Mr Archer, I just feel we are losing sight of the moral dimension in all this.

[James Cleverly]

Nuala,

I am sorry but I completely disagree with you on this. As a Conservative, as a husband, as a father and as a Christian I believe deeply in the role of marriage and the family as the foundation for a civil and sound society. Yet I feel no contradiction at all with my support for civil partnerships.

Civil marriage means there is a legal and accepted way for straight couples to be recognised as such by the state and society, this recognition builds a bond. Until the civil partnerships act was passed gay couples had no such recognition, this affected the way hospitals looked at visiting rights, families looked at involvement in funeral arrangements, the list goes on.

Traditional marriage looses nothing by this change in the law.

As a final point I would remind you that many Conservatives oppose the ban on hunting, many other people find this distasteful, yet we feel it morally right to defend the freedoms of the minority who enjoy hunting. I feel that defending the minority of lesbians and gays in society is just as valid and as a Conservative your own feelings towards homosexuality should be entirely secondary.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Wonderful article, Graeme.

[Nuala]

Mr Cleverley, I have to take issue with you on this. What in effect you are saying to me is "anything goes". We only have to look at the broken state of our society to know that this most certainly isn't true. Soaring crime levels, a lack of respect for the elderly, youngsters getting drunk and incapable and flaunting themselves on our streets, no individual responsibility. This has come froma breakdown in moral values and although this is a small part of it, it is yet one more erosion of our moral framework and a further step towards brutalism and anarchy.

[James Cleverly]

Nuala,

I am sure there will be many issues on which we agree; this is not going to be one of them.

I am not and have never been an “anything goes” subscriber. I have come from a strong moral background from both my West Country farming and West African Methodist families and having been a British Army Officer (full and part time) for over a decade I feel I have a very strong sense of decency.

The problems that you highlight have nothing to do with what, I believe, is an equalling of an unequal situation. Those problems come from a lack of social cohesion brought about by increasingly fragmented family and social groupings, I don’t understand how reinforcing a loving relationship can be seen as adding to this.

There are many simple things that would improve society, people understanding personal responsibility as well as their rights, children being taught to say “please and thank you”, thinking about others before yourself etc. All these things would help improve society, excluding a group because of what they do in the bedroom would not.

[Editor]

You may not agree with homosexuality, Nuala, I don't know, but is it not better to encourage the aspiration of gay people to form stable partnerships?

I believe that heterosexual marriage should enjoy special privileges because of its importance to the care of the very young and very old... but there is a strong conservative argument for same-sex civil unions (and one well put by Andrew Sullivan).

See here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110004130

[liberal democrat]

Nuala,

I'm totally with you with concern over crime, respect for the elderly and drunken irresponsibility, and concern for those certainly have their places in our thinking - but what do they have to do with civil partnerships between loving same-sex couples?

[Pam Roberts]

JC - surely "equalling" unequal situations isn't what we're about. Since when did Conservatism become about equality?

I think Nuala is right about the lack of a moral framework these days. This homosexual equality stuff may be a small part in itself, but it is one further manifestation of how our society no longer seems to hold to any absolute values.

Surely we need a line in the sand on this one?

[Louise]

Nuala, how can two people who love each other, publicly commiting to one another - showing their respect for each other by recognising that with partnership comes responsbilities, possibly be a step towards anarchy? My marriage to my husband would not be affected one bit if my friend were to enter into a civil partnership with his boyfriend who has lived with for longer than I have even known my husband, nor would my ability to raise any children we may have.

There are many things in this life I do not approve of. One of which is fox-hunting but as James correctly points out being a Conservative does not mean agreeing with every policy, it means sharing the same over-riding principles.

To me those principles are: freedom of the individual from over-bearing state interference, the creation of a fair and equal society, an opportunity based society where people advance on their merits and not on their backgrounds and a society where people can keep as much of their hard earned cash as possible and can therefore create a vibrant economy. Of course I may be wrong about my principles. Allowing civil partnerships does not appear to conflict with any of these principles.

Society is more likely to break down when people are so tightly controlled that they feel no freedom. By focusing on the issues of civil partnerships, single mothers, divorce rates etc we are following an easy path to encourage alienation from society and a quicker way to anarchy.

[Nuala]

I understand that people are the way they are, I am just not sure that it is the place of the law to promote this. I believe that our society is based fundamentally on Christian teachings and that isn't some sort of pick and mix set of values that we can choose or leave aside as we see fit. We have to accept that framework as a whole. Once you go against that in one area you open up the whole structure to challenge which is what has taken us to the position we are in today.

[Pam Roberts]

"To me those principles are: freedom of the individual from over-bearing state interference, the creation of a fair and equal society, an opportunity based society where people advance on their merits and not on their backgrounds and a society where people can keep as much of their hard earned cash as possible and can therefore create a vibrant economy"

I'd agree with 3 of those, but I really can't support "the creation of a fair and equal society" as an objective; at best it's a by-product of the others.

