THIS must be how marathon runners feel when they’re told that their 26-mile course ends at Mount Everest Base Camp, and that once they’re done, they’re going to have to climb the mountain.

Because not only is there the prospect of two days debating States reform this week – with rumblings in the background about putting it all off for later – but Members are also looking down the barrel of a debate about gays, or more specifically, civil partnerships between gay couples.

Reform debates are bad, pointless and disturbing – no doubt about that. But there’s nothing, nothing at all quite like a debate about gays in the States.

The Yanks are pretty good – they’ve had some nice little scandals about gay marriage, gays in the military, male Congressmen soliciting sex from teenage male assistants…
But this is one of the subjects that the States does not do well – not with grace, not with sensitivity, but utterly spectacularly.

The last-but-one debate, in January 2006 (about plans to equalise the ages of consent for gay and straight couples by reducing the gay age to 16) included such gems as these:

‘It does occur to me, Sir, that the way we are going it will soon be compulsory. What next? A minimum age for bestiality, I suppose.’

‘The law would enable men to have even younger boys for dessert at their dinner parties than they currently do.’

‘Vaginal intercourse has always been classed as a natural act and the method used by a male and female to reproduce. Anal intercourse, on the other hand, is considered totally unnatural.’

That last one, by the way, was by the current Education Minister. Just thought I’d point that out.

Anyways, back to the reform stuff. The States go back to work tomorrow for the first time since 16 July with a full list of business including the reform proposals (all four of them) for variations on the theme of eliminating Senators and Constables, abolishing the parish link to Deputies and setting up a general election; proposals to reduce electricity charges; plans to change the terms of reference for the inquiry into the death of a hospital patient, and proposals for a custody visitor scheme. Not to mention 33 questions to ministers.

There’s no doubt that the reform debate is the big one, but there’s a little bit of doubt as to whether it’s going to happen at all, and quite a lot of doubt about whether it will actually achieve anything.

I’d like to think it would – the Privileges and Procedures Committee’s proposals are reasonable, they tick most of the boxes in terms of a simplified selection and they’re decisive. That’s no particular guide to success of course, but there you go.

In poker, they call them ‘tells’. Little involuntary hints that all is not as it seems, that, in fact, the impression that you are being given is not entirely correct.

Get ready for more of these, and not just during the civil partnership debate either. Fortunately, an excellent television drama called ‘Lie To Me’ may have given you a few clues – people covering their mouths when they speak, involuntary grimaces, refusal to make eye contact. They can be pretty difficult to spot.

(Insert your own gag about being able to tell when politicians are lying because their lips move here, if you will.)

There is one, of course, that is dead easy. Easier than easy. One which is harder, in fact, to miss than to spot. It is the old ‘I am not [blank], but…’ chestnut.

One reader wrote to this newspaper in the aftermath of the Rue du Funchal debacle observing that Poles and Bulgarians are rude and arrogant, and that many Portuguese are dishonest – but signed off with the words ‘I am most definitely not racist, but…’
Aha. So, not racist then? Course not. Not a bit of it. Not personally racist, you understand, just a holder of racist and stupid views. What an idiot.

When the civil partnerships debate comes to the States on 20 October, you might be able to spot more of these, along the ‘I’m not homophobic, but…’ kind of lines, possibly even a bit of ‘some of my best friends are gay, but…’ sort of thing.

There was an early example last week – Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf wrote to all Members reminding them about the financial plight of the government of the Cayman Islands, and the need for financial discipline from all Members, particularly those planning amendments to the Business Plan. You can guess the last line, can’t you?
‘I am not shroud-waving, but…’