💒 How The 'Lavender Marriage' Is Being Reimagined 💒

QUEER WORD
LAVENDER MARRIAGE

What it means:

⬅️ Then - A marriage of convenience between a queer person and a straight person, usually to protect reputations, careers, and avoid discrimination in less accepting times.

➡️ Now - A marriage of convenience that allows people to sidestep societal expectations around romantic love while gaining the practical benefits of partnership: financial stability, companionship, and shared responsibilities.

Let’s use it in a sentence:

Emma’s lavender marriage was going great until she discovered her platonic spouse thought putting the toilet roll on the holder was optional.

A little bit of history:

I blame capitalism for most things.

Seriously.

The housing crisis? Capitalism.

Hustle culture? Capitalism.

Paying £15 for a sad airport sandwich? Yup, capitalism.

Sometimes my grumbling is justified. And sometimes it’s just me screaming into the void.

But, before you roll your eyes at today’s rant, hear me out. 

I think capitalism has finally killed love.

Dead. Kaput. Gone.

And here’s why…. 

Over there on TikTok, a recent trend has been reimagining and celebrating the lavender marriage—not as a closeted necessity, but as a pragmatic life hack.

This modern take shifts the term from a secretive arrangement used to protect one’s reputation or career to something much more practical: a friction-free, friendship-based partnership where rent, utilities, and emotional labor are split without all the messy, sticky entanglements of romance.

But, before we dive more in to that, let’s back up a scooch.

Where does the term 'lavender marriage’ come from?

It first emerged at the beginning of the 20th century, a time when queerphobia was rampant and being openly LGBTQ+ could cost you everything: your job, your family, your safety, and in some cases, even your freedom.

The ‘lavender’ in lavender marriage comes from a time when the colour was subtly associated with queerness (long before we claimed the whole damn rainbow 🏳️‍🌈). Much like its scent—delicate, different, but easy to mask if needed—lavender became a quiet symbol in queer communities.

The term is most often linked to the golden age of Hollywood, where lavender marriages were frequently arranged to keep closeted movie stars’ public images squeaky clean, ensuring they continued to land leading roles.

Famous examples?

Rock Hudson, a leading man in 1950s Hollywood, married his agent’s secretary, Phyllis Gates, despite being gay.

Judy Garland, whose husband Vincente Minnelli was rumoured to be gay, allegedly advised her daughter, Liza Minnelli, to marry a gay man because they make the ‘best husbands.’ (fun fact: Liza followed her mum’s advice, later marrying gay singer Peter Allen.)

As LGBTQ+ acceptance grew over the decades, the need for these arrangements faded, and the term lavender marriage fell out of use.

Until now, that is.

So why is the term back?

This resurgence is thanks to TikTok, particularly user @robbiesmoonmusic, who went viral after soliciting applications for a lavender marriage.

And though his post was tongue-in-cheek (I think?) it struck a chord with people who loved the idea of skipping the messiness of romance and simply building a life with a best friend or trusted companion.

But the reason this idea is resonating now is not about social rejection, or rebelling against the ideals of older generations.

It’s far, far more pragmatic than that - it’s all about tackling economic impossibility.

Is love necessary for a successful marriage?

Which brings us to an existential question: does a marriage need romantic love to be successful?

We’ve been conditioned to believe that marriage should be all about heart-pounding devotion and the (completely reasonable, not at all daunting) idea of committing to one person forever.

But as living costs skyrocket, homeownership feels like a pipe dream, and financial instability delays major life milestones, maybe it makes sense to rethink the model?

Got crippling student debt and a negative bank balance? Why not make things a little easier for yourself by pairing up with someone you genuinely care about (just not romantically) and building a life together?

Historically, marriage wasn’t about love anyway. It was a business transaction—designed to consolidate wealth, form familial alliances, and ensure inheritance rights. The idea of marriage as a grand romantic endeavour is relatively modern, only gaining traction in the last two centuries.

So maybe this new take on lavender marriages is less of a radical shift and more of a full-circle moment?

And, on top of all that, why should aromantic people miss out on the inexplicable rage of discovering a sink full of unwashed dishes? Or the comfort of knowing someone will feed your cat when you’re out of town?

This reimagining offers an alternative for those who don’t feel drawn to romantic relationships but still want stability, companionship, and a second name listed on their mortgage.

And yet…. I don’t know. It still feels kind of cold and cynical to me.

Am I just out of touch and settled in my ways? Am I over-influenced by those constant cries to ‘preserve the sanctity of marriage’?

Or, am I right to feel wary?

What do you think? 

Does marriage need love to be successful? Or is mutual respect, clear communication, and compatible life goals enough to build a meaningful partnership?

Am I just salty because this all seems too easy?

Fill out the poll below, or hit reply and let me know your thoughts!

QUEER JOY
News from around the web...

👑 The (probably) queer English king that you’ve likely never heard of

🇪🇺 Which country has just been named the most LGBTQ+ inclusive in Europe for the 9th consecutive year?

🆚 In the cola wars it’s always been a close battle between Pepsi and Coca Cola - but only one is upholding its commitment to DEI initiatives - is it your fave?

⛴️ A gay cruise rescued 11 stranded refugees off the Gulf of Mexico (or is that Gulf of America now?)

🎨 Queer art history is here to stay

✊🏿 The Black lesbian activist who took 1980s San Diego by storm

QUEER THOUGHTS
Last week’s poll

Last week, I asked a pretty big question: Have you ever voted for a political party despite its policies on LGBTQIA+ rights?

Unsurprisingly, most of you said LGBTQ+ rights are a dealbreaker.

But the responses also sparked some fascinating conversations about political strategy, compromise, and the state of the world.

JP pointed out that, despite media narratives about "gays for Trump," 86% of LGBTQ voters backed Kamala Harris in the 2024 election—24 points higher than in 2020. A hopeful sign, even if it raises questions about what LGBTQ+ voters were thinking in previous elections.

B admitted to having once voted for a party that didn’t fully align with his values, highlighting the frustrating reality of incremental progress in politics: “Only applies to that time in history a party supported some gay rights, but not full equality. Incrementalism is frustrating.”

Z, meanwhile, offered a stark reminder of what’s at stake. Having grown up in an EU country without marriage equality, legal protections against hate crimes, or accessible reproductive rights, Z left at 19 and has no plans to return. And yet, even in their new home, they see LGBTQ+ rights being eroded—especially for trans people. Their message was clear:

‘Don’t give in to far-right rhetoric. These people don’t have anyone’s interests at heart but their own. Where I come from, LGBTQ+ people are dehumanised, treated as political pawns, and openly threatened. We are not asking for special rights—we are fighting for survival.’

Finally, if you were wondering about Germany’s election results: The far-right AfD secured the second-largest share of votes. While they are expected to be excluded from the ruling coalition, their influence is a sobering reminder that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is far from over.