January 4th 2006 marked another major landmark in my life but was part of a much greater, even momentous, revolution in recognising my family life on an equal footing to the one I had always been brought up to model. The fact that there were no marital vows exchanged, nor indeed any photographs of the event, let alone confetti and cake, was illustrative of the differences which exist between the age old institution of Marriage and that of Civil Union, which became a legal reality in the UK in December 2005.

In some respects the discrimination, obvious in the title of ‘Civil Union’ as apposed to ‘Marriage’ could be seen as honest in its acceptance of the differences which will always exist between heterosexual and homosexual unions. More cynically one could construe that the fact that the British chose not to use the term ‘Marriage’ was a compromise to the conservatives and the “religious” bigots; one which is echoed in many, but not all of the twenty or so countries to recognise homosexual unions.

So why no party? What’s the big deal? Well on the one hand, there is no big deal. It’s not as if we feel different all of a sudden just because we no longer have one reason to whinge at the inequalities which are inherent in the legislature. But on the other hand, it is a huge deal and not just in terms of the tax benefits, which are notably favourable with regard to inheritance and pensions.

Over the past twenty years we have both lived, along with millions of other British gay men and lesbians, through bigoted parliamentary speeches, uncompromising conservative attitudes and draconian legislation. We have watched the pendulum swing through from the instigation of the infamous Section 28 of the Local Government Act, brought in under the ‘back to basics’ Thatcherite regime of the 1980’s, to the Civil Union Act. Section 28 was an insidious piece of bigotry which, although never tested in the courts, did in fact succeed in achieving far more than it could possibly have prescribed in practice. The irony of course is that all bigotry stems from ignorance and that the best place possible to combat ignorance is at school. And yet many millions of children, now in their twenties have been denied the positive homosexual role models, many of whom as an additional bitter irony, were actively involved in their education. Only now are issues of sexuality and homophobia beginning to be discussed in British schools but it is still a very sensitive issue.

The pendulum has indeed swung back and the ousting of ‘Clause 28’ along with lowering the age of consent in line with heterosexuality, were two major steps forward in redressing the imbalances in our society and the constitutional oppression under which gay men and lesbians lived. However, these victories for equality were won via Europe and were the result of the equity imposed by the European Court of Human Rights which was embodied in English Law in 2001 through the Human Rights Act. Indeed, the bill relating to an equal age of consent as well as Clause 28 were twice rejected by the (unelected) House of Lords, and were only repealed through the use of the Parliament Act, a rarely used piece of legislation specifically instigated by Lloyd George to undermine the power of the Lords. Similar reasons exist for the change in the rules relating to homosexuals in the armed forces (which until 10 years ago was an imprisonable offence in the UK); a group of gay and lesbian soldiers took the British government to the European Court of Human Rights and the UK was forced to change its legislation.

So this is perhaps the first time that parliament appears to have been proactive in responding to changes in social attitudes rather than trying to control these attitudes or in avoiding an incompatibility in the legislature. And it feels very good. Through the mechanism of Civil Union, for the first time, British homosexuals are beginning to feel respected as equal members of society in the eyes of parliament, and I have no doubt that this Act will go a long way to help to change the attitudes of the less enlightened members of our society who themselves have been deprived of this aspect of their education at school due to the prejudices of the time.

However, Civil Union does throw up a number of rather difficult questions and situations for us now. What do I call my partner? Is he in fact my ‘spouse’? How do we fill in those ubiquitous forms around the world which ask about marital status? Do we in fact dare to declare our Civil Union at all in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, India, Hong Kong, most of Africa and the Middle East, where ‘homosexual acts’ are considered a criminal offence and punishable by imprisonment or even death? Will other countries such as Thailand, who do not themselves allow legal unions between homosexuals, recognise unions which have been formed in other countries? Will companies, organisations and clubs with “family” or “married couple” deals and packages, be required by law to allow “civil partners” the same deals? Indeed, could this be the beginning of a new world order where countries such as the ones above are forced to change their legislation or become increasingly isolated. Perhaps this new order will provide the power to unseat those people who “hate” in this world, using religion as their justification and to provide a balanced, enlightened and honest alternative to dogmatic zealotry. These questions will all be answered over the coming months and years no doubt, but at the moment do not appear to have any answers.

So the reasons for us making the decision to become “civil partners” were primarily based on taking our first opportunity to help to bring equality to our lives and to those of other homosexuals the world over; to gain legal legitimacy for our 14 year relationship and not for the same reasons as most traditional weddings, which is why there was no confetti, no guests and no party. But my Mum did make us a cake!

Robin Nagy, February 2006