Elton John’s Sham Marriage Relies on Super-Injunction to Keep Up Pretence

The so-called “marriage” between Elton John and his male partner David Furnish is a nauseating hypocrisy. Elton is being sued for sexual harassment by a former security guard, and meanwhile David, who calls Elton “pathologically selfish”, flies all over the world for threesomes with other queer men contacted on dating websites. 

The worst thing about this is that they have bought two little boys , bred from a surrogate mother, and call this purchase a “family”. The children are deprived of a mother so that that Elton and David can indulge their revolting perversions. 

                            The evil pair with their captive children.

So intent are they on keeping up their hypocritical facade of “the perfect family” that Elton has used his wealth to get a court order BANNING the British newspapers from reporting David’s flagrant promiscuity. These so-called “super-injunctions” cost millions and are the prerogative of the elite, basically a bribe to gag the freedom of the press. 

In fact Elton and David [who should be called Lady John)  are the couple at the centre of the long-running “PJS” super-injunction.

Here is the back story. In 2011 Furnish flew to the US for a sex session with a gay couple who subsequently (no honour amongst sluts) tried to sell the story to The Sun newspaper.  The Sun, in the course of preparing the article, contacted the lawyers of Elton John who very quickly got a ferocious super-injunction which forbade publication of the article. It was largely argued on the grounds of protecting “their” children’s privacy. The facts were not in dispute. But nothing at all can be written about the matter in England or Wales.

Fleet Street has protested vigorously against the gag, with The Sun calling “on our loyal readers to help end the farce that means we can’t tell you the full story of the celebrity father’s threesome” by writing to their MPs “to get them to voice the public outcry in parliament and bring an end to this injustice”. To no avail.

The internet is international, and sites on servers in California, Canton and Cavan can be read by English men and women, making the court’s action seem futile. But the super-injunction has coerced the local press and the public into silence. The English can read news on foreign websites but they will be punished if they discuss it on local ones.

The court has made itself a partner in a vicious hypocrisy. It is defending the illusion of Elton John’s ideal family life against a sordid reality in which his children are mere bagatelles. Still worse, it pretends to do it for the sake of the children — so that the great and good may go on lying.

In his judgement on January 22, Judge Jackson noted that the spouse of PJS accepted that theirs was not a mutually exclusive sexual relationship and that therefore, according to the standards of an open marriage, Mr Furnish was not being unfaithful. If the story behind the super-injunction casts a cold light on the couple’s understanding of marriage, it also reminds us of the horrid practice of surrogate motherhood: a combination of eugenics, prostitution, kidnapping, slavery and child abuse. Little argument can be made for saving the two little boys from the putative damage of public exposure when they are living with two selfish hedonists who obtained them by purchase. 

If you make your relationship a lodestar of public policy, the public has every right to hear about that relationship’s reality — even if that makes you blush, sweat and squirm. Elton John regularly uses his relationship and his children to bolster arguments for his favourite causes. He has even publised an op-ed in support of transgender bathroom rights in which he writes, “As the father of two children, I would hope their world is free of discriminatory, hateful legislation like North Carolina’s.”  

If public policy is to be argued and defended by reference to one’s own family, is it not logical to respond that the reality of one’s family life should be publicly reportable?

The Supreme Court, by re-instating the injunction thrown out by the Court of Appeals, has placed the lives of rich and famous people who have children out of bounds. This creates a strange new unlegislated restriction on press freedom.

YGB says: Queers have got their sexual freedom at the expense of other people’s freedom. The right to report the facts is one of those freedoms. SHARE THIS NEWS AND DEFY THE COURT.

Paddy J. Manning is a blogger and campaigner who writes from Ireland. 

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/the-air-brushed-portrait-of-a-perfect-marriage/18108