Elton John & David Furnish, civil partners for 8 years, plan to marry in England


Elton John and David Furnish are getting married! If you were anything like me, you’re probably thinking, “Wait, didn’t they get married a long time ago?” Well, sort of. They got a civil union eight years ago in the UK, when British politicians finally made it legal for same-sex partners to form some of union, but they didn’t call it marriage. Now the UK has OK’d same-sex marriage, so Elton and David are going to do it all again.

Elton John and longtime partner David Furnish are officially headed to the altar and set to be married in May. The two have been in a British civil partnership for eight years, but plan to wed now that gay couples can legally get married in England.

At John’s 67th birthday at Fizz Las Vegas on Friday, Furnish told the Las Vegas Review Journal: “We don’t feel the need to take an extra step legally. But since we’re committed for life, we feel it’s really important to take that step, and take advantage of that amazing change in legislation. We all live by example.”

Known for throwing large parties – they held a $2 million reception following their civil ceremony in 2005 – the couple said their wedding will be the antithesis of that.

“I think what we’ll do is go to a registry office in England in May, and take the boys with us, and a couple of witnesses,” Furnish, 51, said.

The couple have two children: Zachary, 3, and Elijah, 16 months.

[From People]

My thought was that they probably are doing this more for the change in legal status, especially now that they’re parents to two young boys. Zachary Jackson Levon was born on Christmas day 2010, and then they welcomed Elijah Joseph Daniel in January 2012. My guess is that David Furnish wants everything to be in order legally, financially, what have you, mostly for the boys. I’ve always assumed that David had more to do with the boys than Elton, who seemed to go along with it because David wanted to be a father. All that being said, I don’t think Elton and David are going anywhere as a couple. They seem completely solid and like they’ve figured out what works for them. Mazel tov and good luck!



Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

26 Responses to “Elton John & David Furnish, civil partners for 8 years, plan to marry in England”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Frida_K says:

    Congratulations to them–they make a beautiful family. I wish them a lifetime of joy.


  2. Sixer says:

    Aside from spousal travel rights and some bits and pieces surrounding pension rights accruing from employment rather than self-employment (not applicable to these two), I don’t think there are any legal status reasons to “upgrade” from a civil partnership to a marriage. They are basically the same in those terms.

    People from other countries often don’t really understand that one of the reasons for having civil partnerships rather than gay marriage when it was brought it was that the UK has an established church in the CofE and it complicates things. Stand by for some distracting and unproductive cases going to the EHCR for the new gay marriage laws. I wish we would just disestablish. We could get rid of the monarchy more easily then, too.

    I think they’re doing it because they can, because they feel an obligation to stand up and represent, and because it’s another step towards total equality. And because they love each other! Good for them.

    • T.fanty says:

      I’m assuming that you mean gay or straight, here. Unless one is religious, there’s no reason to get married whatsoever. Over here, I think it also impacts immigration status right now. I have a friend whose partner of thirteen years is Columbian and can only be in this country on political asylum.

      One could argue that marriage, as a symbolic institution, has very little relevance to society today. From a feminist and/or Marxist standpoint, it’s quite antiquated.

      • Myrto says:

        “From a feminist and/or Marxist standpoint, it’s quite antiquated”
        Hum well I’m a feminist and I don’t think marriage is antiquated at all.
        I’m not married and don’t plan on doing so in the next few years but one day, maybe, if I find the right person. I don’t know, a statement like that is a bit of a sweeping generalization, don’t you think?
        For some people, marriage is super important and I don’t necessarily mean religious people. I know plenty of people (not religious) who really wanted to get married and not solely for the financial and legal aspect but also because for them it was a commitment, because it was romantic and well, because it made them happy.

      • Sal says:

        I’m not sure what religion has to do with it. Religion didn’t invent marriage. Marriage is a societal and government construct, for taxation purposes. Churches jumped on the bandwagon to make money, but marriage pre-dates Christianity.

    • Sixer says:

      @ Fanty: Well, I mean gay, since straights can’t get civil partnered.

