Today Is My Anniversary
I live in London, UK, with my partner. I am a solicitor (attorney), now retired. She is a specialist clinician, a systemic psychotherapist working as part of a multi-disciplinary team in a service for children and young people with mental health problems, and their families. She is also a painter.
Today is the sixth anniversary of our civil partnership (civil union). If it had been possible, Liz and I would have registered our partnership in 1987, which is when we decided to buy a house and spend the rest of our lives together.
We are not freaks. We are just an ordinary couple who love each other and have been entirely faithful to each other for more than 25 years.
I don't want to undermine religion. I have no problem with religion, although I am not myself a believer. And I certainly don’t want to destroy the fabric of our society. I feel too much part of it to want to harm it.
What I do need, and feel entitled to expect, is the same opportunity as other people to live a normal family life. I should also like people to respect my relationship with Liz, which I am very proud of.
Does this make sense to Ricochet readers?
- Comment (650)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (19)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Klaatu
Tommy De Seno
Since when in America do we outlaw second place or lesser situations? If my wife and I can offer your children better opportunities than you, shall I petition the Court to take your children from you? · Dec 21 at 9:37am
No one is advocating outlawing anything. There is a difference between refusing to legally recognizing a relationship and outlawing it. There is a myriad of relationships in which the state rightfully takes no interest but that hardly makes them illegal. The reason the state has traditionally taken an interest in the intimate relationship between a man and a woman is the potential for that relationship to produce a child. · Dec 21 at 10:05am
Exactly, but it's difficult to have a rational exchange when the discussion begins with an implicit double dare to say anything contrary about a loving relationship of 25 years--a dare to be disrespectful and a dare to be uncaring.
These days, a strange blend of cynicism and smaltz decides every moral question.
May '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Crow's Nest: "And that could be dangerous moving forward."
Oh? How so? · Dec 21 at 10:35am
Diversity of thought isn't always bad. It's even often good. But there is a degree of disunity so great that a culture, a society, can no longer sustain itself as a coherent whole. I suspect we're reaching that limit.
Mar '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
"In fact, I would rather not live in a nation full of steak-eating, Porcupine Tree listening, pipe-smoking teetotalers if they were compelled to be so in any way by government action."
Porcupine Tree gets a Ricochet shout-out!
Mar '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
But there is a degree of disunity so great that a culture, a society, can no longer sustain itself as a coherent whole. I suspect we're reaching that limit.
This I just can't understand. Whatever your position on gay marriage, I cannot imagine that this issue is the one that going to create a schism so large that it is unbridgeable.
I promise, the Netherlands and Denmark are still coherently Dutch and Danish despite the fact that gays can marry. For that matter, the British are no less British.
There are a host of issues I'd put above this one on the list of things threatening the coherent whole of society.
May '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Crow's Nest: But there is a degree of disunity so great that a culture, a society, can no longer sustain itself as a coherent whole. I suspect we're reaching that limit.
This I just can't understand. Whatever your position on gay marriage, I cannot imagine that this issue is the one that going to create a schism so large that it is unbridgeable.
I promise, the Netherlands and Denmark are still coherently Dutch and Danish despite the fact that gays can marry. For that matter, the British are no less British.
There are a host of issues I'd put above this one on the list of things threatening the coherent whole of society. · Dec 21 at 10:44am
Maybe you would. But isn't that part of the debate? Christians usually think this issue far more important than unbelievers.
Feb '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Rob, it is a generational issue, and I have two reasons which I think are responsible for this:
1) Milton Friedman - I know it was his book "Capitalism and Freedom" that persuaded me; but more generally his idea of increased individual liberty has a genuine appeal among young people conservative and liberal alike. The trouble for "social conservatives" about this Friedman is that young people forming there conservative philosophy (I was one) are very open to his line of reasoning.
2) The popular culture now openly supports same-sex couples. When we are exposed to something we are more inclined to accept it unless it is associated with negatives (think Pavlov), what negatives are associated in popular culture with same-sex couples?
Edited on December 21, 2011 at 7:51pmJul '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Having read your post, I'm not clear what aspects of "a normal family life" you have been denied the opportunity to live. Beyond that, why do you care whether other people respect your relationship with Liz or not? Judging from your own description, whatever respect may be lacking hasn't interfered with your happiness overmuch. So some people don't approve. Big deal. Why do you let them rent space in your head?
May '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
I'm sorry, you're not an "ordinary couple." Don't expect all of us to clap and cheer.
Mar '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
How you live your life and whom you choose to live it with is your business, and good health to both of you for many years to come. My beef is that our relationships are subject to any type of state control. Government started to control marriage as a way to keep people from marrying their siblings, but it has evolved into a means of allowing a particular type of economic unit obtain government benefits and no other reason. My attitude is to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and leave us otherwise alone. Since marriage long predates civil government, it should remain a province of religion and outside goverment control. Merry Christmas.
Apr '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
I think it is worthy of celebration when two people can make a loving partnership, one of support and care, for more than 25 years.
If some legal device can provide this partnership with protection, survivorship rights, and so on, great. But I have a problem when people want to redefine the institution of marriage, a primary institution in any society. Though your post doesn't mention marriage that is the inevitable direction that this discussion has taken.
If we open up for interpretation what marriage is for one small group, it will unavoidably mean the redefinition for a myriad of other groups, and marriage as an institution will eventually suffer a death of a thousand cuts.
But again, congratulations on 25 years, and may you have many more years of love and joy.
May '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Happy Anniversary!
