“As a heterosexual married woman I doubt I’d be alone in wanting to divorce my husband if he had sex with a man.”
HOMOPHOBIA *froths at mouth*
I’m not convinced its homophobia.
As a gay man I think I would want to divorce my husband (when I am able to marry my partner) if he were to have sex with woman.or a man.
Adultery is adultery (whatever the legal definition), and if I was in a marriage and expecting monogamy then divorce would be a consideration if there was adultery (although some couples can work through such issues, and I would seek to try to do this with my husband if such a hypothetical event occurred).
Surely, its reasonable of a woman who is married to a man to consider divorcing her husband if he is adulterous (regardless of the gender of the person he is adulterous with)?
How’s is that homophobia. I think if my misses cheated on me with anyone, man or women I’d be inclined to want a divorce.
Really? Please explain why that is homophobia.
What she seems to be saying is that she would regard it as adultery if her husband had an affair with another man, but that the law does not recognise a relationship between a married man and another man as capable of being adulterous. However for the purposes of the Matrimonial Causes Act, it may be considered to be unreasonable behaviour and therefore grounds for divorce on that basis. (Mutatis mutandis the same principles would apply for women).
I think her point is actually that the law is ‘quirky’ (or as I would say inherently homophobic) because it is technically impossible to commit adultery with someone of the same sex, but I agree she has expressed herself poorly. But then again I don’t think it is a particularly well written or researched article.
I do not think this is homophobia . . .
Lisa Burton is hightlighting the technical anomalies within the law concerning adultery and marriage.
This is pretty obviously a joke. Why has everyone taken it seriously?
Possibly because a sense of humour is intrinsically individual and consequently something which seems to be an obvious joke to one person may therefore not seem as such to five other people?
I agree with Eddie; it’s a clearly a joke.
I genuinely cannot believe that anyone would not read it as a joke. The fact that so many people have thumbed down that observation is thoroughly depressing.
Seriously?! Well goodbye pink news comments.
Really? Would you want to continue a relationship you were in with a man if your gay partner had sex with a women?
And when was the last time you heard of a GAY man having sex with a woman behind his partners back??? While the opposise (‘Str8′ Man having sex with other men behind his wife/partners back) is common place, i have never heard of one case of Gay men cheating with a woman?
I have heard of a couple of cases of men who identified as gay who cheated with women, and later admitted they were hiding their bisexuality from themselves and their partner.
I once met a man who identified as gay despite having had sex with five women. His reasoning was that he’d had sex with about fifty men, so he was only rarely interested in women, and had no interest in having more than a one-night-stand. People label themselves in all sorts of ways. Bisexuality is still highly stigmatised, particularly amongst men, which leads to plenty of closeted bi folks calling themselves gay or straight.
To be honest, if I was female and I found my husband having an affair, I would have far more sympathy with him if he WAS with a man than a woman. At least he might have the mitigating reasons that he was either bisexual, or wasn’t sure, or was maybe gay but too embarrassed to discuss it etc etc.
Good article, although it is England & Wales specific. In Scotland, there was a proposal to abolish adultery as a ground for divorce and bundle it into the “unreasonable behaviour” ground. Already, same-sex sexual infidelity can constitute the unreasonable behaviour ground.
In Scotland, marriages are not voidable on grounds of non-consummation. They are voidable on grounds of “permanent and incurable impotency”, but that means inability ever to have sexual intercourse with your spouse, rather than not doing it!
Very good article.
It reveals the lies and deceptions of the likes of Tebbit.
It’s not very often we agree, Paddyswurds … nice to do so ;-)
I wouldn’t go so far to call them ‘lies and deceptions’. Lisa Burton-Durham is a professional lawyer, Norman Tebbit is not. He is simply ignorant and filling in the gaps with his own, (rather warped), logic.
Good article. I think it is particularly weird that gay sex isn’t legally considered sex when it comes to marriage- you can’t dissolve a civil partnership on grounds of adultery either- whoever it is with!- you’d have to throw it in under “unreasonable behaviour”. While we’re at it, CP dissolutions can only be dealt with at 10 courts in the country whereas divorces can be handled at any family court- even though the process is pretty much identical- you even use the same forms as a divorce now! I’m not sure what the rationale for that is.
Well, ‘gay sex’, must also include two females, which without using additional aids, it is impossible to achieve the required penetration.
As the inimitable Adrella used to say: “You can’t get a fanny up a bum.”
The survey mentioned at the end is appauling.
question 1; are you male or female? (no regard for trans issues with an other box)
question 2; what is your sexual orientation?
straight, gay, lesbian or TRANSGENDER.
transgender is not a sexual orientation!!!
if you have the time please tell them just how bad this is.
They must have changed it very quickly – that option was not available when I completed the survey.
Hi Sarah, you are completely correct that transgender is not a sexual orientation and this mistake has now been rectified.
Thank you for taking the time to email regarding the survey.
You are completely correct that transgender is not a sexual orientation and this mistake has now been rectified. This is genuine mistake and was in no way meant to upset anyone.
