Gay Marriage (my tuppence worth!)

It is 10 weeks today until our civil partnership, so we’re very much getting into the detail of planning. Quite a lot of things to do, of course, and plans to make. However, by and large the big details of the day are done.

The day itself is of course not our wedding day. Civil partnerships in the UK are specifically and legally separate but (almost, but not quite) equal.

However, there are plans afoot by the Government to bring in equal marriage – not gay marriage, which would be separate by fully equal – but instead extending existing marriage rights to gay couples.  A decision that Sir Humphrey Appleby might describe as ‘courageous’, nevertheless a few weeks ago the proposal passed the first stage of the legislative process in the House of Commons.

The legislation had a tough ride, and the debate was marred perhaps by some rather pompous and insensitive remarks. Among the usual  “what next? Siamese twins marrying narwhales?” brigade who are so far off the map (a) their minds cannot be changed and (b) they are Mostly Harmless in that most people recognise they are frankly barking, there were some rather more pernicious naysayers.

One argument ran that this change would force people like teachers to act against their conscience and compel them to treat gay relationships as equal when they don’t believe this is so.

Well, the previous Conservative government had no difficulty enacting charming legislation forbidding teachers discussing homosexuality in positive terms (section 28 which banned  the “teaching in any [state funded] school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”)

Another, frequently made, argument was that extending marriage to gay people devalues straight marriage and anyway we have civil partnerships and those are the same.

To me this is like saying Rosa Parks was wrong on 1 December 1955 to refuse to give up her bus seat to a white man, as she was required to by law. After all, she was still on the same bus and still heading the same place, at the same speed as white people and in almost, but not quite, the same comfort. Now, instead, all this civil-rights nonsense has devalued bus travel for white men!

It’s not a very good argument, and vanishingly few could rationally support it. But even if they did, the argument might be said to be missing the point.

And let us not forget that ‘gay marriage’ has been legalised in countries on every continent (if we include Nepal where the Supreme Court has ruled it must be enshrined in the new constitution). There does not appear to have been a collapse in morality and family life in any of those places. Nothing that has rocked them like the recent scandals to affect a certain Church currently searching for a new leader…

But I think it is the third, broad argument – one made of many strands - that demonstrates the blindness some people have when it comes to gay rights and tells us how LGBT people are still not quite seen as having the same validity as straight people. For all the arguments around religious freedom; the value of marriage; the future of children – how can anyone who values marriage as the bedrock of society or argues in favour of personal freedom be logically against everyone having the freedom to enjoy it?

The future of the legislation is uncertain but I think it is unlikely to be completely derailed. The politics around it will become increasingly toxic, I fear. The largest party split its vote 42% for and 46% against. If the Government’s own party can’t muster a majority either for or against its own policy… well, there may be trouble ahead.

But we shall persevere.

Dissertation

Well gentle reader, a promise is a promise – I said I’d share my dissertation and here it is:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51949972/4.%20Dissertation.pdf

Now, beware that this is a stripped down version of what I submitted for marking. My dissertation supervisor wanted me to reduce it to a summary of findings but I hope you can still follow it and it makes interesting reading.

I myself go through quite a roller-coaster ride of feelings toward my dissertation. I loved doing it; hated it as soon as I submitted it; loved it when I passed; and now doubt myself when it comes to sharing. So, please don’t judge me too harshly!

Oh, and I’ve done an introduction to the statistical techniques used here:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51949972/2.%20Introduction%20to%20the%20statistical%20techniques%20used.pdf

*blush*

PS please don't re-publish without getting in touch :-)

Controversy

Now gentle reader it is not often that the Cheerful Fairy wades into the murk of politics. Very much an armchair fairy about that sort of thing. Usually.

Over the last few months Stonewall has been running ads on the side of Strumpetville’s shiney red buses “some people are gay: get over it!”. A very simple and effective message, and part of a campaign that is complemented with posters and leaflets and T-shirts etc.

