So I've Read Lynne Featherstone's "#EqualEverAfter"...

It has been a couple of years since the end of the same-sex marriage debates and it is about time we got some insider knowledge of how same-sex marriage went from fringe issue (fringe even within the LGBT community, trust me... I was there!) to actual legislation.

And Lynne Featherstone was a central figure within that, there is not denying it. Now there's been some unkind mocking, including from me, of the way the book has been portrayed as being all about how Featherstone was the one and only person behind same-sex marriage becoming law. But let's get this out of the way from the start: even without reading what is in this book we all know she played an immensely important part in getting same-sex marriage on to the agenda and through Parliament. She justly deserves respect and appreciation for that.

So... the book. There are no massive revelations in it for any of us who followed the news and social media updates at the time. I don't think there's any surprise in how Theresa May gave Featherstone's proposals her blessing, how David Cameron got in the way of opposite-sex civil partnerships or how the churches and fellow travellers reacted.

Nor should any of us be surprised that Chris Bryant, Labour MP, "battled ferociously" against the idea at first and "didn't see the point". Nor how Ben Summerskill was "very dismissive" until the hard part was over when he was "literally lording it and loving it".

Basically if you read Pink News, or even just this humble blog!, you'd probably be well aware of all this stuff and more.

This book is not really a book about same-sex marriage, it is a book about how Lynne Featherstone got us same-sex marriage. It is a memoir and, if anything, merely one source for the yet-to-be written full history of the fight for equal marriage (also yet to be finished!).

Is it worth buying? Probably not. It's written in a very easy to read conversational style, broken down into themes rather than strictly chronological and perfect for a commuting read. But... it just didn't tell me anything important than what I knew already.

The one interesting little detail I saw was mention of Ed Fordham attempting to turn Tim Farron on the issue... using scripture! Ugh. I'm glad I'm out of that party now.

Civil Partnerships: 8 Years Old Today

Let's face it... I've never been very nice about civil partnerships. Even now I feel the bubbling of rage just beneath my skin at the mere thought of them. They were introduced by Labour because of the obvious need for some sort of partnership rights for same-sex couples. That can, really, only be seen as a good thing. But the fact is that, at the time of their introduction, the debate internationally had already moved on to marriage equality. Civil partnerships were, in hindsight, doomed to be considered obsolete within a few years of their introduction. 

And that is what really rankles me. In the years after their introduction Labour acted as if the matter was closed. My attempts to discuss equal marriage with LGBT Labour members were dismissed. Chris Bryant called me a numbskull for asking why he didn't even mention marriage as an option during the debates (and why he argued against equal marriage during them). Stonewall were so pleased with civil partnerships that they fought, briefly, tooth and nail to protect their uniqueness against any attempts to pursue marriage itself. And that was despite the multiple problems civil partnerships have. 

And now here we stand... the last anniversary of the introduction of civil partnerships that will fall before same-sex marriage comes into place in England and Wales. Isn't it time I just let it go? Forget it ever happened? I wish I could. 

But in their weird ideological defense of the obsolete Stonewall and Labour showed that LGBT freedom is nothing but a political game to some. Our attempts to seek liberty will be stymied by the self interest of political organisations and parties. We must never settle for second best and, when we accept second best as better than third best, we must at least state "this is not what we really want". No more politics, no more muddles like the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act, we must continue to argue for what is right. 

Civil partnerships were a sham. And whilst some may argue they were a stepping stone to same-sex marriage, I'd say that by becoming an idol (one that was to be defended at all costs) of the Westminster LGBT set it actually served to make this years hard won victory just that little more difficult.

I Think We Should Give Justin Welby A Chance On LGBT Rights

I know, I am always the first to judge. When it comes to people like Nigel Evans or Chris Bryant, I often find it hard to forgive as well. If you found someone describing me as an unhinged radical marriage equality ranter, I think there would be plenty of evidence to back that up. Given that it affects me personally, it is hardly surprising I can get a little overly emotional on this issue.

However, I feel like so much progress has been on this issue, I can afford to try and be better. More constructive and more ready to listen. Don't get me wrong, I still think "compromise" is a dirty word but I've always been willing to defend religious rights on this issue so I'm not really compromising here.

Let us give Justin Welby, who will from March 2013 take over as the Archbishop of Canterbury, a chance. I'm not saying we shouldn't shoot his arguments down in flames when he gets around to making them, but let us hear him out first. What he has said about LGBT rights today seems to hold out some hope of a reasonable discussion,

"It is absolutely right for the state to define the rights and status of people cohabiting in different forms of relationships, including civil partnerships."   

"We must have no truck with any form of homophobia in any part of the Church. The Church of England is part of the worldwide Church, and has responsibilities that come from those links. What the Church does here deeply affects the already greatly suffering churches in places... like Nigeria."   

