Goldsmiths University's LGBT+ SU Group Oppose... Erm... A Human Rights Campaigner #exmuslimbecause

Maryam Namazie is a well-known campaigner for human rights, who is best known for opposing Islamist attacks on Muslims and ex-Muslims alike. She can be quite forthright and, as a member of a Communist party, is hardly uncontroversial. However she doesn't threaten people and is always extremely clear that her problem is with radical Islamists not Muslims and she is clear that Muslims are usually the first and main victims of Islamism.

So when she came to speak to the atheist and humanist student group at Goldsmiths University it was to be expected that the group representing Muslim students would take some offence at her presence. They are hardly without blemish in regard of "controversial" speakers. They, after all, hosted Andreas Tzortzis earlier this year who has compared homosexuality with cannibalism.

Her talk did go ahead, despite the feminist society coming out in support of their Muslim colleagues, and she faced some rather childish protests. Take a look about 12 minutes in to this video (though I do recommend watching it all!)


Despite this fairly clear silliness, today the LGBT group at the university came out in support of... the people who tried their darnedest to silence Maryam Namazie and her message against radical Islam. See their Facebook message here. They appear to have finally stopped deleting comments and I think the fact that some comments are approaching 200 likes and their original statement remains on just 12 likes show how popular their decision has been.

I really cannot begin to describe how disappointing, if unsurprising, I find this. Namazie is standing in opposition to groups who are persecuting and murdering Muslims, ex-Muslims, other religious people, women and LGBT people. As the Islamic State throw gay men to their deaths from tall buildings, Maryam Namazie is trying to educate people on the dangers of their ideology.

And the LGBT group of a university didn't choose to support her, nor to remain silent over this but instead chose to support a group of disruptive young men who used intimidation to try and get their way.

Thankfully Namazie wasn't phased, I get the impression she is used to this, and finished her speech. Sadly without the support of those she fights to protect and, in fact, she finds those most at risk from Islamist violence actively opposing her message.

Truly disappointing stuff.

It Is Not Just Gay People Who Need To Be Worried In Russia

Let us be frank. Russia has not just overnight turned into a monstrously evil state. It has been that way for a long time. Though they are understandable, calls to boycott Russian goods and next year's Winter Olympics over LGBT rights abuses can seem somewhat selfish and hollow when you consider what else Russia has been up to.

Press freedom has been severely curtailed for years, perhaps it never stopped after the end of the Soviet Union. Though Reporters Without Borders expressed concern over Russia's own Great Firewall of Cameron, we aren't just talking about some censorship here and there. The list of journalists killed throughout the Russian Federation is absolutely terrifying. The abject failure of Russian authorities to take the problem seriously speaks volumes about their dedication to free speech. (That is without speculating over who may be behind the murders of reporters....). The effect on the rest of the press has been chilling.

In the run up to the Olympics forced evictions and migrant worker abuses have given more than enough food for thought for those contemplating a boycott. And if you think those are "serious" enough, then take a look at how Russia has been conducting it's wars in and around Chechnya (although don't think I'm siding with the other side there, a pox on both their houses).

And these abuses aren't just left in Russia. Just look at what happened to Alexander Litvinenko in London.

Russia has been squeezing her people ever since it emerged from the Soviet Union 20 odd years ago. And that grip is getting tighter and tighter. The abuses of LGBT people by both the Government and civilians are horrendous. But they are just one facet of the evils being committed there by the Government, on behalf of the Government and backed by powerful special interests in both business and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Don't just stand up for the LGBT people of Russia. Spread the word of the crimes against all the Russian people. But I don't think a boycott of vodka and/or the Olympics is quite enough to get the message over to the Russian Government.

Is Pope Benedict XVI's Resignation A Chance For Reflection?

Pope Benedict's time as the Pope is coming to a, rather surprising, end. I won't pretend I've ever been a fan. From his linking of my lack of belief with Nazism to how down he was on my relationship with Jim I don't think we would ever have gotten along. And it wasn't just me who didn't appreciate his rather unkind words, I'd wager that most secular people weren't really that into him.

Perhaps that is a failure of his Papacy, the failure to reach out and embrace others. But perhaps that is also a failure on the part of many of us who "opposed" him on some level. He was hardly greeted with tolerance wherever he went. His time in the Hitler Youth (something that was not voluntary) is often dragged out to suggest he was some sort of Nazi (although, as we see above, messing around with Godwin's law wasn't only limited to one side of the argument!). And his anti-gay views, pro-life stance and attitude towards safe sex caused a great deal of hurt and anger.

Even during the Protest The Pope action during his state visit to the UK, a movement for which I had a great deal of mean-spirited sympathy, I expressed concerns that some were taking things a little too far. And today on Twitter the anger at his stances has lead to insults. Is this really a practical way for us to engage with the Pope or the Catholic Church itself?

I not only understand the anger and hurt from people on "my" side, I feel it too. Being treated like fascists, told you don't really love (and absolutely shouldn't love) your other half and seeing the pain some Catholic beliefs cause others is sometimes a little too much to bear with just a shrug of your shoulders and a polite smile. But we are never going to change the Catholic Church's beliefs. I'm not saying they can't be changed but they can only be changed from within. We may as well be tilting at windmills if we believe that the next Pope will somehow magically be any different in terms of belief to Pope Benedict XVI.

