I'm Just Not LGBT+ Enough

I'm politically adrift at the moment. My old home, despite my libertarianism, on the left appears to have changed the locks and put up a big "No cis white gay men" sign on the door. There's a house on the right with its door wide open but the house is made of gingerbread, there's a witch bearing an uncanny similarity to Milo Yiannopoulos beckoning at the door and I'm sure I saw a boy and a girl go in there earlier and not come out. I'm don't think that's the house for me.

Is there a rock to hold on to in order to stop the drift? This blog has been mainly devoted to my one stable obsession in life: LGBT liberty. I'm a "liberaltarian" at heart, a quick read through some of my teenage diaries shows clearly that no matter what I always end up returning to individual liberty as the overriding principle in my person morality, and I'm a gay man who grew up in Kent where lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans+ folk all had to share the same small collection of bars and clubs (and thus social groups). But I feel, yet again Dear Constant Reader, like I've been somewhat naive.

Obviously, growing up in deepest, darkest Kent, I had little exposure to queer theory, feminist writings or LGBT political theory when I was young. My only exposure to other sexual and gender related minorities was "in real life" at bars and clubs. This made me think we were "all in it together". A few years ago I discovered, to my great sadness, that this wasn't true. Not only had some gay and lesbian people been holding us all back (see Stonewall and some Labour MPs for example) but they had, in particular, been unsupportive or outright hostile to trans+ people. Now I'm discovering that, yet again, I still haven't been seeing the whole picture. Trans+ people also (unsurprising given they too are a diverse group of people with different individual aims and objectives) have not always been supportive of gay, lesbian and bisexual rights and freedoms (take Caitlin Jenner as a recent, if not academic, example).

The latest NUS decision to stop supporting a guaranteed space on student LGBT society boards for "white cis gay men" just underlines the fact that we're not all in this together. In fact it now seems like the different groups of minorities, the number of groups growing ever larger, falling under the LGBT umbrella are working against each other in order to further their own agendas (let's face it, the gay agenda was pretty fantastic so it is unsurprising everyone has got their own...).

I can't keep on supporting the "LGBT" label any longer. The only people who now seem to truly believe in it are the sort of people I have already separated from as they usually also believe in the "evils" of masculinity, the "evils" of sex work and the need to control the sexual freedoms of others through moralistic rhetoric and legislation. I opposed such things when the religious supported them and I oppose them now when "progressives" support them.

So I'm embracing gay separatism. No, not gay separation from society as that phrase often means. But I really feel like it is time men who find other men attractive (to keep this as broad a category as possible) should refocus on things that are important to us. And I don't just mean gay rights and sexual health, though they are important to us (and often uniquely so), but also on remembering that we aren't joined together in some "community" by a love of opera or progressive politics. We're joined together only as people who share a, rather beautiful, love of the male form and psyche.

I don't find women attractive (and am also not a woman) so I'm unsure what insight I have into the needs of lesbians. I don't feel like I'm the wrong physical gender so I can't speak for trans+ folk. I'm as far from asexual as it is possible to be so their requirements are alien to me. And the list goes on. The regressive left have demanded white cis gay men should give up our positions so that others can have a voice. I say we should give them exactly what they want. We can all be happy then.

That way we can get back to fighting moralistic attacks on sexual freedom, fighting for decent sexual health provision (whilst the NHS exists and is bliming treating sports injuries I'm happy to let my libertarianism stay at home on this subject for now) and fight for a renewal of love for everything male. There's way too much hatred towards masculinity put around by gay men on behalf of feminists and our "allies" among the LBT+ folk who seem to believe that homosexuality is somehow related to men embracing femininity. There's nothing wrong with men embracing femininity but if you think that it is somehow part of sexual attraction to other men on a large scale then I'm afraid you've fundamentally misunderstood most MSM!

So let's have an amicable break-up, go our separate ways and start speaking honestly rather than mixing our messages together until they please no one.

Marriage Equality: Taking Stock And Preparing For The Future (AKA It Ain't Over)

Stonewall, yes that lot, have been crowing with victory over the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act. Celebrity friends have been pouring gratitude upon them and fawning over "man of the moment" Ben Summerskill as if he was the Messiah (and not just a very naughty boy). Perhaps we should pin this law wholly upon Stonewall as another mark against them.

