A Broadening And A Narrowing Of My Political Views

It is time to grow up. I've happily played around with self-interested third party politics for so long, happily being all virtuous, and it is time to stop. Reality, Trump and May for example, show us that we cannot afford to be virtuous and sometimes we do need to hold our noses when voting to ensure that we don't get awful when we could get mediocre.

I rejoined the Lib Dems this month. I put Tim Farron's views on my sexuality ahead of all the other things the Lib Dems stand for (European unity now foremost among them). But didn't I just say I need to put third party politics behind me? Well yes, but only where I put that vote ahead of voting for a "least worst option". At the moment, with May and Corbyn at the head of the two largest parties, the Lib Dems are that "least worst option". Corbyn is just as dangerous as May. If a better Labour leader arrives, and the local Labour candidate at that time wasn't a moron, then I'd vote Labour here in Dover as they stand the best chance of unseating our sitting MP (Tory).

Meanwhile... social justice warriors continue their descent in to insanity. Owen Jones isn't the only one calling for gay men and lesbians to consider changing their sexual preferences (and even orientation). I appreciate the below video will not be tolerable to many but... Oh well...


And the "cultural libertarians" on the right have morphed into the alt-right and Trump supporters. Hardly any have been immune to this conversion.

I'm trying to avoid living in an echo chamber (see the video above, for instance, a radical feminist with, in my political community at least, controversial views) and am broadening who I listen to, read and think about. But at the same time, I'm tired of arguing on a broad scale with people on allsorts of issues which don't affect me. So consider this my declaration that I'm going to be speaking up more for "my" pet issues and less on issues that affect others. Of course, I've mostly always done that on this blog. But more generally that's what I'm going to try to keep to.

I'll vote to help protect the majority. And I'll campaign to help protect the things and people I care about personally. Deal?

I'm Just Not LGBT+ Enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important Question Of The Week: How Much Cleavage Is Too Much? #losetheladsmags

Some of the things I say below do not actually reflect my opinions. I don't feel I need to point out which bits... 

So as Lose The Lad's Mags campaign makes advances ahead of their 24th August action day it is time to start asking some important questions. These apply regardless of whether we're talking about the "modesty bag" solution favoured by the Co-Op and Tesco or the full on ban on lad's mags proposed by the campaign.

1. How much cleavage is too much? 

As we look to the future and the possibility (though slim given the falling popularity and circulation figures of magazines) that a new magazine may come out that is found by some to be as equally onerous as a "lad's mag", we must consider what criteria we use to decide whether it is acceptable for normal sale or needs to be restricted.

What level of cleavage is acceptable? How much of a leg can be shown? Who is the judge of this criteria? What are their motives? Will we need some sort of new organisation to review magazines before they go on sale to make sure they are within the guidelines? Will the women in the photographs be asked for their opinion? Will these criteria be equally applied to all magazines like Cosmo etc or is it only certain magazines?

2. When does the Lose The Gay Mags campaign begin? 

"As a male I would prefer a more positive image of women in the media, where they are equal to men" #whyisigned #losetheladsmags
— UK Feminista (@UK_Feminista) August 6, 2013

Well they aren't really equal to men unless similarly sexualised images of men, as contained in most editions of Gay Times and Attitude (and especially in their Naked specials), are treated in the same way. Though, in my personal opinion, they also contain some brilliant articles they are heavily sexualised publications (just check out the back of Gay Times) and promote a poor body image to young gay guys (if you think along those lines).

If sexualised images of women cause men to be more likely to physically or sexually abuse women, then surely the same must apply to gay men. Thus such magazines should be controlled as well. Any suggestion otherwise would surely be a form of anti-gay prejudice on a couple of levels:

i) young gay guys aren't in need of protection of the display of sexualised images of men when girls are.
ii) suggests gay men aren't as "dangerous" as straight men which, though in our favour, is a way of saying gay guys aren't "real men"

So don't be homophobes, ban gay mags too!

3. With a focus on such images are we to extend the same requirements we decide in question 1 to all forms of media and beyond?

So if sexualised images of women aren't allowed on magazines, will we extend the requirements to cover or remove such images to newspapers, the internet (a really tough version of the Great Firewall of Cameron?), advertising (just as some Muslim men take to blacktaping over adverts), television (Baywatch!) and beyond?

Will women need to cover up in public? Now that we've established that it is the way that women dress and look that causes sexism, violence and a whole host of other evils (victim blaming of the highest order) surely we need to enforce standards of dress in public? No bikinis, no short skirts. The basic "women are asking for it" sort of stuff, right? Just to be on the safe side.