What we can hope to change, although it isn't completely within our control, is the language the Catholic Church uses about us and how it treats us as people. But we can only change this through engaging with the Church rather than standing around throwing insults. That does very much rely on the Church engaging as well but if we perhaps approach them in a more conciliatory way then perhaps there might be a chance for dialogue.

As shown by recent events surrounding LGBT rights and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, engaging with a church can sometimes lead to real change. I'm not suggesting anyone temper their demands or beliefs. People should still fight tooth and nail for better sex education and equal marriage. And the Catholics should be free to believe as they wish in their own spheres. But perhaps we can temper our language and start talking.

Can we at least try not to call each other names any more? We might get somewhere. Maybe. It is surely worth a try at least?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bigotgate II: Marriage Equality And Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg, a man who has been completely behind marriage equality for as long as the issue has been discussed (yes even before most LGBT politicians!), has sadly annoyed the anti-equality folks with his use of that highly charged word "bigot" in a draft speech.

Even more sadly he then removed that word from the actual speech and assured everyone he doesn't think they are bigots if they oppose marriage equality.

Peter Bone, Tory MP, had this to say:

“Nick Clegg has got to explain himself and apologise very rapidly, this is not the way the deputy prime minister behaves.”

I'd definitely say that it was very bad politics to use that word, especially as it has only been two years since the original bigotgate. And it isn't true that every marriage equality opponent is a "bigot".  A very small number are simply confused as to what is being proposed (many seem to think the churches will be forced to marry people they don't want to, a justifiable thing to be concerned about but not actually true). But I think the use of such a strong word is hardly something the anti-equality folks should be upset about. Shall we take a look at some of the things people who should know better have said about us recently?

Cardinal O'Brien refers to plans for marriage equality as follows:

Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.

Grotesque. Such a nasty word. Peter Bone, of course, came out quickly calling for his resignation. Oh wait... no.

Lord Maginnis said:

“Does that mean that every deviant sexual practice has to be accommodated? Will the next thing be that we legislate for some sort of bestiality?”

Peter Bone obviously found this unacceptable and distanced himself from these comments. Oh wait... no.

Then there was the Tory MP who said this about marriage equality.

“Wouldn’t it just be very simple to write back and say, ‘Marriage is between a man and a woman so this is completely nuts’?”

Hardly the measured tone one would expect from a Tory MP on this. I'm sure Peter Bone was there telling his colleague to behave more appropriately given the sensitive and serious nature of the subject and the strong beliefs on both sides of the issue. Oh wait... that was Peter Bone! 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

When anti-equality folks get as annoyed about the sort of over-the-top comments above as they do over the use of the word "bigot", then we'll accept they may not be bigots. 

Nick Clegg should have been more careful with the words he chose, that goes without saying I think. I may not think he is the Lib Dem saviour, as I once did, but I know on this issue he is a principled and decent man who has strong views on this subject. Just as they do with our opponents, those strong views sometimes get the better of him. You can't really blame him for that. 

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

Scottish Marriage Equality Judgement Day

Today the Scottish Government shall discuss and, perhaps, decide upon the future of the marriage equality campaign in Scotland.

The choice, to my biased eyes anyway, seems clear. On the one hand there is a campaign for individual and religious freedom, fighting for the right of all couples to marry. On the other is a campaign hellbent on maintaining the current status quo, ignoring the wishes of smaller religions and determined to put individual citizens rights up to a majority vote.

Given the history of prejudice against Catholics, especially in certain parts of Scotland where such prejudice continues to this day, you'd think the Catholic Church would be wary of creating a precedent of putting minority rights up to a vote. But, alas, so single-minded are they in their loathing for individual freedom that they aren't thinking ahead to where that might lead. Shall we put the rights of Catholics up to a vote? Or Muslims? The concept is as ridiculous as it is disturbing.

Today, I hope, the Scottish Government embraces freedom of religion over the demands of the authoritarians and supports marriage equality. Fingers crossed!

As an aside, this blog is not dead! But my laptop is. I should have a new one by the middle of next month but until then posts shall be scarce!

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

Has The USA Reached A Tipping Point In The LGBT Culture Wars?

"You're on the wrong side of history!" is often the shout from well-meaning supportrs of LGBT rights at opponents to whatever "progressive" measure is on the cards at that moment in time. It is a phrase which doesn't sit so well with me, as if any of us have a secret insight into how our descendants will view this fight. For all we know technological advances and parental choice may well snuff out diverse sexualities and gender identities in the next couple of hundred years. Progress in LGBT rights isn't inevitable and the fight to secure it mustn't just rely on the belief that the majority will eventually, magically, come out in favour.

Now saying all that, I'm starting to notice a bit of a quiet change in the tide of right wing opinion on LGBT issues. I first began to see a change when GOProud appeared on the scene. Their are far more in tune with the conservative ideology of mainstream Republicans than the Log Cabin Republicans who have been around for much longer. This has allowed them to change quite a few minds on LGBT folk and, despite my political differences with them, that is something for which we should be thankful.

The last few months, however, have seen increasingly speedy moves towards acceptance of a new status quo whereby the right kind of gay and lesbian people (but probably not bisexuals, transgendered folk or anyone a little bit queer) are tolerated by those on the conservative right*.