During the process of the consultations on religious civil partnership implementation and then same-sex marriage Stonewall moved from "Meh" through supporting only civil marriage to accepting the Government's plans for religious and civil marriages. At no time did they lead the debate, simply following the suggestions of the Government rather than lobbying them for more. But more telling still is that they seemed oblivious to the flaws of the bill as it proceeded through Parliament and were hellbent only on seeing it pass unamended as originally proposed. This sort of uncritical devotion speaks volumes of Stonewall's lack of real emotional investment in the outcomes of the legislation.

I've said it during the debates and I'll say it again: this act is flawed. That doesn't mean I don't celebrate its passing. It is a brave step in the right direction. But, as I'd wished those who introduced civil partnerships had done back in 2004, I can both celebrate the Royal Assent and commiserate over the missed opportunities (and grave injustices).

When I took the time to really consider why I found civil partnerships so deeply unsatisfying, I discovered the terrible consequences the passing of the Civil Partnerships Act had had on the relationships and well-being of trans people. I won't pretend I knew about these all along, but once I did they persuaded me fully of the rightness of fighting for marriage equality. Before I'd just been grumpy, after I was truly enraged. (Christine Burns does a remarkable job of giving us some history here).

However the Act that has now been passed is not only insufficient in remedying the situation but is, in fact, only making things even more intolerable. Sarah Brown has been involved in bringing the problems with the "Spousal Veto" to everyone's attention and summarises the situation here.

As the situation cools and Stonewall loses interest and moves off in search of footballers who can be persuaded to wear one of their t-shirts, we must begin lobbying the Government to fix this issue.

Another inequality remains undecided. Pension equality was a sleeper issue, though well-known among marriage equality enthusiasts for a long time, and didn't really take off in the Parliamentary debates until the very end with people like Mike Fryer MP and Lord Alli championing the matter. They managed to get an amendment through that will ask the Department of Works and Pensions to reconsider the current restrictions. But that doesn't mean we'll get what we need so we must be vigilant and not let this review pass without careful monitoring.

Civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples is often considered somewhat of a joke but to those who want it, and to trans people in civil partnerships awaiting a GRC, it is important. Another review has been proposed and again we must be careful to ensure it happens transparently.

On a "minor" note, I'm still deeply concerned at the language of the bill which fails to create marriage equality in the style of most nations but instead creates a separate institution known as "same-sex marriage".

And we have the humanist wedding consultation ahead of us, an important challenge to the monopoly religion and the Government hold over marriage.

So there is still plenty to campaign on, to fight for and to defend. It is time to prepare ourselves for battles ahead.

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

The Differences Between Civil Partnerships and Marriage

The original version of this post can be found here: Civil Partnerships and Marriage: What's The Difference?.

It is quite common for people to wonder: "Why all this kerfuffle over equal marriage, aren't civil partnerships the same as marriage?" From anti-equality politicians to well-meaning people, there remains a great deal of confusion over what differences there might be between the two.

So I thought I'd just note down some of the major differences:

Gender

The most obvious difference in law is, of course, gender. A marriage is a partnership between a man and a woman. A civil partnership is one between two people of the same gender. If only gender was so neat and tidy! Gender, in a legal sense to avoid any semantic arguments, is NOT set in stone. People can, and do, change their gender.

So if you have a married couple, and the "man" in that couple transitions into becoming a female, that couple would face a difficult choice as to whether to dissolve their marriage or not to get a GRC. They will lose accrued pension rights and other financial benefits if they decide that a GRC is necessary and need to get a civil partnership if they wish to again be legally recognised as a couple... and the benefits will need to start to be gained FROM SCRATCH again.

This is my number one reason for campaigning for marriage (and civil partnership) equality. Transgendered people, and their partners, are unfairly discriminated against by the "separate but equal" way we are currently doing things in this country. Making marriage laws gender neutral would be a massive step in the right direction. A more thorough look at this subject can be found here.

