Ed Miliband Issues Strongest Support For Marriage Equality Yet

Oh, Dear Constant Reader, how far we've come from the days of the last Labour leadership election. If you remember I stalked the internet accosting unwary Labour leadership candidates with questions about marriage equality.

Ed Miliband, perhaps understandably, seemed most unprepared of the five candidates for these questions. His answers, such as to my question here or to Liberal Conspiracy here, were hesitant.

2. Would you allow gays to be legally married, rather than just be registered as a civil partnership? 

He hesitates. “I will listen to what people have to say on going further than that if there is a demand. No one has yet put that to me in the leadership election.” He said his feeling was that not enough people were asking for the policy. 

But he quickly got the feel for it and, realising it was an issue that was just going to keep coming up, he soon declared his support for it (such as in this tweet to me).

He has now both confirmed that he supports full marriage equality (i.e. including allowing religious ceremonies) and suggesting that Labour MPs will be whipped at the vote on marriage equality.

With the Lib Dems and Labour offering strong support and the Tories split on the issue, marriage equality feels like it is getting closer. Credit where credit is due; good job Ed!
 
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Marriage Equality: What Are We Waiting For?

It's time for a little update on the fight for marriage equality in the UK.

With regards to last summer's civil partnership consultation, it looks likely that Lynne Featherstone, Lib Dem and Minister for Equality, will announce religious civil partnerships can go ahead. It's not really a massive announcement as the consultation was never really about IF they could go ahead.

Both the Telegraph, linked to above, and Pinknews' follow up story on this suggest that the Government is also considering full marriage equality. I'm reluctant to completely believe this as the Telegraph story seems more to be drawing conclusions from the general direction of the debate over the last year (Simon Hughes answer to my Yoosk question and Peter Tatchell's involvement in the Equal Love campaign are mentioned for instance) than from having any real insider knowledge.

Based on this I think my temporary period of going easy on the Coalition over this must come to an end. Expect to see me beginning to irritate Coalition ministers and Government civil servants once more.

In other news, the aforementioned Equal Love campaign's move to take their case to court was delayed in December due to an error by Camden Council.  Hopefully it should be able to move forward again this month. Based on previous outcomes of similar trials, such as this Austrian one, I hold little hope that the actual bid will be successful BUT understand how useful the threat of a successful bid can be in getting British Governments to change their ways. It worked well with Labour on the age of consent and military service after all! Let's hope Minister's pay attention.

The most important thing of note with regards to the future of marriage equality in this country is an amazing change in language. Thanks mainly to the Stonewall fiasco last year and the Equal Love campaign getting plenty of media attention (plus lots of questions on the subject to politicians!), the phrase "civil partnerships" when mentioned in the media or in speeches can rarely be heard without the caveat that some think they are inadequate or that some are fighting for marriage equality. Given I've spent the five years before last year's general election pulling my hair out at the total lack of voices supporting marriage equality, I can say without question that this bodes very well for the prospects of reform. You can see it in the Telegraph article I linked to above, or in Ed Miliband's latest speech on the subject over the weekend (nice to hear this from a man who once said this to me), or in Stephen Gilbert's remarks in the adjournment debate in the House of Commons just before Christmas.

Not much appears to be happening in Scotland on the subject right now, but there is a symposium on marriage equality on the 27th January. It'll be interesting to hear what is discussed and see if there's likely to be any progress on the matter in the Scottish Parliament this year. The Scottish Parliament elections will be an excellent opportunity to get some answers from candidates on the subject.

So the next couple of months should see a few news stories in the national media mentioning marriage equality and perhaps some surprise Government announcement (yeah, right) soon. Let's hope for progress!

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

Alright Labour, If You Insist On Our Help

Petulant children. That's what Labour call those of us who turned our noses up at the idea of helping THEM develop THEIR party's new policies.

Well, if they are so desperate to get our input (perhaps they are really struggling for inspiration?) who am I to deny them? So here is a list of my suggestions for some radically new policies for the Labour party.

1) No more torture.

A real headline grabber this one. It's going to be a hard sell within the Labour party, if their last term in Government is anything to go by, but I think this might be a really positive step forward. It's pretty simple really: the Labour party just needs to promise (and keep said promise, I know don't follow Nick Clegg's example on this one!) NOT to torture anyone or aid in the torture of anyone.

