— read write play

The SPUC – a conservative anti-abortion group – are opposed to gay marriage, arguing that government shouldn’t sanction it because there’s no evidence that civil partnerships benefit those involved. Uh, no.

Here’s the American Psychological Association‘s evidenced statement, and here’s another one from the Australian Psychological Society – both arguing that same-sex marriage has mental health benefits, and pointing out the harm caused by social exclusion and discrimination arising from not having the choice to marry.

So, there’s that.

Update: James Gray suggests that the language described in The Telegraph story discussed below is ten years old and was introduced under the Labour government. The Telegraph’s claim, then, that these are “new rules” expressing renewed Tory support for marriage is inaccurate, if not wholly misleading. I still find the vagueness surrounding “appropriateness” and the “promotion” of marriage troubling for the reasons described below – though it seems to be a rather older problem.

Original post: The Telegraph reports that new academy schools will be required to sign up to “strict rules” for sex and relationship education:

Headteachers will be told that children must be “protected from inappropriate teaching materials and learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children”.

You can read the full Free Schools model funding agreement on the Department for Education’s website. As The Telegraph points out, the new rules are set out in clause 28 of the funding agreement – mirroring the location of Clause 28 of the 1988 Local Government Bill banned schools from “promoting” homosexuality as a “pretended family relationship”. It’s the experience of the 1988 Clause 28 (better known as Section 28) which should make us wary about such new, vaguely-phrased guidance. That’s not because it might shadow an unspoken homophobia – omitting the reference to “stable relationships” present in statutory SRE guidance – but because it creates a space of doubt where what we really need is clarity.

A large part of the original Section 28′s impact was in its chilling effect. The legislation did not create any new offence under which any local goverment body found to “promoting” homosexuality might be prosecuted. It did not set out any detail of what form alleged “promotion” might take¹ or articulate what was meant by “pretended”. Nonetheless, local authorities, schools and teachers (as well as the large number of people who work with them) read between the lines: it was safer to avoid discussing or funding anything which might be suspected as breaching the law.

1. As if all that stands between straight and gay is compelling advertising [↩]

Lord Hunt – the new chairman of the Press Complaints Commission – describes himself as knowing nothing about the internal workings of newspapers. Not to worry, though: despite claiming his work will start with a “blank sheet of paper”, he’s already got some firm and specific opinions about the industry he claims to know little about. Hunt is “completely hostile” to any statutory regulation and thinks there’s nothing wrong with the PCC’s current Editor’s Code of Practice, even though he might appear to have little sense of what any of that means in daily practice.

It’s that special mix of opinionated and uninformed that would normally give someone a job writing for a tabloid instead of one attempting to regulate them.

The Independent on Sunday’s 2011 Pink List – an “annual celebration of the gay and lesbian community” – sets out to name those  who have made the world a better or “more entertaining” place. As in previous years, the logic for inclusion isn’t always clear; though a thread of social and political activism runs through the list, it’s not consistent. While some entrants are nominated for a lifetime of civil rights activism (though notably not including Peter Tatchell this year), others are celebrated for being gay and successful in their chosen field.

Originally launched as a “power list” of the “most influential gay men and women”, the Independent’s Pink List mixes actors, musicians, politicians and celebrities while often leaving it to the reader to decide how or why the issue of sexuality is significant. We’re also left wondering if The Independent sought permission from those on the list before including their names in its celebration of outness, as was the practice in previous years¹.

The inclusion of a group of people under the banner of “new to us, or new to being openly gay” doesn’t help, mainly serving to confuse The Independent’s knowledge of various public figures’ sexualities, and a presumption of default closetedness. In fact, you might just find yourself acquiring a closeted past that you didn’t even know you had – if you’re “out” in the pages of a newspaper now, you must have been “in” before? It’s unclear, then, what counts as “openly” gay: is disclosing to friends, family, your workplace enough? In an interview in a weekend newspaper? What if it’s a newspaper that very few people read?

For how much longer will the assumption that people are always, already “in” or “out” dominate how we write about sexuality in public life? If questions of disclosure and visibility of sexuality are – more often than not – about context and community, does reducing the discussion to the state of the closet door help?

1. I think we can work through the ironies here in our own time [↩]