YouGov Again Show No Basis For Tory Jitters Over #EqualMarriage

Let's take a look at this weekend's YouGov poll which has a number of questions on same-sex marriage. I think it will make sad reading for those desperately trying to make same-sex marriage into a storm to bring down David Cameron.

The first question was "Which of the following issues will be important to you in deciding how you vote at the next election? Please tick up to three or four" Out of 17 options same-sex marriage came 12th (beating out "Other", "None of these" and "Animal Rights") in terms of importance in influencing votes and got only 7% overall (note 7% was also the number of Tories AND UKIPpers who felt this issue would influence their vote!).

These 7% were asked "In the previous question you said that the issue  of same sex marriage would be important to you in deciding how you vote at the next election. Will you"

Be more likely to vote for a party that supports same-sex marriage - 58% (of Tories 28% and UKIP 24%)

Be less likely to vote for a party that supports samesex marriage - 42% (of Tories 72% and UKIP 76%)

Now by my calculations this means that, overall, 4% of the population are likely to base their vote mostly on whether a party opposes same-sex marriage or not.  5% of Tories are likely to vote against the party over marriage equality. This is hardly a major rebellion!

Next question: "Since 2005 same-sex couples have been able to enter into civil partnerships. While civil partnerships offer the same legal rights as marriage, same-sex couples are not able to marry. Would you support or oppose changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

A leading question, one which some critics sometimes wish was asked more often as they feel it favours the anti-equal marriage cause. This poll doesn't hold that hope up. 55% said they support changing the law over 36% opposed (consistent with most other polls). 48% of Tory voters oppose over 45% supporting. Yet we've seen those who oppose have more important issues that influence their votes. Even UKIP have "only" 53% opposed (I say only given the weight many are giving this issue).

It does go on to stress a strong support for civil partnerships being extended to heterosexuals and moderate support for a referendum (39% to 34%) but then most people support referendums when given the opportunity for most things.

It becomes clearer with every poll that the Tory right-wing "loons" are out of touch not only with the public but with the issues that their own supporters think are important. Time to focus on what they really want...

Muslim Leaders Come Out Against #EqualMarriage, And Yes They Are Wrong!

One of the most annoying criticisms one receives as a gay liberal is that, in some bizarre way, I must thus be some Muslim fanboy who wouldn't dare criticism Islam because obviously everyone politically to the left of Nigel Farage must be in kahoots with fundamentalist Muslims! "Oh you criticise us Christians but you'd never dare criticise a Muslim!" is the commonest formulation of this argument (usually used by UKIPpers who, on this issue, are ironically allied with Muslims!).

The main reason I spend less time moaning about Islam than I do Christianity is that we live in a Christian country (our Head of State is the head of the Church of England, if we weren't so damn British about it all we'd be living in a Christian theocracy!). Most of the powerful and organised vocal opponents of LGBT rights are Christians. The people physically attacking the police in Paris and attacking LGBT rights activisits in Tblisi weren't Muslims, they were Christians led to the protests by their priests!

But that doesn't mean I think Islam isn't just as silly as Christianity is. And I know some Muslims are just as dangerous to LGBT people as Christians are. Here in Britain some Muslims have called for us to be tortured, to be put to death and have even threatened to kill Muslim politicians who support our rights. It is in the light of this that one must look upon the recent letter to the Telegraph from ranking Muslims. Where was their letter condemning the death threats or the incitements to violence? What makes them angrier: my prospective marriage or my prospective murder? 

The letter suggests they are concerned about children, their education and their care. Laudable aims except whilst they feel we want their children educated on marriage equality (a side effect rather than an aim I'd suggest), they themselves imply they would rather our children were taken away from us (and that would appear to be an aim rather than a side effect of their opposition to marriage equality).

Which is worse? I think you know where I stand.

Tory Minister Has To Remind Senior Lib Dem What Equality Is About

Simon Hughes has never really been my cup of tea. This blog post of Younger (Angry) Jae got quoted in the Guardian just because of my deep seated dislike of the man. Whilst I apologise now for the harsh tone, the sentiments have very much returned today as Maria Miller, a Tory might I remind you, had to tell Hughes exactly what believing in freedom and equality actually mean:

“One factual error in what you said is that there was a very clear statement by the Conservative Party around looking at same-sex marriage in our Contract for Equalities that was issued at the general election. It was in a very extensive manifesto commitment document around equalities and it highlighted commitment to equality in this area.”  

She added: “Any claims that this has been fast-tracked is not accurate. The amount of consultation, the largest consultation that Government has ever seen, really took place over a year. Since the consultation, extensive analysis of that, then discussion around the bill.”

