Gays are slow to let government into the bedroom without rights equal to heterosexuals' rights, writes Quentin Fottrell.
I HATE to be the one to bring this up, but there appears to be something of a levelling-off in the demand for gay unions in those precious European countries and American states that allow it. In the immediate aftermath of legislation, there is an obvious surge, but then it cools. We haven't even got the "yellow-pack" version here yet, and nasty headline writers are already saying that the honeymoon is over for gay marriage.
For those who oppose gay marriage, this might ignite the mighty fire of their loins. I can see how they might blow hot air into the statistics and bake an anti-gay soufflé to argue against introducing gay union here. Gay marriages do plateau over time, but it's worth remembering the number of cohabiting gay couples continues to rise, with more live-and- let-live laws and attitudes. Still, there are other reasons for the gay marriage trend too.
But first, the statistics. In the UK, where civil partnership was introduced in December 2005 offering similar tax and pension rights to traditional marriage, gay weddings have fallen by around 50 per cent in the past year.
The UK Office for National Statistics reports this month that while 16,100 couples formed a civil partnership in 2006, during the first full year, only 4,060 signed on the dotted line in the first half of 2007.
This pattern is similar in Europe. In April 2001, for example, the Netherlands was the first country to recognise gay marriage, as opposed to the if-it-walks-like-a-duck-and- it-quacks-like-a-duck civil unions. In the first year of the law, about 2,500 same-sex couples got hitched, cooling to about 1,000 couples a year on average, but the number of cohabiting gay couples has also climbed in recent years.
Massachusetts became the only US state to recognise fully-fledged same-sex marriage in May 2004. In the remainder of that year, nearly 6,000 couples walked up the aisle and, according to the Massachusetts department of public health, of 30,000 cohabiting gay couples, 9,695 are now married - a far larger percentage than US states with watered-down versions of gay civil partnership.
What does it all mean? Is gay union, as one US marriage group suggested, a "novelty" that is wearing off in the few jurisdictions that allow it? Are we gays really too long-in-the-tooth without this luxury, too protective of our own way of life to move into the mainstream heterohood, too loved-up on our own brand of sexual adventure and romance to buy a ticket and join the other starry-eyed guest stars on the Love Boat?
If only it were that simple. While some people want the legal and financial benefits that come with gay union, they don't necessarily wish to invite the government into their bedroom if those rights are still not equal to those of heterosexual marriage, and if it is difficult to kick the government out of your marital bed should it go horribly wrong.
In the US, many state divorce laws for gays are haphazard and/or non-existent. The New York State Supreme Court earlier this month decided to rule on the divorce proceedings of a lesbian couple - known as Beth R and Donna M as they have two children - who married in Canada. The court effectively recognised gay divorce, even though New York doesn't recognise gay marriage.
This anomaly may ultimately help gay civil rights there (although that may be of small consolation to Beth and Donna).
Gay couples who sign up in the 11 US states with varying degrees of gay union or cohabiting rights run into a myriad of tax liabilities related to alimony for gay couples and state tax exemptions that apply to married couples only. Under such punitive and unclear divorce conditions and the 50 per cent divorce rate among their heterosexual peers, gay couples clearly want to tread carefully and take this responsibility seriously.
In Europe, there are similar issues if you move country and can't take your marriage licence with you, all the more reason to take this cause one step, one fight, one government at a time. There will always be a backlog, skewing the first flush of data.
But as one gay couple also told me: "If we get married now, what does that make our last 25 years?" If it had been quarter of a century ago? They would have jumped at it.
There are no rights or wrongs. There are those who fight for the right, even if they don't avail of it. Others who grew up in an oppressive, aggressive and sometimes violent society toward gay people may not be comfortable making a public commitment or having their union on the public record for employers to see. And, let's not forget, we need to find someone to fall in love with and marry, too.
But even if one couple took the plunge in the first 100 years it doesn't change a thing. Like all laws, gay marriage should exist because it is a right, not a need or a want. And many do want it. Crucially, it will provide the emotional architecture for those coming after us, who will hopefully come of age in an era where they are not second-class citizens.
This sea change may take 10 years, a generation or even a lifetime.