"I am always averse to the language of exclusion, when what we are called to is to love in the same way as Jesus Christ loves us. Above all in the Church we need to create safe spaces for these issues to be discussed in honesty and in love." 

Whilst some have already held this up as proof he is a bigot who doesn't support marriage equality, I think this is suitably vague enough to allow some flexibility on the issue of civil marriage too. And it is very important, far more important than marriage equality, that the Archbishop starts to tackle the dangerous homophobia of Anglican churches abroad, especially in Africa (and most especially Uganda where Anglican bishops have been supporting the "Kill the gays" bill). There is hope here, and I'm prepared to let him have the benefit of the doubt for now.

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

Chris Bryant MP To Introduce Marriage Equality 10 Minute Rule Bill

Chris Bryant has announced on Twitter that he will introduce a bill under the Ten Minute Rule on the 30th October 2012 called The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill.

Details are scarce on what will actually be proposed but it can only be a good positive way of getting marriage equality into the news rather the usual anti-equality hi-jinks. Even though Ten Minute Rule bills have next to no chance of success, I wish him luck in getting it on to the agenda. Let's hope it is also more wide-ranging than the Government proposals.

To avoid coming across as a total hypocrite, yes I do have an issue with Chris Bryant's previous stance on marriage equality. But one does have to let things go at some point, I suppose.

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

It's Okay To Be Homophobic If You're Gay, Part Two

Two years ago Andrew Pierce outed himself as a homophobe, one who believed that you can't be a homophobe if you are gay. This of course is a ridiculous proposition. Now he's come out with a more direct challenge in his most recent article's title: I’m a gay man who opposes gay marriage. Does that make ME a bigot, Mr Cameron?

Well I think the obvious answer to this is no, it doesn't but you are one anyway. Your hatred of "camp men", your disdain for the truth and the fact you think your sexuality trumps criticism suggests you are indeed a homophobe.

Disdain for the truth?, I hear you ask incredulously. Firstly in this most recent article he uses the same tired phrase of other homophobes; "metropolitan elite". This from a man who lives in Belsize Park! The idea that marriage equality is some secret plan of the queer toffs belies the fact that the people pushing this (such as Peter Tatchell) aren't exactly part of that "elite". And our opposition (including, in the past, such champagne socialists as Ben Summerskill and Chris Bryant) has often come from the very grouping supposedly in support!

He then moves on to quote Ben Bradshaw's (another elite me thinks) ill-thought out comments on marriage equality, without then pointing out Bradshaw will, ultimately, support the move!! Such deception!

But his final move is breath-taking in it's audacity.

Even gay rights campaigners are puzzled by the Prime Minister’s conversion to the cause. Stonewall, a powerful pressure group for gay equality, has not called for gay marriage.  

While the organisation — of which I’m proud to be a member — supports the idea of gay marriage, its priority remains tackling homophobia in schools after research showed that gay men in the 16-to-24 age group are significantly more likely to have attempted suicide than other young men. 

Stonewall did adopt that position.... in 2009! It is now very much attempting to steal the spotlight and "lead" the marriage equality campaign. There's even a whole campaign now!

So even if there's an argument that Andrew Pierce isn't a bigot, I think there's quite a clear argument that he's not to be trusted.

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

Misunderstanding Labour's Position On Marriage Equality

Last night there was a lot of confusion over Labour's position on marriage equality caused by a recent article by Peter Tatchell entitled "Why has Labour failed to vote for marriage equality?" 


This caused many on Twitter to assume Labour had voted against marriage equality. Now, as much as I dislike Labour and fear their conservative instincts on many issues, I can't see how anyone could imagine a situation where they would vote against such an obviously progressive measure. 


Of course they've been against marriage equality in the very recent past. Gordon Brown answered a question on this here:

In response to Downing St online petitions to introduce same-sex marriage, it was stated that the "government has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage", because it has to "balance the right to live free from prejudice and discrimination with the right to freedom of speech and religion". In what ways does same-sex marriage affect freedom of speech and religion? Andrew Archer

"At the moment there’s a distinction drawn between civil and religious unions, and when civil partnerships were being introduced they took the same form as a civil union which a heterosexual couple would have. We later made it illegal to discriminate on partnership status – so it is illegal to treat someone in a civil partnership different to a married person. That makes no practical difference in terms of rights and responsibilities, but does recognise that religious groups have the right to a certain degree of self-organisation on questions that are theologically important to them, including on the question of religiously-sanctioned marriage. So the provision of ‘marriage’ as opposed to the provision of same-sex or heterosexual civil unions, is intimately bound up with questions of religious freedom."

And Chris Bryant made his opinions on this very plain during the civil partnership debates: 

I do not want same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense—several people have used the offensive phrase—because they are different. Although the two share similar elements, they do not have to be identical, so the legal provisions should be distinct.

