On #equalmarriage I'm Totally Two-Faced

I've always been open about the fact that I unexpectedly fell into supporting marriage equality. Labour pissed me off. There I was happily being all radically queer in my early twenties and along they came and instituted civil partnerships. At the time I found the idea of marriage to be cold and dreary, yet Labour had some how managed to make formalised same sex relationships seem even more so! I wasn't going to put up with that.

And that was how I went from someone who couldn't even conceive of marriage as being part of his future to being someone who devoted way too much of 2010 to bugging people about getting the right to get married. I've obviously mellowed in my old age.

Sometimes I get so caught up in monitoring the arguments, spreading news and insulting Labour that I forget about what I really want. I was thinking about that on the way to work the other day. Personally, I don't really feel the need for Government affirmation of my relationship to my beloved Jim. I am, and this may surprise you Dear Constant Reader, an old romantic when it comes to the concept of marriage. To me it is more important that Jim and I believe we are married. Even though I'm certainly not Christian any longer and I've, with reluctance, left my pagan ways behind me, I'd love a sweet little ceremony somewhere with family and friends. But it doesn't need to be led by any official figure.

In fact, and this is where I get controversial, I find the concept of the Government and institutions giving married partners benefits above and beyond what single and unmarried couples get a bit disturbing. I want the Government out of relationships entirely. People should be free to associate, contract with and love whomever they wish (or to not do any of those things). Marriage should be something people and organisations sort out themselves for whatever purpose they want it for. They can be married in their own eyes, in the eyes of others or in the eyes of their God(s).

I've dealt with this before, and explained why I still fight for equal marriage. But I do always feel very two-faced. It helps that anti-equality activists often use arguments against romance to defend their policies. They often believe marriage between one man and one woman is a "social good" and this is why it alone deserves Government backing. This keeps me on the straight and narrow and reminds me that the fight for equal marriage is one that's pushes back against such an authoritarian understanding of Government. I do not want a Government that decides to reward one group over another. Government should be there only to arbitrate disputes, defend property and persons against attack and support those who really can't support themselves. It is not there to socially engineer a utopia and especially not one particular version of utopia.

I'm in too deep to hold myself aloft from what a younger version of me might have considered a petty skirmish. When marriage equality becomes reality I may well shed tears and I will most certainly, Jim willing, head down to our local registry office to formalise our relationship. It shall be a happy day, I have no doubt.

But I shan't stop there. I'll still be writing letters and bugging people for many years to come in the hopes of one day getting a little closer to the dream of a country where people get to love how they wish and no one feels the need to get involved in their relationship.

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

Losing Faith In The Libertarian Way

As you may know I'm a, often inconsistent, "liberaltarian". That is basically a libertarian who doesn't have the balls to go all the way and just say "Screw the Government". Perhaps calling myself a lightweight minarchist is the best way of describing my usual political stance on most issues.

Reading back through my personal blog (which is far older than this) I have often gone through periods of libertarianism. It is a running theme through the last decade or so. I have a strong belief that the Government should keep out of people's lives.

And yet, I'm a huge a fan of co-operatives (I know that is not mutually exclusive with being a libertarian!).  At the same time I'm a great idealist who loves big building projects, space exploration (for exploration's sake) and who just wants everyone to get along. Worse, at times in my past I've been very sympathetic to many of the aims of Communism (even if I believe that those who follow Marxism so strictly that it's become a religion are just as crazy as those who think L. Ron Hubbard discovered the solution to life's problems)

I have spent the last few years of my life working at a housing association and now a public utility. In both instances I've encountered a great deal of people suffering in poverty and even more who appear helpless without the assistance of others ("My tap is dripping, we're all going to die!") . I've often tried to blame this on their dependency on the state and argued in my head that if the state just got out of their lives they'd find deep within themselves the ability to stand on their own two feet and help themselves out.

I don't believe that any more.

I speak to so many people who either through illness/disability or sheer ignorance NEED guidance and assistance. Their family situations don't allow for the support they need from their family. I often wonder what their lives would be like in a libertarian world. Charities and individuals would help many I'm sure. But so many more would fall to even great depths of destitution than they are in now that it makes me wonder whether I personally could stomach their suffering for my freedom.

I know there are libertarian answers to this out there, but my experiences are starting to make me think that, just as we weren't cut out for a nearly 100% planned economy and an authoritarian state, humans just aren't made for libertarianism.

And other things rankle me. I love freedom of speech but my personal morality just cannot stand the idea of people abusing each other in the streets without retribution. I hate the selfishness of many individuals and I'm often distressed that they are allowed to get away with treating others like scum. I've bit my lip to try to keep consistent with my libertarian leanings but some things just shouldn't be allowed (in my opinion).

