Sexually implicit

I've recently got a new job. As part of the job application process I had to fill out an 'equal opportunities' form. For those who've not seen one, it's purely for gathering statistics on the people who work in an institution. It asks questions about nationality, gender, marital status, ethnic background and religion.

Most questions on an equal opportunities form have "prefer not to say" as the final option, and I always tick this box. It's not entirely due to my preference to keep my personal life and work life separate, it's also because I believe statistics on who's gay or straight isn't going to end homophobia any faster than statistics on race are going to end racism. It's a massive political issue that involves attitudes as well as numbers, but is far too complicated for this blog.

What did interest me was the fact that in this particular form, the optional question about being gay or straight was preceeded by a question on marital status, which had no opt out option. More alarmingly, the question specifically segregated 'in a civil partnership' from 'married'. Obviously my socially liberal politics consider this an outrage anyway, but come on... what's the point of having an optional question on sexuality when the answer is potentially given away by the previous (compulsory) question?

Basically, we need to let gay people get married. If not for liberal or human rights reasons, for reasons of data protection.