Take, for example, the recent case of David Blankenhorn, founder the Institute for American Values. Whilst not suddenly becoming a marriage equality cheerleader, he has hung up his anti-equality boxing gloves and called it a day.

Mr Blankenhorn cited firstly the “equal dignity of homosexual love” and said that while gay and straight relationships were not the same, “the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over”.

“Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness.” 

Secondly, he said “mutual acceptance” and “compromise” was a necessary part of living together in society, that “bending the knee a bit, in the name of comity, is not always the same as weakness” and that he wanted “conciliation”, not “further fighting”.

And then we have the beginnings of change at Exodus. Exodus International is one of the most well-known Christian Ex-Gay ministries in existence. And yet they appear to moving away from believing therapy can cure people of homosexuality (and instead focussing on a belief in Christ and other theological things). This isn't perfect, but it's an unexpectedly welcome move in a direction many of us have been arguing for for years.

And even the Republicans themselves are getting in on the act. Again the examples aren't perfect but reflect a general toning down of language that might lead to a more civil approach to this subject going forward. First up there is the Texan Republicans amending their platform so as not to want to criminalise many same-sex couples nor insulting same sex parents. Yes, these are baby steps but given their previous attitudes we shouldn't really be expecting more.

Then is an even more positive and affirmative Republican move among the Washington D.C. branch of the party.

“We, the Republicans of the District of Columbia support the belief that all individuals, without regard to sexual orientation, are entitled to full and equal protection under the laws and the Constitution and that everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect,” says the new language.

I suspect we will see more of this as the party attempts to reposition itself to gain the votes of younger, more accepting, folks as we move forward. Of course there will a fight back against this, screaming hissy fits from the conservative Christian right. But, ultimately, I'm feeling positive about the situation for American LGBT folks for the first time since Bill Clinton left office.

*Don't start me off on the word "tolerated" but I think it's the correct one to use here. Not embrace, not left to their own devices without intrusion but "tolerated".


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

Men's Rights Activisits: Should I Hate Them?

I'm a man. Brought up by two strong, independent women. I've never really seen women as anything other than equal to men. In fact I find gender politics confusing. Why anyone would expect all women to be the same is beyond me (i.e. expect them to "stay in the kitchen" etc.) but conversely I don't appreciate certain people acting as if all men are sexual perverts and violent monsters. I find this "us vs. them" approach crazy. Some men are bad people. Some women are bad people. When will we just accept this?

And yet the idea that there is some vast chasm of difference between the genders is deeply ingrained into our society. Our advertising plays this up hugely, often casting women only as mothers who have to look after their men who are portrayed as helpless child-like creatures or there's the other side of the coin is that women are overly emotional, confusing people as shown in the advert below:

 

And this Mitchell and Webb piece is amusingly spot on.

 

Or how about how this piece on male stripping which suffers from a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

Why do men strip? Why the hell not? Not for them the ominous low-lit venues and sexual vulnerability of female stripping; when it comes to men taking their clothes off, they're the ones in charge.

Because all women who choose to do this are all victims, forced into stripping as they have no option and are completely at the mercy of drunken men? Is that what this piece is trying to say, that no self-respecting woman would do this sort of thing but men knock yourselves out?

But do the boys ever feel exploited? "Definitely not," he insists. "Physically speaking, they're stronger than their audience, which creates a different power dynamic than with female strippers. These guys like showing off and frankly, I don't think they mind being objectified. That's precisely what they enjoy." It's hard to imagine that male stripping, though seemingly far less demeaning than its female counterpart, doesn't involve some kind of Faustian pact. Surely anything that requires you to 'drop trou' for a living must have consequences. What, for example, do the boys do when their looks go?

Less demeaning than female stripping because the male strippers can beat people up? That seems to be the argument here. Men finding women getting naked attractive = disgusting, women finding men getting naked attractive (and being "rowdy") = all in the name of fun. That's the message I'm getting from this article. 


Maybe it's because I'm gay and have little vested interest in this sort of sexual politics but I just don't get it. It's just like the cognitive dissonance in debates over porn. 


I have a major problem with some forms of feminism for just the reasons above, that they seek to paint all men as potential aggressors and all women as potential victims. So sometimes I read stuff from Men's Rights Activists pointing out the excesses of some feminists and I find myself agreeing with them. Some times pieces on blogs like A Voice For Men have a core that I can agree with.


But then the problems start. They do the thing which they accuse some radical feminists of doing, they take things to the extremes. They moan about how awful it is that women aren't back in the home or insult women using slurs. Often the answer to a serious question (such as why there is hardly a groundswell of demands for equality on the front line where men are still mostly expected to risk their lives [thankfully the Senior Service is a little more enlightened than the army]) descends into misogyny of the first order. As someone who wants true equality, it is very uncomfortable reading some of the stuff put out by some MRAs.

Where is the Voice for Sane People blog? I don't want this "us vs. them" debate any more. It serves only to keep society trapped in some backwards abyss. Men and women who believe in equality need to start speaking to each other. Women's rights still have a long way to go and a lot of minds still need to be changed to ensure the safety and well-being of women in this country. But the dismissive way men who ask pertinent, sensible questions are treated by well-meaning women's rights activists cause a great deal of resentment. We need to work together, to fight for true equality for all.