I'm certain I don't like how things are now under this weird corporate capitalist state where Government and business are far too close, to the detriment of both. PFIs and PPPs drive me crazy. I can't stand Government monitoring of our every move in the interests of some imaginary "security". But then I have a distaste for those who need assistance being denied it, I can't stand the idea of people suffering needlessly.

And I hate compromise. Which leaves me at a loss as to what I believe will be the best way forward for this country. I don't see the Tories, Labour or the Lib Dems offering a vision of the future that I like. So I'm in the process of trying to work out what I actually believe is right before I can decide if there is anyone I'd want to support. It will probably be a long process.

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

Liberals For Ron Paul: Bridging Troubled Waters

There is so much common ground on which Ron Paul supporters and leftie liberal types can stand on, that it boggles the mind that they haven't joined forces to move the United States in a direction they could both state was better than the current status quo. I've always said, my dream 2012 ticket would be Paul/Kucinich!

Item 1: Executing US citizens

I am aghast at the laid-back way many Democrats have accepted President Obama's decision to order the murder of an American citizen. The Salon puts it well in it's article "Execution by secret White House committee". It's almost unthinkable to think that any of the Republican candidates would have done differently with the honourable exceptions of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. With no serious challenge from the left, it's really a no-brainer that to get rid of this authoritarian administration (and not replace it with a worse one) then you need to support Ron Paul! Put your economic beliefs aside for now, this is about something far more important; the rights of US citizens to a fair trial and due process and their right to life itself! It doesn't get more important than that.

Item 2: Occupy Wall Street Both the people behind Occupy Wall Street and libertarians have missed a trick. Imagine if they had focussed the protests on the fact the US Government bailed out the corrupt corporations and continues to have unhealthily close relationship with the individuals and institutions at the top of the finance industry. The common ground could have made these protests into a truly huge event. Instead the Occupy Wall Street folks on the ground have made this an "us against them" argument about individual wealth and taxation and have brought in all sorts of demands only loosely related to the main issue (free college education etc.), putting off a large proportion of the middle-of-the-road US population. And libertarians, rather than pointing out the areas of agreement, have joined right in with the narrative and the name-calling and consider them all loony socialists. If Americans really want to stop the fat cats from getting subsidies and backhanders from the Government then they need to stop deluding themselves that President Obama is going to do anything about it and vote for someone who really will cut off the cash flow to the corporate vampires: Ron Paul! There's a cut the left and libertarians can support!

Item 3: Ending the military-industrial complex America is not a free republic. It's Government plays to the tune of various corporate interests. The billions of dollars it pours into it's military don't just go there magically, there's an entire lobbying industry working to keep America "strong" by getting public money spent on weapons. Ron Paul is the only candidate out there saying that, whilst he respects the work of the men and women of the US military services, he will scale back the extent of the bloated US forces and their international committments. Ron Paul is the peace candidate.

Since Obama took office, the left's opposition to violence and military spending has become strangely muted. Here's another issue on which they can revive their good principles and share them with opponents to the mutual benefit of both. A vote for Ron Paul is the only vote that's going to help kick the military-industrial complex out of America. There are so many issues on which leftie liberals and classical liberals disagree. Health care, social security, etc. etc. BUT these issues aren't going to be solved under the current administration. They need to be put aside whilst the basic rights of US citizens to life, to a Government of the people and to freedom are regained after the decades of erosion. Then both sides can get back to arguing over their pet projects and pet hates. Voting for Ron Paul is the only way to bring about a real change, and create a new status quo in the world's greatest republic.  

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

What The #LDConf Did, A View From Afar.

This post might be better known as "things that interested me at the Lib Dem conference". 


A Review Of Drug Laws


An excellent, sensible proposal was put to conference suggesting that a panel be formed to review our current drug laws and propose new ways forward. This might mean the liberalisation of drug laws among other things. As someone who doesn't do drugs and who, as a child, lived through the experience of a drugs raid, you'd think I wouldn't be sympathetic towards liberalisation. But I believe, based on my feelings and on the evidence I've seen, that the current way of dealing with drugs is causing more problems than it's solving and if we are to deal with drug addiction as a society there are far better and more civilised ways of doing it than just a blanket ban. 


I was extremely please to see conference pass this. 


The Infamous "Ban" On Page 3 Girls


I think Andrew Emmerson said it best in his post stating clearly that yesterdays F26 motion doesn't ban Page 3 girls. As someone who reads more sensible libertarian publications such as Reason Magazine, I did find the knee-jerk horror of the libertarians on Twitter hilarious. Calm down dears, it's only a conference motion. 


However... I have major issues with the fuzzy, ill-thought out way the particular part of the motion in question was written:

“Tackling the projection of women as sex objects to children and adolescents by restricting sexualised images in newspapers and general circulation magazines to the same rules that apply to pre-watershed broadcast media.” 