So there is a reason to be cautious over their approach but since the rather slow progress we made with Labour during the leadership elections last year it's become far more common to hear Labour politicians supporting marriage equality (well civil marriage at least). At last night's Stonewall fringe event at the Labour conference, Yvette Cooper also reiterated her support for marriage equality.

Given how undemocratic Labour's internal workings are, this is probably as close to policy as we're likely to get this side of an election manifesto. And we should be pleased Labour has managed to make this progress.

So no... Labour no longer vote against marriage equality. My only concern is remarks such as Cooper made last night suggesting she'd always fought for marriage equality, a statement I've yet to see backed up by any evidence whatsoever. It's great you're supporting it now, but please do not attempt to rewrite history just to cover-up Labour's complete lack of leadership on this subject.

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

Chris Bryant's Fighting The Wrong Fight Again

Chris Bryant returned to one if his favourite topics (last picked up by me here); religious readings and music in civil marriages.

His support for heterosexual liberty would be endearing if it wasn't for his past acceptance of the separate but equal civil partnerships:

I do not want same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense—several people have used the offensive phrase—because they are different. Although the two share similar elements, they do not have to be identical, so the legal provisions should be distinct. Source

He seems to be offering conflicting messages, on the one part pointing out civil partnerships are not the same as marriage (and also now belatedly, and once he was out of a position to be influential in the matter, calling for marriage equality) but on the other suggesting civil partnerships give additional rights to LGBT folk which is unfair on heterosexuals and this needs to be changed. Indeed, I agree. It's just sad Chris Bryant has taken this long to realise.

Perhaps he doesn't know, it's always possible, but the Government is about to begin a consultation on opening up civil partnerships to heterosexual couples and marriage to same sex couples. Perhaps he might add his suggestions to this consultation. Perhaps he might fight for some legislation to amend the pertinent marriage acts to allow same sex couples to marry at which point he would have a perfect opportunity to also amend marriage law to allow religious texts and readings.

Two birds. One stone. Sadly I think Bryant, as I said in this post, isn't really interested in marriage equality and just gives lip service to it. His obsession with, again, creating a "separate peace" on this issue (i.e. solving just a small facet of the problems of our currently discriminatory partnership rights system, which he helped create and as quoted above approved of), rather than a complete overhaul to create equality for heterosexuals and LGBT people, is indicative of his lack of vision or leadership.

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

Chris Bryant Is A Bit Dim On “Equality”

A while back Chris Bryant called me a numbskull for daring to question his record on marriage equality. So, despite sharing his feelings with regards to a certain Sky News presenter, I find myself feeling a little sympathy for Kay Burley after Mr. Bryant’s comments. And there's still reason to be very skeptical over his support of marriage equality.

This month’s edition of GT (the Gay Times to the rest of us) contains a debate on whether the LGBT population of Britain should support the Coalition. Mr Bryant, unsurprisingly, adopts the negative position. He defends this by rolling out the well used, and not without merit, “It’s the Tories! They hate LGBT rights!!” method of trying to scare people into supporting the Labour party. I’ve used the same arguments before (especially during the most recent election), and I can’t criticize him for stating the obvious.

But then he goes on to criticize the Coalition on their religious civil partnerships consultation and thinks they should just introduce marriage equality. You’d think, as a vocal critic of this consultation myself, I’d be prepared, in the interest of a shared cause, to celebrate this. However I can’t let this criticism pass without comment. I think he’s right to now, belatedly, call for marriage equality. But it’s disturbingly partisan to conveniently forget his party’s (and his own) part in this situation.

The religious civil partnerships consultation is a reaction to recent legislation and is based around working on implementation. The legislation making this consultation necessary was the Equality Act 2010, which was introduced and passed under the last Labour government (of which Mr Bryant was a Minister). It is disengenious of him to criticize the Coalition for introducing a consultation on the implementation of the legislation he voted for!! Did he call for marriage equality? No he did not. Why? “Because he was a Minister”. That was his excuse to me when I criticized him (again conveniently forgetting that he wasn’t a Minister during the Civil Partnerships debates when he quite clearly stated marriage was not what he was after). In effect it’s the old “I was just following orders” excuse.

I do not want same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense—several people have used the offensive phrase—because they are different. Although the two share similar elements, they do not have to be identical, so the legal provisions should be distinct. - Chris Bryant 

His criticism of the Government for not introducing marriage equality is also RIDICULOUS.