So I think I do hate most MRAs. I hate them just the way I hate most radical feminists, they are divisive and unhelpful. Can we have some sanity please?

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

The Differences Between Civil Partnerships and Marriage

The original version of this post can be found here: Civil Partnerships and Marriage: What's The Difference?.

It is quite common for people to wonder: "Why all this kerfuffle over equal marriage, aren't civil partnerships the same as marriage?" From anti-equality politicians to well-meaning people, there remains a great deal of confusion over what differences there might be between the two.

So I thought I'd just note down some of the major differences:

Gender

The most obvious difference in law is, of course, gender. A marriage is a partnership between a man and a woman. A civil partnership is one between two people of the same gender. If only gender was so neat and tidy! Gender, in a legal sense to avoid any semantic 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 face a difficult choice as to whether to dissolve their marriage or not to get a GRC. They will lose accrued pension rights and other financial benefits if they decide that a GRC is necessary 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. Making marriage laws gender neutral would be a massive step in the right direction. A more thorough look at this subject can be found here.

Pensions

This, as if it needed saying, is a little complicated. Thankfully someone has made a video explaining this the problem in Lego. Everything always seems clearer in Lego.



This is a serious issue and currently couples affected are having to fight this discrimination in the courts using the Equality Act 2010 to help them. Here is one of the more recent judgements. Marriage equality would, hopefully, ensure this little loophole is fixed and ensure pension rights are respected by all companies.

International Recognition

This issue is also touched upon in the video above.

Think of it this way: of course same-sex marriages won't be recognised in many (dare I say backward?) countries. But civil partnerships fail the criteria for an international standard (many countries with equal marriage won't recognise civil partnerships!), whereas marriage equality would make things far clearer for travellers and emigrants to countries with equal marriage. And for those countries where they do have civil unions, those married couples will be more likely to have their relationship recognised on some level.

As ever more countries consider equal marriage (at the moment we have developments awaited in France, Paraguay, Columbia, Mexico, USA, Taiwan, Vietnam, New Zealand, Finland....) this problem will only become worse.

Religious Freedom

Marriage equality, true marriage equality, would allow for religious same-sex marriages to be carried out by supportive religions. Right now we have the newly created religious civil partnerships but, typically, the registration charges for this are far higher than for marriage! And a Unitarian church had a great many problems getting a civil partnership licence due to health and safety concerns, despite being allowed to hold marriages!

The Quakers have this to say:

“Quakers have been discussing sexuality for fifty years. We see God in everyone and believe all committed loving relationships are of equal worth and should be celebrated in the same way. That is why, since 2009, we’ve been asking for the law to allow our same-sex Quaker couples to have a spiritual celebration within their worshipping community; not just a civil partnership which is a legal contract.”

Why should religions have to pay more to "marry" same-sex couples than opposite-sex ones? Why should they be denied religious freedom? They shouldn't, and wouldn't, if marriage was gender neutral.

Separate But Equal

The other day one of my work colleagues was abused on the train home because he was gay. Being openly gay/bisexual still has its drawbacks in life. Being forced on most official forms to declare whether you have a marriage OR a civil partnership outs someone's sexuality and I find that most uncomfortable even if I, speaking only for myself here, don't mind someone knowing my sexuality.

And why should I be covered by a different law to the one that covers the relationships of my family and friends? I'm not looking for a pretend marriage, or a gay marriage, or an "I can't believe it's not marriage" marriage. I want simply a marriage, to the person I love, covered in the same way the marriages of others I care for are covered. I pay my taxes and abide by the law of the land so why does the Government get to  decide which consenting adults can enter a marriage?

For those who like to say they are the same, the courts disagree with you. As announced in this court ruling.

To the extent that by reason of that distinction it discriminates against same-sex partners, such discrimination has a legitimate aim, is reasonable and proportionate, and falls within the margin of appreciation accorded to Convention States.

The Legal Nitty-Gritty

The laws covering civil partnerships have no concepts of consummation or adultery. This makes dissolving a civil partnerships at times easier and at times more difficult.

There is no requirement to take any vows. Can you imagine a marriage without vows? No. Because they are actually a legal requitement!

Marriage case law doesn't necessarily cover civil partnerships.

So yes, there are a few differences, some fairly important to the well-being of same-sex couples. Marriage equality would resolve these issues in a clear and sensible way.

***EDIT 10/02/2013. I wish to make it clear to those who may be using this article to defend the Government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill that currently, as of today's date, it does not resolve the issues of pension inequality, consummation, adultery and leaves several outstanding issues with regards to trans rights. It also maintains the separation of married same-sex couples in law from married opposite-sex couples.

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

It Doesn't Matter Why I'm Gay

Nature or nuture? When I consider that ever present question regarding my sexuality, I regard it with the same interest as that other important question: what colours were the dinosaurs? In other words I find the subject fascinating but essentially it has no bearing on how I live my life or how I view the struggle for LGBT rights.

