Nothing Good Will Come Of Any Of This Brexit Nonsense

The referendum on whether to leave the EU is now over 4 months behind us. In its wake we had a Prime Minister resign, an opposition busy having a civil war, a Tory leadership "battle" that brought Theresa May to Number 10 and a seemingly endless division within our country.

Let's not look with rose-tinted glasses upon our nation's past. There has always been division and, as long as humans continue to inhabit these islands, there will always be division. We're hardly unique as a country. But we have usually succeeded in having reasonable people in positions of power (or at least in positions behind those with the power!) who have defended the basics of our Westminster system and appealed for calm rather than chaos (Thatcher, for example, was hardly blameless in the chaos of the Miners Strike but you can't say she wasn't looking for orderly obedience). At the same time we had sober voices in our press who'd grumble at any change to that system or perceived abuse of it. Tony Blair's use of the Parliament Act, for example, was hardly greeted with mass support from the majority of papers.

Now, however, the division that has followed in the wake of David Cameron's ill-conceived referendum has been allowed to fester with no real attempts at calming the increasing vitriol (from either "side") by those who should be leading us. Jeremy Corbyn, the man foolishly tasked with keeping those in power in check by the Labour party, hasn't got a clue about how to handle the responsibility he has. We're adrift and our country's moral compass appears to be left in the hands of the nastier members of the Tory party (and I mean that quite strongly in terms of their our personal morals being nasty, not just some vague dislike of the Tories there).

There have been those making some feeble calls for unity but those calls seem based on some idea that just calling for it will make it happen. Unity happens through absolute victory or through compromise. A 51/49 split at the referendum wasn't an absolute victory and "Brexit means Brexit" isn't exactly a compromise (nor is it very clear about what's up for negotiation).

When certain elements of the press call judges "Enemies of the People", the response from those who should be trying to unite and govern the country has been so abysmal as to suggest they probably agree. The Government doesn't even respect the supremacy of Parliament, preferring to deal completely behind the scenes and away from the scrutiny of even Leave backing Tory MPs.

The battle over Europe is, sadly, over. The referendum was lost by a whisker. No one was clever enough to put in any threshold better than 50%. But it was lost and the vote was to leave the EU. I'm strongly in favour of our membership of the EU but feel that the best place to express a desire to do so is at the next election. All we currently are is a barrier to the continued evolution of the EU and we should now leave to put an end to the confusion. I think that is the wrong thing to do, but the only reasonable thing to do at the same time.

The battle for Britain has now begun. I don't seek some silly unity based on everyone just pulling together for the public good. This isn't the same country that fought in the Second World War. We're a series of interwoven but extremely different communities. All of us pulling together isn't going to happen. But the reasonable people of all hues could do so, if a compromise of some sort can be agreed. Something needs to happen to protect this country from falling into some very dark times indeed.

 Unfortunately, I don't see there's much will within the current leadership of this country to make any sort of attempt to heal some of the wounds. In fact I don't see any real national leadership at all. Anti-intellectual, anti-liberal, anti-British elements seem to have infected our country from top to bottom. I know MANY people who are so angry, just as a general rule, that they'd welcome economic collapse or war rather than compromise on their ideological position. Death threats and calls for "Purges" aren't limited to the crazies either.

We're in the middle of a crisis. We've got no leader worth the title (with no offence meant to Her Majesty, who I'm sure would do a pretty good job. Just a shame she actually does value our constitutional arrangements and would never dream of interfering, God love her). We have a complete lack, across all stratas of society, of any urge to kept this country together or prosperous. We're up shit creek and no one is going to use the paddle because that might upset the direction of travel.

This United Kingdom has been one of the greatest countries ever to come into being on this Earth. Scoff at that if you wish but our influence remains great even in our old age. We are the country of Gladstone and Churchill. Of Victoria and Thatcher. Of Wellington and Montgomery. Of Shakespeare and Austen. And now, in what may become one of the darkest times of our history, we can't seem to step back from the abyss nor rediscover the better angels of our nature. Where is the leadership we need to get us through the storms ahead?

It is sad to see us turning into a disgraceful excuse of a nation and even sadder to see nationalism on the rise ready to destroy our Union. If you believe in a God, now is probably about the right time to start praying. If you don't, then hold tight and hope for salvation.

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.

In Temperament and History, We Are A Christian Nation. Cameron's Still Annoying Though.

We are a Christian nation. Many years before Scotland or England existed (and thus many more years before the United Kingdom as is appeared), Christian Kings ruled on these isles. And even before them we were briefly under the influence of the Roman empire, whose Christian beliefs were late to appear but quickly spread. Visited by soon-to-be saints, and an important part of Christian medieval Europe (and Christian medieval empires), we really can't pretend our little islands aren't steeped in Christianity.

Our villages and towns are adorned with elaborate churches, crucifix gravestones and pubs named after saints, Bishops and monks. Important local and national history is often set against important moments involving religion: Thomas à Becket, the Reformation, the Armada, the Glorious Revolution, the Jacobites and even Catholic emancipation come together to form the tapestry of our national narrative.

When one visits a new town or city as a tourist you will almost always find yourself in the ruins of a monastery, in a cathedral or being regalled by tales of some saint or pilgrimage that visited the spot you are standing on.

Just as Buddhism and Spiritism are intrinsic to Thailand's way of life, and Hinduism influences so much in India, our very cultural outlook and morality is based on Christianity (though we rarely even aspire to live up to things I see as great virtures, such as turning the other cheek). And, above all else, our head of state is also head of an established Christian church which, unlike any country other than Iran, has seats in our legislature put aside for its clergy.

So when David Cameron barks on about us being a Christian nation he isn't completely wrong. To pretend otherwise is delusional.

But let us not pretend that this is the only narrative. We have, for many years, had a proud history of non-conformism within the Christian faith which has lead to an openness towards other faiths and non-belief that marks us out as one of the most tolerant countries on Earth. Our people are diverse and faith is a complicated, and currently waning, theme in modern Britain. To describe ourselves as a Christian nation without a whole list of caveats is to greatly misrepresent our country and insult a large number of citizens.

