The ring of fire

Events in recent weeks seem to indicate just how civil the quest for gay civil rights has become. On Thursday July 17, Canada’s government proposed that marriage be defined as the “lawful union of two persons,” which would legalise same-sex marriage in that country. Hawaii already grants the partners of gays and lesbians certain legal privileges, and Vermont now confers virtually all of the rights of marriage to gay couples through its “civil unions”.

One day later, Friday 18 became an important anniversary date for Cesar Cigliutti, 45, and Marcelo Suntheim, 35, two men joined in a same-sex civil union in Buenos Aires, the first Argentine city to adopt such a measure. The ceremony was hailed as a victory for gay rights in Latin America.
Belgium and The Netherlands allow gay marriage with full rights, including adoption. Germany, Switzerland, Iceland, France, Norway, Finland, Denmark and many Spanish regions now have provision for same-sex partnership registration, granting nearly all of the same rights as traditional marriage. South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Croatia, Hungary, New Zealand, Portugal and Scotland also provide certain rights to cohabiting gay couples .
Here at home gay activists are campaigning for gay civil union rather than marriage as they feel it will be easier to achieve. Tadhg O’Brien, LGB Rights Officer at the Union of Students in Ireland says: “Civil union would have to include an income tax regime similar to that of married couples, as well as the ability to nominate one’s partner as the next-of-kin for inheritance and pension benefits.” Senator David Norris is currently pushing a bill through the Senate in favour of such civil union, though Senate legislation is rarely initiated. Ciaran Cuffe, Green Party Spokesperson on Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is a strong supporter of gay civil unions:“If the Green Party was in Government we would legislate to recognise same sex unions,” he tells hotpress.
“We would also like City Hall on Dame Street in Dublin to be made available for civic marriages as a suitable building to reflect the importance of civil marriage – gay or straight – in Irish society.”
An optimist might be forgiven for thinking that the outlook is improving for gay individuals and couples. But a shadow has loomed in the form of The Vatican which is particularly worried about the waning influence of the church in Europe and is struggling to reverse the world-wide momentum towards legalising gay marriage.
It seems to make little difference to the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ made no reference to or pronouncement on homosexuality during his short but influential career. Instead, depressingly, the Vatican has adopted Old Testament language and attitudes to instruct their followers.
Two weeks ago, the Vatican’s orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued guidelines concerning that grave threat to society – gay couples who want to establish their relationships on a stronger footing than eternity rings and a co-owned spaniel. To stop this menace, the Pope instructs Catholic politicians to actively campaign against legalising gay marriages, which he categorises as “evil” and “deviant.” Gay sex is described as being “inhuman” while gay couples adopting children is compared to “doing violence.”
The Pope’s document was greeted with anger and condemnation across Europe. “What the Vatican is trying to do – and not for the first time – goes far beyond a pastoral decree,” said Spanish paper El Mundo. “A Catholic is perfectly entitled – personally – to disapprove of types of marriage that run contrary to his religious beliefs, but he should not interfere in a decision that is explicitly socio-political and legal.”
Many were shocked more by the tone than the content of the Papal guidelines. “It is deeply offensive language and the sort of language that comes from someone who has lost the argument. It is a desperate last bid to cling on to the 19th century from an organisation which has failed to admit that we are in the 21st,” said the chief executive of gay rights group Stonewall, Ben Summerskill.
The Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement also hit out at the Vatican’s terminology. “There isn’t an awful lot which is new here in terms of the message but what is pernicious is the way the tone of the language has been ratcheted up. It is very aggressive and homophobic,” spokesman Martin Pendergast said, adding: “It is a bit of deckchairs-on-the-Titanic time and the Vatican is clearly worried.”
Irish politicians have been customarily reticent on the issue. Only Greens and Independents have responded unequivocally. Independent deputy Tony Gregory asked: “Is the Pope telling politicians what to do now? I go on the basis of the views of the people who elected me.” Green TD Paul Gogarty said that, following the worldwide abuse scandals which have rocked the Church, he believed its hierarchy had lost credibility.
While the Vatican may appear to be out of touch, its position would still have some popular support, especially in the US where the ‘family-values’ lobby has not gone away, as a recent statement by President George Bush confirms. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that,” the president pronounced, in a quick nudge to the American right to reassure them that he will not let the gays get too uppity. , The timing is significant: elections and primaries are looming in the US, a country grown increasingly conservative and inward-looking, if the results of a recent survey prove accurate. The poll, conducted by USA Today//CNN/Gallup, found taht, after several years of growing tolerance, Americans have recently become significantly less accepting of homosexuality.
Ordinary people without a link to the gay ‘spectrum’ may believe the issue is moving far too swiftly. Which brings us to the question – what could they be so afraid of ? Desires and motives for gay union seem to be twofold – emotional and financial. Any couple in a long-term relationship may wish to have that realtionsihip recognised not only by friends and family, but also as the state. Regardless of divorce rates, marriage has meaning because it can not be dissolved on a whim, but only through due legal process. Legal marriage, partnership or union would provide gay people with dignity, ceremony and a bond that is recognised by their society and culture.
Financially, same-sex couples are currently denied tax and pension benefits available to heterosexual ones. More gravely, hospital visitation rights can be denied to a partner in the case of illness. If a son or daughter dies and their family do not approve of their lost one’s lifestyle, the bereft partner can be denied access to the funeral.
One would like to think it is difficult to conceive of any person who would favour that last scenario.