Jesus Land: A Memoir by Julie Scheeres

Julie Scheeres had a shitty childhood. Now you might think you've had a shitty childhood and feel you could hold your own in the Shitty Childhood Championships but, unless you have a particularly harrowing story or were her brother David, it is unlikely to be as shitty as Scheeres. She grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household with parents who she paints as unloving and scary. Her father beat her adopted brothers brutally. Her mother had an intercom system set up so she could monitor conversations anywhere in the house.

She also experienced sexual abuse from her older adoptive brother, Jerome, who made her young life a living hell. Meanwhile her brother David suffered racist abuse on an almost daily basis growing up in "Hicksville" as a black adopted member of a white family.

And what did the two of them get for their troubles? They got sent to Escuela Caribe, a Christian reform school in the Dominican Republic, where they were subjected to emotional and physical abuse "for their own good".

Sounds like a depressing book right? But instead Scheeres manages to maintain a balanced look back on her youth weaving in humourous episodes and giving full and balanced perspectives on all involved (rather than the deeply bitter perspective one could reasonably accept from someone who has been through what she went through). But above all else the love she had for her brother David shines through and this book is really a story about how they stuck it out together dreaming of a better life.

This is a story of religious excess, abuse, racism and of family. And it is one I'll admit to shedding a tear over in the final pages. Scheeres really doesn't hold back much detail on what happened to her which gives this book the credibility that many memoirs I've read recently desperately lack.

There's more on the abusive atmosphere at Escuela Caribe here.

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.

Whitstable Times Has A Timely Reminder For Us Homosexual Sinners To "Take Heed". Yes, Really.

You know local newspaper letter pages. Filled with witty/godawful attempts at poetry, insightful local comment and completely moronic witterings (yes, I've had the occasional letter published). And sometimes, just sometimes, you have some letter that is so offensive as to leave you a little speechless.

Well in this case I'd class the following letter in the Whitstable Times as in the "completely moronic" category. Hey, it criticises Stonewall so I'm almost sympathetic!

.@thisiskent curious to know how you feel about one of your group @TimesWhitstable printing this letter? pic.twitter.com/ujzfnCoDZT
— Jo Frazer-Wise (@jofwise) October 10, 2013

It isn't as offensive as some letters I've seen, though I'm not really a fan of bronze age magic books. But what is offensive is the header, written by some sub at the Whitstable Times,

"Take heed, all you homosexual sinners"

It boggles the mind as to what was going through that subs head at the time. It really does. Absolutely unbelievable.

It is a silly thing to get annoyed over, but it has really pissed me off. I don't mind your average Christian moaning about all those people falling in love and being happy (MONSTERS!), but I do mind having Bible quotes editorialised to send a message to readers that is quite unacceptable in a local newspaper!

When Did LGBT Folk Become The People We Hated?

Last month marked 36 years since Mary Whitehouse took Gay News to court for publishing a blasphemous poem. 29 years ago Gays The Word was raided for obscene materials. Right now attempts to filter the internet and ban "sexualised" images in public are likely to lead to more attempts to stifle free speech by LGBT people (see, for example, the way mobile phone companies block legitimate LGBT websites). 

We've been fighting for freedom for decades. I'm thankful, very thankful, to those who came before me that I came of age in a time when things have been less difficult (the only really homophobic incident I can think of is having stones thrown at me for holding hands with my then boyfriend). But even so the history of the struggle still influences the way I think. 

Unfortunately this history of oppression, for daring to say and do things of which mainstream society didn't approve, has singularly failed to stop some LGBT people becoming just as EVIL (and I do not use that word lightly, but use it I must) as Christians ever were (and are). 

We've had cases for the last ten years or so of preachers being harassed and arrested by police for doing things of which mainstream society does not approve. Be it speaking in public (Adrian Tippetts brilliantly defends the right of Tony Miano to be horrid in public here), leafleting (Stephen Green, shudder) or emailing (see the latest instance involving Alan Clifford here) it would seem religious nutters are getting a bit of a hard time. 

Anti-gay public speaking is offensive, to me at least. I remember one particular instance of a guy with a megaphone in Trafalgar Square that left me so angry and hurt that he could say such things in public. But I didn't do anything because I believe in live and let live (and the looks on the faces of the many other random people in Trafalgar Square showed me his message was not winning any hearts and minds, quite the opposite in fact). 

We have suffered police interference in our freedoms for many, many years. We should be standing side by side with anyone suffering similarly. But, as it would seem with the Alan Clifford issue, it is now LGBT people colluding with the silencing, shaming and persecution (for even though this is not quite at the levels of persecution faced by Christians elsewhere it is persecution nonetheless) of others. 

I remember when the LGBT group at a company I worked with was chastised by the company after a gay employee reported us for using the word "queer". When I attended the next meeting everyone was deeply apologetic towards this person (who had never, and did never, attend a single meeting of our group). I never attended another meeting, finding this cowardice in the face of idiocy to be too much to bear. When did we become the bad guys? When did we think that policing other people's thoughts and speech was in anyway acceptable? 