      Here, a civil partnership is the same (vis a vis right to remain, inheritance, children, division of assets on divorce, etc etc) as marriage. I think (but don’t quote me as it’s just conversations with gay friends, nothing I’ve researched myself) that spousal pension rights from employment only date from when they got partnered, rather than the number of years the spouse paid in for married people. And by travel, I mean if you are a civil partner and you want to travel to a country that doesn’t recognise civil partnerships, only marriage, then you don’t get spousal rights. I’m not suggesting these are petty things, but I do think they are insignificant when we’re talking about general legal status, as Kaiser seemed to be thinking in her piece.

      Again, I think the perception by non-Brits (not you, obv, darling) is skewed because of the established church. A CofE wedding is BOTH a religious and a secular marriage. Vicars are also registrars. You know? I really hope the CofE doesn’t go to the ECHR over this, but I suspect they will.

      More to your point: as an atheist straight woman who was planning on setting up a permanent family unit to include children, I opted for marriage simply because it made a familial legal status easier, with tax, inheritance, name, etc etc. I’m not married because I believe in marriage. I do, however, believe in my family. IFYSWIM!

      @ Hiddles – I honestly don’t know without researching. Sorry.

    • Hiddles forever says:

      I have no legal knowledge to know if it is different for them or if civil partnership for gays was the same that marriage.

      As a straight person, it makes a difference to be in an established relationship with someone or being married. For example, I have a different nationality from my husband and for someone who is married to a British citizen the time to ask for British citizenship is reduced (3 yrs instead of 5).
      Another difference is that as a spouse I am included in his work related benefits (like pension or life insurance).
      It should also be different if any of us own properties. Am I wrong here?

    • kat5187 says:

      Obviously dont know much about the law…there are other things too…like next of kin i na hospital or emergency situation.

  3. T.fanty says:

    Hooray! It’ll be a fantastic wedding. Good for them. I adore these two.

  4. PunkyMomma says:

    I disagree with David having more to do with wanting the boys. Elton seems, to me at least, to have wanted children, too. Zachary looks just like Elton.

  5. Hiddles forever says:

    Congrats to them! :)

  6. blue marie says:

    Congrats to them, although I had thought they were already married.

    • jwoolman says:

      Well, actually they’ve been married for a couple of decades… This is all just making sure their relationship is legally recognized. Which is important in next of kin situations and for their kids. If they were a male/female couple, their common law marriage would have been recognized long ago.

  7. People irk me... says:

    I don’t know why but David reminds me of pee wee Herman…

  8. Eleonor says:

    Elton: prenup!

  9. Kim1 says:

    Congrats to them , they have been together 20 years.David always wanted kids.Elton came around about five years ago.According to interview I read , Elton meeting a baby w HIV in Ukraine was a turning point.When he was told he was too old to adopt, they started looking into surrogacy.

  10. Patricia says:

    I wish they would do another huge reception, just because why not? It would once again be fabulous and elegant. And I would love to attend hehe

  11. Susan Kincaid says:

    I love Reggie Dwight! Named one of my English Pointers after him. But I have always felt David Furnish to be a total gold-digger. If Elton didn’t have the money and lifestyle, he would be gone.

  12. bokchoi says:

    Furnish is Canadian, they could have gotten married there quite a while ago. Must have been important to Elton it happened in the UK?

  13. Her Indoors says:

    Always loved them as a couple. 20 years on and they are as solid as ever. Can’t wait to see the wedding pics.

  14. randolph says:

    I hope they stay happily married. I want to see a couple last! It seems everyone is getting divorced these days – straight or gay.

  15. Amy says:

    How did these two meet in the first place? They’ve been together so long, what a lovely couple.

  16. Listerino says:

    Good on em! I wish them many more years of happiness.

  17. jwoolman says:

    Actually, marriage for the common folk wasn’t quite as old fashioned as people assume. I ran into some book on Google books once that dealt with old records in England (around the 1700s more or less). The nobility and the rich got married for political and wealth fusion reasons, but a lot of people just lived together. Catholics often didn’t get married because the law said they had to do it in front of a Protestant minister, which was a sticking point for both religious and monetary reasons. A lot of others didn’t see the point of paying a minister either. So casual marriage and equally casual divorce were quite common. Maybe marriage was more common in simpler societies, not so much in urban groups until the cost of a legal union had benefits to offset it?