And that is where David Cameron just goes too far. He doesn't just want us to acknowledge the fact that yes Christianity has been a foundation on which this United Kingdom has been built, he also insists we ponder the benefits to us it has brought. And Christianity has brought us benefits (I'd much rather live here, in a western nation, than pretty much any other I could name). But to ponder its benefits without considering its problems is a fundamentally flawed and misty-eyed approach.

Christianity brought us divisive tribal politics (and wars) whose affects we still feel to this day (especially in places like Northern Ireland and Glasgow). It brought us morality laws that greatly reduced individual liberty and free thought. It allowed, and allows, unelected agents of a minority religious organisation to influence our laws. It has caused deaths through war, murder and execution in such numbers that every citizen of this nation should be ashamed.

So yes we are a Christian nation. This gives us a fascinating history, some pretty buildings, a few decent cultural traits but also a whole heap of trouble that probably outweighs the benefits. So let's try and move forward and do things better so that we live in a country with greater religious freedom, less murder and happier people.

UK Sleepwalking Into Censorship? More Like Running Into It At Full Pelt

We do not live in a free country. We all know that. Our libel laws are ridiculous. Our freedom of speech is curtailed should we be "offensive". We live under the gaze of corporate and Government officials. Even some websites are blocked. But we can at least try to hold on to some of the freedom we do have; we aren't Saudi Arabia or China after all.

But won't somebody think of the children? Every debate seems to revolve around those special transient state human beings under the age of 16. Marriage equality was bad because "children need a mother and a father" (we all saw what happened to Lot's daughters after their Mum died after all). And an open internet is bad because children might see things they shouldn't. And when we say "see things they shouldn't" we don't necessarily mean "what their parents or their future informed selves wouldn't want them to look at" but rather we mean "what the Government and ISPs have decided they shouldn't look at".

And we aren't talking about just porn here. Much has been said about how David Cameron's anti-porn filters will not work (and that the case that porn is harmful is still not firmly made). But more needs to be said about how these are not just porn filters. These opt-out filters will almost certainly default filter things from websites about suicide and self-harm through to "extremist material". Who will decide what constitutes extremist material? I find a book that discusses incest, murder, genocide, praises family breakdowns and proscribes execution for the smallest of crimes very distasteful and extremist. But are ISPs really going to block the Bible? Will Scientology websites be blocked? Or Greenpeace? Will the Rapture Ready forums be off limits? Or Queerty? Where will the line be draw and will it be fixed or ever changing?

Isn't it optional though? Yes of course it is. For people like me it'll be optional. Sure we'll then appear on some list at an ISP somewhere and the police will occasionally check whether a "person of interest" has his/her filters on or off as a way of deciding whether to investigate further (because it'll be a sign they are up to no good of course!). But it is optional. Will it be optional for women with controlling husbands? Or for men with overbearing wives? Will it be optional for kids in a religious household? Will it be optional in web cafes? Will it be optional in houseshares or when you are renting a room which comes with wi-fi? "Oh could you remove the filters for me?" will be regarded as "I wish to do something very naughty online". Who is going to ask it in anything other than the most open relationships and friendships? The Governments continued conflation of child abuse pictures, simulated rape imagery and porn does nothing but shame those who just want the Government to leave our internet alone and hardly promotes an honest conversation in the home.

I said 3 years ago when this was first proposed that porn was the litmus test of freedom. Sadly I didn't have the foresight to see that the Government wouldn't be satisfied with just porn. This isn't even a slippery slope argument... these extra options will go live with the porn filters.

As a Lib Dem I'm very, very ashamed that these proposals have come from a Government containing members of the party. And I'm equally saddened to see so many social conservatives who've spent the last year moaning about their freedom of speech suddenly so enthusiastic about censorship. Well when I say "saddened" I mean "unsurprised and slightly amused". They are predictable buggers.

My Response To The Coalition's #EqualMarriage Consultation Response

Just as summer follows spring and Catholics follow the Pope, it is inevitable that upon the release of any Government proposals on marriage equality there will be a grumpy blog post from Jae. It is a tradition I refuse to break with but, you'll be pleased to know, part of my grumpiness is directed at those attacking the Government for once.

The Government's response to their consultation can be found here.

Before I moan about the problems I have with the proposals, I must firstly get something off my chest. These proposals, to allow religious as well as civil marriage equality, are far more than I was expecting. I must say I am extremely pleased with how far the Government has come since it initially set out its plans for civil marriage equality. David Cameron, Maria Miller and the other Tories championing this policy deserve special praise for being so brave! And of course I have no doubt that wise words came from the Lib Dems involved (such as Lynne Featherstone) which helped push them in the right direction! Thank you to all those who have worked hard on this consultation response.

Now, there are a few things I hope we can persuade them to consider further...

1) I've made it clear before that one of my major issues with the civil partnership/marriage divide was its impact on transgendered people and their significant others. Whilst it is good to see that those in marriages will no longer need to divorce to get a GRC, and those in a civil partnership can "convert" to a marriage, there is the problem that those who have had to divorce in the past get no restitution under these proposals. This is a significant slap in the face to those mistreated for so many years. Zoe blogs on this is a little more detail.

2) My number 2 problem with the current situation was with the pensions disparity explained so simply in this video:



Sadly it does not appear that these proposals will fix this either.

Policy on public service pension scheme in the UK is reserved to the UK Government. Those schemes where policy is reserved will treat same-sex married couples as civil partners. This means, that for the majority of schemes, survivor benefits for same-sex married couples will apply from 6 April 1988

Thanks to Mark Collyer for keeping an eye on this one.

3. Mixed-sex civil partnerships are still off the agenda. This has some affect on transgender rights and, quite frankly, also seems bizarre. Why allow same-sex civil partnerships AND equal marriage but no civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples? It gives same-sex couples a greater choice than mixed couples!! That is discrimination, and I hope it is challenged in court.