But that is of course never the end of it. A counter campaign has been formulated: “not gay, ex gay, post gay and proud. Get over it!”. These were also due to be plastered on our shiny buses, right up until yesterday the Mayor had the campaign stopped.

Ensue much hullabaloo and stroking of beards, oh yes indeed.

A group called the Core Issues Trust, supported by Anglican Mainstream, The largely unsought battle between religious faith and sexual orientation continues apace, it appears.

So what’s the issue? Well, the nominal reason is the suggestion the ad promotes gay cures. We know, I think, that such ‘cures’ are utter rubbish, and if anything actively cause a lot of harm.

Does the advertisement itself claim to offer, or support, “gay cures”? No, not really. But I think the man in the street would reasonably infer that such a thing were possible, or at least that sexual orientation is mutable. And we cannot ignore both Core Issues trust and Anglican Mainstream focus on offering gay cures. Certainly the advertisement goes further than arguing, as this article in the Daily Mail suggests, that homosexuality as an aberration and as such we gayers need to “get over” our 'agenda'.

The Advertising Standards Authority, the regulator of advertisements in the UK, has come in for much criticism for not banning the ads itself. But should it? I used to work for the ASA and grapple with issues such as these. It is implausible to ban advertisements because you disagree with their content or message in principle; but on the other hand you can be so offensive that in limited instances freedom of speech can, and should, be restricted.

The ASA cannot arbitrate on this before an advertisement is run. Such a thing is censorship. If after seeing an advertisement someone has grounds for complaint, that complaint should be fully considered and a decision made in favour of one party or  the other. That is what regulators do; they are in the business of disappointing people. Not protecting them, on the grounds of some moral code nobody agreed, from things they might not like.

The timing of the advertisement, and the decision to ban it, can also not be ignored. The Mayor is running for re-election on 3 May, and up to now the campaign has been a mud-slinging vileathon with no debate about real issues. Of the party (right of centre) that is the main partner in the unpopular national coalition government, and one that is consistently considered to be sleazy and nasty, and in an incredibly diverse and largely left leaning city… I strongly suspect he’ll have swung some of those swing votes. Being sued by people who are to me clearly a hate group (although I’m sure they sincerely don’t see themselves as such, take out the words gay or homosexual in what they write and replace them with black of Jewish and see how it reads then) won’t hurt either, methinks.

Cynical? Perhaps. But should then the advert be run? Well, freedom of speech is a right for those who understand, as all sane adult men and women do, their responsibilities. We must think before we speak, and sometimes consider whether we need to speak at all. So it can’t always be absolute.

If I were Mayor of Strumpetville – or better still, king and tyrant – then I would let the advert run, but publicly and loudly voice my disagreement with its message and my view of those behind it. I would use it as a reason to keep equality, rights (and obligations), tackling hatred, and proper education about sexual health sand orientation high on the list of social priorities

In the meantime we have to accept that there are those who disagree with, or simply hate, homosexuality, and this must be tackled through open and honest debate. It creates climate of fear that stops people freely living their lives. Those, like the Anglican Mainstream or the Daily Mail, who clearly have an agenda all their own that is closer to something far more right wing and pernicious than sleaziness or nastiness must not be driven underground or simply banned. They have to be shown to be wrong.

186

Looking at the stats each and every year the number of posts I write goes down. Partly it's because I've achieved much of what I set out to achieve; and there's only so much you can post about that. Partly it's because I've been busy. Done a master's degree, dangnamit!

Still, I want to continue this blog. I'm wedding planning, and Fella and I have a lot of life experiences ahead which are totally unprecedented for both of us; and of course there's a reasonable chance I'll fuck it all up and I'll be back at square one, slightly the frumpier for it.
 

Nevertheless, I've decided to do something that may appear counter-intuitive, and that is start another blog. It will run for a few months alongside this one, but will be focussed on my research for my dissertation.


The idea appeals to me because, as part of my research, I should keep a reflexive journal, the function of which will be to record my experiences, thoughts and ideas as I go forward.