‘Other’ has not been added as an option to question 1 as this survey is purely about same sex marriage. The key objective of the survey is to continue the debate on same sex marriage and give an opportunity for anyone to have their say. The survey was not designed to explore transgender issues but to gain an objective insight into the general feeling around same sex marriage.
Once complete the survey results will be published on our website.
A fairly decent response however they continue to miss any trans issues out, just as they do in the article
Here we go with the tarns and their appauling (sic) “issues” I understood that was your thing that you are either a man or woman in the wrong body. make up your mind.
Also, i misunderstood your (badly written) comment. Apologies…..
ha, look who can’t type. I really want to know what you think is wrong with with my writing. It will be good for a laugh.
A very poor article. She totally conflates gender identity and sexual orientation. There are currently no laws against transgender people marrying, the obvious proviso being that they marry someone of the opposite sex. She also completely fails to mention that one of the biggest injustices (‘quirks’) for some people who have undergone gender reassignment is that as a result of the Gender Recognition Act, existing marriages have been annulled and converted into civil partnerships.
This heterosexual obsession with “penetration” to determine adultery is absurd. I don’t think a sexual relationship between opposite or same-sex couples should be viewed differently or that sexual activity should necessarily be the determining factor. It’s an antiquated law and needs to be revisited and changed.
To me (whether the law agrees or not) adultery is not necessarily just physical (though it can be physical). There are also emotional, mental and atittudinal elements.
Agreed Stu, but are they measurable?
Certainly debatable that emotional or attitudinal elements can be measured (except perhaps against a comparison of prior behavior, emotions and attitudes?). Mental issues can be measured perhaps with the aid of psychologists?
Not as easy to coherently measure though, that is true.
“He looked at me in a funny kind of way” is hardly grounds for divorce, is it?
Probably not … but I still believe adultery is not just physical in nature.
Is it OK for prime ministers to ‘do God’ in public?
Vote here: http://tinyurl.com/bqcr96v
While marriage is being reformed, why don’t they make it the celebrant who is given the power to perform marriages (as is the case in Scotland), rather than the building being registered (as is the case in England and Wales)? This would clear up an awful lot of difficulties, including the inability of Pagans, Humanists and others to perform legal weddings.
Why not just make everyone have to have a civil marriage (who wants to marry) and then any religious celebration is a matter for the couple, the faith group they belong to/approach, and their God?
One quirk of Civil Partnerships is that honoury titles such as ‘Sir’ cannot be shared by both partners (eg. David Furnish does not share Sir Elton John’s title). In a mixed-sex marriage a knighted man’s wife is called ‘Lady’. When marriage equality is agreed will a knight’s husband be allowed to prefix his name with ‘Sir’?
The Equality Network told me the other week that the legal definition of adultery had been changed to include same-sex behaviour: does anyone know which is correct?
“What if your supposedly straight spouse has a long drawn out affair with someone of the same gender?” This sounds like bisexual-bashing to me. It’s also ignoring the fact that not all sex between mixed-sex couples is penetrative, and that some people actively avoid penetrative sex in mixed-sex encounters (I can think of one straight man and one bisexual woman offhand).
Does anyone know where consensually non-monogamous couples (e.g. polyamorists) fit in legally?
I’d imagine that having one type of marriage, rather than two supposedly separate-but-equal institutions, would actually cause less hassle overall, once they’ve got through the minor teething problems.
I had a colleague who was part of a thruple, they were all committed to each other in their relationship but also consensually monogamous.
Clearly, to many this is an unconventional form of relationship. Its certainly not one that the law has formed conventions for. Indeed the law can not be expected to prescribe the response to every scenario that could occur.
How they resolved their situation was a civil contract between themselves, along the lines of a prenuptual style agreement but formalising their partnership with each other. Their love was the issue of primacy for them.
Not a scenario that I think would ever work for me, but last time I saw my ex colleague (about 5 months or so ago) they were still very happy together.
The civil contract sounds nice, and sensible, but I imagine that legally it is completely useless.
I have friends in a situation where E is married to N, and E is also in a relationship with S. All very happy and consensual, the three of them have even gone on holiday together. Legally, it’s probably considered to be adulterous, and S will presumably have no legal rights compared to N. So this is a problematic area.
It could be a problematic area, but its difficult for the law to define all relationship strands.
I don’t know if my ex-colleagues legal agreement would be enforceable – it certainly would give some meat to legal argument and make an interesting case (if it were ever to be needed to be used, which for their sake I hope not).
I can also remember being on holiday in Spain and got chatting to a married couple in their late 40s who were on holiday with their two teenage children and the husbands 22 year old boyfriend. Everyone was happy about it. I must admit I am open minded but struggled to get my head around the tangled web potentially in the relationship(s). They were great fun to get to know though.
Why does Pink News sometimes send comments before I have finished editting – aargh!
If my colleagues (who also had a legal agreement in their relationship – 4 adults, all bisexual, 2 male and 2 female all living together as one “relationship” and committed to each other).
In my edit to try and work out what to call the relationship I hit add comment by mistake. I was trying to come up with a word to match Stu’s thruple (is there one for a foursome?).