4. Consummation and adultery as legal concepts remain completely unchanged. Same-sex married couples will not be the same as mixed-sex married couples.

So whilst we have marriage equality in name, I feel what we are getting is just civil partnerships renamed as marriage. It is hardly radical and certainly not something our opponents should be at all worried about. Why they are is beyond me... oh wait no it isn't. They are mostly stupid.

Yes, there is plenty I feel the Government should change and I hope greater minds than mine are currently working on proposing suitable amendments to do just that during the Parliamentary process.

In other grumpy news...

The Government has made it quite clear that they wish to defend religious liberty. They have called these protections a "quadruple lock".

Key protections  

we will make it explicitly clear in the legislation that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit their premises to be used for this purpose  

we will devise an 'opt-in' system where same-sex couples can only marry according to religious rites on religious premises where the governing religious body has expressly consented; and the legislation will make it clear that no law requires any religious organisations to opt in to that system  

we will also amend the Equality Act 2010 so that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple or allowing their premises to be used for this purpose  

the legislation will not apply to the Church of England (or Church in Wales) so that they will not be able in law to marry same-sex couples and will not be able to opt in to do so without further changes to primary legislation. Therefore, there will be no interference with the Church of England's Canon law

This has done little to appease the bug-eyed loons on the opposing side, which is understandable given that they won't be appeased until LGBT folk are kept away from the "normal" folk. But it has caused a small Twitterstorm from people on the supportive side too.

Much has been said about the Government's plan to make Church of England same-sex marriages illegal. Many have complained this flies in the face of religious liberty. I have sympathy for that position however in practical terms I just don't see how it matters. Even without it the other protections would forbid any Anglican priest marrying a same-sex couple on Anglican property without the Church of England expressly endorsing the practice. I feel it is more important to focus on disestablishing the church rather than attempting to defend their religious freedom on the micro level. True religious freedom is for those who aren't in an established church.

On the Church in Wales front, that seems more complicated and needs some thought as they are disestablished but are they seriously going to be allowed same-sex marriages any time soon?

Other myths that appear to be developing on Twitter include:

• A ban on marriages in the Church of England is a ban on all religious marriage equality. That is just not true at all. 
• A ban on marriages in the Church of England means the Government is not allowing marriage equality at all. This is one I've seen particularly stupid opponents stating. This appears to flow from them making the mistake above at the same time as believing civil marriages and civil partnerships are the same thing. Dumb. 
• That those angry at Church of England ban are trying to force equal marriage upon the Church of England. I've seen some UKIPpers and people like Guido Fawkes try this one. Mostly these angry people are defending the Church of England's right to choose. That is about religious freedom, and UKIP and Guido Fawkes are supposed to be concerned about that sort of thing. Alas, only when it is politically expedient it would seem. 

More concerning than these myths are the few people I've noticed declaring that churches, especially the Church of England, should be forced to marry same-sex couples. This is completely against the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights and I would urge those proposing such authoritarian things to think very careful about that sort of move. We are meant to be better than that. 

So... yes I am of course delighted that we have reached the point where legislation on marriage equality is going to be debated in the House of Commons. However I have some serious concerns about what is missing, about what some well-meaning "allies" are saying and on what effect some of the nastier opponents publicly views (such as that parents don't want their gay children) will have on LGBT young people.

I know, I know. I'm never satisfied! 

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

Defending David Cameron. This Shan't Happen Again.

Phillip Schofield, in an ill-advised stunt, "confronted" David Cameron with a list of names of people suspected of paedophilia (by people online). I've no evidence they aren't but I suspect Schofield has no evidence they are. If he does he's best talking to the police about his accusations. I'm pretty sure David Cameron already knows who is suspect of paedophilia at this point, I doubt his advisers have been slow to fill him in given how big a story this has become.

David Cameron responded, and it pains me to say this, in a dignified and thoughtful way.

"There is a danger, if we're not careful, that this could turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay and I'm worried about the sort of thing you are doing right now - giving me a list of names that you've taken off the internet."

Warning against witch-hunts, which let's face it aren't that unusual in this country when it comes to paedophilia, is sensible. And people, especially online, do have a habit of accusing gay and bisexual men (or even heterosexual men accused of being gay) of paedophilia so warning against this is sort of sensible.

I was concerned that, in bringing this up, Cameron may well be giving just the angle to the story certain media outlets would love to have to spin this scandal from paedophilia to homosexuality (and some of the accusations so far have been of men with boys over 16 but under the age of consent at the time when the sex occurred).

Unfortunately his comments have been taken in the wrong way (or used to politically attack him) by many on Twitter. They are accusing him of linking homosexuality and paedophilia. Which he did but only in warning against linking them!

 It is sad we have come to the point where we attack someone who is trying to protect LGBT people from undeserved accusations, probably some of his colleagues and friends who will have been named but may not be guilty. People online really do make these connections, often in vivid and disturbing detail. Just read some of the stuff on Guido Fawkes website sometimes and you'll see how much homophobia is expressed through paedophilia jokes. David Cameron was not wrong and I am pleased he has stood up and called for reason and caution on what is obviously a very emotive subject.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't rigourously investigate allegations of paedophilia. But we need to do better than rumours and innuendo. And when someone tries to defend LGBT people, let us not cut them down just because it suits our political agenda. Even if that someone is a Tory Prime Minister.

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

7 Non-Religious Arguments Against Marriage Equality And Their Flaws

After seeing the terrible arguments put forward by the SPUC, I thought I would start checking out other organisation's arguments against marriage equality. I immediately stumbled upon this page from the Christian Medical Fellowship which purports to offer strong arguments against marriage equality that would appeal to those with no faith. It is good to see them trying to move beyond religious arguments, which only work on those with a shared belief, and try to argue more generally. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly given my bias, I found these arguments to be extremely thin. So I thought I'd deal with them one by one.

1. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Marriage has existed in virtually all cultures for thousands of years and has been recognised in our own laws as the 'voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life' (Hyde v Hyde 1866). It is not up to governments to redefine marriage – but simply to recognise it for what it is, and to promote and protect it as a unique institution. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, like a four wheeled bicycle or a two storey bungalow. 

Reason number one, and we encounter our first fallacy (you would have thought they'd hide it a bit better). The appeal to tradition. I really don't think this is a powerful argument against marriage equality at all. Marriage equality could be a bad thing for society but whether it is does not hinge on our society's previous views on marriage and thus both ancient tradition and modern tradition are irrelevant.

This argument also suggests that it is Government alone that can redefine marriage yet this appears to be happening in society as a whole anyway.

2. Same sex couples already have civil partnerships. All the legal rights of marriage are already available to same-sex couples through civil partnerships so there is no need to redefine marriage to include them. The President of the Family Division of the High Court in England and Wales has described civil partnerships as conferring 'the benefits of marriage in all but name'. Marriage and civil partnerships have been designed for two very different types of relationship and should be kept distinct. 

I feel I've pointed out before how "the benefits of marriage in all but name" idea is not entirely true and also why the "Civil Partnerships Are Enough" argument is simply not good enough. I won't repeat myself here except to say this argument is one we can now put to bed.

3. Redefining marriage without consultation is undemocratic. None of the political leaders who are supporting the legalisation of same-sex marriage announced it as a priority in their election manifestos. There is already a huge amount of opposition to the move and pressing ahead with legalisation will lead to considerable dissension and division. Legalising same-sex marriage to appease a small minority is wrong and it should not be foisted on the British people without proper consultation about whether rather than how it should be done. 

Talk about a false proposition. Undemocratic is a very loaded term and open to a great deal of interpretation. We are not a direct democracy nor is our democracy based on delegation, it is what is known as a representative democracy. This means that at each election people choose to elect someone to take responsibility for making legislative decisions on their behalf. Manifestos are guidelines allowing people to vote for who they feel will best represent them. They are not a binding contract (as the Lib Dems have shown!).

None of the three major parties declared marriage equality OFF the agenda. Surely, if we use the CMF's own flawed argument, that would suggest that most people aren't concerned about it? Personally I don't think that is the case but once you start going down this silly route there are plenty of things you can make up about what people feel based on who and what they voted for at the General Election.

Finally both David Cameron and Nick Clegg made it clear during the election campaign that marriage equality was up for debate. Does that render this entire argument rather moot?

4. Protecting traditional marriage is good for children and society. Stable marriages and families headed by a mother and a father are the bedrock of society and the state has a duty to protect the uniqueness of these key institutions. There is considerable evidence (2) to show that marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being, and reduced crime and domestic violence. Same-sex marriage, in comparison with marriage, is an unproven and experimental social model. 

Given the fact same-sex couples are already parents (sometimes through previous relationships, sometimes through a choice they have made together), surely giving those children and parents access to this incredibly powerful and important institution would be of benefit to them and to society as a whole?

I have to say that this paragraph is illustrative of why marriage equality is so important, especially for the children of same-sex couples. I fail to see how this is meant to persuade people that forcing some families not to have these unique benefits is good for society!

Marriage has been shown to have some key health benefits for same-sex couples, their children and LGBT teens.

5. Marriage is a unique biologically complementary relationship. Marriage is the only legal union which can naturally lead to children. The fact that there is a natural link between sexual intimacy and procreation is what makes marriage distinctive and different. Redefining marriage will undermine this distinctness and difference and risks normalising technological intervention in reproduction. 

Another logical fallacy? Seriously bad stuff. The appeal to nature.

Also marriage is not a "unique biologically complementary relationship". For it to be uniquely biologically complementary then all other relationships (unmarried, "temporary" [I'm being polite]) would not be biologically complementary which would surely mean pregnancy couldn't happen? Sexual intimacy and procreation happen within and without the marriage setting, thus are not distinctive to marriage. Marriage is only unique in the benefits it confers upon those relationships it covers, and thus "redefining" marriage (see a little bit of a history of marriage in the UK before using that term again) is only right if it is to extend those benefits to other relationships.

Even if we were to allow that marriage should only be extended to those relationships where there is a reasonable chance that those relationships will lead to responsibility for children then there is still no argument here about not allowing equal marriage.

6. Redefining marriage will be complex and expensive. Redefining marriage could cost billions and involve amending hundreds of pieces of government legislation. The word 'marriage' appears 3,258 times in UK legislation, which underlines the central role the institution plays in national law. Introducing same-sex marriage is a legal can of worms (3) which cannot be achieved without changing the common and legal definition of the word marriage and other words which define it (eg. 'husband and wife', 'consummation' and 'adultery'). These changes will inevitably change the definition and nature of marriage for opposite sex couples by trying to accommodate these two very different kinds of relationship under one legal umbrella. 

Here, at last, is one we can all agree on. It will be. The reason for this is because marriage (unlike civil partnerships) is treated with a great deal of importance and has implications upon relationships and society that are almost beyond measure. This only goes to show how important it is to allow all loving relationships that might involve shared responsibility for children to share in the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

7. Redefining marriage will lead to faith-based discrimination. We have already seen a rising tide of discrimination against people who support traditional marriage as a result of the legalisation of civil partnerships coupled with new equality legislation. If same-sex marriage is legalised it would inevitably impact on other areas of law, such as health, education, adoption and employment, and place people from faith groups at risk of marginalisation, exclusion and litigation. 

Now this is a very important point to consider, but the "will lead" in the proposition should really be "may lead". It is definitely a danger and one that we must fight to avoid. If religious organisations would only work with LGBT campaigners and the Government in drafting the necessary protections it is a danger that is easily avoided. I implore those who wish to defend their religious freedom to work WITH us in changing the law so that they can continue to be allowed their freedom of conscience without forcing other religions to be denied theirs.