Equality above morality is really the slippery slope towards socialism.

[James Cleverly]

Pam

“Since when did Conservatism become about equality?”

Disraeli extending the vote? Wilberforce opposing slavery? Thatcher with right to buy? I think Conservatives are very much about equality and fairness. The difference between the Left and us is that we believe in equality at the highest common denominator and not at the lowest.

[Pam Roberts]

But James, those examples you cite aren't about 'equality', they're about freedom of the individual.

They're also couched within a solid moral framework holding our nation together. Why was Wilberforce lead the anti-slavery movement? Because he was a man of deep religious and moral beliefs. Similarly Margaret Thatcher had an inherent understanding of right over wrong, and one which was very much in tune with the majority of our country.

None of this is about equality as a goal in itself.

[Sean Fear]

I don't see those examples as being about equality, James. Extending the franchise was a tactic to try and outflank the Liberals (in fact it failed); abolishing slavery was about ending a moral wrong - not establishing equality between slaves and their former owners; and the right to buy was hardly an equalising measure, rather the reverse (though the right thing to do IMO).

Surely a Conservative recognises that a free society is bound to be unequal, and that inequality is both natural and (up to a point) desirable.

[James Cleverly]

Pam

What all those examples highlight is an equal start. I don’t believe in equality of outcome because we are all different, but giving everyone a fair start is a true Conservative value.

Is your objection to homosexual partnerships really a moral argument? If it is then would you make homosexuality illegal again?

I know some wonderful, honest, religious and deeply moral gay people and plenty of straight people who are complete sh*ts. Morality does not come with a sexual exclusion zone.

I still have not heard a single argument that shows how civil partnerships add to the breakdown of our society. I am open-minded and if anyone can persuade me that it does I will oppose it.

[Nuala]

Mr Cleverley, how can you have equality at the highest common denominator? As Conservatives we believe that people should strive to better themselves. How can one measure success if there is equality? Conservatism is not and has never been about equality, and if that is what you believe then I suggest you take yourself off to the socialists or liberals.

[Nuala]

I would add that you have a further intellectual imabalance Mr Cleverley. If people are free to keep their hard-earned money, as I believe they should be, then they should have the right to spend it on what they choose. This would include ensuring their children get a head start in life by investing in their education. I am all for people advancing on their merits but that sits at odds with saying that people should not get on because of their background. It is self evident that if someone has had the right background then they will do well, and this is what we as Conservatives should be in favour of. Which leads back to the original reason for posting.

[James Cleverly]

I admit “equality at the highest denominator” was a bit of a weak phrase but the point that I am trying to make is that excluding groups because of a personal prejudice is not a Conservative value.

[James Maskell]

I struggle to understand some peoples opposition to same-sex couples having similar rights as heterosexual couples. Nuala is one of those people, Im afraid. Should someones sexuality determine how society treats them? I understand the religious rights arguments on this, but Britain isnt as religious as it used to be. Secularisation has occured (Im using the definition that religion is organised religion) and people are freer to do and believe what they want without the restrictive influences of organised religion.

Who are we to tell people they cant be in a loving relationship with the free option for them to make it official. I think its a preposterous idea that civil partnerships might lead to the break up of society. If you are homosexual, you are homosexual. Who are we to tell them they cant be homosexual?

If for example I decide I have fallen in love with a man and want to spend my life with him (I dont but just making a point here), what right does the state have to refuse me that choice? Civil ceremonies arent marriages.

[Pam Roberts]

James - I agree with Sean & Nuala's comments on equality, and I think you'd find that thinking is in the majority within the party (it's certainly very prevalent in my association).

Gay marriage in itself is just one further example of the boundaries being eroded. Much of our nation no longer seems to have any moral code to live by. Surely one of the roles of government is to promote that moral framework?

That needn't extend to outlawing homosexuality, but it certainly should be about promoting a stable family life, something which by definition homosexuality cannot do. 'Gay marriage' is simply a smokescreen for a more pernicious erosion of the family as a moral unit.

[Pam Roberts]

Sorry - that comment was intended for James Cleverly but could equally apply to James Maskell

[James Maskell]

That is, I havent fallen in love with a man or want to spend my life with a man. I have no problem with anyone else wanting to be with someone of their own sex though. Britain is a diverse country and much freer than the US for example when it coems to gay rights. We welcome into our arms people of all faiths and backgrounds and races, but sexuality is treated differently. Why is it still such a taboo with those on the religious right?

[Nuala]

Mr Maskell, the state would have no problem with you wanting to spend the rest of your life with another man, but there is no reason why it should support you to do so. We used to believe in supporting the family with, for example, married couples tax allowances. If we believe that marriage is the best way to promote a stable cohesive society then we should say so.