Pensions

This, as if it needed saying, is a little complicated. Thankfully someone has made a video explaining this the problem in Lego. Everything always seems clearer in Lego.



This is a serious issue and currently couples affected are having to fight this discrimination in the courts using the Equality Act 2010 to help them. Here is one of the more recent judgements. Marriage equality would, hopefully, ensure this little loophole is fixed and ensure pension rights are respected by all companies.

International Recognition

This issue is also touched upon in the video above.

Think of it this way: of course same-sex marriages won't be recognised in many (dare I say backward?) countries. But civil partnerships fail the criteria for an international standard (many countries with equal marriage won't recognise civil partnerships!), whereas marriage equality would make things far clearer for travellers and emigrants to countries with equal marriage. And for those countries where they do have civil unions, those married couples will be more likely to have their relationship recognised on some level.

As ever more countries consider equal marriage (at the moment we have developments awaited in France, Paraguay, Columbia, Mexico, USA, Taiwan, Vietnam, New Zealand, Finland....) this problem will only become worse.

Religious Freedom

Marriage equality, true marriage equality, would allow for religious same-sex marriages to be carried out by supportive religions. Right now we have the newly created religious civil partnerships but, typically, the registration charges for this are far higher than for marriage! And a Unitarian church had a great many problems getting a civil partnership licence due to health and safety concerns, despite being allowed to hold marriages!

The Quakers have this to say:

“Quakers have been discussing sexuality for fifty years. We see God in everyone and believe all committed loving relationships are of equal worth and should be celebrated in the same way. That is why, since 2009, we’ve been asking for the law to allow our same-sex Quaker couples to have a spiritual celebration within their worshipping community; not just a civil partnership which is a legal contract.”

Why should religions have to pay more to "marry" same-sex couples than opposite-sex ones? Why should they be denied religious freedom? They shouldn't, and wouldn't, if marriage was gender neutral.

Separate But Equal

The other day one of my work colleagues was abused on the train home because he was gay. Being openly gay/bisexual still has its drawbacks in life. Being forced on most official forms to declare whether you have a marriage OR a civil partnership outs someone's sexuality and I find that most uncomfortable even if I, speaking only for myself here, don't mind someone knowing my sexuality.

And why should I be covered by a different law to the one that covers the relationships of my family and friends? I'm not looking for a pretend marriage, or a gay marriage, or an "I can't believe it's not marriage" marriage. I want simply a marriage, to the person I love, covered in the same way the marriages of others I care for are covered. I pay my taxes and abide by the law of the land so why does the Government get to  decide which consenting adults can enter a marriage?

For those who like to say they are the same, the courts disagree with you. As announced in this court ruling.

To the extent that by reason of that distinction it discriminates against same-sex partners, such discrimination has a legitimate aim, is reasonable and proportionate, and falls within the margin of appreciation accorded to Convention States.

The Legal Nitty-Gritty

The laws covering civil partnerships have no concepts of consummation or adultery. This makes dissolving a civil partnerships at times easier and at times more difficult.

There is no requirement to take any vows. Can you imagine a marriage without vows? No. Because they are actually a legal requitement!

Marriage case law doesn't necessarily cover civil partnerships.

So yes, there are a few differences, some fairly important to the well-being of same-sex couples. Marriage equality would resolve these issues in a clear and sensible way.

***EDIT 10/02/2013. I wish to make it clear to those who may be using this article to defend the Government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill that currently, as of today's date, it does not resolve the issues of pension inequality, consummation, adultery and leaves several outstanding issues with regards to trans rights. It also maintains the separation of married same-sex couples in law from married opposite-sex couples.

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

John Sentamu Is Woefully Uninformed On Implications of Marriage Equality

John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, has returned to the subject of marriage equality and civil partnerships this week.

I firmly believe that redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would mean diminishing the meaning of marriage for most people, with very little if anything gained for homosexual people. If I am right, in the long term we would all be losers.

He seems not to realise marriage equality isn't just about "homosexual people" and at the same time spreads that common falsehood that civil partnerships and marriage are "equal" and thus nothing further needs to be done.

