to be annoyed at the way Stephen Gatley's husband is being referred to in the press

[Dragonfly73]

I saw the sad news that Stephen Gately had died. I was never a fan of the music but i think it is always terribly sad when someone so young passes away. I do remember being quite impressed with him when he "came out" as he had a lot to lose by way of screaming teenage fans etc.

Anyway, was just watching the BBC and they kept referring to his husband as his "civil partner".

Am i being unreasonable to be a bit enraged by this? They had a commitment ceremony and as soon as they were legally able to formed a civil partnership under the law. My DH and I had a civil wedding with no religious overtones at all. If i were to die tomorrow would anyone call him anything less than my husband or my widower?

It just seemed to me that by referring to him as his "civil partner" they were diminishing the relationship somehow and making it distinct from a "normal" marriage partnership. Would it so offend BBC viewers to recognize the man as his husband.

Anyway, i am interested in peoples thoughts. Depending on how it goes i may just write the BBC a strongly worded letter!

DM - you seem to be positively itching to get into some sort of a spat with me over this. I have absolutely NO objections to partnerships/civil partnerships/relationships between same sex couples. Just think the terms husband and husband and wife and wife sounds odd.

Nope not itching for a fight, just challenging your POV, I am fairly sure that is allowed.

Usage of words changes as things in general change. It used to be male/female marraige only now it is not IMO it used to be husband/wife only now it is not. The world has changed and so has the application of the words.

I have to be honest and say that saying things like "it just sounds wrong" is, to me, the sort of thing someone would say just after "I am not homophobic but...". It does make my toes curl a touch, sorry.

I think Stephen referred to Andrew as his husband and to me it would seem more respectful if the press would refer to Andrew as Stephen referred to him. The BBC probably feel they have to be "correct" though.

Husband & husband does sound odd - more American than UK. 'Partner' to me has always sounded a bt clinical, like someone you play tennis with, but we know what it means. I think the BBC were right to refer to his partner.

People said this after the DM referred to Matt Lucas' ex as his husband.

I say, someone has died, it is semantics really! Lets have respect for the deceased not to start a debate about the term that the press are using for his partner.

Why does it matter that much?

What is wrong with civil partner anyway? why does it have to be exactly the same as a heterosexual marriage, or its wrong?

"Civil partner" is what you call it, because that's what they had in law. To call it anything else would be inaccurate.

'It used to be male/female marraige only now it is not'

DailyMailNameChanger This is not the case; same sex partners still can not have a marriage. They can have a civil partnership. Which is great. I hope, eventually, they will also be able to get married, if they so choose, but I'm not holding my breath.

I agree - nothing wrong with calling him the Civil Partner; that's what he is. He isn't a husband. Legally, men and women can have a marriage and become husband and wife. Same sex couples have a Civil Partnership and become Civil Partners.

I don't think it's anything to get offended about on their behalf, it's factually correct.

YABU. He is not a husband he s a civil partner.

differentname, that is a bit of a silly thing to say, discusion is sparked by all sorts of things including people passing away, it is not disrespectful to anyone to read the reports and think about the terms used within those reports and question them. It is discussion of a valid point sparked by a sad event, nothing more.

Olifin, if you have read all of my responses you will know exactly what I was talking about and what I meant.

OK, just spotted the IMO in your post.

perhaps stephens partner is happy to be called his civil partner. I have 2 sets of gay frinds who have had the legal ceremony and one set refers to their other half as husband and the others my partner.
none of my beeswax wither way.

Ok so, from a legal POV what is the difference between a cival partnership and a marriage (meaning a non-religious one)? Apart from the sex of the people involved obviously.

The difference is in the title!

So that is it? The only difference is what they are allowed to call each other? Seriously?

So they have all the rights and expectations of any married couple, they are just excluded from using the words?

Lenin, do you know if there is a difference between a civil partnership and a civil ceremony then? Because if the only difference is that you are denied access to the words that hetrosexual couples get then I am even more cross about the whole thing!

Whenever I ask this question I always get "well it is just different" No-one has actually been able to say yes, this is different and that is different...

Interesting one yes!

Barbara Ellen's piece in the Observer today on this ver subject (it's the second article on the page)

My friend always refers to her CP as her 'wife'. But then, in the context of our friendship, she refers to herself as my 'bezza lezza'

Of course it's up to the couple and if SG thought of him as 'my husband' it would be nice if that were respected.

I used to refer to DDs dad as "the wife" - admittedly mainly for comedic purposes, but also because he was my supporter and helper and we were a team. He liked it.

The difference is in the title because it's a seperate piece of law, it's not the marriage act, it's the Civil Partnership Act. Gay couples are I guess excluded from using the word marriage because they are not actually marrying; as I say it's a seperate piece of law they are using and it does not marry them, it makes them civil partners.

I think it is an interesting debate about why govt didn't open up the marriage act to all but created a seperate law for gay couples, which of course is open to criticism for making it seem like 'marriage-lite' or something

I think it's a vaild point and there is a big question there but in the context of this thread, media like BBC have a duty to at least try to get things in the correct terminology - in this case, it's Civil Partners, not Husbands we're talking about so it is right to use the right terms. Mr Gately and his partner would not have chosen to become partners using this law, I imagine, if they felt it was second-class and excluding them from anything.