Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Is Haringey registry office embarrassed about gay male couples?

I was up at the Civic Centre on Friday and whilst waiting to see David Brown, the new mayor, I picked up a copy of the brochure produced by Haringey registry office entitled "Your Wedding or Civil Partnership in Haringey". That's good to see, I thought, a brochure which seems to reflect the new times we live in.

Once I looked inside though, I have to confess to being rather disappointed. Amidst the glossy full page pictures of straight couples, the brochure includes just three small (90 x 50mm) pictures of gay female couples, two of which include faces.

When it comes to male couples, there are four small pictures, but three of these are tightly zoomed in on hands only, and one is of a row of blurred row of buttonholes. Wot, no gay male faces? What editorial policy is at work here?

The extract I've attached includes all the non-advert pictures in the brochure. Take a look. I'm sure the producers of the brochure thought they were being very progressive by including pictures of gay couples at all, but is it me or does it smack of embarrassment about gay male couples?

I wonder how how people would feel if the pictures of the black couples in the brochure were equally coy and showed only clasped black hands?

Just a thought......

0 members like this

Attachments:

Haringey Registry Office Brochure (Extracts).pdf, 3.5 MB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Barry on June 12, 2012 at 14:21

A timely item this in view of the strange item on the radio this morning where a C of E Bishop argued against making gay marriage legal on the grounds that the C of E might be COMPELLED by law to marry gay people whether they wanted to or no. But as everyone knows, no particular C of E vicar is required to marry any particular couple now, in practice. So why would that change?

All very odd.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on June 12, 2012 at 14:55

If the two women are a real lesbian couple (and not just the heterosexual man's fantasy lesbian couple that they look to be) then I will be very, very surprised. I'm not saying they're not necessarily lesbians, just that they're not a real couple. And I'd be quite offended if I was a gay man. Just saying.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on June 12, 2012 at 14:59

Offended about the non-couple lesbians/non-lesbians?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on June 12, 2012 at 15:11

Ofended that there is not, as you said, a picture of two gorgeous young men in their tuxedos as well. It's basically aimed exclusively at heterosexual couples but trying to look like it's not. Failing too.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on June 12, 2012 at 15:11

The matching frocks are a bit of a give-away re the agency's idea of a saleable photo. They were right.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on June 12, 2012 at 15:35

It's a bit much when people don't stick to their stereotypes isn't it? Like this lot on last year's Pride march

http://www.flickr.com/photos/waterford_man/5905648178/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/waterford_man/5905648204/

What DO they teach them in schools these days!!!!

p.s. When David and I tied the knot neither of us felt compelled to do it in drag. Whatever were we thinking?