I understand it's easier to see the world in very simplistic terms. Male and female. Gay and straight. White and black. If the world was that simple, Sentamu's arguments would have far greater weight. But it's not.

Male and female are not, and never have been, absolutely separate biological concepts. The line between genders is blurred in nature and we force those who aren't so easily defined to define themselves one way or another. And there are those who find themselves defined in a way that they don't define themselves. As you can imagine if gender is diverse, then sexuality (and thus romantic love) is even more so. Marriage equality is about taking gender out of marriage and allowing romantic love to be the main factor in deciding who can or who cannot get married.

Does the Archbishop realise the affect this division between marriage and civil partnership has on transgendered individuals and their relationships? No, he doesn't. To him it's all about the gays, sex and babies, not about real people and their relationships.

And worse he fails to acknowledge there are real differences between marriage and civil partnerships, not least of which are based on pensions and international recognition. I've got to the point where I honestly don't think that our opponents, such as Sentamu, are liars. I truly think they just don't listen and learn. They never acknowledge these differences, never mention transgender issues, never even allow themselves to just consider the implications of reserving marriage to one type of couple in a world as diverse as ours. It shows a lack of imagination and intellectual curiosity that makes me worried for the leadership of certain organisations in this country, the Church of England amongst them.

John Sentamu isn't homophobic (not based on this argument anyway), but he is completely and utterly wrong.

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

Transphobia Isn't Going Away

The Equality Act was, sadly, a mess. In the hopes of getting everything "Equality" into one bill, things were missed and odd things were allowed through. I knew this because of my "interest" in Lord Alli's amendment to allow civil partnerships to have a religious character. But it would see, sadly, there were even more unsettling things lying in the Act.

A.E.Brain reports something rather unsettling has been introduced to the Equality Act, and perhaps more unsettling is that no one seems to have mentioned it before. Questioning Transphobia has more on this here.

It exposes something in our system that seems completely unfair. In this country one can legally change their gender. But, as we see here, whilst their gender may now be legally changed they are still treated as somebody "different" and "scary". That's disgusting.

Transphobia seems to be the prejudice that's not just legally sanctioned but socially acceptable. Nowadays someone in the media spotlight can't even suggest that they'd made a homophobic comment in the past (let alone make a new one) without an internet uproar and probably worse.

However, just the other day Julie Bindel was "honoured" with a position on the Independent's Pink List. But let's look at what she ideologically believes about transsexual people. And here. This is hardly surprising given her views on marriage and her inability to understand civil partnerships are not marriage.

So instead of being put on the naughty list that the Pink List has got this year, she is lauded as a leading light within the LGB "community"... obviously they didn't mention the T, so there was no need to bring up her meanness.

And the issues go on. In consulting on religious civil partnerships, did the Government consult with any transgender campaigners? Not to my knowledge. Why? If Parliament cared so little for transsexuals in April, is it really going to start caring now? Just as I have concerns on the current civil partnership consultation, my concerns about the proposed consultation on transgender/transsexual rights are growing. Can we trust them to be thorough? Or will they just throw out another sop to keep people quiet whilst not really doing much?

The LGB "community" has been quick to dump our trans brothers and sisters (and those of us who still want equality) at the merest sniff of legal rights. It feels like we've given up the fight and have begun a cleaning up operation (fighting homophobia at work and in schools through education and training). Well the fight isn't over for me. I'm not stopping until we ALL (straight, gay, trans, queer, etc.) have the freedom to be the individuals that we wish to be, without persecution or impediment.

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

Coalition LGBT Polices: Asylum. Check!

The Government's paper "Working For LGBT Equality" has gone from theory to reality today, following a Supreme Court ruling stating that returning LGB (not T) asylum seekers to their home countries where they might face murder, torture and/or imprisonment was wrong.

The decision overturns an earlier decision by the Court of Appeal that the Government could return two gay asylum-seekers, identified as HJ and HT, to Iran and Cameroon, where homosexuality is illegal, on the basis that they could be expected to act "discreetly" so as to avoid persecution.

