Elton John to Marry David Furnish
Pop singer Elton John will marry his longtime partner David Furnish later this year or early next year, his publicist said Monday. Britain’s The Mirror tabloid newspaper reported Monday that John, 58, would marry his Canadian partner Furnish, 42, before Christmas.
Laws recognizing homosexual civil partnerships come into effect in Britain in December. John’s spokesman Gary Furrow told British Broadcasting Corp. the nuptials may be postponed until 2006. “A date and a venue has not been set, so it may not be until next year,” Furrow told the BBC.
John was reported in The Mirror as saying the wedding could be held in Windsor, west of London, where Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall were married earlier this month. “We definitely want to do it about the middle of December, probably in Windsor,” John was quoted as saying. “But there will be no honeymoon. I’m on tour.”
The pair maybe among the first British homosexuals to take advantage of new laws recognizing gay civil partnerships, which come into effect in Britain on Dec. 5.
Somehow, I find it amusing they’ve chosen the same venue as Charles and Camilla.
Elton John, 58, has announced his plans to marry longtime partner David Furnish, 42. The two plan to hold a civil partnership ceremony in December or in early 2006 in Windsor, near London. “Meeting David has been the greatest thing to happen to me,” John told British tabloid the Daily Mirror of his boyfriend of eleven years.
The union became possible when the United Kingdom legalized civil partnerships in December of last year. John’s publicist stated that the singer’s primary motivation for the marriage is the tax break now available to both married couples and civil partnerships. This will be John’s second marriage: He married German music engineer Renate Blauel in 1984, and the couple divorced four years later.
It’s interesting that the media outlets covering the story so far (as listed at GoogleNews) refer to this as a “marriage” or “wedding,” although it technically is a civil union. Clearly, the difference is purely semantic at this point. One presumes the Washington Times will continue to apply scare quotes toward whatever they term it.