The reemergence of last year's "A stroke turned me gay" story, thanks to a documentary on BBC Three tonight, has spurred some debate. Thanks to such things as the recent "ads on a bus" scandal, the concept of one's sexuality being flexible (or, my preferred word, fluid) is a "No go" area for some LGBT folk. Paul Flynn in the Guardian, and even Chris Birch's own fiance, seem convinced that Birch was always gay but was just in denial. The idea some event, be it a stroke, therapy or a magic spell, might be able to change one's sexuality goes completely against their world view. It plays, by their way of looking at things, into the hands of those crazy Christians who spend their life trying to convert gay men, lesbians and bisexuals to the "correct" sexuality.

I sometimes wonder if they are suggesting sexuality is something mystical or holy. The idea that it is immutable is akin to believing one has a soul. It's as religious, and unscientific, a belief as those who think it can be changed by therapy.

Making the argument about whether it can be changed or not is the real danger here. What does one do if science proves one's sexuality can be changed? That's the danger you face if you sit there fighting the case for an eternal and unchangeable sexuality.

To me it doesn't matter if it's nature, nuture, magic, cultural, or a mixture of all or some of those and other factors. It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. There is NOTHING wrong with being gay, bisexual, a lesbian, asexual, straight, pansexual, polyamorous or just about any other consensual sexual flavour one can imagine. That is the beginning and the end. Even accepting one side of the argument or the other is to tacitly agree there could be something wrong with it, that if it was a choice it'd somehow be a bad thing to choose.

Now, what do I believe? Based on no evidence whatsoever I suspect it's a mixture of nature, nurture and a significant splash of cultural construction. I also believe that our current distinction of LGB and straight will disappear, that our current "gay culture" is but a passing phase that will go the way of homophobia.

But that doesn't change the fact I might be very wrong indeed, and it doesn't change the fact it doesn't matter one iota.

So I'm perfectly content to accept that I didn't choose to be gay, that some might find "benefit" from ex-gay therapy and that Chris Birch could indeed turn gay because of a stroke. I'm not quite as happy to accept one must stop playing rugby, lose some weight and get a terrible hairstyle in for the bargain though.

Pink News managed a rather more thoughtful comment piece on this than the Guardian managed.

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

Government Internet Snooping - Please Let This Be An April Fools

It is being report today that the Government plans to introduce legislation to monitor emails, texts and internet surfing history. It feels like something New Labour would want, and in fact it's very similar to a law they unsuccessfully tried to introduce.

I've put up with tuition fees, the NHS bill, disability benefit cuts, even the lukewarm marriage equality consultation. But it would be immoral for me to remain in a party that, whilst in Government, allowed this sort of attack on our basic freedoms to go through. I'm fairly confident that our Lib Dem ministers in Government will vigorously oppose this snooping law. Well they better do so anyway.

Seriously, this Government has lost it's way. They were supposed to roll back New Labour's authoritarian legislation not create more!!

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

Two Queens On The Throne and Other Stories

Join me on a journey through some of the interesting, supportive and crazy articles and comment pieces in the media over the last few days!

Let's start with this one from the Sun. Gay marriage law means 'there could be two Queens' on the throne. No, they aren't suggesting Elton John and David Furnish might suddenly be in the running for a promotion. This story actually deals with an interesting question, one the Daily Mail has also picked up "The Honourable David Furnish? Gay partners of knights and peers may be given courtesy titles in latest equality drive". What are the more blue-blooded and well-honoured LGBT folk's spouses to call themselves? It's interesting, to me at least, because it'll bring into sharp relief the question of such titles in general and the lopsided way they are applied. The female spouses in opposite-sex marriages tend to take the males titles but not the other way round. Will this debate be avoided or are we heading for a major change? It's extremely interesting to imagine and I do hope it's not brushed under the carpet but dealt with in a thoughtful and innovative way.

The Daily Mail has been foremost among the newspapers opposing equal civil marriage, and one of the arguments advanced is that marriage means something unique and shouldn't be applied to a relationship other than that between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. So an article about civil partnerships today made me smile. "Gay prisoners to marry inside some of Britain's toughest jails... as long as they pay for the ceremonies themselves". I thought marriage wasn't for the gays??

Over at the Express group we have two very different comment pieces this weekend. In the Express we have Nigel Farage offering yet another non-libertarian argument against marriage equality. Apparently, it's all Europe's fault. Who'd have guessed?? In the Star we have Sally Bercow. Not only does she argue for civil marriage equality but even goes further to demand religious marriage equality. Nicely balanced Express group!

Brian Sewell offers a very confused argument about an imaginary policy David Cameron has that would introduce religious marriage equality. Yet another case of "It's alright to be homophobic if you're gay" perhaps? It's funny how the gay men against this stuff have to make a big deal about being gay as if that makes their opinion worth more than anyone else. Isn't that what the right wing accuse us of doing? Tut tut.

As we head towards actual legislation I think the questions raised (on consummation, adultery, titles etc.) will become ever more interesting and far more wide-ranging than some of us realised (although the antis understand that at least and like to chirp about how complicated it all is at every opportunity) and the antis comment pieces will become even more unhinged and inconsistent. Fun times ahead.

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

Common Ground With Archbishop Sentamu?

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” says Dr Sentamu. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

“We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.

“It’s almost like somebody telling you that the Church, whose job is to worship God [will be] an arm of the Armed Forces. They must take arms and fight. You’re completely changing tradition.”

So said Archbishop Sentamu in the Daily Telegraph this week.