I understand the hurt these people cause. I really do. They deserve to be shunned by society and ignored by decent people everywhere. But we cannot silence them because we don't like what they say. The way to beat them is to defeat their arguments and win over more people to the side of sanity. 

I've spoken of the boot being on the other foot now. We've won so many battles that the power truly is in the hands of those on our side. But we must remember what the boot felt like from the receiving end and never use it. 

We have an opportunity to show just how superior we are to those who killed, persecuted and hurt LGBT people over the last few centuries. We can be the better people. We must be the better people. 

If that means I stand in support of Alan Clifford, anti-gay hatemonger that he is, then so be it. Freedom isn't just for those we agree with. It isn't just for us. It cannot be. Don't let us become the people we hated. 

Whilst Our Opponents Moaned About Hypotheticals, Their Kin Were Banning Free Speech In Schools

Remember during the same-sex marriage debates how often the plight of teachers being stopped from saying what they believed was brought up? Oh it was going to be awful, teachers would be sacked, lives would be ruined. 

Meanwhile... three schools have been found to be operating policies that use similar language to the much loathed Section 28. I've said it over and over... whilst those who want to oppress others campaign for their own freedom from imaginary enemies, LGBT friendly teachers have been put under threat of the sack in Catholic schools and we have schools introducing bans on "promoting homosexuality" (how one promotes homosexuality I don't know, saying "Being gay is okay" to a child counts as promotion?). 

Christians (be it on the Church of England's freedom to discriminate or their own freedom of speech), and their allies like Ben Bradshaw, spend forever making every debate about them whilst LGBT people get their rights compromised again.

Are The Drewitt-Barlow's Striking A Blow For Equality Or Fighting Against Religious Liberty?

Though they have mentioned this before it would appear that the Drewitt-Barlow's, regulars on day time television and same-sex parenting pioneers, really are going to sue the Church of England in order to enable them to marry in a CofE church.

Among a certain kind of Twitter user this has already evoked the reaction one would expect. Not only are there grumpy statements of "we knew this would happen" but some are already acting as if the Drewitt-Barlow's have won the case and churches all over the country are now being forced to marry people they don't want to.

To them I'd say: hold your horses! One lawsuit doesn't make a persecution. Maybe express your opposition and wait and see the outcome before becoming convinced the world is out to get you. Some Christians don't just wear a cross, they carry it on their back and act like they are being marched off to their crucifixion. Do they want to build a coalition with those who want to protect them or just be all self-pitying? I'm guessing the latter.

Meanwhile back in the real world. I've no doubt that Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow sincerely wish to get married in their local church. And I've no doubt they sincerely believe it is their right, especially given the onerous fact that we have an established church in this country who previously had the requirement of marrying anyone in their parish (within reason). But I also believe they are wrong to be pursuing change within the Church of England in this manner.

Forcing people to do things against their wishes (unless they are taking our money without our own free choice of who gets it, i.e. Government employees) goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement has worked for throughout its life. And if you don't agree with that then try: I personally think it goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement should have been working for. The right to choose freely, the right to be true to yourself, the right to live in peace. These are cherished things all reasonable people should support.

Change must come from within anti-LGBT religious organisations. As an atheist I've little interest in changing what a church supports. But I'd hope that if you were interested in that sort of thing, you'd do so from the inside. The Church of England has procedures for change, though these work at a similar speed to cooling lava I accept, and it is through these procedures (as the Government has suggested) that changes such as supporting same-sex marriage should be made.

Forcing an organisation to accept something they don't wish to risks creating a martyr complex, and many Christians have a big enough one of those already. Suing the church is bad for the church (as it doesn't come to terms with the change through internal debate), bad for LGBT rights (as we become the bad guys) and bad for freedom in general. If we are to have the freedom to love who we wish, then we must allow others the freedom to worship as they wish.

Have we not learnt anything from those who despise us on how to be better people than them?

Pope Francis Reminding His Flock That They Actually Have To Follow The Tenets Of Christianity

The media and Twitter exploded in gushing over some quotes from an in-flight press conference by Pope Francis. Among some gay tweeple you'd think we'd had the Second Coming. But the most interesting thing to me was that we should be surprised at all by what the Pope said.

"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge? The catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says they should not be marginalised because of this but that they must be integrated into society." 

Isn't that basically how anybody who follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth should act? It is pretty damning that the Catholic Church has moved so far away from those teachings that when the Pope simply reiterates Christian concepts as found in such passages as Matthew 7:1 there is surprise! Surely that is meant to be the Pope's job.

For us atheists there isn't much joy to be had, the Pope is simply restating the same position the Church has held for a while. And he's hardly kind about activism to protect our freedoms (throwing us in with greedy people, politicians and Masons!!).

"The problem is not having this orientation. We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem."

Move along people, nothing to see here.

