One Touch of Nature: Stephen Gately

Smiling serenity -- quiet conviction -- tenderness and love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogjFSW7PqRY

Fintan O'Toole writes in the Irish Times, Oct. 20: 'For the first time in Ireland, there was a widespread and comfortable use of “husband” to describe the bereaved partner of a gay man. Technically (and shamefully) the term is not strictly accurate – Stephen and Andy Cowles were never given the choice to marry and were civil partners. But everybody knew “husband” was the right word. The relationship was equal in love and affection, in commitment and in consequent devastation, to that within a marriage. It was unequal only in the eyes of a law that still presumes to make discriminatory judgments. The people of Gately’s home place accepted that. So, in essence, did the Catholic parish that conducted his funeral.'

Elsewhere, it's been a bad day for homophobes: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir

Comments

[Michael Bayly]

Thanks for this, Joe.

[tony foleybach]

Sorry but I found the use of the word "husband" to be somewhat absurd in this context. I think what is need here is more scientific research into such relationships without making any a priori judgements and let us see what the evidence tells us.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

I feel more at ease with "partner", "friend" or "companion" myself. I cannot say there is no difference between male-male, female-female, and male-female couples. Radical constructionism or radical egalitarianism can become as stiff a straitjacket as the old essentialism. However see: http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2009/11/patrick-ryan-on-defense-of-traditional.html

[William Fisher]

I too find the use of the word “husband” in this context very questionable. Similarly I have grave reservations about calling gay relationships “marriages”.

Describing a gay relationship in the terms used for a heterosexual one seems to me to be an attempt to “validate” it by pleading that it’s “like” or “analogous to” a traditional, heterosexual marriage. But I believe that a gay relationship is good precisely for what it is; therefore this attempt at “validation” is not only misleading but unnecessary and futile.

Shortly after the introduction in Denmark of Civil Partnerships for gays and lesbians, a Danish professor of theology said on UK television: “I think it is important to accept oneself as a minority and not to try to be just as all the others.” I agree with him. It’s common to say that gays are just like everyone else, and that’s true, but in one respect we ARE different from the majority, and I believe that we should never try to deny that difference, nor should we apologise for it in any way. I am therefore perfectly content with the Civil Partnership law which we now have in the UK. It strikes me that if, in reply to the question “Are you married?”, you can reply “I’m in a civil partnership”, that is a convenient, non-aggressive and matter-of-fact way of saying that you’re not only totally out of the closet (if you were ever in) but also happy to be who you are.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Yes, William Fisher, I tend to agree. Irish gays should be celebrating the civil partnership legislation, but instead it seems that more noise is being made about the absence of gay marriage legislation. Talk about an incapacity to declare victory!