Gay marriage - England and France

I'd not been aware until recently of the legislation coming shortly before the French Parliament to extend marriage and adoption rights to same-sex couples. The UK is going through a similar debate, but - as so often - the framework of the question is in fact quite different.  In France same sex couples are permitted to enter into a PACS - a pacte civil de solidarité: a type of union recognised by the State, but fundamentally different from the UK's civil partnership.  A PACS does not confer rights equivalent to marriage as a matter of law: the parties define the rights they will have against each other on a separation, for example.  The UK's civil partnership legislation, on the other hand, was carefully drafted to place same-sex couples in the same legal position in every respect as their heterosexual counterparts.  The only resulting difference was the use of the word "marriage" for the latter. 

The French "mariage pour tous" legislation is a substantial extension of rights for same sex couples, whereas in the UK the question of gay marriage is basically one of terminology.  This does not of itself mean that the UK debate is unimportant - even if the prospective legislation is a minor tweak by comparison with what is happening in France.

The spectre at this particular feast in both countries is of course the Christian Church - be it Catholic or Protestant.  When I hear ecclesiastics insist that marriage is for men and women only I cannot escape the feeling that I prefer the churches to deal with the nature of God rather than the structure of society; there is a historic confusion of theology and sociology that needs to be nailed.  I personally don't believe that the churches should be obliged to celebrate same sex marriages.  But it strikes me as obvious that society has changed and that same sex unions should be recognised by the State, with all the attendant rights and duties equivalent to marriage.  And having got that far, it seems stupid not to call it marriage, leaving the leaders of the church howling on the sidelines rather than facing up to their own problems of celibacy, child abuse and dwindling numbers.

Strangely, I have no particular axe to grind on the matter.  Paul and I entered into a PACS when in France, which is recognised by the Civil Partnership Act, for English law purposes, as equivalent to a UK civil partnership.  Ironically, therefore, by crossing the Channel from France to England our rights have automatically been upgraded.  Tough for the French bishops to accept, but that's the way it is.

Antony Mair




 

Revisiting the Pre-Raphaelites

 

Rossetti: The Beloved

(reproduced courtesy of Tate Britain)

 

 

I went up to London yesterday to see the Pre-Raphaelite exhibition at Tate Britain.  I've never really cared for the PRB (this trendy acronym was adopted by the exhibition organisers, and denotes the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood - feminists can refrain from comment).  But I wanted to see the exhibition to see whether I might have changed my view, with the passing of time.  But alas, no. 

 

I did come away with two things, however: the first was that I had always thought of the PRB as being later in the nineteenth century than they were: in fact they kicked off in the middle, rather than towards the end, and were therefore ahead of the Impressionists.  So the idea of them as a rather pathetic alternative to their more successful French contemporaries isn't correct, since they weren't really contemporary at all.  Secondly, though, on reflection it had not occurred to me that their preoccupations were more social than the Impressionists' concern with paint and how things are seen. 

 

It may be for this reason that, in the final analysis, they continue to leave me cold.  The anachronistic nature of many of the paintings is incongruous: the costumes are medieval, the facial expressions and poses distinctly Victorian.  More disconcertingly, a number of the persons portrayed are just begging to have bubble comments put beside them: take the lady on the right in the picture above.  She's obviously asking the girl behind whether she's remembered to bring the tickets.  The one on the left appears to be saying to the central figure: "Keep looking him in the eye and he'll give way".  While the central figure herself seems to be saying to the onlooker:  "Ok, this is who I am."  This all builds up to the idea of girls confronting a bouncer outside a nightclub. 

 

I don't want to press the point too much.  Some of the smaller paintings are beautiful.  I also particularly liked the stunning William Morris rug, portrayed below (again courtesy of the Tate), which I could happily have packed up in my bag and brought home had we a room large enough for it.  The colours still gleam like jewels.  But the great set-pieces of the PRB continue, I'm afraid, to leave me unmoved.

 

 

Antony Mair