McKellen – the gay marriage interview
Acclaimed British actor Sir Ian McKellen took a few moments out before the Equal Love rally in Melbourne on Saturday to tell Sydney Star Observer he joined the fight for gay marriage on “principle”.
“The major principle of equality for all people has international repercussions, and of course I support [same-sex marriage],” he said.
So would McKellen walk down the aisle himself?
“It’s difficult for someone of my age to adjust to the fact that marriage might one day be an option, but of course it should. Whether I take advantage of it, I don’t know.
“I’m not dying to get married … I don’t have someone who I would like to get married to.
“But who knows what my life would have been like if I’d been able to get married as a young man. It might have been quite different.”
McKellen said he believes the civil partnership scheme in his homeland does not equate to full equality.
“On the point of principle, no, they’re not, and two people should be able to get married regardless of their gender.
“The Blair Government didn’t think they could get that through so they settled for second-best which was a civil partnership.
“Ironically a civil partnership is not available to straight people so it’s a law which discriminates in favour of gay people. That’s the sort of nonsense that it is. I understand straight people are very upset about it.”
According to McKellen, the need for equality can’t be overstated when it comes to gay rights, marriage or otherwise.
“Gay people should be treated on par under the law with everybody else and once that’s established we can all shut up and go home.
“In South Africa you can get married or have a civil partnership, whether you’re straight or gay. That seems to me to be the sort of equality we should be aiming for.”
Rick, we actually partly agree: I’m not saying that McKellen shouldn’t be a newsworthy device for drawing mainstream attention to same-sex marriage, I’m saying that he should indeed be such a device. But having the whole cast of the play on stage with him does seem like an advert to me. Plus the multiple pics of McKellen with the journo seemed over the top to me. Wasn’t one enough?
Sounds like Hannah’s an Equal love member with a bad case of sour grapes, perhaps? Or maybe she just doesn’t understand what constitutes ‘newsworthy’. Hannah, there seems to be another Equal Love rally every couple of months…it leads to protester-fatigue and there’s very little ‘new’ to read about after each one.
This time around, they were lucky enough to get one of the most high profile, respected gay actors in the world to attend: of course that would be the crux of the coverage. News that McKellan was attending no doubt helped boost the attendance in Melbourne; of course his presence should be a major part of the article.
It seems as if Ian McKellen has become the focus of the Equal Love rally, rather than him being a device to draw people’s attention to same-sex marriage and the marriage inequalities that exist in Australia. I thought Andie’s description in the opening paragraph of her news article in the printed version of Southern Star about him being British acting royalty and attending the rally was somewhat ga ga and over the top. I’m feeling like the focus on McKellen turned this really important rally into an advert for McKellen’s play ‘Waiting For Godot’ by a starstruck journalist.
This of course is in stark contrast to the owner of the Peel who is seeking to be a Liberal Candidate. As reported in The Age he does not support Gay Marriage. Tom McFeely will advocate against Gay Marriage.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/libs-want-gay-hotel-owner-for-state-seat-20100508-ul2x.html
If Tom McFeely, the owner of the Peel, had of said, “I will run for the Liberal Party and seek to support our community”, then know one would have a great problem. But trying to run against our rights? This is just not acceptable to myself and others.