For example, I've had 186 valid responses to my questionnaire so far but a huge proportion - nearly 50% - are under 25. No problem with that, except it means I can't easily correlate behaviour with life experience for the simple reason they haven't had many! They've had plenty of sex drugs and rock and roll, but not too many kids, not too much of an income and PhDs, civil partnerships and mortgages will be thin on the ground. However, homophobic bullying in schools is really coming out as an unexpectedly major theme around which I will need to do a lot of background reading and self-directed learning.


Also of concern is that I’m not getting any black respondents at all. This is clearly partly due to the way I’ve marketed my research, and I need to think about how best to address that.


Oh, I could go on and on… but I don’t think it quite proper, or of enough general interest, to do so here. Hence the other blog. My idea, simply, is that the feedback and comments I’ve had on my own blogged life experiences have been so valuable from you all, I could gain a lot from people’s views of my experiences doing my research – just as feedback from those who have taken the questionnaire has helped me tweak my questions.


186 though – I’m pleased to get so many in just over three weeks. In my wildest dreams I imagine bursting through the 1000 barrier by August. We shall see, gentle reader.


In the meantime, if you are at all interest, my other blog is http://socres.blogspot.co.uk/

Reading List

By and large, Gentle Reader, I’ve done pretty well as The Cheerful Fairy. I’ve met my man, and am making plans to be the Forever Fairy, with car payment and in-laws and a goldfish Oh my. Getting here I thoroughly enjoyed everything the Strumpetville had to offer. My eyes were opened but luckily my mind wasn’t closed.

I have a lot of gay friends, and as it turns out (a Christmas party themed post for another time) a huge proportion of the colleagues in my team are gay – 30% or so. Naturally being gay is an automatic get out of my bad books card.

A lot of my friends have been active in gay issues for a long time. Some since university. I of course was somewhat hidden away from such things. I don’t think it even occurred to me back then that there would be such a thing as a LGBT student union rep.

So now I read Pink News and Gay Times and sign online petitions. I am a representative on my workplace’s LGBT network and work to advance or advocate gay issues with my employer.

I still don’t get involved as much as I’d like in gay things – I don’t know gay literature, films, etc very much. Part of me shies away from the very pretty people because I ain’t one of them any more. But that’s no excuse.

So, then, I have developed a small – and will expand – reading list, and viewing list.

My first piece of gay literature, and I use the word literature quite wrongly, was The Captain’s Boy. You can well imagine the content – young insanely good looking aristocrat flees family after being caught rogering the young insanely good looking gardener, gets press-ganged onto a ship of fit and well hung sailors; gets captured by a load of fit and well hung pirates. Eventually he gets captured by the native inhabitants of a tropical island who have a remarkable range of highly man-specific rituals… and so on. I remember the book always equated penis size with virtue. The villain of the book was intimately described in punitive terms!

Moving on up, these are the items on my reading list

·         The Velvet Rage – recommended by a date who became a friend, written by a psychologist about growing up gay in the modern world

·         The Swimming Pool Library – a novel by Alan Hollinghurst

·         The Fluffer – a film about a young guy obsessed with a gay-for-pay porn star. It’s Fella’s ;-)

·         A Beautiful Thing – because it’s great and I haven’t seen it for years

The book I’ve just finished is Twenty 6 by Jonathan Kemp, 26 short sections of prose describing the experience of various sexual or erotic or emotional encounters in a unique combination of graphic and somehow touching terms. He captures those most fleeting moments very well. I recommend it.

Do you have any remmendations? I also recommend this:



Census

Being an introverted and nerdy Fairy I took great delight in completing our census forms.


This is the second time I have completed the forms, and when I was posting the paperwork back I began to ponder the last ten years and how things have changed.

Where was I ten years ago?

I was in the middle of totally loving my first job since graduating. It paid next to nothing and I shortly after left because there was nowhere for me to go... but it was great. In those days I smoked and back then you could still – just – smoke in the office.

The office also had its own rather extensive wine cellar – it was, and is, a regulatory body traditionally headed by a member of the House of Lords – so many is a time we wiled away the night in the boardroom making a dent in some worthy plonk.

