I was in the bath listening to Morning Ireland on the radio the other day. I realised recently that I could do that here in London, on the new cable TV digibox that I pay thirteen quid a month for, and I thought, grand, I’ll have a little listen in to Ireland, on Day One of the revolution. I wanted to hear reports from the barricades on the first night in the pubs when the smoking ban came in, how many publicans were glassed, pubs torched, and Gardaí injured in riots. I wanted the smouldering chip-on-the-shoulder edginess of nocturnal Ireland to be fanned to flames, true colours flaring.

But I was disappointed. Not a murmur. Docile isn’t in it. Since when have the Irish accepted what’s good for them without a whimper?
But then as I emerged from dunking my head to rinse the shampoo off my scalp I heard the dulcet tones of David Norris praising Justice Minister Michael McDowell. This was tough, as I hadn’t woken up, and it didn’t make sense. But it was true. Civil Partnerships for gay and lesbian couples on the cards, Norris preparing a Private Member’s Bill for discussion in the Summer, the Cabinet, seemingly, having already giving the nod to the Bill in principle, and McDowell speechifying on the matter at the weekend as if some of his best friends were liberal. Amazing. That’s revolution.
Unusually, both Ireland and the UK are contemplating the same progressive moves in social policy at around the same time – the British Government has just published its legislation. Although the word “marriage” is pointedly absent, the thrust seems to be around removing blatant and, often, cruel unfairness, honouring public commitment, clarifying tax and inheritance policies, and setting up structures to deal with relationship breakups. In world terms, the legislation is not as progressive as in Belgium, the Netherlands or most of Canada, where people can marry whomsoever they choose. For Britain, the move is novel enough, but there are so many openly gay people in British public life now that opposition is unlikely to be significant.
In the US, the issue is evidence of the power of the Christian fundamentalists in American life, for they are so threatened by the issue of gay marriage that legislation has been passed in 35 States to prohibit it, and to ensure that the marriages of same-sex couples from other States or countries cannot be recognised in those States. This was in response to the Supreme Court of one State, Hawaii, declaring a decade ago that it was discriminatory that a person could only marry someone of the opposite sex. These 35 “Defense of Marriage” Acts demonstrate that the Christians have firmly appropriated marriage as a religious rite, exclusively for heterosexuals.

At State level, only California, New Jersey, Vermont and Hawaii permit Civil Partnerships between people of the same sex, with Maryland looking like joining them soon. But the direction in most other States, like Massachusetts, is to prohibit, to forbid, to discriminate.
At grassroots level, however, all across the country, things are different – there is the glorious paradox of anarchy by marriage, with mayors of towns all over the US flying the flag for freedom by issuing marriage licences to queer couples, before they get an injunction slapped on them by the State Governors. George W. Bush is supporting moves to introduce an amendment to the constitution “defending marriage”. Considering that the US never passed the Equal Rights Amendment for women, it would be a sad day indeed if such a negative amendment found its way into the constitution.
In Ireland, progressive legislation on this issue is astonishing, considering it’s only a decade or so since gay men were subject to the threat of life imprisonment for having sex. I remember at the time the government assuring the worried Masses that decriminalizing the gays didn’t mean that the “grotesque” notion of gay marriage would be next.
Grotesque or not, I could hear in David Norris’ purring diplomatic voice his political astuteness – there was no way his Bill is about marriage, it is “simply” about removing discrimination. He knows the power of the Catholic Church on such matters, and how ruthlessly the Vatican has opposed gay marriage/partnership legislation across the world. Indeed only last week the Vatican again ensured that people of different sexualities would not be added to the list of those protected by the UN, for the second year running, teaming up with Egypt and other Muslim states. Let it be acknowledged, once and for all, the Catholic Church is a force for bigotry and evil in this world.
Of course I’m in favour of what’s happening in these islands; it’s all for the good. The difference between a couple of men getting a Civil Partnership licence at a Town Hall and a man and a woman getting a Marriage licence next door is insignificant for most people. To all practical intents and purposes, there will be equality.
But on a subtler, and in some ways more profound level, I believe that marriage is a human right, that should be available to all. It is because of the sacred quality to marriage, the spiritual dimension. It is not easy for many queers to fight the fundamentalists over what is sacred, for all sorts of complex and often contradictory reasons. As long as bigots believe that they are the righteous ones, the blessed ones, then they will triumph. The spiritual needs to be reclaimed from the fundamentalists. The committed love between two men, or two women, is just as sacred as that between a man and a woman.

It’s not that I particularly want to get married. It’s that so much of my life would be different now if I had known as a young boy that, when I grew up, I could marry whomsoever I chose, man or woman. That, more than anything else, would have validated my emotional desires, allowed me to speak about them, joke about them, play around with them, openly dream about them. My disillusionment when I did get married would be just like anyone else’s.
It is paradoxical to wish for ordinariness, for normality – but as any parent will tell you, the thing they most fear is their child being marked out as different. It’s no joke. Wanting to marry someone, to be with them for the rest of your life, to join their family with yours, is a special thing, that most ordinary people get to do in their lifetimes. It’s not a perfect way of living, it’s got its drawbacks and is increasingly temporary in this modern era. And, increasingly, more and more people are choosing not to marry.
But it’s their choice, their freedom. Their right.
I wonder will I be able to exercise that right in my life?