[Alex W]

Nuala and Pam - I fully accept your points on a structural level (i.e. that the Conservative party should provide some element of moral leadership, albeit preferably not one through legislative discrimination) but fail to see how this framework applies in this particular case.

To whit, why is same-sex civil partnership immoral? One can cite Christian values, but I doubt that Christ - who constantly challenged the prevailing social mores, and encouraged us to treat all people with love and respect as they are - would condemn two homosexual people who are genuinely in love. One can claim "general moral decay", but this is such a nebulous phrase that it becomes a catch-all for all those who cannot think of a good argument why something is wrong. One can note the problems with a revolution in sexual attitudes leading to higher promiscuity, teenage pregnancy and so on, but surely two people commmitting themselves to either for life is the antithesis to this. One can postulate that civil partnership undermines marriage as a cohesive family unit, but surely the converse applies: marriage is being upheld as the ideal, no matter what one's sexuality.

The question I pose is this: if we accept that gay people exist, would we rather they were in stable and loving relationships, or not?

[James Cleverly]

Pan, Nuala & Sean

Either you strive towards greater equality or you strive towards greater inequality. I would be very interested to hear the arguments in favour of the Conservative party actively working towards a less equal society. The reason that I am a Conservative and not a lefty is that I believe that personal aspiration and development should not be held back by that desire for equality.

I would prefer everyone better off with inequality than everyone equal but poor. That doesn’t mean that I don’t strive for a third and elusive (impossible) goal of everyone well off, happy and equal.

Surely Conservative equality is about lifting those who are less well off rather than holding back those who are at the top or who aspire to be at the top. This is relevant to civil partnerships, if we all believe that marriage is a good thing with a positive effect on society why would we want to deny it to anyone?

Supporting the family is important and I feel that we should do much more in this area but providing a non-religious way for a gay couple to be recognised as such does not detract from this. It is not moral erosion, it is not un-Conservative it is just, right and fair.

Should Labour voter be banned from marriage just because we view their lifestyle as abhorrent?

[Nuala]

Having a stable loving relationship and having that recognised by the state are two separate issues. If we preference one view of society within the law as I believe we should then by definition we do not preference the others.

Mr Cleverley, how can you tell if everyone is equal whether they are all poor and equal or rich and equal? If there is no equality there is no absolute measure and nothing by which to motivate people to better themselves. Therefore your argument is specious.

[James Cleverly]

But Nuala, would you actively campaign for greater inequality?

[Nuala]

Of course not. You don't campaign on the issue of equality at all. That is socialist talk. I am beginning to think your motives are subversive, mr Cleverley.

[John Moss]

One consideration that is lacking here is the non-married hetro-sexual couple who do not want to marry.

They are denied this tax break and that is wrong. It isn't about equality of outcome, it is about equality of opportunity and if they do not have the opportunity to register a partnership, they are being discriminated against.

Personally, I would end civil marriage. Leave it to church, mosque, synagogue or temple to do the "marrying" and require every couple that wants to to register their civil partnership in order to get their tax breaks/rights.

We also need to end the discrimination against married, or just living together families that exists in the welfare system, as was recently exposed.

Frankly, we do not need to "promote" anything, just ridding the system of its current bias would be inherently Conservative.

[James Burdett]

Interesting that there is still residual prejudice around, but not entirely surprising! I think Civil Partnership is a fantastic development, it advances a stable society, and allows all couples to prove their commitment to one another. I believe that committed relationships build stable societies, and whether that is marriage as traditionally defined or civil partnership it has the same purpose of providing a framework for that deep personal relationship which most individuals seek.

[James Cleverly]

John,

I think that you miss the point. Heterosexual couples that don’t want to get married are not being discriminated against, if they want to be legally recognised as a couple they can get married. It doesn’t have to be religious or expensive, this was an option denied to gay couples.

If they choose not to get married that is up to them but they cannot then complain about not receiving the benefits of marriage.

[James Cleverly]

Nuala,

I can assure you I am true blue, I apologise if I do not conform to your stereotypical Conservative but I do have this country’s and this party’s best interests at heart. :)

[Sean Fear]

"Either you strive towards greater equality or you strive towards greater inequality. "

No I don't think so (I'm commenting in general, rather than specifically about civil partnerships).

Inequality is natural. People have differing levels of ability - that will produce unequal outcomes. People (both at individual and group level) have different desires - that will produce unequal outcomes. And people have a natural tendency to provide for family members - and that will produce unequal outcomes.

Unless a society is in danger of becoming a completely closed caste, I wouldn't want the reduction of inequality to be an aim of government policy at all. That doesn't mean that I think it should be government policy to increase inequality either.

[wasp]

I think civil partnerships will have a positive benefit on the "moral fibre" (how i hate that phrase) of our country.