The Boot Is On The Other Foot As Opponents Cry "Mercy!", So Let Us Be Gracious

It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile,

Be yourself no matter what they say

For the last couple of hundred years (i.e. the period where identifiably LGBT people have existed) there has been little let up in the persecution of our predecessors. They suffered executions, chemical castrations, electroshock therapy, imprisonment and public shaming. It is with great relief that I can look back on my life and know that the worst that ever happened to me was a few stones thrown at my boyfriend and I when we dared hold hands in public. Our community, however, was forged through that odd mixture of passion and terror.

It is thus rather easy, even for those of us not personally touched by the persecution of the past, to look at opponents as they lose battle after battle and laugh when they claim to be persecuted themselves. These are people who get rather upset if you even just refer to them as a bigot when they refer to your relationship as "grotesque" or "disordered". So yes, it is easy to mock them.

We must, however, be cautious. On occasion on this blog I warned our opponents that they should think carefully about their actions for they may not like it when their influence is on the wane. But I also have the same warning for those I very much agree with. We must be the better people, the good people, the ones who (should our influence itself wane) will be able to say "We weren't like you".

I remember the first time I walked down the street in London and heard some man screaming into a megaphone about how evil gay people were. It hurt. There's no pretending it didn't. It made me feel deeply angry. But I understood that he had the right to speak freely. So it is sad to see people making complaints to the police about nasty people like Tony Miano. It only helps to stroke Christians already intense persecution complex. So please... stop it. What would have been better would have been to set up a rival speaker right next to him talking of the evils of religion, the hate that is spewed in its name, the harm it does to free thought and free speech the world over. And also point out that cowardice=/="woman".

But saying that it is possible that our opponents may experience injustice does not mean we should accept all their outrageous comments. Orson Scott Card, a US writer and infamous Mormon hater of homosexuals, said recently about the Supreme Court decision on DOMA:

“It will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them.”

If I'd been reading that over my breakfast there'd have been cornflakes everywhere as I splutter in disbelief.

Or check out this disingenuous article Can Gay Couples, Too, Live and Let Live?

Our opponents EXPECT us to be better than them. As if they have a right to expect it. I cannot begin to express how infuriating, yet insightful, these reactions are. Those who insult us, attempt to oppress us at every opportunity and who would have us back in the closet in seconds if it was their choice demand that we treat them with the respect they so failed to give us.

BUT. There is always a but. We must meet their expectations. Even exceed them. We must bite our lips, avoid the temptation to enact (quite justified) revenge. We must be the example that Christians and other religious types so failed to be.

As they flail wildly for attention, as their membership dwindles, as their hate becomes manifest we have the luxury of being gracious. If we are to believe we have the right to liberty, then we must protect their rights to it too.

Always remember: Don't be Mary Whitehouse.

The Real Issues With The Proposed Amendments To The Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Next week the Lords will be discussing marriage equality in the (full house) committee stage of the bills progression through the House of Lords.

A few of the proposed amendments have now been published and I find them quite revealing in their prejudices. Here are a couple just to give you a flavour (full listings here and here)

After Clause 1
LORD DEAR
Insert the following new Clause— “Protecting belief in traditional marriage: public authorities
(1) A public authority, or any person exercising a public function, shall have regard to the following—

(a) that prior to the coming into force of this Act, marriage was the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others (“traditional marriage”);
(b) that belief in traditional marriage is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society;
(c) that no person should suffer any detriment because of their belief in traditional marriage.
(2) In this section, a public authority is a person who is specified in Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010, and a public function is a function that is a function of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.”

You might think that those of us who value religious, and individual, freedom would be happy to see such a clause in the bill. But if you do think that you have a rather 2D view of the world. For is it not true that it is actually those who are in favour of equal marriage who stand at more risk of censure once this bill passes? The Catholic Church has made it clear that voicing a belief in marriage equality would be enough to get you fired. If our opponents truly believed in individual freedom they would be introducing amendments that protect those they disagree with as well as those they agree with. Unfortunately they clearly only value freedom for those who share their views. Certainly tells us all we need to know about them, in my opinion.

BARONESS O’LOAN
LORD SINGH OF WIMBLEDON
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, no regard may be had by any public authority to—
(a) any decision by a person whether or not to opt-in, conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, relevant marriages;
or (b) the expression by a person of the opinion or belief that marriage is the union of one man with one woman.”

An excellent one here. Note the use of "relevant marriages", a description that would limit this freedom only to refusing to conduct same-sex marriages. Do these people not truly believe in freedom? Why should a Christian registrar marry atheists or Muslims? Or why can't an atheist turn away any Christians who for whatever reason marry in a registry office (such as divorced Catholics)? What is the difference? Again you see here that for all these talk of protecting people they are simply protecting discrimination against one group rather than supporting actual freedom.

LORD DEAR
Page 56, line 6, at end insert—
“39A After section 26 (harassment) insert— 
“26A  Discussion or criticism of same sex marriage
For the purposes of this Act, and for the avoidance of doubt, discussion or criticism of same sex marriage shall not be taken of itself to be discrimination or harassment.”"