But how this is an argument against marriage equality I don't know.

What do you think?

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

Concerns Over Marriage Equality and #CashForCameron

Looks like both sides of the Atlantic have their fair share of underhand anti-marriage activists. 


Over here we've had a bit of confusion. Christian Concern at first attempted to have us believe that, as part of the current "Cash for Cameron" scandal, a Tory donor had paid to influence the party in favour of marriage equality. They have since removed that article but can still be seen here. The reason is because blogger Archbishop Cranmer (No friend of LGBT equality, he) has revealed it actually seems like the donation was aimed against marriage equality instead!

Even more concerning is the suggestion that this actual had some effect on the current consultation questionnaire! It would be rather scandalous indeed if this were true, and I truly hope our Lib Dem Equality Minister takes a look into this matter. The accusation that the Tories may be attempting to dilute and even postpone moves to marriage equality is one that needs serious investigation.

We need to keep a close eye on this one.

In the USA the National Organisation Against For Marriage appears to have been playing divide and conquer, thinking it's clever to organise race groups against LGBT groups.

The strategic goal…is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots… 

The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation.

Charming tactics indeed!



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

Two Queens On The Throne and Other Stories

Join me on a journey through some of the interesting, supportive and crazy articles and comment pieces in the media over the last few days!

Let's start with this one from the Sun. Gay marriage law means 'there could be two Queens' on the throne. No, they aren't suggesting Elton John and David Furnish might suddenly be in the running for a promotion. This story actually deals with an interesting question, one the Daily Mail has also picked up "The Honourable David Furnish? Gay partners of knights and peers may be given courtesy titles in latest equality drive". What are the more blue-blooded and well-honoured LGBT folk's spouses to call themselves? It's interesting, to me at least, because it'll bring into sharp relief the question of such titles in general and the lopsided way they are applied. The female spouses in opposite-sex marriages tend to take the males titles but not the other way round. Will this debate be avoided or are we heading for a major change? It's extremely interesting to imagine and I do hope it's not brushed under the carpet but dealt with in a thoughtful and innovative way.

The Daily Mail has been foremost among the newspapers opposing equal civil marriage, and one of the arguments advanced is that marriage means something unique and shouldn't be applied to a relationship other than that between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. So an article about civil partnerships today made me smile. "Gay prisoners to marry inside some of Britain's toughest jails... as long as they pay for the ceremonies themselves". I thought marriage wasn't for the gays??

Over at the Express group we have two very different comment pieces this weekend. In the Express we have Nigel Farage offering yet another non-libertarian argument against marriage equality. Apparently, it's all Europe's fault. Who'd have guessed?? In the Star we have Sally Bercow. Not only does she argue for civil marriage equality but even goes further to demand religious marriage equality. Nicely balanced Express group!

Brian Sewell offers a very confused argument about an imaginary policy David Cameron has that would introduce religious marriage equality. Yet another case of "It's alright to be homophobic if you're gay" perhaps? It's funny how the gay men against this stuff have to make a big deal about being gay as if that makes their opinion worth more than anyone else. Isn't that what the right wing accuse us of doing? Tut tut.

As we head towards actual legislation I think the questions raised (on consummation, adultery, titles etc.) will become ever more interesting and far more wide-ranging than some of us realised (although the antis understand that at least and like to chirp about how complicated it all is at every opportunity) and the antis comment pieces will become even more unhinged and inconsistent. Fun times ahead.

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

Tories and their Nasty Brigade #legalizegaymarriage

The Tories have a problem. They have made leaps and bounds in the last few years on the LGBT rights front. Here we have a Coalition consisting primarily of Tories liberalising the blood ban and supporting marriage equality. We need to give them some props for that. Excellent work. But fundamentally, at the very heart of the party in Parliament, there are still the hardcore right-wingers.

A coalition of evangelicals, Catholics and grumpy old people, these right-wingers have not gone away and their hatred of LGBT freedom is clear to see even when they are so desperate to hide it, as they did over the recent attempts to undermine religious civil partnerships.

All parties in this country consist of a wide coalition of groups, some with totally different ideas of what direction the party should go in. But it's only in the Tories that the loony fringe common to all parties seems to have really maintained it's grip in Parliament. That's because until the late nineties, that fringe WAS the Tory party.

The latest shenanigans, led by David Burrowes, to rebel against the civil marriage equality legislation which is on the cards show that whilst this fringe doesn't have the power to defeat this legislation (thanks to the liberal Tories, the Lib Dems and the saner members of the Labour party giving it a good chance of success) they still have the power to give voice to the homophobia that is common among certain classes of people.

And that's why I could never, ever bring myself to vote for the Tories. They cannot pretend this fringe doesn't represent a sizeable component of their supporters. They may have tamed their crazy urges, but it'll only take a bad election defeat of the liberal leadership under Cameron for them to regain command again. 

We must be sure to keep pressing the reasonable members of Parliament to support marriage equality (both civil and religious) to ensure they take the matter seriously enough to keep it on course. The risk of a derailment is small but these guys aren't going to miss the vote and we need to make sure our side don't either!

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

A Ban On Same-Sex Kissing Pre-Watershed? I Doubt It.

A Daily Mail story came out way below my radar yesterday (no surprise as I avoid that newspaper as much as I can). Titled "'Indecent' lesbian kiss scenes face watershed crackdown", it poses the worrying possibility that an independent report, initiated by the Government, might recommend a same-sex affection ban on pre-watershed television.

A review launched with the backing of David Cameron is expected to recommend that sexually suggestive scenes currently allowed before the 9pm watershed – such as the famous lesbian embrace on soap opera Brookside – should not be shown until later in the evening. A ban on explicit advertisements on high street billboards is also being considered.

It came to my attention today thanks to this reaction from Coronation Street star Brooke Vincent

"I swear David Cameron's meant to be supporting equal rights. I just think if same-sex kisses are what he is prioritising and concentrating on changing, our country's in trouble." - Brooke Vincent

It's all part of a much larger review and David Cameron's support of it is inferred only from his original backing to the principles of the review not, so far, on any comment on it's suspected content.