I find his Armed Forces comments rather bizarre, and the general tone of his discussion fairly obviously comes from a position of hatred. But then again this is a man who believe in virgin births and men who walk on water, so I think it's important we don't judge him too harshly.

I think it's important we start building bridges with our opponents. We are NEVER going to convince people who believe in the stories from one of the earliest known examples of fantasy fiction that same-sex relationships are benign, let alone that they are acceptable. Yes, my phrasing may be offensive to some believers, but it's time to start talking frankly. They think my love for a man is a sin. I think their belief in the reality of fictional characters is silly. If we can be honest, we can move forward.

Dr Sentamu argues that the state should not define marriage. I absolutely agree. If the state was not already defining marriage I wouldn't even be campaigning for marriage equality. Take the example of Mormon polygamy (a current favourite topic of mine). Most practioners don't want their relationships recognised by the Government. They just want to stop being criminalised. I find that position very principled and practical.

Before civil partnerships blessing ceremonies were very common in same-sex relationships. But that hardly seems acceptable in a world where marriage affects practicalities such as taxation, benefits, immigration, child custody, possessions etc. Hence the battle for civil partnerships and now marriage equality.

So if the Government were to back off from defining marriage and offering these protections, then the cries for marriage equality would disappear. Problem solved. We all go away happy.

And I agree with his implication that the state shouldn't dictate to churches who they can and can't legally marry. If it left those arrangements up the church and the individual, so that churches who want to marry same-sex couples can and those same-sex couples can contract with each other to cover certain eventualities then again there would be no problems.

But none of this is the case and, until people like Dr. Sentamu stop supporting the status quo rather than offering alternatives for reform, won't be for the foreseeable future. If Dr. Sentamu wants to fight the powers of the state over the individual I'll be there right by his side, but his blinkered version where the state supports his preferred type of relationship over another makes a mockery of his argument. "The Government should not dictate anything unless Dr Sentamu agrees with it" is not a very convincing position. So I must instead fight with those demanding at least equal treatment from the state their taxes fund.

Marriage equality or marriage reform. That's all we ask.

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

My Feelings On Anti-Discrimination Laws: I Was Wrong

I'm embarked on a project of reflection on my specific political and moral beliefs and how they fit with  my liberal and libertarian beliefs in general

Going to be unpopular this one.

My position on anti-discrimination laws has been inconsistent over the last few years. In 2007 I was against them in principle, although looked forward with glee to the unhappiness they'd cause religious fundamentalists, whereas in 2010 I was of the opinion that one person's rights did trump another's in the Chris Grayling Bed and Breakfast controversy.

Well I'll put my hands up and apologise to all who debated with me over the Chris Grayling issue. I was wrong. I admit that I felt uncomfortable with my decision but I let my heart rule over my head. The Government should not be involved in dictating who stays in a guesthouse. That choice remains with the owners themselves.

It's not a position that sits well with me. Someone who bans someone else from their home, business or group based simply on who they are, rather than their character, is not someone I have much time for. They are, at the very least, impolite and poorly mannered. But the Government should not be in the business of punishing people for being nasty, unwelcoming people. Allowing our Government this power concedes that they are able to interfere in the private lives and business of British citizens. That is a dangerous precedent.

It's stories like this which really trouble me. It is simply unacceptable that people should be abused in public like this but if he wasn't inciting violence how can one have this busker arrested simply for being a knob? I do not mean to downplay the awful hurt that can be caused by words. Even the occasional whispered comment or snigger behind your back can leave me upset. Are we to have every idiot locked up? You know what I think would've been a more effective reaction? The same one as happened with the John Snow pub; group action. The busker is licensed to be in Trafalgar Square so must be there fairly regularly. A little news story here and there and viola he's surrounded by people on their own PA systems calling him out for his idiocy. He'd soon learn his lesson and the value of free speech is upheld. Calling in the authority of the state to punish this nutter is yet another dangerous precedent.

What about at work? Well if you don't work for a company who issue you with a contract stating they will protect you from harassment or want to work for a company who wouldn't want to hire you because of who you are then really I have to wonder about your choices. As I've said before; we all need to stop hiding (and allowing prejudiced idiots to hide) behind stupid laws that dictate how private agreements can and should be made. We need to stand together, win hearts and minds and call out those who discriminate and make sure their customers know how flipping nasty they are.

Again none of this sits well with me. I want to protect the vulnerable and to frustrate the efforts of anyone who is prejudiced. But if I am to be consistent with my belief in freedom from Government control (which has hurt so many in centuries past) then I cannot support anti-discrimination laws which are, in effect, allowing Government to police people's morality. If I don't want the Government policing my morality, I must stand up and stop them policing others.

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

Marriage Equality: I'm Moving On

I'm embarked on a project of reflection on my specific political and moral beliefs and how they fit with my liberal and libertarian beliefs in general

No. Jae "Marriage Equality" Kay is not saying he's changed his mind on the whole marriage equality thing. But things have changed, so have I, and I'm looking towards the next objective.

At the beginning of last year I still felt like a very lonely voice screaming in the dark for marriage equality. But now far more influential and inspirational folks have taken up the battle. LGBT people, the Government and the general population have all shifted definitively towards the position that marriage equality is the way forward. I think the campaign is now in safe hands and I can begin fighting for what I really believe in rather than this painfully unnecessary sideshow caused by Labour's "civil partnership" legislation.

