.
Mrs & Mrs
The high court has reserved judgment over a lesbian couple seeking British recognition of their marriage. But the two wives remain wedded to the cause.
By Stuart Jeffries (THE GUARDIAN Saturday, 10 June 2006)
On August 26 2003 at a civil ceremony in Vancouver, a Canadian marriage commissioner pronounced Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger to be wife and wife. The occasion was gay in every sense of the word. They were married in a flower-decked conservatory before two witnesses and the wedding cost $250. "It was over in 10 or 15 minutes and then we had a nice meal and went for a lovely walk on the beach," says Celia. "It was special," says Sue.
But did marriage make much of a difference? After all, you had been living together for the previous 13 years. "It made a personal difference which we don't really understand," says Sue. She looks across at her wife. "It's intangible, but it's there." "I just never thought I would have the opportunity to marry someone I loved," says Celia.
But there were practical issues too. In 2003 Sue, 52, who is professor of feminist and health studies at Loughborough University, was teaching in Vancouver on a two-year contract. Celia, 49, professor of sociology at the University of York, visited regularly. Although they had amended their wills and done all the other vexing paperwork that cohabiting British couples have to do to safeguard rights that are conferred so blithely on married heterosexual couples, some of these didn't apply during their Canadian sojourn. "Everything changed in working in Canada," says Sue. "Inheritance rights, pensions, hospital visitation rights - we had none of them." "Prison visitation rights, too," says Celia. "Not that either of us was in prison."
So they decided to get married at a time when several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, had just legalised same-sex weddings.
Their experience was seductive. Sue recalls going into a bank in Vancouver to open a joint account after the wedding. "When they asked our marital status, it was a no-big-deal reaction when we said we were married," says Sue. "I hadn't realised what it was like to be treated as normal."
"You get tired of managing people's reactions to your lesbianism," says Celia. "You know, dealing with people's surprise when your partner arrives and she's - imagine! - a woman."
They knew they would have a fight to have their marriage legally ratified when they returned home. They were ready for it. "I'm from a Quaker-Jewish background," says Celia, "so I'm steeped in that ethos of telling truth to power." "But it wasn't a political campaign we chose," says Sue. "It found us rather than the other way round."
We're sitting on the grass in Lincoln's Inn Fields in London, near the high court, where their legal case that their marriage be recognised in the UK has just finished after four days. Their marriage is only recognised here as a civil partnership, which they argue is discriminatory. They have been supported by the lesbian and gay pressure group OutRage and were represented in court by lawyers from the human rights outfit Liberty.
The case has been heard during a week in which same-sex marriages have been news. In the US, George Bush tried to change the constitution to ban them, but was turned down by the senate. In Canada, two men announced their plan to become the first members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to get wed. If I had a cent for every headline that alluded to mounties always getting their men or called them Brokeback Mounties, I would have enough for a Canadian marriage certificate, though not yet the right man with whom to share it.
Which way will the UK jump: into the bracing bath of American neo-conservatism or the funtime Jacuzzi of Canadian tolerance? At the end of the hearing, Lord Justice Potter reserved judgment. He will rule next month on their claim that the UK's failure to recognise same-sex marriages is an affront to social justice and human rights. There are, by Celia's estimation, eight more British same-sex couples, including a gay rabbi and his husband, hoping to have their marriages ratified in Britain. In Ireland, Israel, New Zealand and Hong Kong, too, same-sex married couples are testing the laws.
The two professors look happily relaxed as they head home to Yorkshire away from courtroom drama and media whirl. Why on earth did you want to endorse this grotesquely conservative institution by getting married? "There were no civil partnerships in the UK in 2003," says Sue. This is true: the Civil Partnership Act, which accords lesbian and gay partners the same rights as married heterosexual couples, only became law last December. But if there had been would you have bothered to have got married? "Mmm, not sure."
In a sense, that's beside the point. Sue and Celia are married now and want their government to recognise it. Their case is that Britain's failure to ratify their marriage is a breach of the European convention on human rights. Their lawyer, Karon Monaghan, told the court: "Marriage laws have been used historically to bolster prejudice, oppression and discrimination against marginalised groups ... If we replace lesbian and same sex with black and mixed-race, it would be very clear that such laws would be repugnant to human rights." But the government's lawyer, Helen Mountfield, argued that there is no legal disadvantage to the couple, as they are recognised as civil partners.
Oddly enough, the couple have taken succour from the government's defence. "The legal debate has been about human rights, rather than focusing on religious objections, or whether lesbianism is human, which is what we saw in Canada in 2003," says Celia, "and which, of course, is what infuses the American debate." Only Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance, in a widely derided remark, was quoted as saying: "Where does it stop? Soon there will be people wanting to marry their horse."
Their case has drawn parallels to apartheid, US racial segregation and, most resonantly for Celia, the Nazis' Nuremberg laws against marriages between Aryans and Jews.