4. As we've now decided women don't get to do what they wish with their bodies or choose their career freely, what else can't a woman choose? 

Wannabe topless models pleading to save the Lads Mags from extinction cos without them they'll have no future job.A career at Greggs awaits.
— Warren Hall (@MrLasso) August 4, 2013

No modelling, no sex work. If we accept these are things that women shouldn't be able to choose (and I'd hope you feel the same about men) then I wonder what else we might need to restrict for the greater good? Many Christians have, in the last few days, joined the battle on social media to help lose the lad's mags. I'm sure they could think of one or two things that women shouldn't be able to do.

5. What will be the standard for success? 

As with any initiative, we must have a goal. When will we celebrate the defeat of the lad's mags? When we notice a related drop in rapes against women or domestic violence? When women break through the glass ceiling of a business thanks to the evil magazines being removed? We need to know so we can scientifically check the results. Because this campaign isn't about dogma but real, detectable improvements in the quality of women's lives, isn't it?*

*unless said women rely on or wish to be modelling

The Last Time Puritans Were In The Ascendant, It Didn't Go Too Well For Us Gays

I thought we'd won. The same-sex marriage debates showed the impotency of the old right-wingers, those stalwarts who opposed every happy thought and every freedom. We were free, free at last!

But the forces of conservatism come in many guises and whilst we were defeating the elderly conservative contingent, the right-on feminist contingent snuck in the back door and started agitating with "Down With This Sort Of Thing" placards.

David Cameron, that "liberal conservative" Stonewall were swooning over the other week, has reiterated his support for a "porn filter" which will filter more than just porn and should be better know as the Great Firewall of Cameron. Meanwhile Labour MPs and liberal journalists have spearheaded a campaign to get a "Report Abuse" button added to Twitter (which shall itself become a form of abuse in no time at all). And the Lose The Lad's Mags campaign has convinced the Co-Op to demand lad's mags self-censor or be dumped.

What does this have to do with an adult homosexual who isn't abusive on Twitter? Well I see such moves as preliminary movements in a general anti-sex and anti-freedom campaign. Real problems, such as rape, are being used to frown upon modern sexual freedom in general. Missing from that article were "Girls please don't drink, it leads to sin" and "Girls, stay away from parties and wait until you are married". But they pretty much went without saying.

The Nationwide Festival of Light was organised by known homophobes, such as Mary Whitehouse, as an ultimately unsuccessful campaign against "sexploitation" and violence in the media. Whitehouse later went on to sue the Gay News for publishing The Love That Dares to Speak its Name (she won). Her legacy waned with the poor leadership of Christian organisations but is renewed under new "liberal" leadership.

I'm not the only one to link Mary Whitehouse to modern campaigns.

"And, although the political assumptions underlying their quickness to take offence might be very different (the individual foot soldiers of this latter-day green biro brigade would certainly be alarmed to look in the mirror and see those familiar horn-rimmed glasses staring back at them), are the mobs of angry Tweeters who patrol our cultural landscape in search of a word said or written out of turn really anything other than Whitehouse’s digital inheritors?"

So I look with concern at any moves backwards towards a time when women had to cover up and everyone had to watch what they said. Gay men didn't fair too well under such regimes.

Not only was our poetry found unsuitable, but our book shops were raided and the number of men we had sex with at any one time was policed. Do you think "magazine shields" won't be used against depictions of gay relationships? Don't you remember how past internet filters had a bias against LGBT websites (naughty or nice!)?

It is time to prepare ourselves for the puritan's next steps. We won't be too far down the list, although our old allies like the trans folk and sex workers will probably still get it in the neck well before we do. Then it'll be our turn. Our Tumblr posts, our tweets, our magazines, our sexual habits. They'll be demanding we all wait until marriage for sex (now the same-sex marriage bill has passed), and give us disapproving looks if we lust after hotties. It is already happening, talk of eating disorders caused by representations of muscular men and the like.

Sigh. There I was planning for the rest of the decade and suddenly I'm right back in the 80s. Damn it!

 

Are Women Unable To Be Trusted To Make The Right Decisions?

I've been brought up by my Nan and my Mum to believe women are my equals. I work in an overwealmingly female workplace (and industry). The people I know personally who I most admire are all women. But the messages I've been getting from feminists over the last weekend seem to be completely at odds with my beliefs.

What do I mean? Well it seems "young girls" (for which read 18 year old women) aren't capable of making decisions about what to do for work until they are 21. Doesn't anyone think this infantalises women somewhat? Are you really saying that a 20 year old man doesn't have the ability to choose whether to get photographed naked (as Chris Mears, not a model, did recently)? Because you must think that is unacceptable if a 20 year old woman couldn't choose the same thing.

