June Brides First published in Diva, June 1999 ©Katrina Fox 2001

©Millivres Ltd

Tying the knot, or not ... It's June, the month when couples' thoughts turn to getting hitched. KATRINA FOX ponders the advantages and drawbacks of commitment

Five years ago, club bouncer Beverley Donald and her girlfriend Ronnie travelled to Holland to get married.
They went the whole way - vicar, church, confetti and even a gay man in drag, who was the bridesmaid. "All my sisters had got married and had a big wedding, and I wanted to as well," says Bev. Of course their marriage was not legally recognised by any country in the world. But that didn't matter - it was the ceremony, the public declaration of their love that was important.

The question of whether we should campaign for the right to marry is an old chestnut that has bugged the lesbian and gay community for a long time. Understandably, as we hear about more and more countries passing laws granting lesbian and gay couples the right to legal registration of their partnerships (which gives them a range of automatic legal rights) we feel frustrated that the UK is so far behind.

But do we really want to get married? It seems that we do. In Diva's sex survey last year, more than half of respondents said they would get married if they could. The Revd Johnathan Blake has been performing blessings and ceremonies for same-sex couples for five years. His lesbian clients number well into the hundreds, he says, and his clientele is 70 per cent women, compared with 30 per cent gay men.

So does this mean there been a change in lesbian/feminist thinking on marriage? The owner of London's Silver Moon women's bookshop, Sue Butterworth, thinks so: "Lesbians are more open to marriage now. In my youth I was against it, as it was used as a controlling device against women, but it is not the institution it used to be." Angela Mason, executive director of the gay pressure group Stonewall, agrees. In the 1970s she was in a campaign called 'Why be a Wife?' "When I was younger, marriage meant discrimination against women - now that's virtually gone," she says.

But some dykes remain vehemently anti-marriage. Writer Spike Katz says: "Marriage is an institution. It is supported, often quite materially, by all those nasty homophobic institutions such as the Church and the State." Fellow writer Cherry Smyth is also against marriage, but does recognise the contradictions: "It always struck me as absurd that couples would go to a man of God to get married, and then to a man of law to get divorced. Yet there is something thrillingly perverse in saying 'will you marry me?' to the woman you love, and appropriating those institutions."

Linda Nelson, 47 and Jane Bevan, 35 were "married" by Johnathan Blake in a local hotel. Around 34 of their friends and relatives attended. They chose the passages for the service and exchanged rings. They are not at all concerned about the political implications of same-sex marriage. "We're not activists," says Linda. "Some gay women are anti-everything; they've got a chip on their shoulder. I guess we're just too normal for that." Ouch.

It seems it's the ceremony itself that is important to lesbians - the bearing of witness to a couple's love for each other. Yes, they'd like the legal rights and benefits afforded to straight married couples, but have been generally apathetic in campaigning for the right to legal marriage.

By contrast, in the United States there is a huge gay movement committed to fighting for the freedom to marry. Evan Wolfson director of the campaigning group Lambda Legal Defense Fund and Education, explains why. "To say we shouldn't want to get married is like saying women shouldn't go to law school because the law is a patriarchal system," he says. Fair enough. But then he adds: "There is no single [bigger] step we could take to end discrimination against gay people than [gaining] the right to marry." Wolfson's argument is based on the fact that most marriage benefits are not replicable in US law and those that are, are expensive. In other words, if gay people want their legal rights, the right to marry is the path to take. But this doesn't help those people (gay and straight) who don't want to get married but who may want to have certain legal ties with another person. Perhaps the fight for the right to marry in the US is stronger because of the resistance to it - more than half of US states have passed laws outlawing marriage for same sex couples.

With the UK government showing no signs of recognising same-sex relationships, you'd think we would follow the lead of American gays and lesbians. But gay pressure groups in the UK are looking more to our European counterparts for guidance. Outrage and Stonewall take the view that it is better to fight for equal rights for same-sex partners, which can include but not prioritise, marriage. Stonewall is currently conducting research into what kind of partnership recognition gay people want. Mason says the early results show that marriage is not it. "They want to be treated equally and there are lots of ways achieving this - it's not necessary to concentrate on status.

It looks as though we've got our work cut out for us, though. Most European countries with partnership registration, for example the Scandinavians, have agreed between themselves on mutual recognition for such relationships. As far as the UK government is concerned, it is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. When contacted by Diva, the Lord Chancellor's office said reassuringly: "Officials in the UK are working with their counterparts in the European Union on how to deal with these issues." Yet a spokesman for the Home Office insisted: "Same-sex marriages, or 'registered partnerships' would require primary legislation to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act and the Marriage Act. The government has no plans to introduce such legislation." Best not hold our breaths, then.

The benefits of marriage are not to be sniffed at - tax breaks, pension rights, property rights, inheritance rights and so on. Registered partnerships give many of these provisions, but still do not give full equality to same-sex couples, exempting, as they do, such things as as the right to marry in a church or to adopt children together.

Vibeke Nissen, a 52-year-old Danish psychologist and her girlfriend lnge- Lise Paulsen, 53, registered their partnership for purely practical reasons. ones in law? They believe few gay people in Denmark are happy with the registration arrangements. "We would have liked something created especially for gays and lesbians, instead of a second-rate marriage," says Paulsen. A major problem for same-sex couples with children is that you get the duties but not the rights. You have to support your partner's child, but you have no rights to the child."

Marriage and registered partnership also bring with them the thorny issue of divorce. Some gay activists say the only people to benefit from gay marriages are the divorce lawyers, who already make vast amounts of money from heterosexual divorces. The emotional effects of a divorce can be devastating. Marianne, a Norwegian lesbian from Oslo, registered her partnership in 1996, got a separation in March 1998 and is waiting to receive her final divorce papers from the registry office. She still carries a lot of grief about the break-up. "The worst part of the divorce was that I felt really bad that I couldn't live as the person my wife needed. Plus, our communication broke down so totally that we are not talking about the same story, or the same divorce, or even the same relationship."

The fact that it takes around a year in Norway to get a divorce (sometimes two, if one person does not want the divorce can be a strain for some people, as they feel they can't make a fresh start. Marianne is considering starting a support group for lesbian divorcees. Her divorce has not put her off registering another partnership, but she is far more wary. "I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt and next time I won't dive as straight into it as the first time. It will be less of an 'if straight people marry, we can too' decision and more of a 'do we want to, and why?'"

Although there are ways we can protect ourselves and our partners in UK law, they can often be expensive and complicated. But by providing special rights to married couples only, governments are forcing people to buy into the institution. Instead of gay people becoming a part of that, why not campaign for simple, cheap ways of protecting ourselves and our loved ones in law? Fighting for the right to marry is one thing, but campaigning for our legal rights should surely be separate. No one, gay or straight, should be forced into the institution of marriage simply because they want to be treated equally. Registered partnerships are an option, but we must ensure they provide full equal rights.

Those who want to "marry" or have a public ceremony have the option of going to people such as Johnathan Blake and choosing their own words and service, instead of being tied to a rigid traditional ceremony based on a heterosexual model. After all let's face it - straights haven't exactly got a great track record as far as marriage goes. The number of marriages is continuing to drop year on year, and many end in divorce. Do we really want to go down that path?

Diva is the UK's national lesbian lifestyle magazine. For subscriptions and back issues visit their website at http://www.divamag.co.uk/diva/