Sunday, 1 August 2010

Letter To The Prime Minister

This will, with amendments to address and sign off, be winging it's way by snail mail to number 10 later.

To the Rt. Hon. David Cameron, Prime Minister,

I write following your article in the Independent on Sunday today.

Soon the leaders of both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party will personally support marriage equality. Your Coalition partners will in fact be voting on adopting this issue as party policy at a federal level during their upcoming conference. Of course, like any party, I’m certain the Conservative party is not in the habit of adopting policies just because the other main parties have adopted them but that’s not to say it shouldn’t adopt this particular policy.

A smaller Government means empowering individuals to take responsibility. This Government can help this by getting out of people’s personal choice of partner and allowing them to form equal marriage contracts regardless of gender.

I note from your remarks that you are continuing to promote “religious civil partnerships”. These are often touted as an advance in individual and religious freedom. They are not. True freedom would be for the Government to stop dictating who can and can’t get married. Many religious organisations now wish to carry out marriages for same sex couples. The Government should allow them to, instead of offering them a new institution instead.

Her Majesty’s Government also plans to run a review of transgender rights in the near future. How can we continue to have gender specific partnership legislation in a country where we are able to legally change our gender? It does not make sense. One great step forward would be to make these institutions gender neutral so that those in a marriage aren’t forced to divorce in order to change their gender (a provision that seems both unfair and cruel considering the issues arising at the time of transitioning from one gender to another).

And you say you wish to have the UK’s civil partnerships recognised abroad with greater frequency. How do you propose to do this when there is no internationally agreed concept of civil unions? Might I suggest that marriage is more, if not completely, universally recognised and it would thus be of greater effect if same sex couples were allowed to marry. Then internationally more countries would understand and accept their partnership (of course not all will do so).

I cannot conceive of any reason for not allowing marriage equality except for a very limited religious view held by members of certain religions. Of course no religion which doesn’t support same sex marriage would be forced to hold those marriages. So their criticisms are pretty irrelevant in a country supposedly empowering individuals and groups to take charge of their own lives.

If you really believe in a “Big Society” you’d be for true equality (rather than the sham Labour created). If you continue to support separate but equal institutions, than your words will ring hollow.

Yours faithfully

Jason Kay

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist


Paul Brownsey said...


Good letter - except for your falling for this government's perverted use of "empower". It used to mean virtually the same as "enable": to empower people meant to give them the power to do what they might seek to do. This government is trading on the positive connotations of the word to infiltrate something sinister, namely, using the term to mask the dumping of tasks on people who are ill-equipped to perform them and which are rightly done by the state.


Jae said...

Oh I know Paul. I intentional used it. When I write to Labour people I flatter their egos with their LGBT record. When I write to Tories I tell them what I want them to hear in a way they'd want to hear it. ;)