I know, you may not believe me, but I didn't use to be a big fan of marriage, however, the unfairness of civil partnerships spurred me to anger and each person who told me to shut up about marriage and embrace civil partnerships (all gay men by the way) only made me more determined to get what I felt was right. Of such petty asides, a one-man campaign was born. But I believe in a higher goal and that is marriage reform.

I've written about this before, and with my current return to libertarian politics feel now is the time to begin the fight (in a more general fight against Government interference) to get Government out of the marriage business. I have no doubts it'll be another lonely fight, but with marriage equality nearly in place, I hope it'll be less divisive.

When Government stops defining what marriage is, parties can start to form more individual and relevant partnership contracts which reflect their own lives and decisions. That's my new goal.

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

The Closet: The Glory And The Hypocrisy

The Closet, and the inseparable Coming Out experience, is a near-universal commonality between LGB people throughout the world. This powerful shared experience is paradoxically unique to each individual. At once it marks us a person and as a member of a group. This makes reactions to negative discussion of individuals and their own "Closets" often rather illogical and emotional.

I've nothing against the Closet in general. No one chooses to be "in the Closet". It is where people are forced to be. And I've always said you are never more than one question away from a Coming Out moment (in my case "Do you have a girlfriend?"). When I criticise closeted people in the public eye, it's not because I am critical of anyone who is hiding their sexuality for any reason but because their situation is rare and full of symbolism worthy of discussion. I hate having to state this, but I need to because I know from past experience even thinking of suggesting we don't allow Coming Out to erase the political sins and missteps of people's pasts is akin to ripping up some commentator's most beloved teddy. I understand how traumatic it can be, but that doesn't mean we should go lightly on those who have things to answer for.

Take Nigel Evans MP for example. He came out in December 2010. When I dared suggest we berate him for his past transgressions (i.e. support for Clause 28), which now seemed that much worse in the light of his personal circumstances, I was told I couldn't imagine how hard it must of been for him. My heart still bleeds. I never did receive a response from him when I asked exactly how he thought, based on his comments, Clause 28 would protect children and, especially, LGBT children. I suspect his silence is because that was a hastily created excuse to cover up for the real fact; he voted with the whip and had no scrupples about the problems it'd cause LGBT kids. This is the man we should have compassion for? Since then he had an interview with Rhona Cameron:

RC: It does stun me that you can be gay and be in the Conservative party. How did you feel as a young person knowing you were gay, being involved in a party that put into force draconian measures like section 28, and the legacy of that? The reason people like me were bullied at a young age, which affected me for the rest of my life, was because we grew up in a climate of persecution and oppression. Are you telling me that when you heard the beginnings of section 28, you didn't take a hit for that, you didn't feel something in your heart?

NE: No, because I was going through denial, and what I would describe as my Neanderthal phase. It was just stupid, I clearly wasn't thinking. I probably thought, wrongly, that this is what the public want and we should concede it [Evans backed section 28, and once voted against lowering the age of consent]. Of course, I was completely wrong. I said it when I came out, I showed absolutely no leadership, whereas David Cameron has. When you say you can't work out how there are so many gays in the Tory party – David is hugely instrumental in that, because of his approach to gay issues and equality.

Oh, he was in denial! Forgiven. I think not. I have a great deal of respect for those who have deeply held beliefs that oppose my own. I have a deep respect for those who are persuaded by force of argument to change their beliefs.  But to simply say "Oh well I was in denial and it was what the people seemed to want" to explain a political decision is, as I said in my original post on Nigel Evans, spineless.

Then we have David Laws. Unlike Nigel Evans, Laws didn't come out; he was dragged out. Also unlike Nigel Evans, Laws has an exemplary Parliamentary record on LGBT rights. So at least he wasn't a hypocrite whilst in the closet. I think Laws dealt with his situation with dignity considering what happened last year, and I don't really have a problem with him personally. But again, his supporters dragged out the "glory" of the Closet to attempt to excuse his actions with regards to his expenses. And this is where we get to the crux of my problem with some people and the Closet. Their coming out experience is used, sometimes by them or as in this case by their supporters, as a shield to stop criticism and derail debate. Coming out is not something to be glorified, people who come out aren't heroes. Coming out is something we should be ashamed has to still happen in our country. Coming out should be viewed as a necessary evil. We need to stop treating those who come out with kid gloves. All gay, bisexual and lesbian people have to do it, constantly. Sympathise by all means, but don't suggest some millionaire coming out is somehow as damaging as some working class kid in a secondary school. It's insulting. Well at least Laws admits, like Evans, his errors.

Did his obsessive wish for secrecy send a poor signal to gay young people? “Yes I regret that. I don’t think that as an MP and somebody who was education spokesman for the party that I set a very good example in that regard,” he says.

It's 2011. You can come out now. You should have come out 10 years ago. You're not safe now but some of us who came out decades ago can tell you, it's a bloody lot safer than it used to be.

Also it's really time people stopped using their sexuality as an excuse for their other transgressions (looks at Chris Bryant and his expenses issues in 2009 for example). It's insulting to every decent LGBT person out there.