Some feminists are saying women don't actually have the capacity to choose because of their socialisation and the fact that an individuals right to choose is trumped by society.

 • But what if it’s a woman’s choice to be glamour models or lap dancers?  

Mainstream media outlets glamorise the ‘porn star’ life. For example even though much research shows that prostitution is overwhelming abusive and exploitative, the media friendly story is still one of the ‘Belle du Jour’ fantasy of a successful and glamorous call girl. Instead of showing the realities of lap dancing, page 3 or prostitution, the media focuses on discussions on women’s choice to participate in the sex industry. 

Actually, the issue of choice is complex. We have to look at all the factors which influence our choices, including the way that the media and popular culture glamorises the sex industry. Even if we could establish that it truly was a genuine and empowering choice of a woman to go into one of these industries, the harmful impact that their normalisation has on society makes the issue much bigger than one of individual choice.

The pro-life activists out there just nodded in agreement.

Homosexuality and male objectification really throw a spanner in the works of these arguments. To accept that women are unable to make a conscious, fully aware decision to work in the sex industry, porn or as a glamour model, one must hold that either:

1) People such as Zeb Atlas are also unable to make this decision. He's a straight man who does gay porn. If men and women are equal and sex work is always (or mostly) exploitative, he must be a victim too.

or

2) Men and women are inherently unequal and that men can choose this for themselves but women (for some unknown reason) do not have the ability to do so. 

Perhaps there are other options, rendering this a false narrative, but I really cannot accept either one of the above proposals. Men are quite capable of choosing to flaunt their bodies for the pleasure of others as a job without being victims (which is not saying some aren't, nothing is so black and white). And, I believe, women are equal to men and thus also quite capable of making informed choices about their lives (whilst some may well be exploited). 

I've spoken before about the lad's mags issue but it has reared its head again with the Co-op threatening to drop them unless they "cover up" in some sort of magazine burqa. Why not Attitude and Gay Times? Do they consider heterosexuality more "dangerous"? Or do they just think women should be covered up but men can flaunt their body all they like? I'd go as far to suggest that by treating male homosexuality as "safe" in comparison they are being somewhat homophobic. I know that seems a bit topsy turvy ("Oppress me please!") but sometimes I find some "right on" people think us gays are all safe and cuddly and desexualised. Really we are just as sexual as any other man. 

I'm never, ever going to stop fighting for the individual. The right to choose how you live your life is paramount. I believe women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. More importantly, I believe women have the capacity to choose what to do with their bodies. Can we please stop acting as if women are delicate little flowers who don't know what is good for them? It is extremely patronising and if you think men get the wrong messages from porn, can you imagine what messages boys are picking up from some of the arguments I've pointed out above? 

Does The Vatican Have A "Gay Lobby" Or Are We Looking At Another Catholic Child Abuse Story?

Ever since Pope Benedict XVI's unexpected resignation there have been rumours of a gay lobby in the Vatican. Supposedly a corrupting influence, this lobby is even more of a risk to the Pope as it fights off blackmail attempts (the different angles, and the way they have been reported, are summed up very well here). Pope Francis has acknowledged the existence of this gay lobby and seems to be making plans to purge the Vatican of it. 

Sounds all very "Lavender Scare" to me. 

But... is it really a gay lobby? Or is it just a rebranded child abuse problem? For many decades it has been common to smear gay people with the paedophile tag. Most reasonable people now recognise there is a difference (and there really is a difference!). However given the Vatican's deep-seated dislike of us LGBT folk (sorry their "love" for us) and given that the Vatican has a very good reason to want to avoid another child abuse scandal, especially this close to home, is it possible that this "gay lobby" business is an attempt to smear the LGBT rights movement whilst protecting, in a small way, what is left of the Catholic Church's reputation? 

Because the latest rumours coming out on this story (and they are just rumours) are suggesting that some of those involved may well be young boys. If these rumours are substantiated maybe we should be asking whether any of those accused have ever had an adult gay relationship? Because I have to say if they haven't then calling it a gay lobby might be redefining the word "gay" (again) and you know how right-wingers didn't like it when we did that! 

I'm pretty sure heads will start to roll soon, and we may then find out what is going on at the Vatican. 

"It's Just A Phase!": Sir John Stanley Isn't Completely Wrong Though

My first experience of sexual education happened in the final year of primary school. The girls got a long education session and a bag full of stuff to prepare them for puberty. Us boys, meanwhile, just got a little book. The book was mainly just pointing out what was about to happen to us physically and had an FAQ at the back. One of the questions it dealt with was something along the lines of "I've been having sexual thoughts about other boys, is this normal?"