There were a number of out gay men in the office, which never phased me at all. Thinking about it back then it must have been quite a bit more difficult to be an out gay man in the workplace. No legislation protecting you. Less widespread internet. Less able to be open about any relationship...

I didn’t dare go there, not much anyway; though there was at least one guy was interested. One of those boozy nights we did get down to our underwear... I remember around that time we went out for dinner too. But that was that. Silly me. Instead I embarked on an affair with a female colleague that was short-lived too. Obviously my heart wasn’t in it.

My home was a small one bedroom flat in east London, cheap as chips, and shared with mice and the occasional cockroach. I’d moved there after graduating – and in fact would continue to live alone until the week after I met Fella.

I had my internet connection, and boy was it an eye-opener. I was more nerdy then than I am now, so it was the perfect way to start to learn about who and what I am. I suppose that road if uninterrupted would have led to me coming to terms with my sexuality a bit sooner than I did. Sadly, partly – majorly – because of my neighbour in the flat below mine the process was interrupted. I do believe coming out is a process, rather than a big bang event. And it doesn’t always happen smoothly; or the same for everyone.

Truisms aside it was an interesting time to be alive and by and large I remember the time with great fondness. Who isn’t fond of being young? It certainly helped make me who I am today. Who knows, gentle reader, where I will be in 10 years’ time. And what I will be looking back on.

Wedding Plans

Save the date, Gentle Reader, for Fella and I are to be married on 15 May 2013. Where? St James’s Church Piccadilly. And afterward, we honeymoon in the Maldives or the Seychelles. The guest list is going to be 60 or so people, and the total cost will be about £5,000.


There, that was easy...

As a project manager I’m dealing with a lot of the arrangements, though Fella will no doubt have a strong contribution when it comes to the aesthetics, the music, that kind of thing; his forte. I myself am less a bride than a potential bridezilla. The day itself doesn’t excite me too much yet, though that may change... the state of nuptial bliss tantalises me more.

Why? Well, it’s simple – 15 May is when we met, so we thought it would make a nice choice of date. St James’s is the place we met, and I’ve always wanted to have a nice luxurious indulgent holiday in a lovely spot like those islands... As for the year. 50% is because my exam are that period in 2011 and 2012, 40% is because I will have cleared all my debts by then and saved up enough to start us off properly, and 10% is bet hedging.

Yes, gentle reader, risk management relationship-stylie. We’ve been together 20 months, but the wedding will be the fourth anniversary of our meeting and that gives us plenty of time to grow, adapt, and yes if need be change our minds. Bad fairy? You decide!

I strongly believe gay people should have the same rights as straight people; but I also spy the advantage of homosexuality in not having to follow the cultural traditions of mortgage-marriage-children-death... so, all things being equal, I’m fine with marriage, or more accurately civil partnership or without it. But here we are, and it is a good thing we plan to do.

One thing that does get me is the civil partnership aspect. It’s kind of a separate-but-equal kind of marriage. And “oh... if you MUST” kind of deal. And that does get to me slightly. Firstly, I don’t like the idea of my rights being handed down to me by anyone. No-one gets to decide what my rights are until I start infringing on the rights of others. And marriage simply doesn’t do that.

Also, the status of civil partnerships varies from country to country. In Germany, for example, a ‘registered partnership’ would not give us the same tax status as married straight couples; we would not legally be allowed to adopt (though single gay people may, bizarrely) and we would not have final say in medical cases, say a living will or organ donation, over our respective families. This is an issue given my German lineage.

Still, I am confident that things will get better and with vigilance these distinctions will erode. And anyway the whole point is to build a life together, where I can spend my days making Fella happy for as long as he wants me

So roll on 2013...

Items of interest II

I spotted this article on Pink News recently and it really caught my attention. For a number of reasons: primarily the ongoing debate about gay adoption - but also the relatively new dynamic of medical opinion opposed to equality.