Some, in the Labour party, will say this is impossible. That something so radical can be barely be contemplated. But I really think NOT torturing people might work. Let's just give it a go, see how it works out? Go on. Try something new!

2) No more killing innocent civilians just because your weirdo Christian fundamentalist friend in the USA thinks it's a good idea.

War is Hell. We all know that, and I think it's probably near impossible NOT to kill innocents (i.e. civilians) during wartime operations. Now Labour here's where things get complicated so let me spell it out to you:

JUST BECAUSE CIVILIANS OFTEN GET KILLED IN WARS, THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE KILLING CIVILIANS IN WARS

Indeed the fact they often get caught up in the crossfire means that going to war needs to be a decision made for the right reasons, at the right time and in the right way. Getting it wrong and saying sorry doesn't quite cut it. Killing people with real lives, real families, real hopes, and real dreams for the wrong reason isn't something you just get to say "oops" about. So the new policy would be "No more unjust wars". This is a hard one, and perhaps you might want to get rid of some of the people in your party who still have blood on their hands. It really puts those of us with a conscience off dealing with you at all, knowing you've got killers in your midst.

3) Do not think that your drinking buddies represent entire groups of people

When your drunken friend, who happens to fall in love with members of their own sex, leans across the bar and slurs "You know, not all lesbians want marriage. I think you should set up some sort of unequal civil union instead." don't take this as representative of the entire LGBT community. Perhaps ask around (and not just your friends like David Miliband did), or (crazy idea here) consult your fundamental party values and ask the question "Is this right?". What are fundamental party values, I hear the Blairites cry. *sigh* I'll see you after the lesson.

4) Balance the books

Yes, I know it's fun to hide balances here, there and anywhere and sell off parts of public property to private business but pretend you haven't. BUT trust me this sort of fun always comes back to bite you in the bum. Perhaps work out how much money is coming in, and work out how much money is going out. Then you need to balance those amounts. Yes, it's elementary economics and perhaps an oversimplification of how possible (or desirable) that is at a national level. But promising to keep it in mind this time might go some way to rebuilding trust with the people paying the bills (i.e. the electorate).

5) Don't treat your citizens like criminals.

Relax. Calm down. Breath. Terrorism is not new. It's not something that's going to stop. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant and we shouldn't try to stop it from happening but perhaps you might want to start balancing freedom and security a bit more sensibly. When the police start stopping people in the street who are simply taking photos, you know you've got that balance wrong. And let's be honest... Labour has that balance really wrong (also see torture and murder, these things are linked). Remember: the public are not here to do your bidding. Your there to do the public's bidding.

Just a few little tips to start you off. Finding a heart or soul may also be of benefit. Any questions please feel free to ask someone who thinks you might actually do even one of the above.

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

Thanks Mr Miliband But... No Deal

Ed Miliband, realising what an authoritarian tribe he now leads, has called for Liberal Democrats to assist with his policy review. Perhaps we might even join the party, given how our Ministers have "betrayed" us.

Well Mr Miliband, I'm afraid that if we are going to start pointing fingers over betrayal, let's take a look at the past betrayals of Labour Ministers. They colluded with and allowed torture, which I'd say is a betrayal of human rights. They joined a war in Iraq based on false premises which lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, which I'd say is a betrayal of life itself. You don't get to say "Sorry" and make it alright there. They betrayed electoral reformers by ignoring a report they commissioned suggesting AV+ be used. They betrayed the LGBT community:

"Mr. Chope: Will the Minister answer the question about why the Government are not legislating for homosexual marriage? If they did that, the problems that I have described would not exist.

Jacqui Smith: As we said on Second Reading, our approach to the legal situation is to say, ''Let us devise a 21st century way, a new legal relationship, which recognises the legal difficulties and sensitivities that perhaps not everybody in this Committee may share but certainly many people with religious views would share, about the particular historical traditions of marriage that might make it inappropriate for there to be same-sex marriages.'' We have identified where the mischief stands, as the lawyers describe it, and that is the legal invisibility of people in same-sex couples. We are attempting to remedy that through the Bill, and our approach received widespread support throughout the consultation period. Stonewall, for example, recognises it as the 21st century, modern way to deal with that particular problem.

