Divorcing romance, rights and radicalism:Beyond pro and anti in the lesbian and gay marriage debate

In this article about ‘For Better or Worse? Lesbian and Gay Marriage’ (Feminism & Psychology, 14[1]) we focus on the contributions to the special feature, the commentaries provided by Ellen Lewin (2004), Sheila Jeffreys (2004) and Sue Wise and Liz Stanley (2004), and on wider debates about lesbian and gay marriage and partnership recognition. We agree that ‘there is a lot of confusion/assumptions made about what “it” (i.e. “marriage”) is’ (Wise and Stanley, 2004: 333). Thus, when talking about same-sex partnership recognition we are concerned with civil marriage (or civil union, or civil partnership), and not religious marriage. Our emphasis is on the public not on the private sphere; we are less interested with the personal aspects of relationships (such as intimacy or commitment) than with their public function in, for instance, obtaining ‘rights and responsibilities’.

“Seismic cultural change?”: British media representations of same-sex ‘marriage’

The legal recognition of same-sex relationships is a contested terrain that has been hotly debated by feminists. This article provides a social constructionist analysis of the UK newspaper media coverage around the time of the introduction of the Civil Partnership Act (2004). In examining the 348 national newspaper coverage over a three month period (November 2005–January 2006) we highlight three prevalent, and conflicting, themes: ‘same-sex marriage becomes legal under the Civil Partnership Act’; ‘couples will not get full legal status’ and ‘marriage is a heterosexual business’. We discuss these media representations and argue that the heteronormativity of the coverage provided little space for more radical constructions of same-sex relationship recognition.

'It's a double-edged thing':the paradox of civil partnership and why some couples are choosing not to have one

Since their introduction in 2005, thousands of same-sex couples in the UK have had a civil partnership. However, many other couples have chosen not to have one. This qualitative study explores why some same-sex couples are choosing not to have a civil partnership. Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 people (five couples and two individuals) who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual, and analysed using discourse analysis. Participants' accounts were characterised by ambivalence about civil partnership, and three main paradoxes were identified: the 'good but not good enough' paradox, the 'unwanted prize' paradox and the 'legal rights v. social oppression paradox. A major source of ambivalence was support for rights but resistance to assimilation into dominant heteronormative cultural frameworks. Participants negotiated this ambivalence in a variety of ways, including considering how to have a civil partnership that is different from 'marriage', and adopting a pragmatic position. The analysis highlights the importance of social recognition and support for a range of relationship forms and identities, as well as for an ongoing critical debate about civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. © The Author(s) 2011.