"The point," says Sue, "is that these laws are damaging and humiliating." "In our case too, we suffer an affront to our personal dignity and autonomy," says Celia, putting on a Lady Bracknell voice.
Such sensitivity is perhaps understandable given Celia's humiliating experience of coming out aged 16. "I was expelled from school and put in a mental hospital for a week. Lesbianism was regarded as a psychiatric illness even in the early 70s." In Oxford, fired up by her experiences, she specialised in psychology, later writing her PhD on the social construction of lesbianism. She is the daughter of Sheila Kitzinger, the childbirth author.
Sue's experience was different. She was in a heterosexual relationship for many years. "There was a stark contrast for me between my first marriage to a man and my second to a woman, in that the first one was celebrated in society."
It must be easier to be recognised as a same-sex married couple in academia. "We are privileged," concedes Celia. "Both sets of students have been incredibly supportive. Most can't believe same-sex marriages aren't already legal," says Sue. Their experience has fed back into their academic work. They have done research on the social construction of marriage and other forms of partnership recognition (read The Rebranding of Marriage: Why We Got Married Rather Than Registering a Civil Partnership at tinyurl.com/ppzce)
What happens if the judge rules against you? "Appeal court is the first step, then the House of Lords, then Europe." It's a nice irony that when Canada in 2005 made same-sex marriages legal across the country, the bill received royal assent. The Queen, at least formally, has given her royal thumbs-up to gay marriages already.
"In any case," says Sue, "our fight is part of an international movement. Same-sex marriages are legal in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada - they're even considering them in Romania." "I suppose the point is," says Celia, "we're married. Get used to it."
The rules
The Netherlands: Same-sex partnerships gained legal status in 1998, giving gay couples nearly the same rights as heterosexual married couples. In 2001, article 1:30 of the Dutch civil code was changed to read: "Een huwelijk kan worden aangegaan door twee personen van verschillend of van gelijk geslacht (A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex)," and the Netherlands became the first country in the world to offer same-sex marriage.
Canada: Same-sex marriage was made legal throughout Canada on July 20 last year, though many provinces had been granting them for several years: in British Columbia, where Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger were married, same-sex marriages had been legal since July 2003.
US: George Bush wants to amend the US constitution to ban same-sex marriages, but the senate this week rejected his proposal. Massachussetts recognises same-sex marriages (and has done so since 2004), while 19 other states have constitutional amendments precluding recognition of marriage between two men or two women.
UK: Same-sex marriages are not legal in the UK, but in December 2005 civil partnerships became available, granting rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples nearly the same as marriage.
Iran: There are no lesbian and gay rights, still less same-sex marriages, in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Male homosexuality by consenting adults is punishable by death. Non-adults who engage in consensual sodomy face 74 lashes. Female homosexuality is punishable by 100 lashes.
But there were practical issues too. In 2003 Sue, 52, who is professor of feminist and health studies at Loughborough University, was teaching in Vancouver on a two-year contract. Celia, 49, professor of sociology at the University of York, visited regularly. Although they had amended their wills and done all the other vexing paperwork that cohabiting British couples have to do to safeguard rights that are conferred so blithely on married heterosexual couples, some of these didn't apply during their Canadian sojourn. "Everything changed in working in Canada," says Sue. "Inheritance rights, pensions, hospital visitation rights - we had none of them." "Prison visitation rights, too," says Celia. "Not that either of us was in prison."
So they decided to get married at a time when several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, had just legalised same-sex weddings.
Their experience was seductive. Sue recalls going into a bank in Vancouver to open a joint account after the wedding. "When they asked our marital status, it was a no-big-deal reaction when we said we were married," says Sue. "I hadn't realised what it was like to be treated as normal."
"You get tired of managing people's reactions to your lesbianism," says Celia. "You know, dealing with people's surprise when your partner arrives and she's - imagine! - a woman."
They knew they would have a fight to have their marriage legally ratified when they returned home. They were ready for it. "I'm from a Quaker-Jewish background," says Celia, "so I'm steeped in that ethos of telling truth to power." "But it wasn't a political campaign we chose," says Sue. "It found us rather than the other way round."
We're sitting on the grass in Lincoln's Inn Fields in London, near the high court, where their legal case that their marriage be recognised in the UK has just finished after four days. Their marriage is only recognised here as a civil partnership, which they argue is discriminatory. They have been supported by the lesbian and gay pressure group OutRage and were represented in court by lawyers from the human rights outfit Liberty.
The case has been heard during a week in which same-sex marriages have been news. In the US, George Bush tried to change the constitution to ban them, but was turned down by the senate. In Canada, two men announced their plan to become the first members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to get wed. If I had a cent for every headline that alluded to mounties always getting their men or called them Brokeback Mounties, I would have enough for a Canadian marriage certificate, though not yet the right man with whom to share it.