1) Because the Government that he was part of failed to even discuss it (beyond Brown saying he didn’t support it even after he expressed sadness at Prop 8 passing in California, which seems bizarrely conflicting) in 13 years of power and

2) give them a chance, it’s only been 3 months. The Government introduced this consultation, and has now started to hear calls for marriage equality (calls ignored during the last 13 years thanks to Labour’s reliance on Stonewall). I will step up my criticism IF, after the consultation finishes, they refuse to heed those calls. Until then perhaps members of the last administration might seek to call for marriage equality more respectfully given their own APPALLING records on it. How can we blame the Coalition for not including marriage equality in their agreement when, like Labour, it was not in either party’s policy at the time, and when NOBODY had spent any time making the case for it in the House of Commons? Even I, just a few months ago, was unsure that there was enough of a call for marriage equality (although that didn’t stop me jumping up and down about it ;) ).

I find his sudden support for marriage equality indicative not of a real change of heart but a cold, calculated move based on a feel for the changing political situation. It gets the job done but is not worthy of any great acclaim.

And then Mr Bryant goes on to boo-hoo about the POSSIBILITY the Coalition might not honour the Equality Act (based on no actual evidence). Well, Mr Bryant, not only did this “Equality” Act ignore basic equality by not introducing marriage equality but it contains some incredibly transphobic parts. So rather than holding up this Act as some holy cow, perhaps he might suggest it can be improved on as he’s already clearly unhappy about it’s arrangements for civil partnerships (strange he failed to bring that up when it was going through the House).

Let’s be clear. I’ve be unreasonable about Labour’s record on LGBT rights in the past. Very unreasonable. But that partly stems from comments and articles such as this one in today’s GT. Marriage equality supporters need to start working ACROSS party lines in order to achieve our goals. Sadly I see little hope for that when some use it as a rod to beat other parties with. Yes, I realize this might seem hypocritical given my comments in the past. But I admit I was wrong, I was speaking out of turn because I was angry at how silent many in the Labour party were on marriage equality (for what I perceived, and still believe, were political reasons). That’s changed (although it wasn’t easy, as anyone following my dealings with the Labour leadership contenders will know!), and I’m thus prepared to change my position.

I’ve admitted I was wrong to be unduly harsh to Labour. Will Chris Bryant admit he was wrong to not stand up for marriage equality when he had the chance? And will he state that he is wrong to criticize the Coalition for not doing something he so singularly failed to promote when he had the chance? Doubtful.

Diane Abbott has led the way, and said publicly that she feels civil partnerships were a mistake. Perhaps Chris Bryant might want to follow in her footsteps?

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

20th July Parliamentary Dealings Relevant To Marriage Equality

Chris Bryant had a very failly moment yesterday, again reminding us why having quotas for specific groups in Parliament might not get the results you'd hope for. Mr Bryant is a homosexual, but doesn't appear to understand even the most basic of issues relevant to the LGBT community. Here's a question he asked yesterday:

"And I should say that the people of the Rhondda remember Churchill's period in relation to the Tonypandy riots. However, the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for marriage law, and he will know that the law forbids civil weddings from including religious readings or music, even though many people who are not able to get married in church or who do not want to do so would like to have such readings. The Government say that they will allow that for civil partnerships, but not for civil weddings. Can we not have a little more equality for heterosexuals?"

A little more equality for heterosexuals? That'd be great! But civil partnerships aren't open to them and civil marriage isn't open to LGBT people so whether they can or can't have religious readings might be jumping the gun a little. Let's have actual equality please.

Nick Herbert's answer leaves me with a very bitter taste in my mouth:

"I am answering this question because I am the only one in the village. [Laughter.] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that his question was transferred. The Equality Act 2010 removed the express prohibition on civil partnership registrations taking place on religious premises. In response to that amendment of the law, the Government are committed to talking to those with a key interest in how to take this forward. That will include consideration of whether civil partnerships should be allowed to include religious readings, music and symbols, and the implications for marriage will have to be considered as part of that."

Hilarious! Did you see what he did there? He said he was the only one in the village! You know, like that TV series.. *sigh* But the answer leaves us no clearer as to what this consultation they have planned actually means. What do they plan to do? It's a consultation without portfolio.

And in a written question from, our friend, Chris Bryant, we get:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will bring forward proposals to amend the law to allow religious music and readings at civil weddings and civil partnerships.

Lynne Featherstone answers, possibly grumpily given he keeps asking these silly, badly thought out questions:

Civil partnership and civil marriage registrations are entirely secular in nature and prohibited from taking place on religious premises or containing any religious language, or religious music.

An amendment made during the passage of the Equality Act 2010 removed the express prohibition on civil partnership registrations taking place on religious premises. In response to this amendment, the Government committed to talking to those with a key interest in this issue about what the next stage should be for civil partnerships. This will include consideration of whether civil partnerships should be allowed to include religious readings, music and symbols. This commitment was made clear in the Government's published document 'Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality', published on 16 June 2010.

We will begin this exercise before the summer parliamentary recess.

Well at least we now know there is a timetable developing, if not in place.

Confused? You will be...

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