1) Can only women be "sex objects"? Would this motion deal with sexualised imagery of men?
2) Restricting? How? Complete ban? Moving to the top shelf? Doing the same as what WH Smith did to gay mags recently? Totally unclear, which means it's open to the "Lib Dems Would Ban Page 3 Girls" accusations people have already been making! 
3) "same rules that apply to pre-watershed broadcast media" WHAT?? We are talking about very different media formats here and I cannot fathom what this might mean. The Sun can only be sold after 9pm? 


I've always found it bemusing that lads mags have, until recently, always been on one of the higher shelves in a magazine store whilst The Sun, the Daily Star and worse the Daily Sport were all on the floor where anyone could see them. I've found that inconsistent and you know how I dislike that. But I really don't see what this motion was trying to achieve. Pointless and should never have been passed. 


Science Not Stigma; Overturning The Blood Ban


Since I last wrote about the Government's stance on the blood ban, they have changed their mind and now brought their position to the point of only banning gay men who have had sex in the last 12 months. As you can imagine I find that just as ridiculous as the originally suggested 10 year ban! 


Thankfully today the Lib Dem conference voted to make overturning the blood ban for men who have sex with men completely. Despite the half-way house approach to LGBT rights that this Coalition Government appears to be taking (doing as little as they can get away with whilst still being considered better than Labour), the Liberal Democrats continue to move ahead of the pack when it comes to LGBT freedom. Good move conference. Good move!

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

Marriage Equality: I'm Moving On

I'm embarked on a project of reflection on my specific political and moral beliefs and how they fit with my liberal and libertarian beliefs in general

No. Jae "Marriage Equality" Kay is not saying he's changed his mind on the whole marriage equality thing. But things have changed, so have I, and I'm looking towards the next objective.

At the beginning of last year I still felt like a very lonely voice screaming in the dark for marriage equality. But now far more influential and inspirational folks have taken up the battle. LGBT people, the Government and the general population have all shifted definitively towards the position that marriage equality is the way forward. I think the campaign is now in safe hands and I can begin fighting for what I really believe in rather than this painfully unnecessary sideshow caused by Labour's "civil partnership" legislation.

I know, you may not believe me, but I didn't use to be a big fan of marriage, however, the unfairness of civil partnerships spurred me to anger and each person who told me to shut up about marriage and embrace civil partnerships (all gay men by the way) only made me more determined to get what I felt was right. Of such petty asides, a one-man campaign was born. But I believe in a higher goal and that is marriage reform.

I've written about this before, and with my current return to libertarian politics feel now is the time to begin the fight (in a more general fight against Government interference) to get Government out of the marriage business. I have no doubts it'll be another lonely fight, but with marriage equality nearly in place, I hope it'll be less divisive.

When Government stops defining what marriage is, parties can start to form more individual and relevant partnership contracts which reflect their own lives and decisions. That's my new goal.

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

My Feelings On.... Abortion

I'm embarked on a project of reflection on my political and moral beliefs and how they fit into my liberal and libertarian beliefs

Abortion is one of those subjects I always try to avoid in just about any situation. The one time I attempted to articulate my feelings in a blog (a post I've yet to unearth I'm afraid, it's not listed by Google anyway) I alienated and upset several online friends, which was never my intention. And so since then I've kept my head below the parapet. But if I am to be honest with myself and open with others on my beliefs, I think it's time to really put down in words where I stand.

I can see where both the pro-lifers and the pro-choice folks come from. The commonly stated views that the pro-lifers are just set on having control over women and pro-choice supporters are supporters of murder are simplistic and unfair. There are good people, with good intentions, on both sides.

Personally, and I truly hope you understand the difference between personal opinion and my feelings on other's freedom, I find the concept of abortion abhorrent. I feel this way for two, very different, reasons

1) Because I have an irrational sensitivity when it comes to life. I come from the perspective of being an atheist who believes there are no second chances. Any destruction of life is final. Just because I also believe life to be utterly pointless does not mean I don't hold an irrational love of it. When a foetus is aborted, who may have been born successfully and lived a full life (or may not, I accept) then it is being denied it's very existence; it's only reason for being. This I cannot accept.

2) More rationally, I believe in individual liberty. Now one can certainly argue that a foetus is not an individual. But I believe, certainly in the later stages of development, it is. And aborting it destroys it's "potential" liberty.

Now both of those points are based on nothing more concrete than "personal belief", which is not a good basis for a political belief. And there other considerations. Thankfully, in the personal realm, I am gay and I am a man. Abortion is an issue that is extremely unlikely to ever require me to make a decision on a personal basis. I'm not the one who has to make the tough choices and I appreciate that does have a bearing on my position.