And fast tracked? Whilst we've been labouring from consultation to consultation, changed Equalities Minister and suffered through some seriously unfunny arguments from our opponents (remember old O'Brien's grotesque comments?), Minnesota went from voting on whether to ban same-sex marriage 6 months ago to voting it into law today! We are moving at a snail's pace as marriage equality becomes law in more and more countries.

Simon Hughes once answered a question of mine and confirmed his support for marriage equality. Obviously "support" means "drag my feet kicking and screaming whilst paying lip service to supporting it" in Hughes' language.

A Majority Supports Introducing #EqualMarriage... And Doing It This Year!

I know. You won't read that headline in the Telegraph (which appears to be C4Ms publicity machine) but those are the figures shown in the latest YouGov/Sunday Times poll.

53% of those surveyed supported introducing marriage equality, 36% were opposed and 12% were Don't Knows. When asked if the Government should change the law this year 46% said yes it should against 37% saying it shouldn't (i.e. almost wholly those completely opposed).

These figures back up the Coalition for Marriage's own findings through ComRes the other day which found only 34% wanted marriage equality off the agenda completely.

In other interesting news a majority of Tory voters now support marriage equality (48% to 41%). Political betting shows that this is quite likely due to the rise of UKIP, although other polling suggests the increase anti-equality voter base of UKIP is merely a symptom rather than the driving force behind the vote switching.

Of course a majority supporting something doesn't a moral case make. Nor are these positions set in stone. And those polled aren't the ones who will be voting which is why it is important for you to contact a peer today and make sure they know about these new figures.

In the light of these figures, the fact Tories are calling for a public referendum suggests they are no longer as confident with the capability of the Lords to vote this down as they were before. You'd have to be desperate to put this issue up for a public vote right now.

Charles Moore and Nadine Dorries On #EqualMarriage: Your Dose of Hate In The Morning

Last night Charles Moore's latest article on how awful marriage equality is went up on the Telegraph's website. A few of us mocked it on Twitter for how rubbish it was and we moved on. Unfortunately some credulous MPs found it thought-provoking. Enter Nadine Dorries.

Charles Moore states some rather bizarre things in his article.

According to the “public sector equality duty”, all acts and institutions of government must enforce Equality in all its various “strands”. (There are seven of them, and “gender reassignment” is given the same status as “religion”.

Because believing in whatever deity you may means you are way better than those evil transgender people who just want to... erm... live their lives? Instead of calling it "equality" we should refer to it as "treating people as we would wish to be treated". I shall label it the Golden Rule. Could found a few religions on that...

But it failed to still the anxiety. If marriage is redefined by statute to include same-sex marriage, then a teacher who refuses to teach this as right is in breach of his public sector equality duty. And while a church will be protected in its own premises, a Christian charity providing services to all, or religious groups wanting to hire council facilities, can be banned by the accusation that they are “homophobic” organisations.

Moore ignores fact teachers are at risk of being sacked right now for supporting equality if they work in a religious school. And ignores that, under "public sector equality duty", Christian charities and religious groups will be under no more risk than they are today of being refused facilities. Why? Because they could be labelled as "Homophobic" organisations with or without marriage equality. Such a red herring.

The Government has listened too much to pressure groups and far too little to people who know about marriage. Thus the gay lobby group Stonewall has become a partner with government in educational projects (such as Lesbian and Gay History Month). Its 60,000 signatures in favour of gay marriage were accepted during the Bill’s consultation period as representing that number of individuals, whereas the Coalition for Marriage’s petition signed by 650,000 – more than 10 times the Stonewall number – was counted only as the single voice of one group.

Ignoring the fact that Stonewall submitted no such petition. And the Coalition for Equal Marriage's petition (which I suspect he thinks Stonewall is behind!) was NOT accepted. Both petitions were treated the same. Even the Telegraph states that here.

Too late, they discovered, this cannot be done. Civil servants, confronted with the embarrassing task of working out what defined the consummation of a homosexual relationship, faltered. Since homosexual acts have no existential purpose and no procreative result, consummation is a meaningless concept. From this it followed that the Government could come up with no definition of adultery in a homosexual marriage. A law designed to be equal, is not. Under the Bill, non-consummation will not be grounds for divorce in same-sex marriage. Nor will adultery. 

By accident, then, the Government is introducing, for the first time, a definition of marriage which has no sexual element. Yet it refuses to face the logical consequence of this surprising innovation. If sexual intercourse is not part of the definition of same-sex marriage, why should blamelessly cohabiting sisters not marry one another in order to avoid inheritance tax? Why should father not marry son? Why shouldn’t heterosexual bachelor chum marry heterosexual bachelor chum? What, come to think about it, is so great about the idea of monogamy, once sex and children are removed from the equation? Does the word “marriage” any longer contain much meaning?

This total non-issue is a quirk of English and Welsh law and not of the fundamental nature of marriage. Hence why this hasn't been part of the debate in other jurisdictions. Has everyone forgotten Scotland? Charles Moore has.

Why shouldn't a mother marry a son in Scotland? I don't know. Charles Moore presents no argument here. Charles Moore gets so carried away with trying to link homosexuality to incest that he sort of forgets to think outside of the London Metropolitan Elite (see what I did there?) and pay attention to how things work in other areas of our own country!

So most people reading this highly flawed article would have thought "Oh Charles Moore, what were you thinking?". Except Nadine Dorries. Who thought it was amazing?

If gay marriage bill takes sex out of marriage could a sister marry a sister to avoid inheritance tax? telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/…
— Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) May 11, 2013

If David Cameron wants Conservative party to lose as many as fifty seats at next election he must push forward with the gay marriage bill
— Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) May 11, 2013

If sex is removed from the legal definition of gay marriage. If it can't take place in a church,what is gay marriage? What defines it?
— Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) May 11, 2013

If the answer is love, if legally is only link between gay/straight + marriage is being re defined to accommodate, why do we need marriage?
— Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) May 11, 2013

Charles Moore writes the most intelligent and eloquent case for David Cameron to stop and think telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/…
— Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) May 11, 2013

Oh Dorries. What are you going on about? Same-sex marriages, under the proposed law, can be conducted in a church. Does Nadine think a humanist marriage in Scotland is unacceptable? Does she want to tell those humanists to stop what they are doing immediately? No. She just doesn't like gay marriage. It really is that simple.

Coalition for Marriage Admit Only 34% Want #EqualMarriage Dropped

The Coalition for Marriage asked people to choose between ditching two completely unconnected Coalition policies (unless we're getting back to that whole "Gay sex is more dangerous than smoking" stuff); same-sex marriage and plain cigarette packaging. Only 34%, of 2000 people, chose to ditch same-sex marriage. Everyone else chose neither, don't know or plain cigarette packaging.

In order to get a headline they decided to pit marriage equality against something completely unrelated so they could say "more people are against same-sex marriage than..." This is where their polling has taken them. Remember when they said 70% opposed same-sex marriage? Either that polling was completely wrong or we are seeing one of the biggest swings in favour of something in a very long time. Thanks to the Coalition for Marriage for documenting this transformation!

Tories Are Just Looking For An Excuse To Drop Same-Sex Marriage Bill

The media is reporting today the suggestions Tory MPs have for fighting back against the "UKIP surge". They still aren't even in Parliament but Tory MPs spook easily it would seem.

Peter Bone, the Wellingborough MP, said Mr Cameron should halt the gay marriage Bill, currently going through Parliament, and cut overseas aid. "Those are things that Conservatives want and that's what Ukip voters want."

UKIP voters want to halt the same-sex marriage Bill? Really? Let us look at the evidence. The Coalition for Marriage, understandably, likes to terrify the jumpy Tory traditionalists with its tales of doom for any who support marriage equality. They crow about how the same-sex marriage Bill is causing people to leave in droves. Yet their own survey shows only 26% of 2010 Tory voters would be less likely to vote for them because of this issue. That is less likely not "completely unlikely" and that percentage is not even all those Tory voters who oppose same-sex marriage (last year half of all 2010 Tory voters were stated as opposing it).

C4M likes to draw conclusions that because this many say this and this many say that there is some link between same-sex marriage and the Conservatives current woes.

However in a YouGov survey this week, where potential 2015 UKIP voters were asked to mark up to 3 issues as their top reasons for supporting UKIP, only 12% of those surveyed marked opposition to gay marriage as a reason.

Even the more open, but possibly related, reason "Ukip reflect personal values and beliefs" only got 20%. By far and away the top reasons for voting for UKIP were immigration and the EU (no surprise there then). As many Tories like to say: the public don't care about equal marriage. 

The equal marriage bill is something that will benefit few people but, when asked, a majority support the legalisation of same-sex marriage. For all C4M and the right-wing Tory carping, it is a non-issue and even if UKIP had an equal number of MPs to what the Lib Dems have at the moment there'd still be no reason to suggest this marked a complete rejection by the electorate of this policy. 

The Tories are projecting their desperation to vote down equal marriage on to an electorate who have quite different priorities. Showing just how out of touch they really are and perhaps that explains the rise of UKIP more than any one policy.