I have major doubts that David Cameron would countenance a ban on same-sex affection, pre-watershed. It is, I believe a misunderstanding of the reporters. David Cameron surely couldn't be that politically stupid. However... I'm very much concerned about political interference in the content of television programmes in the first place and will be watching with interest the proposals and the Government's reaction to them.

And if it so happens David Cameron does support a ban on same-sex affection on television then it'll be time to hit the streets... and based on the reactions I've seen in many different forums I would be by no means alone.

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

Social Housing: Time For A Discussion

At last a topic I have frontline experience of. Social housing. It's difficult to describe how hard it is for some social housing tenants, who have to put up with cramped and, if in temporary housing because of lack of social housing, AWFUL conditions. It's even more difficult when you are working on that frontline dealing with those people knowing there are plenty of decent homes in your stock... but they are full (or not so full) of well to do people whose lives have already been improved by social housing and now live there because it's cheap. They have the money to do the place up and keep it nice. They aren't living in squalor like others.

Of course one of the most important things that needs to be done to help this is increase our social housing stock. We should not need to be keeping people in private landlord's badly kept houses at extortionate prices whilst we desperately try and find a decent home for a family or individual.

But the other problem is that social housing just isn't geared up to help improve people's lives. We dump people in them and leave them there. The organisation I worked for was championing a "progressive" approach in getting people into social housing, helping them improve (mentally, financially and socially) and then helping them move on to BETTER accommodation where appropriate, even offering a "ladder" to ownership, allowing tenants to purchase 10% of the house, then another, then another. It hoped by doing this it could create more mixed communities and help fund further home building.

So I'm not entirely displeased by David Cameron's latest statement on the future of social housing and a more "means tested" approach. I'm also not won over, at all, by the kneejerk reaction of some on the left who see any attempt at modifying how social housing works as a "Thatcherite attack".

Cameron's approach needs to have a great deal of sensitivity regarding succession and when it's appropriate to move a family on to a different type of housing. And it cannot work with the limited housing stock we have now. But this is a discussion that's long overdue. Social housing isn't working. It's failing the most vulnerable. Investment is lacking too. We need to talk about it. The situation needs to change.

Let's keep our beady eyes on what the Coalition's next step is, and cry havoc if it's not in the interests of the most vulnerable, but let's not decry any attempt at change when we have people living in conditions I wouldn't want my worst enemies to live in.

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

WikiLeaks, Pakistan and the Prime Minister

David Cameron is coming under increasing pressure over his comments, made last week, with regards to Pakistan. He said:

"We should be very, very clear with Pakistan that we want to see a strong, stable and democratic Pakistan.

"We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world."

Whilst some may argue it wasn't diplomatic, I'm somewhat concerned people appear to be siding with Pakistan over the very basic facts.

Cameron's comments follow on from the recent WikiLeaks scandal. In the "WarLogs" released by WikiLeaks, there was plenty of evidence showing the US is concerned about Pakistan's actions.

The criticism of Pakistan has been wide ranging and from vastly different quarters (India, Bangladesh, Iran, and the USA). Can we perhaps have a bit more "Let's look at the evidence" and a bit less "who cares about state sponsored terrorism, let's just bash David Cameron for being a loudmouth"?

Of course Pakistan deny the truth of what has been said (as the US likes to over attacks on Pakistani territory by it's war drones) but are we really shocked that the country that helped prop up the Taliban might be the same one still helping them? We must talk plainly to them, perhaps more privately than Mr Cameron has, and we should not shy away from holding them to standards we'd expect of any country, especially a nuclear weapons owning one.

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

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

David Cameron On Marriage Equality

Today, the Independent published it's Pink List. We'll ignore the fact that Joe McElderry somehow managed to get on the list (despite only being out as gay for a day) and focus on the related comments from our Dear Leader David Cameron. When I say focus, I meant to say "focus on the bits I don't like". Of course there's plenty to be thankful for in seeing a Conservative Prime Minister offer his support to the LGBT cause. But he's not winning me over with this:

I know there is one other subject that the gay community is particularly interested in: marriage. As someone who believes in commitment, in marriage and in civil partnerships, my view is that if religious organisations want to have civil partnerships registered at their places of worship that should be able to happen. Last week the Equalities Minister held listening events with faith groups and representatives of the gay community, as we consider what the next steps are for civil partnerships and how we enable religious organisations to register same-sex relationships on their premises if they wish to do so. I think this is an important step forward and we will help to make it happen.

He says nothing about marriage. He talks instead about religious civil partnerships, which I have criticised before. This is not marriage, and his note that it's a "step forward" again betrays the stupidity of the "step by step" approach. You take one step, trying not to annoy your opponents, and next time you'll take a smaller step and then another even smaller step until you are practically there (but not quite!). This is the political way, so I am often informed. Well I have one thing to say: Stop playing politics with my life! Principled positions have no place in our politics it would seem, which is to the detriment of our country.

As I said on Thursday, if you want marriage equality, you'll need to fight for it! It's not going to happen unless we get our voices heard.

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

WWII: Fails all round.

History is complicated. It's difficult to use it as a message as whatever you say can be misinterpreted. Even with that in mind David Cameron's comments were misjudged.

"I think it is important in life to speak as it is and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US but we are the junior partner," he said.

"We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis."

Let's get the real historical mistake out the way first. 1940 was a complicated year. The fall of the Western European Government's, the Battle of Britain, the Invasion of Greece, and the beginnings of the North African theatre (to name just a few events!). But in no way we a "junior partner" in the war at that point. After the Fall of France, it was us, the Dominions, our Empire and the few brave souls in the "Free" forces of Europe left. The USA may have been helping us materially, but it was not in a partnership with us at that point. That didn't come until the end of 1941 and only then because Hitler declared war on the USA (not the other way round!).

