Here’s part of an excellent Ekklesia piece by the also excellent Symon Hill (see his 2009 Grauniad article about International Fetish Day here) on the Conservative Party’s persistent niggles with sexual diversity:

“…It seems that prejudiced attitudes are only slightly below the surface in Cameron’s “new” Conservative Party. But while Cameron has been keen to play down the embarrassing incidents, his own attitudes are not much better.

The Tory leader has said that his tax breaks for married couples would apply also to same-sex couples in civil partnerships (although he still has not adopted a policy of allowing same-sex marriage). But the very existence of the tax breaks policy is based on a series of questionable premises: that marriage is about going through a ceremony, rather than about what happens in people’s hearts; that the interests of single people are a lesser priority; that couples must conform to conventional family structures; and – as Cameron said at least twice yesterday – it is “families” that really matter.

Of course, it is not only the Tories who talk of prioritising families. The term “hard-working families” has been a favourite of both Gordon Brown and Tony Blair (do they think that single people don’t work hard?).

The main problem with this sort of rhetoric – and with the Tory Party’s attitude to sexuality – is not homophobia as such, but heteronormativity. In other words, same-sex couples are tolerated as long as they conform to certain narrow and restrictive expectations. The secular acceptance of homosexuality and divorce may have liberalised attitudes to sexuality, but the boundaries are still more rigid than is often acknowledged. Homosexuality and bisexuality are generally tolerated as exceptions rather than accepted fully as part of the diversity of human relationships.

Just as importantly, heteronormativity is also oppressive towards heterosexuals. The word describes an attitude that assumes that the ideal relationship involves a couple in a long-term relationship bringing up children. Of course, many people are suited to this form of family. But the idealisation of this relationship relegates many people to second class status – single, divorced and widowed people, children whose parents do not live together, couples without children and those in more unconventional forms of relationships. It can also put huge pressure even on married, mixed-sex couples with children, telling them that they must live up to the ideal…”

For the full article, click here.