Mar '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Roberto You may not but others most certainly do and are using this issue to achieve such ends:
Two Christian hotel owners punished for refusing a bed to a gay couple claimed yesterday that their religion is being suppressed.
I visited Hillsdale College a few weeks ago and sat in on Dr. Thomas West's class on Constitutional Law. In his lecture, he discussed how public accommodation (as well as access to common carriers) is a privilege of citizenship. And it was codified in the Civil Rights Act.
This differs of course from the freedom of association defended by the SCOTUS in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bi-Sexual Group of Boston · Dec 21 at 10:14am
A fine line indeed. So regardless of their faith these individuals are obliged to abet behaviour they regard as a sin, good to know.
I would love to see the arguments marshalled to support this one:
Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin
Edited on December 21, 2011 at 8:17pmMar '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Klaatu
Tommy De Seno
Since when in America do we outlaw second place or lesser situations? If my wife and I can offer your children better opportunities than you, shall I petition the Court to take your children from you? · Dec 21 at 9:37am
There is a difference between refusing to legally recognizing a relationship and outlawing it.
No there isn't.
Klaatu
The reason the state has traditionally taken an interest in the intimate relationship between a man and a woman is the potential for that relationship to produce a child.
So you are conceding the State has no interest in the marriage of two people who can not bear children? · Dec 21 at 10:11am
It certainly has no interest which would justify its subsidizing their marriage at the expense of the unmarried.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Larry Koler
Tommy De Seno
Since when in America do we outlaw second place or lesser situations?
There is a difference between refusing to legally recognizing a relationship and outlawing it.
No there isn't.
What???? Tommy -- this is way out there. You better explain this bit of "sophistry."
Gladly. Take a gay couple downtown and apply for a marriage license. They won't get one - it's illegal. I'm not talking theory - I'll offer you proof.
Prior to NJ having a civil union law, two friends of mine, Ric and Lou, went to a third friend named Kiki, who was the Clerk of Asbury Park, NJ. Ric and Lou applied for a marriage license. Kiki sold them one.
A fourth friend named Jimmy was Mayor at the time. Jimmy, a Roman Catholic by the way, married Ric and Lou.
The initial response of the State of New Jersey was to threaten an arrest warrant for Kiki. After the Press threw a fit, the Governor, ironically the yet to be outed "gay-American" Jim McGreevy, had his administration announce that the marriage was a nullity, void ab initio as it was "illegal."
Not sophistry. My statement is true.
Jun '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Since I believe that the Bible is divine revelation, and represents Truth, I also believe that unrepented homosexually undermines your most important relationship--your relationship with God. But if you never had a relationship with God, then you're not damaging it, I guess. I pray that you'll change your mind someday, but that's your business. We all need (ongoing) forgiveness for something.
Oct '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
What intrigues me about this thread is that Gaby never mentioned marriage, yet it quickly became the focus of the discussion. Perhaps you all over interpreted or assumed you knew Gaby's meaning?
Gaby, humor me please; I'm not being churlish although I realize some may think my next question obtuse. Is the statement above accurately interpreted to mean you currently don't have the same opportunity "to live a normal family life"? If that is the correct interpretation, in what way(s) is the normalcy you seek precluded?
It's not obvious to me that the sort of civil unions I'm aware of (from a legal standpoint equivalent to marriage on issues of survivor-ship, community property, guardianship of minors, etc.) in any way preclude the normalcy you seek. There are undoubtedly huge sociological roadblocks to normalcy. But those impediments aren't rectified through legislation. So, what exactly is your point vis-à-vis your civil partnership and the “normal family life” you seek?
Mar '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Larry Koler
Tommy De Seno
A fourth friend named Jimmy was Mayor at the time. Jimmy, a Roman Catholic by the way, married Ric and Lou.
And a credit to his faith, I'm sure.
Aug '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Wait a minute everyone ! Why are we answering this English person's inquiry ?
Do we really know who she is ? I think some questions are in order here .
1.Are you now, or have you ever been an employee of Rupert Murdoch ?
2.What is the capital of Assyria ?
3.What's your favorite color ?
Jul '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Larry Koler
"There is a difference between refusing to legally recogniz[e] a relationship and outlawing it."
"No there isn't."
"What???? Tommy -- this is way out there. You better explain this bit of 'sophistry.'"
"Gladly. Take a gay couple downtown and apply for a marriage license. They won't get one - it's illegal…"
And how does this "outlaw lesser situations", or "outlaw a relationship", pray tell? The law says nothing whatever about the "relationship" in question. It simply refuses to allow these two people to marry each other. That's not quite the same thing as outlawing their relationship, now is it?
Jan '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Gladly. Take a gay couple downtown and apply for a marriage license. They won't get one - it's illegal. I'm not talking theory - I'll offer you proof.
Prior to NJ having a civil union law, two friends of mine, Ric and Lou, went to a third friend named Kiki, who was the Clerk of Asbury Park, NJ. Ric and Lou applied for a marriage license. Kiki sold them one.
A fourth friend named Jimmy was Mayor at the time. Jimmy, a Roman Catholic by the way, married Ric and Lou.
The initial response of the State of New Jersey was to threaten an arrest warrant for Kiki. After the Press threw a fit, the Governor, ironically the yet to be outed "gay-American" Jim McGreevy, had his administration announce that the marriage was a nullity, void ab initio as it was "illegal."
Not sophistry. My statement is true. · Dec 21 at 11:08am
The relationship was not illegal, issuing the marriage license was.
There is a distinction there.