The "junior partner" comment rankles. And even if 1940 was a slip, it's still controversial. However it's only controversial because of the image we have built up of our country during the war (more on that in a minute) and because of the strains in the special relationship that have come about in the last decade. Let's be brutally honest with ourselves. We have a lot to be proud of regarding our contribution to the victory in Europe. Without us, I would argue, the war would have perhaps been unwinnable and, certainly, much longer. But by the end of 1944, and definitely in 1945, we were becoming an irrelevancy as the two great superpowers of the later 20th century arose from their slumbers. We, and France, were afforded influence only as a courtesy, and because of the USA's need for allies for the future. Let's not beat around the bush there. We were very much the grateful, junior partner.

So David Cameron's comments were factually incorrect, misjudged but do contain a kernel of honesty about our position with regards to the USA.

I suppose David Miliband thought he could play for some political points after Cameron's gaffe. Alas, he also displayed (probably because of the Twitter character limit) a wanton disregard for historical fact.

1940 was "our finest hour". We stood alone against fascism. How can a British PM get that wrong? Its a slight not a slip.

I think the millions of people who fought on our behalf from many countries around the world, after the fall of France in 1940, would have something to say about the "we stood alone" myth. This myth arose thanks to Churchill's inspiring speeches during that dark time of our history. It also comes from an arrogance that we display towards the former empire which we seem to have so quickly forgotten.

Let's be clear, there were many countries with us in those dark days. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, etc. etc. Their blood was spilt for us, and OUR freedom. To so quickly make ourselves into martyrs is an insult to the memory of those brave people who came to our aid for no other reason than the bonds of Empire (some more willingly than others, we must admit!).

We did not stand alone. Isn't that the more inspiring story? Through familial ties and imperial loyalties we managed to pull through and together, the free democratic dominions,  the United Kingdom and the soon to be free imperial possessions faced down the gravest military threat the world has ever known and kept them from our shores long enough to allow events to turn in our favour.

You know, David Cameron's slip was regrettable. But Miliband's slight against those who gave their lives on our behalf is perhaps the more insulting slip.

Let this be a lesson. Using a conflict, that brought so much pain and misery to millions, to make a political point is probably a mistake.

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

The Coalition: Not In My Name

This time last month, I delivered a pretty positive piece on why I was, broadly, supportive of the Coalition. It's only been a month, but I've downgrading my status to "neutral". I'm not AGAINST the Coalition as such, but I certainly can't treat the Coalition like I would a Lib Dem Government. I'd be happy to defend a Lib Dem's Government's mistakes because I'd trust they were just that. However I find myself unable to defend the Coalition's and must thus say I'm not a supporter. Here's why:

Well firstly, it's not because of cuts! Since the General Election my liberal beliefs have solidified and I am even more in favour of a small Government and a sensible Government. Sure, some cuts I disagree with, and some others will disagree with others. That's the nature of the task. We all need to accept that. And it's not about the Coalitions LGBT policy. It's disappointing but I'm generally resigned to not being an equal citizen any time before I retire. There's just no appetite for the LGBT equality agenda.

So... with that out of the way...

1) Niggly issues from the agreement have become more and more annoying to me as I've found my beliefs firming up. The marriage tax break, though small, is symbolic of the sort of interfering, social engineering type of Government I despise. The cap on immigration is an illiberal measure that helps only to make our country less competitive even as other countries continue to pull ahead of us in the manufacturing sector (and they had already lapped us several times). These would be defensible but...

2) This is not a grown up Government. The moment David Cameron announced the St. George's flag was going up over Downing Street, I knew he really was just a Blair clone. The day John Barrowman was invited to the LGBT "Inequality" Reception, I knew David Cameron and Nick Clegg were media whores and political lightweights.

I had hoped, naively I suppose, that this new type of Government would have the balls not to make stupid, headline grabbing gestures. That this would be a mature, sensible administration. We have a monarchy, who's sole job is to represent this country, to shake hands, wave flags and meet celebrities. They do this very well, and do not need our politicians to try and steal their last remaining roles. I want our politicians to be intelligent, reserved, inventive. Not loud, brash and stupid. Alas.

Worse are the idiotic decisions, that at face value seem good. The idea of ministers not using ministerial cars for financial and environmental reasons is a good one. Certainly appears to show them taking an austere approach to things. Unfortunately for security reasons, understandable ones at that, it was felt the Red Boxes needed to be transported that way. So we have a ludicrous situation of paying for ministerial cars that our ministers can't use!!! They just drive around Red Boxes!! RIDICULOUS!

3) This is an illiberal, inconsistent administration. Banning a "hate preacher" from entering the country because we don't like what he says about other religions would be fine if we were also banning the Pope from visiting because we don't like what he says about families. Alas it seems it's okay to support institutional paedophilia and homophobia but not for one religious person to criticise other religions. Oh wait, the Pope does that too!!

I can see the writing on the wall with the drip, drop feed of stories starting to come out: this administration is a "two parent family", Christian, immigrant hating, army loving one. I.e. this IS a Tory administration.

And thus I declare, I'm out, I do not see Lib Dem ministers defending a liberal agenda and see them floundering around as Tory spokespeople instead. Sorry to be harsh, I love this party, but there's no other way to put it.

Thankfully Labour is so much worse than the Tories, slipping back into the hard left, immigrant hating, socialist model, that I have no other choice than to continue to support the Liberal Democrats.

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

Tough Times Behind And Ahead Of Us

Well. That wasn't pretty. I settled down in the pub last night and, stupidly, had allowed Cleggmania to go to my head. I wasn't expecting too much, a slight rise in seats. But what we got... well it was a bloodbath really. Oh sure, we're still better off than in 2001. No doubt about it. But we lost some very good MPs, especially Dr Evan Harris. But, BUT, we still gained an extra percentage point in terms of share of the vote which again highlights the ludicrous nature of our electoral system.

Now our party leadership faces a choice...