Which way will the UK jump: into the bracing bath of American neo-conservatism or the funtime Jacuzzi of Canadian tolerance? At the end of the hearing, Lord Justice Potter reserved judgment. He will rule next month on their claim that the UK's failure to recognise same-sex marriages is an affront to social justice and human rights. There are, by Celia's estimation, eight more British same-sex couples, including a gay rabbi and his husband, hoping to have their marriages ratified in Britain. In Ireland, Israel, New Zealand and Hong Kong, too, same-sex married couples are testing the laws.
The two professors look happily relaxed as they head home to Yorkshire away from courtroom drama and media whirl. Why on earth did you want to endorse this grotesquely conservative institution by getting married? "There were no civil partnerships in the UK in 2003," says Sue. This is true: the Civil Partnership Act, which accords lesbian and gay partners the same rights as married heterosexual couples, only became law last December. But if there had been would you have bothered to have got married? "Mmm, not sure."
In a sense, that's beside the point. Sue and Celia are married now and want their government to recognise it. Their case is that Britain's failure to ratify their marriage is a breach of the European convention on human rights. Their lawyer, Karon Monaghan, told the court: "Marriage laws have been used historically to bolster prejudice, oppression and discrimination against marginalised groups ... If we replace lesbian and same sex with black and mixed-race, it would be very clear that such laws would be repugnant to human rights." But the government's lawyer, Helen Mountfield, argued that there is no legal disadvantage to the couple, as they are recognised as civil partners.
Oddly enough, the couple have taken succour from the government's defence. "The legal debate has been about human rights, rather than focusing on religious objections, or whether lesbianism is human, which is what we saw in Canada in 2003," says Celia, "and which, of course, is what infuses the American debate." Only Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance, in a widely derided remark, was quoted as saying: "Where does it stop? Soon there will be people wanting to marry their horse."
Their case has drawn parallels to apartheid, US racial segregation and, most resonantly for Celia, the Nazis' Nuremberg laws against marriages between Aryans and Jews.
"The point," says Sue, "is that these laws are damaging and humiliating." "In our case too, we suffer an affront to our personal dignity and autonomy," says Celia, putting on a Lady Bracknell voice.
Such sensitivity is perhaps understandable given Celia's humiliating experience of coming out aged 16. "I was expelled from school and put in a mental hospital for a week. Lesbianism was regarded as a psychiatric illness even in the early 70s." In Oxford, fired up by her experiences, she specialised in psychology, later writing her PhD on the social construction of lesbianism. She is the daughter of Sheila Kitzinger, the childbirth author.
Sue's experience was different. She was in a heterosexual relationship for many years. "There was a stark contrast for me between my first marriage to a man and my second to a woman, in that the first one was celebrated in society."
It must be easier to be recognised as a same-sex married couple in academia. "We are privileged," concedes Celia. "Both sets of students have been incredibly supportive. Most can't believe same-sex marriages aren't already legal," says Sue. Their experience has fed back into their academic work. They have done research on the social construction of marriage and other forms of partnership recognition (read The Rebranding of Marriage: Why We Got Married Rather Than Registering a Civil Partnership at tinyurl.com/ppzce)
What happens if the judge rules against you? "Appeal court is the first step, then the House of Lords, then Europe." It's a nice irony that when Canada in 2005 made same-sex marriages legal across the country, the bill received royal assent. The Queen, at least formally, has given her royal thumbs-up to gay marriages already.
"In any case," says Sue, "our fight is part of an international movement. Same-sex marriages are legal in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada - they're even considering them in Romania." "I suppose the point is," says Celia, "we're married. Get used to it."
The rules
The Netherlands: Same-sex partnerships gained legal status in 1998, giving gay couples nearly the same rights as heterosexual married couples. In 2001, article 1:30 of the Dutch civil code was changed to read: "Een huwelijk kan worden aangegaan door twee personen van verschillend of van gelijk geslacht (A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex)," and the Netherlands became the first country in the world to offer same-sex marriage.
Canada: Same-sex marriage was made legal throughout Canada on July 20 last year, though many provinces had been granting them for several years: in British Columbia, where Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger were married, same-sex marriages had been legal since July 2003.
US: George Bush wants to amend the US constitution to ban same-sex marriages, but the senate this week rejected his proposal. Massachussetts recognises same-sex marriages (and has done so since 2004), while 19 other states have constitutional amendments precluding recognition of marriage between two men or two women.
UK: Same-sex marriages are not legal in the UK, but in December 2005 civil partnerships became available, granting rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples nearly the same as marriage.
Iran: There are no lesbian and gay rights, still less same-sex marriages, in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Male homosexuality by consenting adults is punishable by death. Non-adults who engage in consensual sodomy face 74 lashes. Female homosexuality is punishable by 100 lashes.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου