Normally the quotation marks would irritate me, but in this case, I think it's because John said (in this same interview) that it isn't a marriage. The word marriage has a religious meaning for him, which he doesn't want. I hope that the quotation marks were to avoid upsetting him when he'd specifically said "I'm not married, I'm civil partnered".

You can hear the interview here: The audio link is at the top right of the page

Possibly dubious use of punctuation aside, I'm pleased to see it being so widely reported. Hopefully the more people see stories like this, the more acceptance there will be. And and the end of the day, it's really sweet and we need more happy news in the world!

There is a picture of them together in the December 2005 issue of the British gay magazine Altitude when he gave an interview on his view on civil partnership in Britain. It used to be on his web site barrowmanonline.com.
Now it's gone.

Marriage, a religious institution?

I have difficulty trying to understand why allowing gays to use the term “marriage� rather than “unions� to be such a sticking point. I have heard it often said by people that are opposed to gay marriage, say that marriage is a religious institution. Or using the term marriage will somehow make a mockery of traditional marriages. If marriage were indeed a religious institution, why then are heterosexual couples afforded such a wide variety of ways of getting married that have no religious affiliation whatsoever? Heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry and they certainly don’t want any religious overtones to their marriages. Straight couples can get married by the justice of the piece; they can get married by a ship captain on a cruise ship. They can be married underwater or on a mountaintop, it seems to me it just doesn’t matter and that there are no restrictions. The list goes on and on therefore, making the argument of about marriage being a religious institution absurd.

I have also heard many opponents of gay marriage say that same sex marriage will make a mockery of traditional marriages, meaning I suppose between a man and a woman. I think that looking closely at all of the statistics about the success of traditional marriages; they seem to be doing a damn good job of their own, making a mockery of the institution of marriage. Then when one looks at the statistics of how many straight lay men and woman who have extramarital affairs doesn’t look so good either not to mention many couples of the clergy who seem also not to have the greatest track record. So then, what do the opponents of gay marriage really mean by saying that same sex marriages would make a mockery of traditional marriage? One doesn’t have to be a sociologist or have a degree in statistics to understand that allowing gay marriages to exist would hurt no one. In fact gay marriage would likely cause gays to have longer lasting relationships. There has been a common complaint generally spouted out by the straight population, that gay relationships don’t seem last very long. Statistics do however bear out one thing in regards to marriage verses just living together as a couple, and that is that couples that are married verses couples just living together, do last longer if they are married. Perhaps this could be the answer in motivating gay couples to work harder at their relationships if they were legally bound by a legitimate contract, rather than just being able to just walk away as so often happens when they hit some rough waters as all relationships do at some point whether gay or straight. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver Saugatuck, Mi 49408 269 561 6789 www.aaronjasonsilver.com

thoght that to say that john barrowman is so hot!!! and his partner is like not!!!

i think its a great idea, i am gay and no one knows and i fancy this boy but i dont know if he likes me,