1) allow a Tory minority Government which will limp on for a few months before another election.
2) prop up a Labour Government i) with Gordon Brown ii) without
3) prop up a Tory Government i) in coalition 2) on supply basis.

None of these choices appeals to me. In fact all would make me unhappy. Which sort of helps me make up my mind in how I will argue away my concerns about what the leadership decides; I'll accept anything the leadership decides and give support to it. Not that that changes much, being a lay member with no power whatsoever, but I've seen the anger brewing between different groups of party members already, and feel I don't wish to become one of those people. We have a chance to push for something this country desperately needs: electoral reform. I trust the leadership of our party will pursue which ever of the offers we receive gives us the greatest chance of this.

That is what is important. That is what matters now. This is what we should be pursuing. I'm putting aside great misgivings about both the Labour and *shudder* the Tory parties because I understand that now is not the time for self interest but for what is in the best interests of this country.

Let's get behind Nick Clegg and the federal executive and support their decision. Whatever that turns out to be. And may God have mercy on our souls...

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

Marriage Equality: Cameron Vs. Clegg

I suppose I should be celebrating. David Cameron has come out with some more GLBT friendly soundbites. But many of the answers there are a little... half hearted and can we really trust him? Personally I think the Tories have not shown they have changed and no amount of wheeling out gay supporters/candidates nor apologising for whatever their latest homophobic gaffe was is going to make up for that. The Tories are still too socially conservative at heart even if they say the right words.

Here is David Cameron's take on the very important question of marriage equality (don't even get me started on the "patronising drivel" about tax breaks)...

Mr Cameron, do you support marriage equality in this country? Civil partnerships were a great step forward and I admire your support for it but until there is marriage equality in this country and the union of same-sex couples will be recognised as a 'marriage', then I will not be satisfied. Neil Young

I am so glad that we now have civil partnerships. They have helped remove discrimination and have given gay people the rights that they deserve. I want to do everything I can to support commitment and I'm open to changing things further to guarantee equality. But I also accept there are some gay people who want civil partnerships to be a distinct status from marriage. Whatever view you take, I think we should support any arrangement which is built on shared love and commitment, which is why we would give a tax break to both married couples and those in a civil partnership.

Hmm... hardly a ringing endorsement, and very much sidestepping the question. The closest we got to support for marriage equality was "I want to do everything I can to support commitment and I'm open to changing things further to guarantee equality." which is wonderful except he'll be one of how many in the Government? And no doubt it'll be a "matter of conscience" and there'll be no party whip. Do you think marriage equality legislation would get through a Tory majority Government?? Me neither.

What does the Liberal Democrat leader say on the same subject?

The number one question submitted by our readers was on whether Nick Clegg and his party support gay marriage. Mr Clegg said last month he supported civil partners calling themselves husband or wife but would he change the law to allow gay civil marriage?

Yes, I support gay marriage. Love is the same, straight or gay, so the civil institution should be the same, too. All couples should be able to make that commitment to one another.

And more from Nick Clegg:

There are still battles to fight – getting full marriage rights for gay couples and reviewing the blanket ban on blood donations by gay men. Above all, we must tackle homophobic bullying – which scars pupils’ lives throughout the country. At the moment, only 6% of schools have specific policies to deal with this – this just isn’t good enough.

"We also need to do more to tackle homophobic and transgender violence and to give victims the right support – which we will do, as well as stamping out homophobic language among a minority of police officers with a zero-tolerance approach. We’ll make sure that gay and lesbian refugees are never again deported to countries where they face persecution. And, because diversity in politics remains hugely important to me, Liberal Democrats are also working to make sure the LGBT community is better represented in parliament with our “Out to Win” campaign.

"I honestly wish none of this was a party-political issue; it would be far better if all parties were united in their determination to achieve full equality for the LGBT community. So the inconsistency of today’s Conservative party on this issue is deeply worrying. The Tories say they’ve changed – and I’m glad if David Cameron accepts he got it wrong on these issues in the past. But warm words aren’t enough if the Conservatives fail to live up to them every time.

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats stand for the one final push for full equality. The Tories, and Labour, stand for complacency and smugness. They will sing the praises of the past achievements whilst ignoring their past transgressions and will avoid rocking the boat to make GLBT (especially the T!) people truly equal.

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

The Tories Do Not Believe In Freedom

Whilst I continue my stance on both the hilariously misguided religious beliefs of many and on the need for a full and equal marriage law, the libertarian part of me strongly supports the request for religious civil partnerships. It seems bizarre to me that anyone would oppose this issue of personal liberty.

Well David Cameron does. The following is yoinked from here.

'Thank you for writing to me about civil partnerships in religious buildings.

'I appreciate that many people share your strong feeling about the issue. There are genuinely-held concerns on both sides of the debate, so I am very grateful to you for sharing your thoughts with me. As the amendment in question was debated in the House of Lords, I was unable to exert any direct influence over this issue.

'When civil partnerships were first introduced it was intended that they would be treated in the same way as civil marriages, which are also not allowed to take place on religious premises or include religious aspects in a marriage ceremony.

'However I know that many people in civil partnerships would like to change the current arrangements so that civil partnership ceremonies can take place on religious premises, or can at least include some religious aspects in the ceremony. I understand these concerns and I do not rule out changes in the future, but for the moment I think it best for the current arrangements to continue.

'Thank you for taking the time to write to me.'

So let me get this straight. A Godly man such as Mr Cameron does not support religious freedom. No does he support human rights which sort of puts him out of the progressive camp. In trying to please everyone, me thinks he might not be impressing anyone!

Honestly. The worst thing is, most Tory supporters will not say "That's wrong, that needs to change". Nope. They will go "Why aren't you attacking Labour???" as if attacking the Tories (the expected party of Government after the next election) is akin to supporting Labour and thus shouldn't be done.

Tories! Rise up and force your party to become less backward and more 21st century libertarian. It's not hard... Remember a third of the people who voted in Section 28 are still sitting Tory MPs!!!! This party has got to change radically, and soon.

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