Summary

Normative prescriptions about sexuality rely on sexual behaviours which are typically connected to the straight time account (Wilcox, 2009) - they represent the reproductive futurity of a group or culture and require rigid boundaries as defence mechanisms for deviations (Cavanagh, 2007). A queer feminist analysis highlights that this is a constraining mechanism for both heterosexuals and queer people. Straight time has dominated both religious and secular cultures, and while religious contexts have often upheld straight time normatives more rigidly, religious resources have also been the source of a means of challenging the straight time account. The straight time narrative does not stay static, but changes over time, such as the way that pre-marital sex has latterly become a concern only for those in more religiously conservative contexts. Meanwhile, the opening up of queer equalities such as same-sex marriage has all at once fostered greater inclusions, but also reified straight time normatives, as queer people are included - but only on the terms dictated to them by heterosexuals. Some religious traditions campaigned for same-sex marriage, this being seen as a logical marker in the lifecourse that should be equally accessible to queer people, where love and commitment become sacredly endorsed values. But religious spaces have formed powerful contestations to same-sex marriage, putting huge barriers in place for queer religious practitioners. In many cases, queer religious individuals do not want to be revolutionary, but simply want to be included into the straight time account. While some have viewed such goals as a greater entrenchment of the straight time model, for religious practitioners, marriage is often understood in sacred terms. At the same time, it is now time to reflect more broadly on the redefinition of what constitutes a “typical” lifecourse model. While heterosexual time and lifecourse models predict het-eronormative, monogamous, gender-stereotypical, and pre-determined actions and expectations regarding sexual behaviours, marriage, and reproduction, the increasing diversity of relationship and family models demonstrate a growing body of family “types” that cannot be contained within the normative understanding of straight time.

Notes

1 Brokeback Mountain (2005) depicts a love story between two men, though both maintain public heterosexual relationships (both are married to women and have children). One of the two men, Jack, is subsequently killed for being “queer”, and Ennis ends up alone, having left his wife. While the plot is not unrealistic, it can be argued that the widespread public is not yet ready for a homosexual couple to live “happily ever after”. Casablanca (1942) provides an earlier example of cultural standards influencing film. Director Michael Curitz originally intended to have Humphrey Bogart’s character walk off into the sunset with Ingrid Bergman, however, it was thought to be too racy to have the movie end with a marriage breaking up (Bergman’s character is married to another man).
2 At the time of the RYS study, same-sex marriage was not legally possible; instead same-sex partnerships were recognised through the Civil Partnership Act (2004).

While the Church of England is legally barred from offering same-sex marriage, the Church also refused to offer civil partnerships, although it did allow clergy to obtain a civil partnership (clergy are not allowed to enter a same-sex marriage). At the time of Stephen’s interview, priests were under the instruction that they could not offer a same-sex service or perform a blessing, even though, unofficially, such services were taking place. Therefore, the example Stephen gives here is of a priest operating at the very boundaries of possibility within the rules of the Church at the time. Once same-sex marriage came into force, the Church advised that while informal prayer was allowed, the blessing of a same-sex marriage was forbidden, but some priests have started offering thanksgiving services which are seemingly deemed to comply with the policy. The guidelines can therefore be considered confused and muddled (see Bethmont, 2019).