Gay Wife

Proving yet again that people's prejudices invariably reveal far more about their own dark imagination than anything about the object they purport to fear, Norman Tebbit has raised the spectre of Britain being ruled by a lesbian queen should gay marriage be legalised. Now, depending on your cultural reference points, the phrase "lesbian queen" will bring to mind a dodgy calypso song you once heard on holiday, a giant yacht ploughing its way majestically through the Indian ocean, or Clare Balding. Honestly, I'd be fine having any of the above as the ruling figure of Great Britain. Seriously, who wouldn't rather be ruled by a calypso song than Prince Charles?

The past few days have offered extraordinary riches in nomenclature of non-existent demographics. First there were the "swivel-eyed loons", as possibly but definitely not coined by Andrew Feldman, who was recently made a peer for his fundraising and tennis-playing services to David Cameron.

Then on Monday, "aggressive homosexuals" were introduced by Tory MP Gerald Howarth, a man whose societal nous was proven 12 years ago when he appeared on Brass Eye's Paedogeddon episode, in which he warned about paedophiles who lure children by putting naked photos of themselves in public phoneboxes, and then proceeded to play the song Stay Away From Me "by the US chart toppers Smash My Brother's Face In".

This week Howarth warned that "the aggressive homosexual community" (it is possible that Howarth is confusing "homosexual" with "pitbull") sees same-sex marriage as "a stepping stone". A stepping stone to what? Howarth sadly was not allowed to elaborate. Gay wedding lists? Gay couples spending their Saturdays arguing in Ikea? I was living in New York when same-sex marriage was legalised there in July 2011 and, let me tell you, it became impossible for me even to go out to buy a coffee in a morning without being strong-armed by an aggressive homosexual trying to drag me to the nearest marriage venue. I had to go out and forage for food under the cover of darkness. Honestly, New York City these days? It is unrecognisable from how it was before July 2011. It's like 28 Days Later, but with aggressive homosexuals roaming up and down Fifth Avenue, knuckles dragging on the sidewalks.

It's always interesting to note the correlation between a person's fears that he will be ravaged by a sex-crazed homosexual, and their likely appeal to any homosexual at all. As a longterm fashion writer and fan of Erasure, I've spent many a night getting inebriated with gay men and, let me tell you, not even at 3am, stumbling out of G-A-Y on Old Compton Street drunk to the eyeballs, would any homosexual pose a threat to Gerald Howarth's honour.

And finally, Norman Tebbit and his "lesbian queen". Tebbit, who has clearly been spending much time thinking about the matter, said: "When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?" Seeing as the royal consorts to most queens have traditionally been little more than sperm donors, it's not entirely clear what Tebbit's beef is here. After all, the only difference between two royal queens with a sperm donor and the more traditional royal set-up is that the press would get to coo over two wedding dresses. And how is that a bad thing?

Incidentally, if "lesbian queens" isn't already taken as a 1970s punk group name, the swivel-eyed loon, the aggressive homosexual and the lesbian queen totally need to start up a band. I imagine them sitting on little stools, Westlife-style, before getting up and beating the crap out of one another. As a live experience, it would be hard to beat.

Anyway, after Tebbit, his eyes ever so gently lilting from side to side, pointed out the imminent lesbian queen issue, he moved on to another argument popular with those in high places who argue against the legalisation of gay marriage: the question of whether or not he can marry his son. "It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I'd be allowed to marry my son. Why not?"

Why not indeed? Aside from the small detail that this would be incest and Tebbit's son is possibly now legally emancipating himself from his parents in fear, this makes perfect sense. Although it is hard not to marvel how many people instantly raise the prospect of marrying their child when faced with the prospect of same-sex marriage being legalised. Jeremy Irons did this only last month and various American politicians have fantasised about the subject. Is this really the dark taboo that lurks in so many people's psyches? Do so many people want to marry their child? Talk about helicopter parenting.

As for those who gleefully warn about the prospect of people marrying their dog should same-sex marriage be legalised, I suspect 99.99% of the country would opt to marry their pet over Norman Tebbit. This might explain why some people are so fearful about letting animals and close relatives into the dating pool: it would make it that much harder for them to find someone to go to the movies with them on a Friday night.

One could make the point here that it's possibly time for certain members of the Tory party to join the 21st century before they manage to implode their party, but, really, I'd rather dream about a Britain ruled by a badass lesbian queen, with kd lang and Melissa Etheridge singing at her coronation. That calypso song would rock the afterparty.

When I was married, I would certainly say "This is my wife Debby", or "My wife is at the dry cleaners".

I wonder if that is a regional thing.