The second reason for the Government's approach is our view that for opposite-sex couples marriage is the best framework for stable family relationships. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. The irony of his position is that he would want the state to sanction another form of legal relationship for opposite-sex couples that could be seen only as being in direct competition with marriage. It is a deep irony that those people who hold marriage so dear and consider it to be so important at the same time argue for a legally recognised, state sanctioned relationship in direct competition with it. The Government do not want to do that." Source

So excuse me if I laugh, guffaw and perhaps shed a tear at the sheer disgusting audacity of what Mr Miliband has suggested. Given his party had a majority when it helped kill, maim, torture and betray civilians in several countries, I think I can deal with (even if I'm not happy about it) the compromises of the Liberal Democrats in Government.

What I want to know is why more Labour party members haven't resigned in disgust at all the blood on the hands of those still in the Parliamentary party. I suspect they'll say "We're staying inside to help change it" which actually translates into human as "We're don't really give a shit about some foreigners who died, we just hate the Tories and their collaborators!"

Such is the state of the Labour party.

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

@DMiliband Comes Out In Support Of Marriage Equality

David Miliband has undergone a Damascene conversion, and today came out in support of equal marriage, becoming the fourth (of five) Labour leader candidate to support it. His brother Ed Miliband remains the only hold out. Please rate up my question to him on Yoosk in the hopes of encouraging him to join the equality club.

In other news, Angela Eagle (Labour MP) supports anti-marriage Penny Wong and Elton John first besmirches straight marriage (by divorcing) then says no to gay marriage. Nice guy.

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

What Have I Done This Month To Get Marriage Equality?

In between a sofa delivery and a nice cafe breakfast I've spent the morning reading the Civil Partnership Bill debates from 2004. This was a major mistake, leading me only to see the deceitful nature of Labour's claims to be a force fighting for LGBT equality. I shan't discuss it further as I am truly angry, but suggest you do take a look at the debates if you so wish.

So let's focus on the positive, what have I personally done this month to advance the cause for equality. Sure, there's only so much one person can do but I think it illustrates what can be achieved if we all do a little to fight for it. Together we can make a difference.

1) Your Freedom submission. On the 1st of July I entered the first request on the new Government website announced by Nick Clegg in support of marriage equality. The request stands at 194 ratings and has an average rating of 4.5 which is actually fairly high for the site.

2) Letter writing. I've written letters this month to Lynne Featherstone, David Miliband and Ed Miliband. These letters were written seeking clarification of their expressed views on marriage equality. Only Lynne Featherstone, a Minister, had the courtesy to reply (and understanding the Miliband's may have been busy with the leadership fight I directed the letters to their campaign offices for a reply but still nothing). Her reply was merely an acknowledgement that she had heard my views but hey, it's a start.

3) Questioning. It was I who asked the question and received the reply from Simon Hughes about marriage equality that made various news stories a couple of days later.

I also asked a question of Ed Miliband via a Labour Uncut interview, and received his less than inspiring reply.

I've also asked David Miliband a question via Yoosk. I'd be grateful if you were to click that link and rate it up in order for it to be asked next month during their "Yoosk hustings".

Personally I think that's a fair bit for a one man mini-campaign! I shan't be slowing down and plan to double my efforts in August to get this issue out there. I'm not expecting any amazing legislative action. I'm just trying to get the idea into MPs heads that civil partnerships are not equality. If we can win that battle, I think we can eventually win the war.

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

Ed Miliband's "We'll Deign To Give You Rights" Argument

"Q (from Jae): Following Ed Balls and Diane Abbott announcing their support for marriage equality, will he retract his comments about there not being enough people calling for it and come out in support of LGBT equality?

A. My position on this is pretty simple, which is that we did a consultation in the run up to the manifesto, and it wasn’t raised with me as an issue. But obviously if it’s something that is felt to be an important issue, I understand absolutely the reasons for that, and then it’s something we should definitely look at. And I’m very happy to say that and I completely understand and sympathise with the wish for equality in this area."

