Daily Mail's Disingenuous Spin On Marriage Equality

There was some late, but good, news last night on the current religious freedom question regarding religious civil partnerships. 

Further to attempts in the Lords, and then in the Commons, to overturn the new religious civil partnership regulations the Church of England made an announcement. The premise of the criticism of their Lordships to the proposals was the possibility that provisions in the Equality Act might force all organisations carrying out marriages to also carry out civil partnerships regardless of whether they wish to or not. 

Groups including the Christian Institute, CARE and the Evangelical Alliance have made submissions to the Committee which suggest organisations will be required to register under a broader obligation on public authorities to eliminate discrimination, despite a specific provision in the regulations and the Equality Act 2010 designed to prevent this. 

The Committee published an opinion given by Mark Hill QC, an honorary professor at the Centre for Law and Religion, Cardiff University, which said the new regulations may fail in their aim to avoid obligation by not providing protection from the “all-pervading public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010″.

However lawyers working on behalf of the Church of England last night stated that this was not a concern and based on this advice have today said they will not be sanctioning religious civil partnerships in any of their churches. (Whilst also giving a nod to fact civil partnerships and marriages AREN'T the same thing, thanks CoE!)

An analysis distributed by the Church says because civil partnerships and marriages are separate legal concepts, it is “clear” the Equality Act 2010 cannot be invoked to force a religious institution to perform both. 

The Church says: “A gentlemen’s outfitter is not required to supply women’s clothes. A children’s book shop is not required to stock books that are intended for adults. 

“And a Church that provides a facility to marry is not required to provide a facility to same-sex couples for registering civil partnerships.”

This should take the wind out of the sails of the Westminister politicians trying to derail the civil partnership regulations by foul means. 

However it bodes ill for the prospects for religious marriage equality in the future. The Equality Act could be used to force unwilling ministers to perform same-sex marriage if religious marriage equality ever came into being. This is a very serious matter and obviously clearly puts a hurdle in the way of future reform unless the Equality Act can be reformed to protect religious freedom whilst ensuring liberty for religious organisations wanting to perform such marriages. 

And this is where we come to the Daily Mail's rather disingenuous spin on the news. Let's get one thing straight; the upcoming consultation on marriage equality is not about whether religious marriage equality should be brought in. Nor is it about whether civil marriage equality should be brought it. It's rather pathetic remit is simply to discuss how CIVIL marriage equality should be implemented. 

The Daily Mail choose to state, based on a small note about the dangers of marriage equality overriding religious freedom by the Church of England's lawyers,  

"Church 'may have to offer gay weddings' if Cameron's plans given go-ahead"  

David Cameron and his Coalition Government currently have no plans whatsoever regarding religious marriage equality.  This claim by the Daily Mail, based on quite understandable concerns regarding religious freedom, is nothing but a lie. Not a misunderstanding, but a lie. And it's all done to scaremonger among the religious thus harming the chances of constructive debate between religious organisations and LGBT campaigners in the hopes of ensuring neither must give up their liberties for the other.

I'm not going to say there aren't LGBT campaigners out there looking to force churches to marry them. There are. There's even a Tory MP who thinks the same! But that's not the majority opinion and even we are to regard religions as private clubs I've no problem defending their right to refuse to marry a same-sex couple. The rhetoric on this from the right wing MPs, Lords and anti-marriage campaigners is not helping defend religious freedom but serving only to stop some much needed discussion on these important matters.
 
Poor show from the Daily Mail. As always.

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

Two Front Attack On Equal Partnership Rights Continues

In Scotland we have the announcement from the Church of Scotland (although almost certainly not "official" given the lack of oversight from their conference) that they will oppose marriage equality. Hardly a surprise, but another sign of the faithful joining forces to oppose religious freedom for other churches and individual freedom.

Below we have a video of Wednesday's Scotland for Marriage rally, featuring some bizarre arguments against marriage equality. It seemed almost to be just a lot of talking for talking's sake.

There are claims in the video that marriage equality will be destructive by putting off opposite-sex couples from marrying or making those already married feel sullied. To be frank, if your marriage is reliant on the "wholesomeness" of other's marriages then you may as well get divorced now. If your marriage doesn't stand on it's own merits, it doesn't stand at all!

It's a long set of hateful, intolerant ranting without logic or sense. At around 12 minutes we get the polygamy argument again! BINGO!

 

South of the border at Westminster, further to this month's action in the Lords, Edward Leigh, Conservative MP for Gainsborough has put forward an Early Day Motion with the same aim of scuppering religious civil partnerships. Yet again I must ask: if your aim is to protect those who don't wish to carry out such civil partnerships then why not put forward an amendment to the Equality Act rather than to try and scupper religious civil partnerships in general? No this is another wrecking motion put forward dishonestly by those who do not have the courage of their convictions to proclaim their homophobia (and hatred of civil partnerships in general) out loud. Cowards as well as homophones. There is a surprise. Here's the list of the usual suspects supporting the EDM so far.

