mag pic

DAYS after the homophobic Earl of Devon announced his decision to ban civil partnerships at his stately home, Powderham Castle, the LA Times reported that the lifting of a ban on gay marriages in California could give the state a much-needed financial up-lift.

M V Lee Badgett, research director at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law, estimates that gay weddings could provide a $370-million boost to the state economy, the paper reports today.

That estimate presumes that about half of California’s 92,000 same-sex couples will tie the knot, multiplied by $8,040, the amount of money from savings accounts that Badgett figures same-sex couples will use on their weddings. She points out:

Event planners, restaurants, tent and chair rental companies, florists, caterers and hotels should all get a piece of that pie. There’s an opportunity to get a big wedding windfall.

But the 18th Earl, the master of Powderham Castle which is one of the oldest family houses in England, is apparently well-off enough not to need any income from civil unions.

He declared:

I am a Christian and therefore it [homosexuality] is objectionable to my Christian religion.

To avoid breaching the 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations he has banned all civil marriage ceremonies whether they are gay or straight.

He said:

In order to stay on the right side of the law we have decided to do away with hosting civil ceremonies altogether at Powderham Castle. We are not the only place that has come across this issue.

The decision will cost the castle, on the banks of the Exe, up to £200,000 a year in lost revenue.

But Lord Devon now faces an investigation by the Treasury, which has granted Powderham Castle “conditional” exemption from inheritance tax because it is open to the public.

Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of the gay rights organisation Stonewall, said:

We shall certainly be asking the Treasury about Lord Devon’s inheritance tax exemption. The inheritance tax regulations appear to suggest clearly that it should be withdrawn if his premises are not accessible to all members of the public without exception.

Ironically the ninth Earl – who was responsible for the addition of a music room with the largest carpet in the world – fled to France in 1811 after being accused of sodomy.

The Powderham website says in spite of being hounded into exile in France and America on account of his homosexuality, he was “dearly loved” by his tenants.

The castle was also home to Timothy the Tortoise, who died in 2004 aged 160 after earning the official title of Britain’s oldest pet.

Summerskill added:

We do think the Earl’s approach is rather sad given the family history. We hope at some point he will enter the 21st century, even if only at the speed of Timothy the Tortoise.

Lord Devon, however, insists that the complaint to the Treasury is unfounded as he is not banning gays from visiting the house or its grounds but only from celebrating their civil partnerships under his roof.

Until last December, the country’s 1,700 registrars of births, marriages and deaths were permitted to opt out of civil partnership ceremonies on religious grounds.

However, their employment status changed with the introduction of the Statistics and Registration Act. Now designated as local government workers, they must carry out town hall orders.

Predictably, barmy Christian organisations – like the Christian Institute – are fizzing over Stonewall’s intervention.

Snivelled the CI:

Homosexual activists want the Earl of Devon’s castle to be slapped with a huge inheritance tax bill because of the Earl’s religious beliefs on marriage … This is the latest in a series of aggressive incidents where ‘gay rights’ laws have been used to target those who believe marriage is restricted to one man and one woman.

‹‹
››

2 Responses to “Suck on this, your lordship!”

  1. Wow, 370M boost to the economy? Before it’s all over with The Earl behind his Castle Walls will have a lot to suck on!

  2. I am an atheist, and I don’t care if gays want to get married or not. But I don’t see what a report on potential incomes from gay ceremonies in California has to do with a Stately Home in the UK.

    I’m also not sure if a private home owner should effectively be forced into allowing something on their premises that they don’t want to allow – however bigoted and misguided their views may be.

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>