This is what Ed Miliband says (in answer to a question I asked, yes I am the phantom marriage equality question asker) in a previously released but now deleted interview on Labour Uncut

Isn't Ed Miliband wonderful? If we ask him to "give us marriage rights", he will listen. From his mighty throne, he may well even deign to give us those rights once he's had a "look at" it.

Can no one see how insulting this sort of thing is? It's more insulting than those who oppose marriage equality openly. At least they are honest and straightforward. He, instead, feels that giving equality to LGBTs is something he can ponder on. To me, it's deeply offensive.

Should we ponder if different "races" should be able to intermarry? Shall we wonder if women should have the right to vote? No we shouldn't. All citizens should be equal before the law. If you don't understand that, you don't deserve to be leader of the Labour party.

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

Marriage Equality: More Good News

Following on from the happy news that Ed Balls and Diane Abbott (both Labour leadership contenders) support marriage equality here in the UK, Andy Burnham (another candidate) has confirmed he has already stated support for it last month (and in an admirably strongly worded way).

Is this the most pressing issue to face the country right now? Of course not. Does it mean it's irrelevant? Of course not. Every MP who states support for marriage equality is another step closer to getting it.

This only highlights the poor choice of words used and the evasive way both of the Miliband brothers have handled this issue. It's time they declared their stances once and for all.

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

Marriage Equality: Good News

It's time for some positive marriage equality news!

On the home front, two Labour leadership contenders, Ed Balls and Diane Abbott, have come out in support of marriage equality. Although Abbott clarified she has always supported marriage equality:

"I have always supported gay marriage and made that case when civil partnerships were first discussed. Despite what may now be reported, it wasn’t New Labour that first proposed civil partnerships but Ken Livingstone in his first administration. I supported it then, way before New Labour had the bravery to put this issue into legislation."

Given the rather offensive responses of the Miliband's on the issue, who managed to combine New Labour evasiveness with a politicians urge not to rock the boat quite neatly, it's good to see two candidates declaring their support on the matter. Whatever the reasons, and despite their other policies, it's a positive development in the battle to get marriage equality on to the political agenda, be it in the short term or long term.

And across the ocean in Argentina (I'm not going to boo and hiss for once at the mention of that country's name), marriage equality has been approved by both legislative houses and now needs only a rubber stamp from the President to become law. This will make Argentina the 10th country in the world to bring in marriage equality, and the very first in Latin America. It serves as an example to us all, that despite fierce Church opposition, decent countries can still make sensible decisions. Let it be a lesson for our country!

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

An Open Letter To @Ed_Miliband's Campaign

To Ed Miliband's Campaign Team

I am somewhat concerned regarding Ed Miliband's commitment to equality after reading his interview with Liberal Conspiracy. I'll quote for your convenience:

"2. Would you allow gays to be legally married, rather than just be registered as a civil partnership?

He hesitates. “I will listen to what people have to say on going further than that if there is a demand. No one has yet put that to me in the leadership election.” He said his feeling was that not enough people were asking for the policy."

This statement seems illogical. The reason there is not more call for marriage equality is not that people don't want it. It's because they are, quite understandably, confused following the introduction by a Labour Government of the inadequate and divisive civil partnership legislation. So really it's a circular argument he's using here. People called for marriage equality, Labour introduced civil partnerships, people stopped calling for marriage equality as they didn't understand the difference, and now a Labour leadership candidate says "No one's asking for marriage equality". It's actually pretty disgusting.

It's also rather revealing of his lack of understanding of the issues, especially regarding the discrimination inherent in a system based on gender towards those who are transgendered. Does he understand that they must divorce or dissolve their civil partnership if one partner changes their gender? Does he understand this means they lose any accrued shared benefits? If he oblivious to the hurt this causes, regardless of the further hurt being caused to lesbians, gays and bisexuals who can't marry the one they love on an equal footing to their heterosexual friends and family? Sounds like it.

And the whole "there's no call for it" argument doesn't suit a man who is meant to want to be a leader. Is he prepared to lead and listen to the quieter voices, or does he just follow what the popular press state is required?

I'd be interested in a statement to clarify his position in order to put such concerns to rest.

Kind Regards

Jason Kay

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

Never Trust That A Politician Knows What They Are Talking About

I'll admit that when Boris Johnson was quoted making positive remarks at the start of pride, I quickly warmed to him. Unfortunately, it would seem, his exchange with Peter Tatchell was doomed from the start as the two of them were coming from different assumptions.

Tatchell is very clearly a campaigner for reform. He wants marriage equality (and, like me, a little bit more!). Boris Johnson is sadly ill-informed and was of the opinion that civil partnerships were "gay marriage" and so when he answered the question, he saw no problem saying he supported it thinking that it's hardly controversial to support something that already existed. Because they were talking at cross purposes Johnson's comments were misreported.

In what can be no clearer an illustration that civil partnerships AREN'T gay marriage, a statement was released from the London Mayor's to clarify that what he actually meant was that he supported civil partnerships.

Boris Johnson is hardly the first to be confused by this. In fact I'd say the majority of LGB people (I suspect transgender people know by bitter experience the difference) don't know the difference. This is the confusion caused by Labour's idiotic decision to pursue civil partnerships rather than marriage equality. And it's a confusion that any one who wants marriage equality has to try and get past. It's not easy.

And worse is the "I don't see the point" nonsense being sprouted by politicians. For instance we have this from Ed Miliband.

2. Would you allow gays to be legally married, rather than just be registered as a civil partnership?

He hesitates. “I will listen to what people have to say on going further than that if there is a demand. No one has yet put that to me in the leadership election.” He said his feeling was that not enough people were asking for the policy.

So Ed Miliband, a member of the Labour party who introduced civil partnerships, and caused the confusion which lead to fewer calls for equality, states the reason he doesn't support marriage equality is because there's little call for it. Yeah. That's a low blow.

And then you have his very confused brother, David.

While the UK allows non-religious civil partnerships, some couples and campaigners believe they are not adequate and are calling for the right for civil marriage, with faiths given the option of performing ceremonies.

Mr Miliband said: "I've not got a closed mind on that. Many of my friends who are gay have had civil partnerships. They – and I – think of them as completely equal. I think it's seen as gays and lesbians are equal.

"The last civil partnership I went to, there was no sense of all of this being anything other than the most complete private and public commitment to devotion.

One reader wanted to ask about the law which forces trans men and women to divorce their spouses in order to be legally recognised in their new gender.

Mr Miliband is at first confused but after his train apparently exits a tunnel he is back on the line with a confident answer.

"My opinion is that we should respect the wishes of the couple and that parliament shouldn't interfere," he says.

So several issues here. 1) just because people think civil partnerships are equal doesn't mean they are. 2) how will you respect the wishes of a transgender couple if marriage is defined by gender?? 3) why's it okay for Parliament to not interfere in one couple's wishes but alright in the case of LGB people?? and 4) talking to your middle class gay friends is not something to base policy on.

So you have to ask yourself: are these politicians really confused? Or are they, in fact, playing it safe and trying to avoid committing to gay marriage so they can court the votes of prejudiced people? I'm beginning to form the opinion that it may well be the latter. And that marriage equality might still be a long way off yet.

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

Ed Miliband Makes Worrying Noises Over Immigration

Sure us Lib Dems have, sadly, had to concede our immigration policy for the Coalition. But that doesn't mean we give that policy up (despite what some ill-informed people think). We will continue to fight elections on that policy until such time it is democratically voted out at conference (and knowing us Lib Dems, that'll be when hell freezes over).

But I am concerned about a paragraph from Ed Miliband's leadership bid speech:

"Britain’s diversity is an enormous strength: economically, culturally, socially and we should never cease saying it and we should say it more often. But the truth is that immigration is a class issue. If you want to employ a builder it’s good to have people you can take on at lower cost, but if you are a builder it feels like a threat to your livelihood. And we never had an answer for the people who were worried about it."

Pardon? Sounds like a diversity friendly BNP-lite sort of statement. "Let's not let those nasty cheap workers come and steal all our jobs". Would be very concerned at the direction he might take Labour (a party already tarnished by it's poor stance in Government on immigration when they had a majority). Very concerned. Let's hope Labourites don't choose this isolationist as their next leader.

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