That is fine Lord Dear as long as everyone else is protected in criticising "traditional marriage" and protesting outside churches that conduct such marriages whilst they are being conducted will not be harassment? That okay? No? WHY?

The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement has spotted something I hadn't noticed. Under the current bill registration of religious buildings for same-sex marriages will be separate from registration for opposite-sex ones and will cost the same as registration for civil partnerships (which are prohibitively expensive and more than for opposite-sex marriages). Which bears out my previous concerns that what we are getting with this bill is gay marriage and not marriage equality.

Are Christians Really "Marginalised"?

Lord Carey has today written a piece for the Daily Mail which has been quite badly reported. Whilst some have reported on him suggesting Christians are "persecuted", he is pretty clear that he understand such suggestions are exaggerated (and that is putting it kindly).

The real issue he seems to be getting upset about is that Christians are being marginalised in this country. But when you read his article it becomes obvious that what is really upsetting him is the erosion of Christian influence over our Government. He's upset that the Parliamentary chapel might be converted to an all-faiths prayer room. He's mad that the Government might be dividing marriage into religious and civil parts (he is actually a bit behind there, that was their plan prior to the consultation and they are now not creating said difference). And he's upset that teachers might be sacked due to same-sex marriage (something the Government has been clear they don't want but something his colleagues over in the Catholic Church have confirmed they will do [i.e. sack those who openly support it!]).

Lord Carey isn't upset about Christians being marginalised. He's concerned we are heading towards a separation of church and state. Which shows just how kooky politics in this country is. We have an established Christian church whose head is also our head of state. We have set seats in our legislature for members of the established church but for no other religions. We have hundreds (if not thousands) of church schools educating our young people. With the end of the Liberal Democrat dream of Lords reform, none of these things are remotely threatened. In fact former leading members of our established church can say just about anything they want and be assured it'll be reported on in every news source we have (no matter how loony it might be). And yet in Lord Carey's eyes Christians are "increasingly marginalised". Oh to be marginalised!

Now that is not to say that there isn't an increasingly toxic attitude among many secularists towards Christians and certainly any look at the comments on liberal news sources on things like this particular article will show a deep, and growing, hatred held by many towards the religious. I won't attempt to deny this. But perhaps the churches need to realise that it is articles like this that help increase people's negative feelings towards them.

The trap many Christians seem to fall into is believing that having their opinions ignored (i.e. on equal marriage) is the same as being "persecuted". To them not being able to enforce their beliefs on others is worse than their beliefs being enforced on others. It is hard for those of us who regard Christians as just another breed of fanboys (like Trekkers or Whovians) to really understand that they really believe they are right. But if nothing else shows this clearly it is their absolute certainty that what they tell you to do is good for you.

Meanwhile yet another attack on my way of life is about to be unleashed from a Christian. But remember, he's not trying to "marginalise" us. No sirree. He loves us, and loves us so much that he has decided how we should live our lives.

Whether I Get To Marry Appears To Be Dependent On Employment Contracts, Oh The Romance!

Facebook has a lot to answer for. But so does the Trafford Housing Trust. An idiot posted on his Facebook aghast that the Government would dare force equal marriage upon churches (the plans aren't even about religious organisations!). An even bigger idiot decided that this person deciding to express his personal opinion on his personal social media page in his personal time constituted a reason to demote the original idiot.

I used to work at a housing trust. I know they can be dumb. They once told off the LGBT group (of which I was a member) for the use of the word "queer". So it is good to see sanity prevailing and the idiot won his case against THT.

THT should be ashamed of themselves. Their policies are an insult to free speech and have succeeded in bringing the marriage equality movement into disrepute through association with such an abuse of power. But the case does now strengthen freedom of speech and belief. It flies in the face of the accusations from the anti-equality crowd that courts will send them all to a gulag for daring to speak their mind.

Speaking of which.... the Coalition against for Marriage has declared their fear that teachers may well be sacked for refusing to "promote" equal marriage. This amuses me for several reasons.

1) their position implies a school shouldn't sack (or at least discipline) a member of staff who refuses to do their job.
2) it flies in the face of the previous policy of anti-equality activists that was disgusted that the previous Government would force them not to sack LGBT people (and force them to consider hiring that person if they were the best candidate for the job).
3) it is not like they haven't previously tried to sack LGBT teachers in this country or actually sacked them in other countries

Personally I think it would be a rather authoritarian and unnecessary step for a school to sack someone for this reason. I think it is healthy that kids get different view points. But I also think schools have a right to sack teachers and staff that don't toe the line on what they teach children. I'm not saying a Catholic school should be allowed to sack a gay teacher, nor that a secular school should be able to sack a Catholic teacher. But if that teacher doesn't follow the lesson plans and school curriculum then they aren't doing their job and should be disciplined in the appropriate way.

