The Independent
1993
No Reason to Treat Us Differently
Ian McKellen urges Parliament to lower the age of consent
for homosexuals
to 16
In February last year, the Harris Survey asked the following question:
"Should the age of consent — that is, the age at which people can legally
have sex together in private — be the same for everyone, irrespective of
their gender or sexual orientation, or not?" In response, 74 per cent of
those surveyed agreed that the age of consent should be the same for
everyone.
The principle of equality in this matter is well-established in
European law. This year Russia has accepted it. Last month, as part of a
major reform of all laws regarding lesbians and gay men, Ireland included an
equal age of consent. The United Kingdom lags oddly behind our close
neighbours, so it is welcome news that the Prime Minister is now prepared to
test whether Parliament is ready to catch up with Europe and with public
opinion in Britain.
Twenty-five years ago gay male sex was decriminalised in England and
Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland eventually followed suit. In 1967,
Parliament, on a free vote, agreed that the- age at which two men could
legally consent to make love in private should be the same as the age of
majority, which was then 21. Although the age of majority has since been
changed to 18, the age of consent for gay men remains fixed at 21. This does
not apply to their peers, whether heterosexuals or lesbians, who are free to
make love at 16.
Under Mr Major’s premiership, the Isles of Jersey and Man have been
persuaded to adopt the same law. Gibraltar has settled at 18 for gays. This
is in line with the Prime Minister's long-held belief that 21 is too high.
When he announced that homosexuality would no longer be a bar to advancement
in the diplomatic service, he said he was responding to a change in public
attitudes and seemed to welcome the increasing number of gays who are
prepared to be open about their sexuality. Will he now declare his support
for equality? If so, he will find he has allies on all sides.
At the last election, Labour promised a free vote on the issue,
briefing its candidates that "Labour is committed to ensuring that the law
treats lesbians and gays equally". Paddy Ashdown has told the group
Stonewall, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats: "We support a common age of
consent." So do Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party. Last year the
group Torche was founded by "Conservatives — gay or straight — who wish to
see legal equality for all of Britain's citizens, regardless of their
sexuality".
Justice is not a forgone conclusion. As the recent discovery of a
possible "gay gene" confirms, any discussion of homosexuality exposes
extremism. Last week, for example, Lord Jakobovits, the former Chief Rabbi,
compared homosexuality with kleptomania, adultery and murder. There has been
much unsavoury debate as to whether a mother would have the right to abort
her "gay foetus".
The forthcoming Westminster debate will, however, reveal more familiar
worries. We shall hear, once more, that boys mature later than girls and
need the current law to protect them from what may be only a "homosexual
stage". Medical opinion is almost unanimous that basic sexual orientation is
fixed by the age of 16. There is no evidence that patterns of sexual
behaviour affect that basic orientation. Indeed, in my experience, there is
an abundance of evidence to the contary. Constant conditioning in my youth
and social pressure in every department of my life all failed to convert me
to heterosexuality.
Some fear that an equal age of consent would make 16-21 year old men
vulnerable to older men. Surely no more than women of the same age are? That
is why, already, there are adequate laws, with appropriate punishment, that
should apply to all predators. The issue is whether 16 is too young an age
for a man to consent. Well, the law says he is old enough to have sex with
his girlfriend. He may marry her and have children. He can join the Army —
so long as he doesn't say he is gay. By 18 he can vote, buy a house and
start a business. Yet the law finds him less capable than, say, his twin
sister, of resisting unwelcome advances. What is it about British men that
they should be thought more peculiarly vulnerable than British women or
their counterparts in the rest of Europe?
We will be told that young men should continue to be dissuaded from
homosexuality because gay men lead such unhappy and unstable lives. Those of
us at ease with our sexuality are neither unhappy nor unstable. Those gay
men who have difficulty with their sexuality suffer greatly because of the
discrimination they face. This discrimination starts with the unequal age of
consent.
Then there is Aids. The law as it stands is much more dangerous than
its repeal. Young people need to be educated about the sad dangers of all
kinds of penetrative sex. Such education cannot be effective, in or out of
the class-room, unless the whole subject is openly discussed. The existing
law, let's face it, is broken by some young gay men, many of whom are
promiscuous. Are they likely to be open about their criminality? Counsellors
may not encourage stable homosexual relationships, as a defence against
sexually transmitted disease, for fear of committing the crime of incitement
to illegal sex.
Perhaps the argument for reform will finally be won by those it most
concerns. Hugh Greenhalgh, 20, and his boyfriend, Will Parry, 24, have
applied to the European Court of Human Rights to protect thei from the
British law that criminalises their partnership. As they say, "The only
other things you can't do until you are 21 are get a heavy goods vehicle
licence and stand for Parliament."
The law is ridiculous. We are happy with our sexuality Why should we
be treated differently from all our friends? -- Ian McKellen
 |
Ian McKellen leaving 10 Downing Street after meeting
with the Prime Minister
|