In Iran, homosexuality regularly leads to the death penalty, whilst in Cameroon, it is punishable by up to five years in prison. HT had been severely beaten and cut with a knife by neighbours and police and was hospitalised for 2 months before escaping to the UK.

The London office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) intervened in the appeal to the Supreme Court on behalf of the appellants. A team from Baker & McKenzie acted for UNHCR on a pro bono basis.

Baker & McKenzie Associate Iona Harding, who ran the case, said: "This is an excellent result which will ensure that lesbian, gay and bisexual people receive the protection they are entitled to as refugees in the UK and are not expected to hide their identity in order to escape execution, long prison sentences or other forms of persecution." Pink Paper

Why was this case brought to court if the Coalition are already supportive of the outcome? Because the policy was enforced, and defended, by the last Labour Government during which this case was started. Yet another sign of the fact that whilst Labour talked big on LGBT rights, they often acted differently.

And, in even better news, the Coalition plan to ensure that this policy is extended to transgendered people too which is more than the ruling requires.

That's 1 - 0 to the Coalition on LGBT rights. Let's hope they can keep it up.

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

An Open Letter To Lynne Featherstone @lfeatherstone

Dear Ms. Featherstone,

Yesterday it was reported that you would be beginning "consultations" about the status of equal marriage and civil partnerships sometime in the future (http://bit.ly/cemLBp). It also reports you'll be contacting both sides in this consultation, in effect suggesting equality is not an automatic right for all citizens but one that should be negotiated. I do wonder if the Government of the day consulted racists whilst creating the Race Relations Act. I also wonder who will be "representing" the LGBT community. I suspect Stonewall may well be consulted. This unrepresentative group doesn't represent the LGBT community in full nor support equality. I trust this will be kept in mind when listening to their "concerns".

However, in the spirit of consultation, I thought I'd write to you on my own behalf to call for something radical. Equal marriage. I understand that the idea of allowing people to marry who they wish is alien to our Coalition partners, but thanks to the Lib Dems "Marriage Without Borders" campaign, I trust you are a little more supportive of the concept. I, unfortunately, have become concerned at your recent Parliamentary answer to Chris Bryant MP in which you suggest that rather than support equality, your Government would further embed the unequal status of civil partnerships by allowing a religious component. Whilst the recognition that LGBT people, and religious organisations that support them, have religious freedom rights just like those who identify as heterosexuals is welcome, the result of that move would be to set back the cause of equality for quite some time to come.

The simplest and easier way to allow people in the LGBT community religious freedom would be to remove those sections in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which forbid or cause the dissolution of such marriages. This would allow them to choose a civil or religious marriage as they deem fit without impeding anyone else's freedom to have their own sort of marriage or partnership.

It would solve other problems too. As you know, the separate nature of marriages and civil partnerships unfairly discriminate against those in the transgender community. Removing the right sections of the act stated above would remove this discrimination and allow those couples who wish to remain together after one transitions to do so. We also have a confusing state of affairs whereby a couple may legally marry in another country, such as Canada, but find that upon their return to the United Kingdom they have their status "demoted" to a civil partnership. This creates legal confusion and, more importantly, a great deal of distress to those involved. With marriage equality on the march around the world, we need to have a like for like (rather than a best match) institution in our country to solve any misunderstandings that might otherwise arise.

How does the Government plan to tackle discrimination against members of the LGBT community when those same members are discriminated against by the Government? The Judge in the case of Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, a couple married in Canada, clearly ruled that they WERE being discriminated against. Religious civil partnerships will not solve this. A separate set of rules for transgendered people would only create confusion (and would fly in the face of the simplification of laws called for by Nick Clegg in his Your Freedom initiative). The only answer is marriage equality. Religious freedom, equality, and basic human decency demand it.

You have a chance to progress equality. You also have a chance to set it back by years, perhaps decades. I beg of you, please make the right decision. LGBT people still have no voice, whilst people and organisations such as Stonewall, Chris Bryant MP and Nick Herbert MP further their own careers and objectives by denying the need for equality. We need people to speak for us, to defend us and to raise us up from our current second-class citizen status. Please let one of those people be you.

Yours Faithfully

Jason Kay

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