If a teacher "promoted" equal marriage in a private Catholic school should that school be allowed to sack them? That is the question one should ask anyone who spreads this sort of fear. I'd be interested to hear their answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Right To Discriminate: Is Nick Griffin On To Something?

Until the world develops a better social media meteorological prediction tool, we are left at the mercy of the occasional Twitterstorm. This week's storm brewed after Nick Griffin made some foolish comments about organising some sort of "justice" mob to accost the winners of the long running Bed and Breakfast dispute.

I've discussed this dispute, whereby a same-sex couple were denied a double-bed in a Bed and Breakfast by the Christian owner, before but I feel it has become necessary to re-evaluate where I stand 2 years on.

The USA has been in the grip of so-called "culture wars" for a long time and it has only ramped up over the last decade. What has happened there, religious schools sacking secularists or University's sacking someone over their stance on equal marriage, is now happening here. We must find a solution, and soon, before the culture wars cause permanent damage to our society.

The debacle is just one example from this week of discrimination. An 11 year old "atheist" (i.e. just someone who doesn't wish to swear a duty to God, nor the Queen but nobody is perfect) has had his request to join the Scouts denied. Turns out you can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be a member but no belief is just not allowed. Meanwhile the housing association manager demoted because he said he disagreed with churches holding same-sex marriages on Facebook has taken the housing association to court. No one has yet pointed out his stupidity in getting upset about something that is, alas, not on the agenda. Oh well, still seems a tad harsh.

As these three cases suggest this is not a one-sided issue. Attempts by anti-marriage equality activists to paint Christianity as some persecuted characteristic ring hollow when they do already (i.e. in the case of the Scouts) exactly what they accuse secularists of wanting to do. But this equally applies to the secularist side too!

We live in a country where hotels still describe themselves as for gay men only (just without the "No Straights Allowed" signs), where bars deny heterosexuals entry (and I have been on the receiving end of that because I, and my police officer date for the evening, "looked" straight) and where people offering out flatshares dictate what gender, sexuality or race (!) they would like prospective flatmates to be. Is that right or wrong?

In the last couple of years I've discussed this issues with others. Many have defended the idea that gay hotels and bars should be allowed to discriminate so that they are "safe places" but also said B&B owners don't have the right to discriminate over who stays there! And in a similar vein you will see Christians getting severely annoyed at cases such as the housing manager being demoted but fighting tooth and nail to ensure Christian schools can deny employment to LGBT people. I cannot bear this hypocrisy any longer. Either we must live in a country where no one has the right to discriminate at all (an unlikely situation given our species seemingly innate desire to hate each other) or where people do have the right to discriminate (a deeply troubling and dispiriting prospect I accept).

So it is time to decide: will liberals accept that gay bars can't discriminate against heterosexuals or will Christians accept they can be demoted, fired and mocked for their beliefs if they conflict with their employers? If not then perhaps they need to reexamine their positions.

Although I think we can all agree that "Girls get in free" nights at bars and clubs are tragic. Agreed?

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

Lord Carey And False Equivalence At Tory Party Conference

Tomorrow Lord Carey will be giving a speech at the Conservative Party Conference in which he will decry the evils of marriage equality. He will be citing examples from around the world as to the horrors that have been unleashed (such as mothers and fathers being referred to as parents in official documents, oh the humanity!) once marriage equality is brought in.

But he will use one example that is rather curious.

‘We can be sure any move away from our traditional understanding of marriage is to put our society on a slippery slope where the unintended consequences could be shocking.'

'I note, for example, that on August 28 the BBC reported that a public notary in Sao Paulo has accepted a civil union between a man and two women.

Hmm... but that is not a result of marriage equality and is to do with a civil union (i.e. a civil partnerships). Is Lord Carey stating he is against civil partnerships now? Mere months ago he was using the fact LGB people had civil partnerships as an excuse to argue against marriage equality.

Please do explain Lord Carey... do you support legal rights for same sex couples (or "friendships" as you like to refer to them)? Or are you against any such move because it'll be a slippery slope to cats sleeping with dogs and fish fingers with custard? Hmm...

In other Tory news, the Telegraph reports a Coalition for Marriage survey found a large majority of local party Tory Chairmen want the party to drop proposals for equal marriage. Putting aside that many Coalition for Marriage surveys have been quite flawed, this shows how shallow the changes David Cameron claims to have made are. Whilst he has detoxified the Tory brand to some extent, he failed to detoxify the party. 

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

Polyamory Is On The March Again In The Americas

Polyamory (or polygamy as the media prefers) is back in the news again. Three people have managed to get a civil union approved by a Brazilian notary. Rather puts paid to the slippery slope argument of anti-marriage equality folks, it is their (suddenly beloved) civil partnerships they need to be careful of!

Sadly, rather than prompting a discussion on legal protections for "unconventional" (as if any relationship is conventional) relationships, it has unleashed the fear and loathing of the Brazilian Christian community. I know it is to be expected but I am still always somewhat taken aback at the level of disapproval some busybodies express for the lives of others.