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

IDAHO: Lib Dems In Government = LGBT Rights Win

Lynne Featherstone talks about what the Coalition has done and plans to do in an effort to push forward the evil gay agenda. (We're coming for your children next...)



And ILGA-Europe published a "Rainbow Map" which gave the UK top marks on LGBT rights (when compared with others, no European country got full marks) moving up from joint 6th place last year. The fight for freedom continues... but we're closing in...

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

Marriage Equality And The Scottish Parliamentary Elections

So pretty much all the manifestos are out from the various parties fighting for seats in the Scottish Parliament. It's time to see where they all stand on my favourite/least favourite issue: marriage equality.

The Liberal Democrats are very clear:

“Extend legal marriage to gay couples and civil partnerships to heterosexual couples”

And the Greens are equally direct:

“Develop a more tolerant Scotland, introducing equal marriage.

We’ll introduce legislation for equal partnership – opening marriage and civil partnership up to mixed-sex and same-sex couples, and allowing religious celebrants to conduct civil partnership. We’ll begin a dialogue with the UK Government about the need for cross-border recognition of relationships on the basis of equality.”

Labour are little less clear (despite protestations to the contrary in the pledge itself!):

“We also believe that the time is now right to consult on options to provide genuine equality for same-sex couples and their families, by addressing the different status of civil partnership and marriage. We are clear – Scotland shouldn’t be left behind on these issues.”

“We will investigate the best way to implement the ‘Alli Amendment’ in Scotland, to give religious organisations that want to, the freedom to hold civil partnerships in their buildings for the first time.”

Just what we want... more investigations and consultations. *sigh* But at least it's up for "consideration".

The Scottish National Party are also up for "consulting":

“We recognise the range of views on the question of same-sex marriage and registration of civil partnerships. We will therefore begin a process of consultation and discussion on these issues”

Alex Salmond has also spoken about this:

Bernard Ponsonby: John McKay from Leith asks "Mr Salmond, if re-elected, what stance will you take on the question of allowing heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships, and to allow same-sex couples to marry? David Cameron, Nick Clegg and David Miliband – I think he means Ed Miliband – have already stated that they support the idea."

Alex Salmond: Yeah, I mean, we'll put a consultation paper out, that's in the manifesto. I'm supportive, as long as any individual denomination is not forced into the position. That seems to me very important.

Bernard Ponsonby: Sorry, just explain that last bit.

Alex Salmond: Well you wouldn't have, and incidentally I don't think the gay community are advocating, a circumstance where a denomination would be forced to have a marriage in church, and, you know, some people are confused about that position, but that's not what's being advocated. But I'm supportive and it will go out to consultation.

The Scottish Socialist Party have their heart in the right place:

“The strengthening of civil partnership legislation to full equality with marriage, including religious ceremonies"

But I think the idea of "strengthening" civil partnership legislation is different to introducing marriage equality (which is a separately legislated right). I suspect this is simply a lack of understanding of the issues and a wish to be seen to be on the right side of the argument, rather than some weird alternative view.

Even the "old" Liberal Party is getting in on the act.

“Marriage – should be open to all. Gender-free domestic partnership laws.”

And so it came to pass, that marriage equality would be an almost universally accepted manifesto committment in a UK election. The Tories are conspicuous by their absence among the "Big 4" parties and even among parties likely to get representation at Holyrood. Same old Tories? Or did they just miss the memo?

The Equality Network has been doing all the legwork on this, and I urge you to subscribe to their marriage equality news updates.

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

Travel, The Law And Homosexuality

When you go to another country, for a short or long stay, it's always important to keep an eye on some of the more eye-catchingly different laws. For instance if, unlike me, you are into your recreational drugs you might act differently depending on whether you were in Amsterdam or in Bangkok.

In that vein I have one very strict rule regarding my own personal travel arrangements: I will not visit a country where homosexuality is illegal. It's partly out of a sense of personal safety and partly out of respect for those still suffering under such an illiberal Government.

So I have very mixed emotions about the following story:

A British man was arrested and beaten in Saudi Arabia by religious police when they discovered he was gay.

Stephen Comiskey, a 36-year-old nurse, was threatened with beheading and thrown in a cell, the Sun reports.

He says he was tricked by religious police who sent him a text message pretending to be a friend. Homosexuality is a capital offence in Saudi Arabia.

After his arrest, he was throttled until he signed a confession in Arabic and had his passport taken away.

He spent six months in the country, unsure whether he would be killed.

Mr Comiskey, who had been working at the King Fahad National Guard Hospital in Riyadh, was allowed to fly home this week after diplomatic talks.

One part of me, of course, feels a great deal of sympathy for him and righteous anger against the Saudi regime (although I tend to ALWAYS feel righteous anger towards the Saudi regime). The other part wonders: WHAT THE HELL WAS HE DOING THERE???

I know, it's awful of me to question his personal decisions but why, oh why, would someone go to a country in which other LGBT people are oppressed and murdered by the state?

What are your thoughts on visiting countries with backward and oppressive regimes (and not just with regards to LGBT rights but human rights in general)? Is it wrong of me to insist on people observing at least a basic moral code in terms of what countries it's "okay" to visit (note, I struggled to even convince myself a trip to California met my standards and Thailand was alright only during the democractic moments of the 00s)?

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