Bone, Peter Conservative Party

Brazier, Julian Conservative Party 

Bruce, Fiona Conservative Party

Dorries, Nadine Conservative Party

Jackson, Stewart Conservative Party

Leigh, Edward Conservative Party 

Pritchard, Mark Conservative Party 

Robertson, Laurence Conservative Party

Turner, Andrew Conservative Party

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

World AIDS Day

Today is World AIDS Day. Take a minute of your day today just to think about whether you partake in any risky behaviours that might lead you into contact with HIV/AIDS and think about how you can protect yourself and others.

AIDS is not unstoppable. It just requires effort to erradicate it. We can live in an AIDS free world if we want to. 


For information on World AIDS Day, HIV/AIDS in general or on ways you can help, check out the Terrance Higgins Trust.

 

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

Scotland For Marriage's Anti-Marriage Equality Campaign Begins Today

Today saw the launch of a new anti-marriage equality campaign in Scotland, backed by a number of Christian organisations.

They've launched a website, and held a rally outside the Scottish Parliament. As well as generally opposing individual rights, they also wish to ensure those rights are dealt with by a referendum rather than through Parliament.

The typical "slippery slope" arguments are available on their website's front page proclaiming marriage equality might lead to (cue shocked hush) POLYGAMY! Of course why whether someone wants one partner or several is any of their business is not discussed.

Given that such an organised campaign is now in motion against marriage equality in Scotland, I've done my bit and donated £5.00 to their opposite numbers at Equal Marriage. I urge you to donate to them and, even if you don't live in Scotland!, even more strongly urge you to respond to the Scottish Government's consultation using their rather handy form. Whilst a majority of negative responses may not have any effect on the Governments response (as per this response in Westminster to receiving a majority of negative responses to the relgious civil partnership consultation), it can't hurt. The more positive the response the stronger the argument, so get typing! Individual responses will be even better.

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

It's Time: The Best Marriage Equality Ad Yet

Every time I watch this ad I'm reminded of exactly why marriage equality is so important. 

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

Religious Civil Partnerships: Group Rights Versus Individual Rights

On December 15th, the question of allowing civil partnership ceremonies to have a religious character will be debated in the House of Lords. Baroness O’Caithan and her allies state they wish to protect religious organisations from being forced to hold civil partnerships under equality laws. And to do this they will attempt to ensure religious civil partnerships cannot go ahead.

I'm no fan of religious civil partnerships and I find equality laws often do more harm than good, but I can't feel even a modicum of sympathy for this political maneuver in the Lords. It's fairly obvious that if the problem is equality law making it more likely some churches will face legal action for not holding civil partnerships then the simple thing to do is to amend those laws offering them an even clearer opt-out than has already been suggested. This is yet another wreaking motion from O'Caithan and the other homophobes in the Lords designed not to protect religious freedom but to fight LGBT freedom at every turn.

Here we have a clear case of group rights (for the LGBT community) that are protected by law being used in a way that was unintended but pretty predictable. The individual members of the LGBT community suffer. Religious freedom and sexual freedom needn't be mutually exclusive, but sadly the Equality Act appears to be forcing a choice of one over the other. So let's amend it, and make sure people who want their civil partnerships blessed by Thor or any other diety can do so without forcing any religious organisation to do something that goes against their beliefs.

We already have one religious impediment to marriage equality (the implications for the Church of England mean religious marriage equality is extremely unlikely whilst it remains our established church), but if the Lords overturn religious civil partnerships we'll have another major issue to overcome when the consultation begins in March. Let's hope the Lords see sense and throw out this blatant attempt to undermine religious freedom and LGBT equality next month.

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

It's Been A Long Time (For Prop 8 Too!)

It's been a month since my last post, and no it's not just you political folks I'm ignoring. I've suddenly gone off blogging across the board. It happens, I've been blogging for over ten years and there are times when one just cannot be bothered, and other times of frenzied activity. I no longer worry too much about it, but apologise for being away! Don't expect this to be my come back either...

Whilst the British marriage equality fight is currently in a "consolidate the forces" phase as the Holyrood and Westminister consultations begin to get going, in California the long stalled Proposition 8 trial is back on today. The opponents of marriage equality have been given the right to defend Prop 8 following the state authorities decision not to do so.

If they hadn't have been granted this right, Californian same sex couples would've been able to marry without further rulings. This might sound like this move is thus a defeat for marriage equality but it actually means this moves the subject one step closer to the US Supreme Court. Now that will be a battle worth fighting.
Here in the UK, whilst all might seem peaceful, the Catholic church is preparing for the fight. After a few opening salvos in Scotland, they are preparing "the message" ready for the big fight in the first few months of the new year. Next week there is a event entitled "Gay Marriage and the Common Good" to help keep everyone on message. They are getting ready. I do hope you are too.

I think LGBT people need to prepare to feel the full wrath of the Church, with every news story on marriage equality quoting offensive stuff about how unnatural and evil we are. We might think we are used to this thanks to the sort of things you see in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. But the Catholic Church takes marriage equality very seriously indeed, and shall make sure their nasty views get into all sorts of media outlets we would normally not expect to see them in. Just think of how bad Sunday Morning Live is, and then imagine that sort of stuff on BBC Breakfast, Channel 4 news, every radio current affairs shows and even on Comment is Free. That's what we've got to look forward to in 2012.

Fun times lie ahead.

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