This comes as the Brown family, of "Sister Wives" fame, prepare to launch a law suit to have the rather regressive laws of Utah overturned. Full disclosure: I love "Sister Wives". It is a touching, interesting and amusing look at a way of life that is outside of my personal experience. Plus the four wives are hilarious, intelligent and strong. I love them all.

The case for polyamory in Utah is immensely complicated. As you, Dear Constant Reader, know I have a fascination with the history of the Latter-day Saint movement. It is compelling stuff. The baggage of that history, of their embracing of polygyny, of the persecution they suffered for it and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' eventual surrender of that practice hangs over the heads of those who continue to practice "The Principle" today. And, at the same time, the actions of a large number of groups and individuals who have (or had) polygynous relationships bring a nasty taste to the mere mention of polygamy. Domestic abuse, child abuse, benefit "fraud" (it's complicated....) and quite a number of other issues continue to occur in many of the Mormon fundamentalist groups. However I think it is clear polyamory doesn't make people bad and the issues that lead to the problems described above are not going to just suddenly occur because two women live with a man. There are deeper problems within those communities that need to be faced but they won't be until everyone moves beyond "POLYGAMY IS EVIL!!"

In Utah the argument is not about legal recognition. It is about simply being allowed to live AS a married couple with someone (not as a legal married couple) when one is already legally married. That is why instead of using marriage equality as an example, the Browns are focussing more on Lawrence v. Texas. Drawing parallels with (or even laying blame on) the marriage equality movement is a tad simplistic. In the USA gay people can now live together as a couple but in many places polyamorous people can't. In Utah the fight for polygyny really is a fight for freedom.

Polyamorous marriages and civil unions prompt dismay not just from spiteful religious people hellbent on forcing everyone to live how they want them to live, but also from more thoughtful and respectful commentators. They bring to light many of the issues some of us have with the way Government's deal with relationship rights and the control the Government has over our personal affairs. The way marriage is set up makes legal polyamorous marriage nigh impossible. And that is why I find polyamory so utterly fascinating. If same-sex marriage will open up marriage to everyone, polyamory might be the thing that finally forces the Government out of marriage completely. It is unlikely to be an issue here in the UK for quite some time (and the Coalition is working on closing down loopholes recognising foreign polyamorous marriages) but it is going to be interesting to watch where the battles in Utah and the coming one in Brazil (as the forces of conformity try desperately to claw back control) take us.

I set out my agenda two years ago. Personal freedom to make relationship contracts is the goal. If same-sex marriage will bring equality, polyamorous marriage might well bring us all liberty.

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

Remember When The Catholics Were The Ones Accused Of "Subversion"?

"As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects." - William Blackstone

It is sometimes hard to remember that the Catholic population of our country is still not fully equal to anybody else. This is plain to see in the Acts of Succession. Thankfully this final left-over from the anti-Catholic laws will soon be removed and Catholics will be able to say they are finally equal citizens with the rest of us.

Awful things were done to Catholics in the past in this country (and, of course, awful things were done by them when they briefly returned to power). Things we should never forget. Sadly it would appear that some Catholics have forgotten their past persecution and now seek to persecute those of us who they dislike. The boot is sadly on the other foot now.

Cardinal O’Brien said: “The Church’s teaching on marriage is unequivocal, it is uniquely, the union of a man and a woman and it is wrong that Governments, politicians or Parliaments should seek to alter or destroy that reality. With this letter we will announce the creation of a National Commission for Marriage and the Family, a body which will be charged with promoting the true nature of marriage, it will develop an online prescence and produce materials and organise events which will help Catholic families to support and sustain marriage. While we pray that our elected leaders will sustain rather than subvert marriage, we promise to continue to do everything we can to convince them that redefining marriage would be wrong for society.” 

Let us try not to persecute the Catholics when they lose their self-declared "war" (totally Christian language as always) and instead defend their rights to religious freedom. That will be the sweetest of victories indeed.

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

National Marriage Sunday Renews The Campaign Against LGBT People In Scotland

I believe that some people who have concerns about marriage equality are not homophobic. Whilst it is hard for those of us who are personally affected by their opposition to accept this, I think it is something we should remember. Know thy enemy after all!

But when it comes to opposition from the upper echelon of the Catholic Church's command structure, I feel that the "We aren't homophobic!" line is completely without merit. Today, in Scotland, they have declared it to be National Marriage Sunday and propose to form a new group against marriage equality known as the National Commission for Marriage and the Family. Yet we know just how their arguments will go...

Item: People 'should not act on homosexual feelings', says Catholic spokesman

Their insistence that they are just concerned about their religious freedom and protecting "true marriage" is shown clearly to be a lie. Their campaign against marriage equality is rooted in personal and religious distaste for LGBT people. But it's not like they are trying to hide that...

Item: Scottish Catholics: Homosexuality cuts lifespan by up to 20 years

They are often reluctant to share the sources of these figures but the 20 years figure is a dead give away. That suggests they are using this 2005 study which is based, and this is excellent stuff, on a study of obituaries. Even a younger version of me worked out how that might be an incredibly flawed way of working.