In essence the article discusses the aim of a doctor who refused to endorse same-sex adoption applications (and who resigned from an adoption panel on that basis) to appeal to and employment tribunal; and onward the European Court of Justice, on the grounds her medical opinion should override equality legislation. She believes that children should only be raised by mixed sex couples; and she claims this view is based on objective medical studies as well as her religious beliefs.

She is being represented by something called the Christian Law Centre, which said “Much of the population, and many studies, would agree with her professional and personal standpoint. Most professional opinion on this issue happens to fit closely with the Christian view. Yet Christians are being increasingly excluded from the public square and this can no longer go unnoticed".

Having worked in medical regulation for some years I would argue her assertions regarding medical evidence are risky. While I have no doubt there are studies that suggest gay couples are less suitable as parents, there are many that come to the opposite conclusion. When considering whether to launch a case against a doctor, on the grounds of professional misconduct, I have to consider whether the doctor's conduct could cause serious harm to patients, his/her colleagues or public confidence in the medical profession: and whether there is a reasonable prospect of probative evidence.

Allowing your religious views to interfere with your professional duties is clearly actionable. Actively discriminating against same sex couples hoping to adopt (and this breaking the law) is clearly actionable. But, by resigning and claiming scientific evidence to support her views, she has created quite an effective shield. No doubt the Christian Law Centre will seek to create a precedent weakening the application of equality legislation. Either way, I imagine the appropriate authorities will watch the case closely.

Studying for a degree in social research, I found the idea of research being used in this way intriguing. In fact a simple review of the available research suggests that it is very limited - there are too few cases of gay adoption and they are too recent for the impact to be objectively measured. But what qualitative research there is is broadly positive. Certainly the process of adoption, for gay or straight couples, means unsuitable parents are filtered out in ways that going out and getting knocked up in a boozy knee-trembler doesn't (see the clip below for a more eloquent discussion of that point). It might be a topic for my own research, going forward... so a timely controversy I suppose.

My own view is of course that any child is better off in any loving supportive home. Having children is a privilege not a right, and provides an awesome responsibility on those involved. And the fact that gay people want to assume that responsibility should be celebrated, not the subject of legal action.

Redundant systems

It’s a-comin’ gentle reader. Maybe soon!


As I have written before I work in the good old NHS. Although the public sector is facing one helluva squeeze here, there, everywhere the NHS’s whopping £108 billion budget is not only ringfenced but is going to grow. Nevertheless the urgent need to focus resources on sick patients *sigh* has meant a need to cut back. In fact the method decided on has been to simply turn back the clock and reduce costs to the level they were in 2008.

My organisation has actually been somewhat restrained but still needs to make cuts because on current plans, to meet Government priorities, we will be running a deficit. Hence the need to make cuts.

Currently I am a business manager for a directorate – a core one at that. This has given me not only a major role in business planning but also access to very senior people. Also, many of those involved in corporate governance are members of the LGBT network at work and we look out for each other ;-)

Thus I am much better informed than my peers . I know that to make the cuts my directorate needs to, we don’t need to make anyone redundant except two; and we have been able to promote one and arrange a supernumerary secondment for another. The rest of the posts cut are vacant or we move people around.

However... I am also employed as what’s known as flexible resource. I normally do fixed roles that are time limited – a project or programme manager if you will – to help keep costs down. As my current and erstwhile colleagues well know it is quite difficult to get rid of someone once employed by the state. So I do the jobs that will come to an end.

Ironically – or not perhaps – that means I am at risk of redundancy not once but twice. If other directorates get rid of their business manager, we all have to reapply for our jobs. But if and posts in the flexible resource team get made redundant, the same thing applies.

To be honest it’s absolutely fine. I’ve been made redundant before and given my length of service the redundancy pay will be good. The organisation I work for is being shot down in April 2012 so it’s going to happen sooner or later unless I transfer elsewhere.

Overall I’d prefer to survive this round and go to the 2012 redundancies. The money will be better I’ll be near to finishing my maters degree; and my own savings will be greater. That will help Fella and I get our married life off to a better start.

Well, I know already that I will have to go through some kind of process. I know the flexible resource team is being slimmed down, so there we are. The announcement is being made on Monday so I can give you an update next week.

