Autumn #LDConf Leaves Me Feeling Better About Being A Lib Dem

For Lib Dems it has been a tough few years. That pretty much goes without saying. After the failure of Lords reform I became very disillusioned with the Lib Dems direction, and about the only thing that has kept me in is my own damn stubbornness in the face of the hate being flung at the party by the left. "If Labourites hate us that much, we must be doing something right" might not be correct but it sure feels right.

This conference has had moments that reminded me that the Lib Dems are the party for me. Tim Farron's speech was good (and I'm saying that from someone who isn't a great fan). The votes for nuclear power and fracking aren't ones I'd particular support but I think they are necessary and were best expressed in the "limited" way they were presented. The decision to provide school meals to all young children may not exactly play into my liberaltarian nature, but it is way better than most other things Government gets involved with. And the agreement on support for a reduced nuclear deterrent is very welcome.

Whilst I enjoyed Nick Clegg's speech, the stand out speech of the conference was, of course, on the topic of porn. Well not just porn. It was about the Government's extremely ill-advised web filter plans. And it was also about fanfic. I mean, this was a speech practically written for me! After some awful, scaremongering speeches from the likes of Floella Benjamin (who I still love anyway) and some good speeches against, this one truly reminded me of how being a Lib Dem can sometimes be truly bloody awesome. Enjoy!

Misunderstanding Labour's Position On Marriage Equality

Last night there was a lot of confusion over Labour's position on marriage equality caused by a recent article by Peter Tatchell entitled "Why has Labour failed to vote for marriage equality?" 


This caused many on Twitter to assume Labour had voted against marriage equality. Now, as much as I dislike Labour and fear their conservative instincts on many issues, I can't see how anyone could imagine a situation where they would vote against such an obviously progressive measure. 


Of course they've been against marriage equality in the very recent past. Gordon Brown answered a question on this here:

In response to Downing St online petitions to introduce same-sex marriage, it was stated that the "government has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage", because it has to "balance the right to live free from prejudice and discrimination with the right to freedom of speech and religion". In what ways does same-sex marriage affect freedom of speech and religion? Andrew Archer

"At the moment there’s a distinction drawn between civil and religious unions, and when civil partnerships were being introduced they took the same form as a civil union which a heterosexual couple would have. We later made it illegal to discriminate on partnership status – so it is illegal to treat someone in a civil partnership different to a married person. That makes no practical difference in terms of rights and responsibilities, but does recognise that religious groups have the right to a certain degree of self-organisation on questions that are theologically important to them, including on the question of religiously-sanctioned marriage. So the provision of ‘marriage’ as opposed to the provision of same-sex or heterosexual civil unions, is intimately bound up with questions of religious freedom."

And Chris Bryant made his opinions on this very plain during the civil partnership debates: 

I do not want same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense—several people have used the offensive phrase—because they are different. Although the two share similar elements, they do not have to be identical, so the legal provisions should be distinct.

So there is a reason to be cautious over their approach but since the rather slow progress we made with Labour during the leadership elections last year it's become far more common to hear Labour politicians supporting marriage equality (well civil marriage at least). At last night's Stonewall fringe event at the Labour conference, Yvette Cooper also reiterated her support for marriage equality.

Given how undemocratic Labour's internal workings are, this is probably as close to policy as we're likely to get this side of an election manifesto. And we should be pleased Labour has managed to make this progress.

So no... Labour no longer vote against marriage equality. My only concern is remarks such as Cooper made last night suggesting she'd always fought for marriage equality, a statement I've yet to see backed up by any evidence whatsoever. It's great you're supporting it now, but please do not attempt to rewrite history just to cover-up Labour's complete lack of leadership on this subject.

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

Prop 8 Trial: Same Sex Marriages Can Go Ahead #prop8

Following last week's ruling that California's Proposition 8 amendment to it's Constitution was unconstitutional, we now have Judge Vaughn Walker's response as to whether or not same sex couples can marry in California pending any appeal of his decision.

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were the first to marry in San Francisco City Hall in 2008

It's been agreed... marriages can proceed! This is very good news for those couples in California desperate to gain the status they deserve. However it makes the battle for marriage equality in California that much more dramatic as, if Judge Walker's decision is overturned, it might lead to an annulment of the marriages made from today onwards.

Let's celebrate the personal joy Judge Walker's decision today brings to many thousands of couples (such as Eric Ross and fiance Doug). And hope that American justice comes down in defence of individual liberty rather than in defence of the rights of a majority to enforce it's own personal morality upon others without legitimate reasons.

In related marriage equality news, but on this side of the pond, the Lib Dem Conference marriage equality proposal has been published and I thoroughly approve of the wording and intent. My concerns regarding it's intent to get rid of civil partnerships were without merit, and it has gone even further proposing we recognise international heterosexual civil unions. Very, very good.

Mexico's Supreme Court has ruled all Mexican states must recognise marriages conducted in the Federal District (that's Mexico City for you and me). And Costa Rica's (a country I have an unreasonable fondness for based irrationally on the Jurassic Park books) has ruled that there can be no majority rule on individual liberties (in this case civil unions), a result which is eerily similar in justification to Judge Walker's original ruling.

All in all... a good few days in the marriage equality fight.

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