And of course whether our "lifestyle" leads to a shorter lifespan is rather irrelevant to this debate. We do not decide who gets to marry based on how long they have to live, would the church ban a woman from marrying a man with HIV/AIDS?

Item: In reversal, Catholic Church backs ‘Kill the Gays’ bill

After previously opposing the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill, a Catholic Archbishop and other Christian leaders have called for it to be put back on to the Parliamentary agenda. Although this may be because the death penalty part is now being downplayed, the bill remains repugnant.

Lest you think I have some hatred towards the Catholic church and Catholics in general, I don't. I have a problem with the leadership. I'm picking on them today as they are the ones who will be spreading a message of hate in their church services today disguised as "concern". There are individuals within the church who support marriage equality and some polls show a majority of Catholics (in Scotland) support it too! We must reach out to those people and ask them to reach out to their leadership and point them in the right direction.

But be under no doubt... the Catholic church leadership do not oppose marriage equality out of some high-minded matter of principle. They do so because they despise LGBT people and our relationships. I wish I could make our opponents imagine how they would feel if not only were they told their relationship with their loved one was sick but that people ACTIVELY tried to destroy that relationship and make them live a life of celibacy. Unfortunately, because many in the Catholic hierarchy do live a life of celibacy, this may be too great a leap of imagination and empathy.

I'll leave you with this.... when the representative of the Catholic church spends almost a whole debate on the matter of whether teachers will be sacked because of their views on marriage equality (as in the first link above), you know they are losing the argument. They are desperate and I'm concerned this will lead to further hateful remarks as they try to scaremonger.

Religious freedom must be protected, and if only the Catholic church and other religious opponents would work with the Scottish Government and marriage equality campaigners there might be a good chance it actually will be!

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

Anti-Marriage Equality Campaigners Should Be Making Hay, But They Aren't

Sometimes the United Kingdom feels, to me, like a very conservative place. I often imagine it is inhabited by a bunch of Ann Widdecombe types. And so I have often made the same mistake anti-marriage equality campaigners have, in my opinion, made; to imagine marriage equality would be an incredibly uphill struggle and maybe impossible for some time to come. But it is becoming increasingly clear that, to my great relief, I and their are quite, quite wrong.

Thankfully my pessimism led simply to me fighting harder, unfortunately for them the anti-marriage equality campaigners have allowed their optimism to make them slack.

I started to realise that something was up when they started releasing their polls. It seemed obvious then that they realised the polls weren't going to go in their favour. Just look at the questions on this July ComRes poll just as an example. No where do they ask the straightforward question regarding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Why the roundabout way of phrasing things? Because polls show that, when asked directly, a majority do back same-sex marriage (or at least do not oppose it).

I think this lack of interest is shown clearly in the response to the Coalition for Marriage's petition. It has had, to date, 596236 signatures. This is after a very concerted campaign to get people to sign it in churches, schools and places of work. In 2005 the church-going population of this country was 3.2 million people and, if that article is to be believed, that number is on the rise. So the petition represents a mere 18% of C4M's target demographic! In terms of overall population that isn't even 1%. This is hardly an uprising against marriage equality and really should have alerted these campaigners to the fact they could not simply rely on the same old arguments to win hearts and minds to their cause.

But it hasn't. What have we had instead? Well they've ignored the huge differences between the USA and the UK and decided to use some very Christian American arguments.

Take, for example, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children's now infamous leaflet. In what may be one of the most ill-conceived tactical moves ever, they decided to link marriage equality to an increase in abortions. In a country like the USA, where abortion is a very divisive issue, this totally bogus claim may have won some pro-life waverers over to the anti-marriage equality cause. But here in the UK, a country where the issue is far more settled, linking these two social issues causes at best a confused guffaw and at worst actively makes people angry enough at your deception that you push them further into the pro-marriage equality camp. It's the perfect example of this in action.

That argument is not one that is going to reach out and convince people. It's preaching to the converted and it turns people off.

Or look at Anglican Mainstream's linking to these, rather disturbing, 77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage. This leaflet suggests that marriage equality will lead to early on-set menstruation for girls and thus high risks of breast cancer, juvenile delinquency and the exile of Mennonites (among other things). Now, I don't mean to state the obvious, but these are not the sort of arguments that are going to win over to you the vast majority of the population of this country. The central argument of this leaflet, and most anti-marriage equality arguments come to that, is that marriage is a child-centric institution. This it definitely was in the past. This argument has some justification, even if I can't see how that stops same-sex partners from getting married (I want to marry a man with 4 children, one of whom lives with us, so my life is hardly child free!). Anyway, this is not the sort of argument that will hold much water in this country.

In case no one had noticed procreation and marriage have drifted apart over the years and now happen quite separately. A great number of people now have children out of wedlock. These people may later marry, be it to the father/mother of their child or to someone else. Marriage is seen as a sign of commitment more often to each other than to one's future family and as an expression of romantic love. If you talk to someone about marrying so that they can have children they may well regard you as if you had spoken to them in Mandarin.

And that is the crux of the matter. Anti-marriage equality arguments are happening an echo chamber, watched from outside only by us marriage equality folks who get all indignant about them. They are failing to resonant with the population at large and are not winning over the "don't give a damn"s. There are ways, none of them virtuous might I add, I can think of that they could easily reach out to those people but I'm not here to win the argument for my opponents. It fills me with a great deal of joy to see the own goals and poor strategy of our opponents and to see that they just aren't bothering to try to connect with those outside their
circle.

Meanwhile over here in marriage equality land we have campaigns such as Out4Marriage which, through testimonials and famous talking heads, is trying to engage the majority with touchy-feely (i.e. rather effective) arguments about love, commitment and fairness. And that is why our argument has come from nowhere at the start of 2010 to prospective legislation in Holyrood and Westminster in 2012, because we haven't just kept talking to each other, but reaching out and convincing others.

That is why we are winning. Let us keep up the good fight and hope our foes don't realise their error.

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

SPUC Take Coalition For Marriage Positions Off The Deep End

Today I've seen something that made me laugh and then gape in shocked amazement. It was a picture on Twitter of an anti-marriage equality poster.

I laughed because it seemed so outlandish as to suggest a fake, but then I found it was actually a real thing which stopped the laughing quite quickly. So before we break down its arguments let us just check we all know what we are dealing with.

The SPUC is the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children which, it goes almost without saying, is a pro-life organisation. Last year, according to its about us page, it decided marriage equality was related to its goals of protecting the unborn.

Now let's look at the flyer:

Firstly note their use of a wedding photo ripped in half. What are they implying with that picture? That marriage equality would lead to actual marriages being destroyed? It seems bizarre to have that picture there to be honest as if I marrying Jim might lead to someone getting a divorce. 

Now let's move on to what they say. "Don't let politicians destroy real marriage" is very misleading. In what way does marriage equality undermine, let alone destroy, "real marriage" (which they define as the marriage between one man and one woman)? Can someone please explain this to me? There is nothing, not one thing, in the current marriage equality proposals at Westminster or Holyrood that would lead to men and women not being able to marry each other. 

Now what I would assume is that this just a highly emotive way of saying that marriage equality will somehow lead to an increase in divorce and broken homes. That is a testable hypothesis. Let us look at one study, which you can see in full here:

The results above show that laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, the percent of children born out of wedlock, or the percent of households with children under 18 headed by women. Laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions may even raise marriage rates, and reduce abortions and the percent of female-headed households with children, even after controlling for many confounding variables and state and year fixed effects. Laws banning same-sex unions, if they are of long duration, generally appear also to have beneficial effects since they are associated with fewer abortions and female-headed households with children, but the seemingly beneficial effects of these laws appear to complement the effects of permitting same sex unions. (There is also evidence that short duration bans are significantly but weakly related to fewer divorces.)  

We cannot say that we have disproved the existence of a link between laws permitting gay marriage and a negative impact on ‘‘family values’’ indicators, but we can say that no such link is demonstrated in the data that we analyzed here. Permitting gay marriage does no harm, and making it legal may even be beneficial, since it seems to raise marriage rates, reduce abortions, and reduce the chance that children grow up in single-headed households. We believe it is incumbent upon those that posit a link between permitting gay marriage and harm to families and children to put forth evidence that supports their claims about same-sex marriage rights, especially when confronted with evidence that directly refutes their claims.

Perhaps they have access to other studies. A quick check of their background paper and position paper on the issue reveals nothing to suggest they have used them. These papers in no way reflect their claims in this flyer!

Now on to the claim at the bottom "Defending marriage defends unborn children". This implies, quite clearly in this setting, that marriage equality will lead to more abortions. Their background paper says this:

Weakening marriage is in no-one’s interests. Strengthening marriage is in everyone’s interests: the moral environment in which children are conceived and grow up will have a lasting effect on their stability and happiness – and indeed on their survival. Abortion figures reveal the importance of marriage as an institution oriented towards the care and protection of children: in the UK babies conceived outside of marriage are about 4-5 times more likely to be aborted than those conceived inside marriage. Children after birth face greater risks of harm in non-married situations.

Yet again they make claims in their flyer that their papers don't support with data. This paragraph in no way suggests how equal marriage will lead to more abortions and the study I've quoted above shows that there was no link found!

This flyer has little, if any, rational basis. It distorts the issues and does not present the arguments SPUC make on their website against marriage equality **UPDATE, the back of the flyer does present those arguments but my problems with the assertions on the front remain unchanged*** (which are more moral/religious issues and have little to do with incidents of abortion). If this is what the Coalition for Marriage partners are putting out, we need to be very concerned indeed about their commitment to reasonable debate and against homophobic discourse. 

Absolutely disgusting. 

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