Because it is bringing people into the tent. The biggest cause of the problems mentioned above is disenfranchisement, disillusionment and exclusion.

The way to heal our broken society is to bring people together and give them more of a stake in society, not try to drive people apart and create a more fractured society.

p.s. Sean Fear the franchise did outflank the Liberals eventually, the one thing they could not cope with was the vote.

[Louise]

"Inequality is natural. People have differing levels of ability - that will produce unequal outcomes. People (both at individual and group level) have different desires - that will produce unequal outcomes. And people have a natural tendency to provide for family members - and that will produce unequal outcomes."

Sean - of course you are right, there will always be inequalities of talent, of wealth and abilities. This itself is not a bad thing. However what I described as an "equal" society is one in which opportunities and rights are equal. All members of society, regardless of their abilities should be treated in an equal fashion in law.

[Derek]

What this legislation does is give homosexual couples rights of tax free inheritance, and passing on pension rights etc. In the case of heterosexual marriage, relationships within close family were barred because of incest causing birth defects, hereditary diseases etc. None of this is relevant to a homosexual relationship, but I understand that these relationships are still excluded from the new law. If we are going to be fully inclusive then we ought to be in favour of allowing any two unattached people to form a civil partnership, other than those who are eligible to marry. The only reason this will not be allowed is that it would lead to a huge loss of death duties. Once we have accepted that marriage is not the only form of relationship recognised in law, then surely we must recognise all as equally acceptable.

It seems to me that the new law will be taken advantage of by people who want to exploit it to gain immigration rights. No doubt this is another reason for not extending it further. However morally there is no case for not doing so. But then politicians are not usually too worried about that aspect. I think this change has come about as a result of a lot of pressure by the gay lobby which is very strong. There is no such lobby for other groups.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I think Nuala's posts are bordering on the homophobic side. I am sure that our Editor will take appropriate action when necessary. Nuala's views, however sincerely held, led to us to be seen as the 'nasty party'. It is no coincidence that our Party, led by a liberal Conservative, is leading Labour in all the recent polls. We need to change to win and win for Britain!

[Tory T]

One of the defining characteristics of Conservatism is an understanding of nature, and human nature in particular. Many of the worst atrocities and tyrannies of the 20th century happened because socialists attempted to remake man in the image of their ideological fantasies.
a
The pursuit of equality, indeed any attempt to socially engineer the organic collective, will end in misery. That's not the same as the desire of the talented, the wealthy and the fortunate to improve the lot of their fellow humans. Equality is a dodgy concept but fairness and compassion are Conservative words.

In that spirit, I see nothing wrong with blokes who are born to love other blokes being given a means of committing to each other and having that affirmed by the state.

[Nuala]

Mr Hinchcliffe, why does not agreeing that there is a need to recognise partnerships other than marriage in law make me a homophobe? I have stated repeatedly that I accept that homosexual couples can form whatever relationships they choose, just that the state has no place in them.

And it seems our leader is more liberal than conservative given his recent pronouncements. When his true views become more known more widely I am sure that other conservatives will feel the same disquiet. This is not the Conservative party they joined.

[Richard Gibbs]

Civil Partnership are not so much about the law interfering in the personal domain, or about the law and the church crossing paths; what they are about is removing an unfairness and a barrier to the expression of personal choice. Conservatism is about many things, but it is nothing if it does not protect the freedom of the individual to make their own choices, free from outside interference.
Before the Civil Partnership Bill, the situation existed whereby, in effect, the state said that if you happened to be gay, then the state ruled that you couldn't join together in the way deemed responsible for heterosexuals. That was simply unfair.
Conservatives should be about freeing the individual from unnecessary state-imposed burdens; civil partnerships allow this freedom and as such the Conservative Party should welcome them.
I recognise that some people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, but at the end of the day, the principles of the values we all ascribe to say that while we are free to feel that way, we should not allow our personal dislikes to be turned into rules for others to obey. I am a straight male and I would be unhappy if I was told by the state that while a gay man may join with his lover, I could not do so with my girlfriend. The situation now is that the state is no longer passing moral judgment on love and we should celebrate that.
We can support marriage and civil partnerships at the same time. After all, civil partnerships also allow for long term companions - of whatever gender/sexuality - to join together and thus overcome many of the barriers that unmarried people face. Nuala et al are free to think what they will of homosexuals and civil partnerships, but their desire for state proscription of sexuality smacks of authoritarianism. A society so fundamentalist as to do this would not be one any decent Conservative would want to live in.
http://richard-gibbs.blogspot.com/

[James Maskell]

Nuala, if the state has no place in same sex relationships and the church wont have anything to do with it, your point about allowing them to have any form of relationship they choose is defunct, dont you think?

[James Burdett]

If the state should have no part in homosexual partnership then thats fine, we should perhaps just abolish marriage then!!