The booklet answered that question with (and I paraphrase except the "it will pass" ending which stuck in my mind very clearly) "Yes, many boys have dreams involving other boys but this is just a natural phase and it will pass." The certainty of that answer left me in denial for 5 years. I kept telling myself it was just a phase. It'd go away and soon enough I'd start finding girls attractive. Thankfully I accepted the inevitable when I was 14 as it was pretty obvious girls weren't doing it for me. I was lucky, I know plenty of other men took far longer to acknowledge how they felt.

When my Mum and stepfather found out about my sexuality (mere weeks after I accepted it myself) my Mum sat at the kitchen table and through tears cried "It's just a phase. It's just a phase" over and over. Thankfully by the next morning things were very different, and have been ever since, but that evening of horror will remain with me forever.

So "It's just a phase" is not a concept I look upon very favourably. And my knee-jerk reaction to Sir John Stanley's reason for being against equal marriage is "BIGOT!"

"I consider that enshrining gay marriage into law will be unhelpful, and in some cases positively damaging, to young people going through the perfectly normal phase of being attracted to other young people of the same sex before arriving at a heterosexual orientation subsequently." 

But if we put aside my jerked knee, he does have a point. Young people often do go through a phase of being attracted to people of the same sex. Experimentation and what not. But where he goes wrong is in believing that, somehow, equal marriage will somehow interrupt their discovery of heterosexuality, as if all us gays just got lost somewhere in puberty on our journey to straightdom. That is not quite how it works. If one were to believe this, then all expression of homosexuality (both public and private) would need to be banned to ensure children all arrived at the "right" destination. One has to believe that you can somehow "choose" your sexuality and making homosexuality a little less odious might "encourage" people into that "lifestyle" for his point to make any sense.

When I accepted my homosexuality I had to deal with something pretty powerful; the realisation that I would never marry and have kids. You don't realise how much that version of the future is promoted to you throughout your childhood until you see it disappear. Even at 14, I felt that the future that had been carefully laid out before me by my family and by school was now destroyed. I had to remake my dreams from scratch. Equal marriage won't encourage people to be gay, but it might help some teens (and their parents) get through the shock of coming out. That can only be a good thing.

Gays, Lies and The Presidential Election 2012

I admit it. I fell for a Republican lie. I know, I know. I should've had my wits about me, but I foolishly accepted a story at face value.

Kyle Wood, a Republican volunteer, claimed he had been beaten up and believed it was because he was not supporting the openly gay Democrat candidate but supporting the Republican instead.

Knowing the strength of feeling on this, I accepted this story even if it didn't quite feel right. I think that with a few recent examples of faux gay hate reports in the USA, I've become more sceptical so put my reservations down to that.

Well more fool me. He has now admitted he lied. Worse, he probably did it to implicate the gay Democrats he obviously despises.

Not to be out done, a supposedly Republican supporter (who "happens to be gay" as I find US conservative gays like to say) claimed to have been thrown out of a Romney event. The truth may not be quite as simple as that. Again political activists lying to make their opponents seem intolerant.

Dearest American gays. Stop this. There are a plenty of valid political arguments, even on LGBT rights, that both sides can use without the need for such underhand and dishonourable tactics.

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

A Ban On Same-Sex Kissing Pre-Watershed? I Doubt It.

A Daily Mail story came out way below my radar yesterday (no surprise as I avoid that newspaper as much as I can). Titled "'Indecent' lesbian kiss scenes face watershed crackdown", it poses the worrying possibility that an independent report, initiated by the Government, might recommend a same-sex affection ban on pre-watershed television.

A review launched with the backing of David Cameron is expected to recommend that sexually suggestive scenes currently allowed before the 9pm watershed – such as the famous lesbian embrace on soap opera Brookside – should not be shown until later in the evening. A ban on explicit advertisements on high street billboards is also being considered.

It came to my attention today thanks to this reaction from Coronation Street star Brooke Vincent

"I swear David Cameron's meant to be supporting equal rights. I just think if same-sex kisses are what he is prioritising and concentrating on changing, our country's in trouble." - Brooke Vincent

It's all part of a much larger review and David Cameron's support of it is inferred only from his original backing to the principles of the review not, so far, on any comment on it's suspected content.

I have major doubts that David Cameron would countenance a ban on same-sex affection, pre-watershed. It is, I believe a misunderstanding of the reporters. David Cameron surely couldn't be that politically stupid. However... I'm very much concerned about political interference in the content of television programmes in the first place and will be watching with interest the proposals and the Government's reaction to them.

And if it so happens David Cameron does support a ban on same-sex affection on television then it'll be time to hit the streets... and based on the reactions I've seen in many different forums I would be by no means alone.