And what of the personal liberty of the mother? It's all very well having high-minded political beliefs, but our very biological nature makes it difficult for a "one size fits all" political belief, such as individual liberty, to be applied uniformly. Should a woman be forced to accept a future laid out for her by events or should she be empowered to control her own destiny? There's no easy answer to that but I cannot be so heartless as to believe it would be right to use Governmental force to stop a woman having an abortion if that is what she believed was right for her.

And there is the crux of the matter. A woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases. It is not the realm of Government to enforce others morality on to women. I must be pro-choice for otherwise I am nothing but an authoritarian.

So I find myself being a supporter of the right to an abortion.

I still struggle with this position. I feel strongly that there should be limits on when, in terms of development of the foetus, an abortion can be done. If a foetus is, according the opinion of attending physicians, "viable" (a minefield of it's own) then I do not believe an abortion would be justified (except in the usual extreme circumstances). But that leaves us all open to a dangerous situation (and one many less reluctant pro-choice supporters who also believe in this seem not to deal with)  whereby with continued scientific progress this "viability" becomes possible ever earlier in a pregnancy. What then? I really don't know.

It's a moral, legal and emotional maze. There is no easy answer and, realistically, I don't think there is a satisfactory answer for everyone. I am at once pro-life and pro-choice and have so many conflicting caveats in my logic and illogic that I think I could be easily flipped to one side or the other without much effort (and then back again).

Fundamentally, we should keep our noses out of other people's, rather sad, personal business and let those who want to have an abortion have one and those who don't well, not.

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

No Other Place To Go

****RANT AHEAD. Always take my rants with a little pinch of salt****

There's no denying it. My personal political compass has shifted significantly since this years general election. My beliefs in individualism, a reduced Government and political reform have strengthened. My admiration (if not acceptance) of socialist ideals, my belief that Government can be a force for good and my tolerance for "the game of politics" have all been crushed.

Mostly the last few things have been destroyed by the reaction of the Labour party to the Coalition. Suddenly, as if by magic, the Labour MPs have converted to worrying about issues that they didn't care about in Government. AV isn't good enough, they scream. We'd never cut like this, they rant. Our regime of spying on and controlling British citizens wasn't all that bad, they lament (okay, so they haven't changed there then!). I have been sickened by this hypocritical attitude, when I was hoping they'd stop playing politics and start working for a better country.

From the party that introduced tuition fees:

Labour's Gareth Thomas said the fee hike represented a "tragedy for a whole generation of young people". Source

Really? Surely their introduction, by YOU, was worse?? And the progressive left, people who I had plenty of time for in the run up to the election when they were open and honest about falling out of love with the New Labour party, have lapped it up like loons. The Labour party hasn't changed! They are just saying what you want to hear, and when they get back into power they will do exactly what the Tories would do. I cannot believe the progressive left are so easily bought.

Let's be clear: The New Labour party was complicit in torture, they set us up as partners to one of the most right-wing US presidency's in history, they took us into a war that was wrong and which lead to the deaths of 100,000 to 1,000,000 INNOCENT civilians, and they made themselves subservient to the interests of the rich. The same people who did these things are still in the party and some are even in the Shadow Cabinet. How can anyone with an ounce of decency not only continue to support this band of murderers (for that is what they are, gloss over it all you like... they helped KILL civilians for no just cause) but try to guilt trip us Liberal Democrats over supporting a Government that breaks a few Lib Dem promises and is making some rather painful cuts??

The Tories are, of course, no better (they are the sort of party that likes to pretend it supports a small Government and individual freedom but really they just want low taxes for the rich and for everyone else to do exactly as they are told. Moralising interference is what the Tories dream of, hence their love of the "Big Society" and it's charitable and religious supporters). I couldn't bring myself to vote for the party of little Englanders if my life depended on it.

The Greens are an honourable party but their political beliefs are now so out of sync with my own I couldn't support them without being a total hypocrite.

So I find myself still a Liberal Democrat supporter. A believer in liberty, but who believes that doesn't mean being heartless like libertarians and Tories, where else is there for me to go? I'm not completely happy with the Coalition. But I am totally devoted to this party's values, and I'm not prepared to put up with Labour's lies any longer. My sympathy for Labour supporters (on a political level of course, I'm not going to be mean to them on a personal level) is now gone. Criticise me all you wish... if you don't support a party who has blood on it's hands. Guilt trips from Green party members accepted.

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

The Pitfalls Of Libertarianism

I consider myself a libertarian on a lot of issues. But this Liberal Conspiracy article certainly points out the pitfalls of certain strands of libertarianism. I find it amusing when I see socially conservative people espousing libertarian values, but sadly that tends to be the main sort of folks who label themselves "libertarians". A shame.

I suppose my philosophy has always been (thanks to my teenage paganism) "An it harm none do what ye will". This is actually extremely limiting, but is (in my opinion) the only workable freedom there is. 

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist