([London] Times) Nick Herbert: One man, two guvnors and the perfect Tory civil partner

(This is the interview referenced in the previously posted article on the blog–KSH).

In 2009 he entered into a civil partnership with his long-term partner, Jason Eades. Although he wears what he calls a “wedding ring”, he thinks it is unfair that they could not marry. “The longer this debate has gone on, the more strongly I have felt about it. I am getting fed up with people metaphorically jabbing a finger in my chest and saying, ”˜You should put up with a civil partnership’. I don’t think they would like it if I said, ”˜Well, sorry, you should accept a civil partnership too’.”

Although he describes civil partnership as a “wonderful thing”, he says: “It’s not the same as marriage.

“I have a powerful belief in the institutions in this country, and the institution of marriage is one. I want to cherish and protect and build on it. I think that extending it to gay people would be a strengthening of that institution, and I think an institution that is so important in our society should be available to everyone.”

Read it all (requires subscription).


Posted in Uncategorized

4 comments on “([London] Times) Nick Herbert: One man, two guvnors and the perfect Tory civil partner

  1. A Senior Priest says:

    I’ve known Nick for almost 25 years. I was a member of the Newmarket Foot Beagles, of which he was Master, some time before he went into politics. Nick Herbert is a fine man in every way, with a good heart. He and Jason are very happy together and their friends were delighted when they celebrated their relationship with a civil partnership. While I am happy for his happiness, I feel equally sad that he doesn’t understand that the Church cannot bless what the Bible clearly forbids. There is much in life I do not understand, like this dichotomy, but in the end none of us who beleive in and follow the teachings of Christ and His Church have any choice in the matter. Christianity isn’t a Rorshach ink blot. It’s not what you think it is or should be. It is what it is.

  2. Ad Orientem says:

    [blockquote] I don’t think they would like it if I said, ‘Well, sorry, you should accept a civil partnership too’.”[/blockquote]

    Sorry to disappoint the gentleman, but I am completely fine with civil partnerships or unions for everyone. In fact I think that should be the legal standard and the word “marriage” should be expunged from the legal code. “Marriage” should be a purely religious institution and left entirely to churches and synagogues.

  3. driver8 says:

    Newmarket Foot Beagles? Who knew.

    Remember when this was all about legal rights? You know inheritance, access to one’s life partner in hospital etc. Civil partnerships granted all of that. It turns out it was just a staging post. Now it’s about equal respect. But is it even in the state’s purview to compel equal respect (in the sense of equal approval of manners of living)? What starts out with moving stories about loving partners is tending to end with the thought police.

    I once lived in a rather posh village in England – retired colonels, venture capitalists helicoptering in, a couple of fox hunts in the area. Everyone very lovely and so forth. But if one imagined that class had no effect on respect and even access to various parts of village life, you were living in a fantasy land. Which of the hunts one rode with was itself a mark of social distinction. Is the state really in the business of trying to erase all the differences that crisscross civil society?

  4. A Senior Priest says:

    I heartily agree with you Ad Orientem. The problem is, in England, the State Church is the C of E and any kind of change in the law of marriage ineluctably involves the Church, driver8.