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

It Get's Better (Spirit Day)

When I was 14 I saw a boy who changed my life. He was a beautiful 18 year old sixth former at school and the moment I laid eyes upon him was the moment I finally admitted to myself that I was gay. There’d been a suspicion in my heart for a long time, but as a newly committed Christian (mainly in rebellion at my family’s rather long history of non-belief) I’d denied it for as long as I could. But it’s hard work hiding something from yourself and finally admitting that I was gay, just to myself, was a liberating experience that I still remember vividly to this day.

It’s not easy. The fear of the repercussions of coming out to others rendered me depressed and suicidal. At the age of 18 I attempted suicide (thankfully in a typically cackhanded and very unsuccessful fashion that resulted in no more than 24 hours of medical drama). But it does get better. It really, really does.

When you’re young you worry too much about what other people think of you (or what you think they will think of you) and think the whole world will judge you forever. Here’s the secret: once you are out of school you’ll find most people don’t care and, even better, it doesn’t really matter what people think of you. You’ll find even if your parents are judgmental it won’t really matter once you’re older; you’ll appreciate that parents aren’t the all-knowing Gods they appear when you are young but are just as flawed as anyone else.

Things do get better. I would not change my sexuality for anything. Not only has it brought me personal joy, but being “different” to the majority gives you an interesting and useful perspective on life. I found it gave me patience and compassion for others who are not like me.

If you’re depressed, if you think the world is against you, if you think no one cares… you are very wrong. Too many young people have taken their lives this year. We don’t want any more. There is hope, and there will always be someone there to talk to. In America there’s the Trevor Project. In Britain there is the Samaritans and the LGBT Switchboard. Contact them if you even think of ending your life. They can help you. There are people who give a damn.

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

Don't Trust Them

A very large part of me finds people like Ken Mehlman and Crispin Blunt disgusting. Feeling like that isn't right, but it doesn't make me stop feeling that way. These politicians have same sex attraction (I don't wish to call them gay as, to be honest, I don't think they deserve that title) yet spent their time in office calling for LESS rights for LGBT people.

For example. Crispin Blunt:

In 2001, Mr Blunt voted against not only the equal age of consent, but also against gay couples adopting. He also voted in favour of the bill designed to make it harder for lesbian couples to have equal access to IVF treatment.

He did not vote on the repeal of Section 28 as he was absent at the time. However, Mr Blunt did vote in favour of civil partnerships and the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulation) which prevents discrimination against LGB people in the provision of goods and services.

And Ken Mehlman:

When Mr Bush became president, Mr Mehlman followed him to the White House as political director and later ran the re-election campaign which used the device of citing state ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage to help galvanise conservative voters.

I cannot begin to express the personal anger I feel towards these... these TURNCOATS.

But there is another part of me that says "Calm down Jae, it's only politics". That part seeks to remind me of the personal difficulties these sort of people must go through. It tells me all about homophobia springing from self hatred. It reminds me not to cast the first stone.

So I admit, there must have been so much pressure on both politicians from allsorts of angles. It must have been hard. But this doesn't stop me from using the same argument I used about Penny Wong and Angela Eagle: never, ever, trust a politician who cannot even stand up for their own personal liberty. There's a difference between closeted politicians and closeted politicians who actively work against LGBT rights for themselves and for everyone else. If you can't stand up for your own freedom, if you can't bring yourself to say "Wait a minute guys, I can't be a part of this campaign.", then you won't be able to stand up for others who aren't like you. You won't be able to stand up for those who put their vote in the box next to your name (and those who you represent who didn't!).

So be kind to Blunt and Mehlman. Remember that it must have been hard for them. But also remember they don't deserve positions of power.

Anyway, I apologise for my grumpy tone. I'll not be about so much for a while. Don't worry, my fight for marriage equality is coming offline with me. Today I received a letter from Emma Reed, Head of LGB and T Equality at the Equalities ministry, basically noting my feelings have been included as part of the religious civil partnership consultation. Later this week I shall be sending lots of letters to Stonewall's "corporate sponsors" inviting them to discuss their sponsorship with Stonewall viz-a-viz their inequality stance. Mean spirited, I know, but in keeping with my mood on the subject right now. Play nice children!

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

What can the Prop 8 fight teach us in the United Kingdom?

California and the United Kingdom are completely different in both social and legal terms. The fights for marriage equality in the two different jurisdictions may as well be held on different planets. In California it is organised and “militant” against powerful, organised opponents. Here in the United Kingdom it's disorganised and... well.. most gay men, lesbians and bisexuals don't really care, it's brutally honest I know but we must not deceive ourselves. Despite what the loony homophobes might say, the LGBT “community” in the UK is not “militant” and is quite happy to just get on with life. The hurt wounds have been bandaged over the last decade and few have much fight left in them. Our opponents are weaker than in the USA and, perhaps, more unready for any fight.

Which gives those of us still fighting for equality a pause for thought. What can we learn from California's Prop 8 campaign in 2008?

It's not about getting an organised campaign in the same way as California. I just don't think there's the groundswell of feeling necessary for that. And it's not about money. What it is about is knowing what the opponents of marriage equality will do in order to keep equal rights from those who want them.

In California, Prop 8 supporters (as evidenced by this recent report) were quite willing to fear-monger and spread lies to get their way. If we are to ensure that their allies don't try the same here, during the run up to any legislative action to get marriage equality, we must be prepared to pre-empt and counter these lies.

The main lie was all about religious freedom. In California Prop 8 advocates claimed, erroneously, that marriage equality would force religious organisations to hold same sex marriages on their premises. Of course, as the treatment of divorcees in the Catholic church shows, this is patently untrue. Marriage equality is, however, a religious freedom issue; there are now several religious orders that want to conduct same sex marriages. The Government's ban is what is hurting that freedom, not the prospect of marriage equality.

Another tactic is the “won't somebody think about the children” defence. In California the following advert was used to support the ban on marriage equality:



As you can see it works on the basis of appealing to the residual fear and prejudice in even the most kind heterosexual parents. “Your children will be taught it's okay to be gay. Homosexuality is a choice. Your child might turn gay.” It is important we get out and say that this is not an education issue. Homosexuality is not a behaviour that can be taught. This is an issue about the freedom for adults to marry who they wish. It's a message that must be clear and must be heard loudly.

It is important we ensure our Parliamentarians are contacted NOW so that these issues are clear in their minds. That is why I keep going on about writing to your MPs and other representatives. If you really support marriage equality then you simply must do it. If we don't tell them our side, you can be damn well sure the Churches and other religions will tell them theirs.

It is also important to rebut arguments. Don't let these arguments stand, be it in newspaper adverts or on comments on blogs. Respond and correct, politely of course, wherever you encounter erroneous arguments. Don't delay or think someone else will do it.

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

It's Okay To Be Homophobic If You're Gay!! (says Daily Mail)

One of my favourite Bill Bailey stand up shows was "Part Troll". In that, he made this memorable remark:

There’s this one celebrity, Rosie O’Donnell, a talk show host, and she said this: “I don’t know anything about Afghanistan, but I know it’s full of terrorists, speaking as a mother.” So what is this "speaking as a mother" then? Is that a euphemism for "talking out of my arse"? "Suspending rational thought for a moment"? As a rational human being, Al-Qaeda are a loose association of psychopathic zealots who could be rounded up with a sustained police investigation. But speaking as a parent, they’re all eight foot tall, they’ve got lasers under their moustaches, a huge eye in their foreheads and the only way to kill them is to NUKE every country that hasn’t sent us a Christmas card in the the last 20 years!! Speaking as a mother.

My mind drifted back to this joke when I first saw the title of Andrew Pierce's piece for the Daily Mail yesterday; "Why I, as a gay man, abhor these TV queens"

Instantly I knew where this was going. It's a common issue.

When I was young, at school, I was blessed with the fact I am naturally "straight acting". I hate that phrase, as I'm not acting. It's just me! It meant I was able to choose the time and place where I came out. But there was a boy in the year below me, who was not so "lucky". He was as camp as Christmas. From swaying hips to a rucksack that resembled a handbag, he was a walking stereotype. And at our all boys school, he suffered for it. I never stood up for him against the whispered comments behind his back or worse. I never engaged in it myself of course but I was a cowardly 14 year old. Now that I am a man, I am not prepared to allow that sort of bullying to be perpetuated around me without comment any more. Andrew Pierce's piece is just that sort of bullying and someone has to call him out on it.

If Andrew Pierce had written a sober article about prejudice within the selection process for new presenters that favour camp gay presenters over others, or perhaps over the prejudice that allows people to see one gay man acting one way and then assume that is how all gay men act, I'd have some respect for him.

But no if you read it, the crux of the article is basically "I don't like camp gay men because they reflect badly upon me".

"Carr and his queeny TV cohorts merely reinforce outdated prejudices of gay men as simpering, soppy, superficial cissies."

Here's a shock for you Mr Pierce. There really are naturally camp people out there. Those outdated prejudices are just that. Prejudices. They are not to be pandered to, or encouraged. They are to be defeated through education.

What Mr Pierce fails to mention are all the bland, run of the mill, just darn ordinary gay men on the television. Alistair Appleton. Scott Mills. the late Kristian Digby, Anthony Crank and Simon Amstell. That's just presenters there for you.

We will not defeat homophobia by throwing camp men back into the closet, removing them from the television or pretending they don't exist. I don't judge straight people based on football hooligans, the guys down the pub who swear every other word or tell a vulgar misogynist, racist or homophobic joke for fun. So why is acceptable to judge homosexuality on the actions of a few, that aren't actually that bad in the first place?

Who is it that suffers the homophobic abuse? Is it the straight acting, beer drinking men like me? No. It's the camp guys. They are on the front line. And rather than abandoning them there, and hiding behind your own self image whilst screaming "I'm not like them", a real man would stand beside them in solidarity and defend their right to be the individuals they wish to be.

My first boyfriend's nickname in his hometown was Queenie. I remember being terribly embarrassed when he turned up outside my school one day leaning theatrically on a rainbow umbrella (there were definitely some questions to be answered the next day on that one!). I almost died. As we walked into town that day a group of people started throwing stones at him and calling him a "dirty queer". And that's when I realised that I shouldn't be embarrassed by him. I should be proud that he had the balls to be who he felt he was in a world that still hated him. I learnt a lesson there, and so did the people throwing the stones (their lesson was attacking a giant's boyfriend is probably one of the silliest things someone can do with their free time).

Andrew Pierce ends the article with:

"It’s time to put the girly, shrill, absurdly camp and frequently crude caricatures back in the closet. It’s time to let the spirit of John Inman and Larry Grayson rest in peace."

Well I end mine saying that complaining about camp guys is even more stereotypical and shrill than they could ever be. And it's cowardly and self-hating too. It's time we got past worrying about "acting" and just started being ourselves, be that camp or butch and accepting others for who they are. Wouldn't that make for a far more interesting world?

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

Equal Marriage: Civil AND Religious

The coverage of Simon Hughes response to my question about marriage equality has been welcome. However both his response and the coverage still leave me with concerns.

What I want is for the Government to make the marriage laws in this country gender neutral. That is all I ask. They must not give in to the temptation (as they have on so many Marriage Acts of the past) to fiddle around and make new rules here and there covering where and when a marriage can be carried out.

Let's see how the Daily Mail reported his comments:

However, they would not apply to ceremonies in church - only those in a register office or other licensed venue

The Government has NO place telling registered religious places of worship who they can and can't marry. That should be up to the religious bodies. They have this right of refusal as it stands. They can refuse to marry people who's lifestyles don't fit their belief system (such as the Catholic church and divorcee's). There are religious denominations, such as the Society of Friends, who support marriage equality and wish to marry members. This shouldn't be proscribed just because the big religions and the reactionaries want to put a spanner in the works of equality.

If religious marriage equality was proscribed, it would be affront to the religious freedoms of individuals and organisations.

Of course, this is all very presumptuous to suggest that any legislation will be presented any time soon. But I think it's important we have this discussion now, rather than later.

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

More Ex-Gay Nonsense

I've no problem with organisations and individuals attempting to "help" those who, voluntarily, wish to try and "change their sexuality". I'm a great believer in individual freedom.

But that doesn't mean I believe it is possible, that I think it is ethical and it doesn't mean I won't moan about "ex-gay therapy" whenever I have the opportunity. Today's video of two victims of an ex-gay therapist comes via Queerty.



If you want to know more about the weird practices and strange beliefs of ex gay therapists check out Ex-Gay Watch or Truth Wins Out.

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

Civil Partnerships and Marriage: What's The Difference?

Here is a question I find repeated, in various formulations, by a variety of people. So here's a handy-dandy list for quick reference to avoid repeating myself!

***EDIT 07/04/2012***

Excellent video here with a couple of examples of differences played out with Lego!



***END EDIT***

Gender

The most obvious difference in law is gender. A marriage is a partnership between a man and a woman. A civil partnership is one between two people of the same sex. This all sounds pretty reasonable until you consider the implications. Gender, in a legal sense to avoid arguments, is NOT set in stone. People can, and do, change their gender.

So if you have a married couple, and the "man" in that couple transitions into becoming a female, that couple would automatically have their marriage dissolved regardless of whether they wished it to be or not. They will lose accrued pension rights and other financial benefits and need to get a civil partnership if they wish to again be legally recognised as a couple... and the benefits will need to start to be gained FROM SCRATCH again.

This is my number one reason for campaigning for marriage (and civil partnership) equality. Transgendered people, and their partners, are unfairly discriminated against by the "separate but equal" way we are currently doing things in this country.

International recognition

Marriage differs from country to country, but, generally, only by a small amount and in most countries they will be recognised on an, for all intents and purposes, equal footing. Civil partnerships are far more complicated. Obviously civil partnerships won't be recognised at all in countries that don't recognise same sex relationships. Not much we can do about that. But in those countries which do, civil partnerships can be recognised in all sorts of annoying ways.

For example, will Argentina recognise a UK civil partnership as marriage? It's not so, why would they? Some countries with equal marriage do recognise civil partnerships as marriage, some don't. Some have civil unions as well as marriage and may well recognise civil partnerships as a civil union instead (and those civil unions might be even less equal to marriage than our civil partnerships). Can you guarantee that, if you go to a foreign country and fall ill, they will recognise your civil partner as such and allow them to speak on your behalf? No you can't.

And when someone is married in, say, Canada, when they arrive here they are not treated as a married couple but as civil partners. How is that fair? How is that acceptable?

It's a muddle. An international confusion. If we have equal marriage those other countries with equal marriage will automatically accept things and those that don't will "downgrade" them like we do to their own civil unions. And hopefully one day we'll get them to accept equal marriage too.

Separate but Equal

I'm going to be honest. If you're a gay couple, who doesn't travel much and who doesn't give a damn for transgender rights (shame on you), then civil partnerships are a bloody good approximation to marriage. But that is all. An approximation. They are different.

This is a mental thing, a personal thing if you will. I cannot argue for this in a legal sense. This is all about my feelings. How can I stand in front of my heterosexual family and friends and take vows to love and honour my boyfriend, when I know that it's not the same law that will govern my relationship as governs theirs? I cannot bring myself to do it. I don't want to play at marriage, pretend to be a husband, be recognised under a special law just for the gays. I want to be equal. I want to be able to say that my love is no different to love they have for their dearest one. How can I, when the Government doesn't recognise them as the same?

We all know separate but equal is not equal. One doesn't expect to have use a "gay water fountain" so why should we accept a "gay civil partnership"?

Discrimination

Civil partnerships are discrimination as ruled by the judge in Wilkinson v Kitzinger.

The Nitty Gritty

Here's the stuff that's dull and boring and not really a reason to fight against but still indicative of the difference in law.

Civil partnerships do not have to be consummated. Really, they don't! A marriage does. It's a legal requirement. So civil partnerships actually are not about "love" in it's most primal, physical sense (hey I think that might be a positive!). They thus give us special rights that heterosexuals don't have. Again, unfair.

Religious freedom

The Government has decided that religions cannot legally marry who they wish to. That is wrong. See here for more

But being different is fun!

Not if your transgendered it's not! And also, that's a very short term idea of different. Look at the bigger picture. .

I'm sure there are other reasons, but I think this is enough to show that civil partnerships are not equal. And that equal marriage is what is needed now. Why do countries who have civil unions not just leave it at that? Why do they move on to marriage equality? Because they understand marriage and civil unions are different. Separate but NOT equal. Soon, I hope, we in this country will realise that too.

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

Gay Muslims

Here's a different perspective on homosexuality (one we are hearing more and more from). Give it a read. What's it like to be both a practicing Muslim and a homosexual? It sounds like it's deeply conflicted:

Khalid says that as a British Muslim, he feels gay men have yet to find answers to some very difficult questions: "If it is wrong to be gay, should we force ourselves into heterosexual marriages?

"And in doing so, should we lie to the women we get married to? Or should we go for marriages of convenience with lesbians? Or, should we just remain celibate?" he asked.

Of course, from my secular perspective, his initial premise that homosexuality is wrong is, in itself, wrong. So I don't even understand the questions he then poses. But those are issues that come from his faith perspective so valid to him.

Of course more interesting to me is their perspective on equality:

In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that those who dare to come out and seek long term same-sex relationships are sometimes not content with the idea of civil partnerships.

They desire religious recognition of their union, with some reportedly taking the daring step of entering into nikkahs (Muslim marriage contracts).

Different organisations are trying to tackle the taboo
Mr Qureshi said he was aware of couples who had opted for such nikkahs but stressed that these were performed by imams in absolute secrecy.

Muslim gay activist Ibrahim Ismail has been working on sexual health issues for many years.

He said: "Some of their families and friends may even attend these nikkahs, but they would never publicly admit it for fear of being ostracised by mainstream Muslims.

"They are very much invisible."

Yet another sign of religious freedom being curtailed by civil partnerships and forcing practicing Muslims to get non-legally binding religious ceremonies. (Although I concede their privacy issues may well be affected if the nikkahs became legal)

All very interesting.

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