Here’s to the future :-)



NB: The announcement came last week and a it turns out in this round I am not at risk of redundancy - so a year's grace!

Items of interest

There were three articles I saw today that interested me. All gay-related, I thought I’d share them with you, gentle reader, as I hope they interest you too. The first, discussed in this post is “Bring Me sunshine” in this week’s Economist.


The article discussed Richard Florida, an economist apparently much in vogue with the Conservative Party. He is an economist from America with strong ideas about the future direction of economic growth, namely that the West shouldn’t pursue low-level menial work, much the preserve of Asia today, but the creative industries – these should be the core engine of growth for us. He helps set out a blueprint for governments’ role in the economy, a topic of much debate, but most interestingly for us today he describes the best possible future as one that is sustainable environmentally, ethnically and culturally diverse, and gay.

Such a future attracts what he terms “freethinkers”. Not musicians, artists or bohemians per se but anyone open to new ideas. Cities that are tolerant of immigrants and gays will succeed. Those not will fail. He uses as an example the post-industrial failed cities in mid-western America (and I see parallels with the post-coal depressed towns in Wales and the north of England): rigid, white, working class, straight. Top down decision making that could not respond to changing times. Anyone who grew up in Thatcher’s Britain will rightly see such analyses as superficial.

I think the idea social liberalism is the key to future prosperity. Although criticised as a positive stereotype Florida argues that cities like Strumpetville have always attracted hardworking and ambitious people and that gay people in particular not only select cities that meet their requirements for aesthetics and amenity, but – crucially – they expand the aesthetics and amenity of the area they are in. Florida has analysed a correlation between house prices and the concentration of gay and lesbian people in a given area. To sum it up – cities without gays or rock bands are going to lose the economic development race.

The criticism of Florida that resonates most is that he confuses cause and coincidence. For example, I think gays are likely to move to up and coming areas but not to depressed working class areas where they are (a) likely to be isolated from other gays and (b) have the crap kicked out of them. I am living proof of that – I’ve slept with a lot of people in my post-code but I know what streets I/we want to live on.

That being written, I am pleased the hear this government, with a tough job and not much love (as much as it deserves to be sure) is listening to someone who thinks the future is a blend of green, brown and pink. Google it!

The Line of Beauty

I posted a while ago that I wanted to get more into gay culture. Having consciously avoided it before I came out then skirted around it since then I thought it time to jump in and begin to explore that area of culture.

The first thing I got to grips with was The Line of Beauty by Alan Hollinghurst. It is set in the 1980s and the main protagonist is Nick, a young gay guy who is out to his friends and family, but at the start of the story a virgin. A strong background to the story is Nick exploring his sexuality, from dating to cruising to drugs and group sex – but the book isn’t overly sexual or overly focussed on sexuality. It deals nicely with hypocrisy and how homophobia can linger under a veneer of acceptance. For instance, when one of the other main characters is exposed as an adulterer he accuses Nick of sabotaging his family with a “typical gay trick” – because gays can’t have families of their own they spoil other people’s. In another scene a couple of openly-homophobic upper-class people welcome HIV as a lesson to teach gays to be more careful.

At the end of the book Nick is alone, but has made some progress in the world; the two main love interests of his have died of AIDS, and he has lost his home but he is not resourceless. Because he has never been fully involved in family or social life because of his sexuality there is a nice underlying metaphor for the hypocrisy and materialism of the Thatcher years. He is surrounded by beautiful things and people, but ultimately they elude him.

In other news, I have joined the LGBT network at my workplace. It was/is nice to meet colleagues in the context of being gay rather than colleagues who happen to be gay and surrounded by people who aren’t. On the serious side we are the forum to test our employer’s policies and actions under the brand-spanking-new equality legislation that covers sexuality; and to try and get them onto the Stonewall Employers Equality Index. On the fun side there is the opportunity to socialise. I hope to make a valuable contribution...

So there we have it, gentle reader, a wee bit of culture, and a bit of getting-involvedness. Square one done and dusted!