It has been a couple of years since the end of the same-sex marriage debates and it is about time we got some insider knowledge of how same-sex marriage went from fringe issue (fringe even within the LGBT community, trust me... I was there!) to actual legislation.
And Lynne Featherstone was a central figure within that, there is not denying it. Now there's been some unkind mocking, including from me, of the way the book has been portrayed as being all about how Featherstone was the one and only person behind same-sex marriage becoming law. But let's get this out of the way from the start: even without reading what is in this book we all know she played an immensely important part in getting same-sex marriage on to the agenda and through Parliament. She justly deserves respect and appreciation for that.
So... the book. There are no massive revelations in it for any of us who followed the news and social media updates at the time. I don't think there's any surprise in how Theresa May gave Featherstone's proposals her blessing, how David Cameron got in the way of opposite-sex civil partnerships or how the churches and fellow travellers reacted.
Nor should any of us be surprised that Chris Bryant, Labour MP, "battled ferociously" against the idea at first and "didn't see the point". Nor how Ben Summerskill was "very dismissive" until the hard part was over when he was "literally lording it and loving it".
Basically if you read Pink News, or even just this humble blog!, you'd probably be well aware of all this stuff and more.
This book is not really a book about same-sex marriage, it is a book about how Lynne Featherstone got us same-sex marriage. It is a memoir and, if anything, merely one source for the yet-to-be written full history of the fight for equal marriage (also yet to be finished!).
Is it worth buying? Probably not. It's written in a very easy to read conversational style, broken down into themes rather than strictly chronological and perfect for a commuting read. But... it just didn't tell me anything important than what I knew already.
The one interesting little detail I saw was mention of Ed Fordham attempting to turn Tim Farron on the issue... using scripture! Ugh. I'm glad I'm out of that party now.
Showing posts with label marriage equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage equality. Show all posts
Saturday, 30 January 2016
Saturday, 20 June 2015
If Pitcairn Island Can Do It, You Can Northern Ireland! #equalmarriage
Last month Pitcairn Island legalised same-sex marriage. One small little British outpost (of 56 people) in the Pacific Ocean managed to be more liberal in a shorter space of time than Northern Ireland which is part of western Europe.
Come on Northern Ireland (and the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey etc.). If the Seventh-day Adventist Pitcairn Islanders can do it, you can too!!!
Also they managed to do it in a gender-neutral, and vastly superior way, when compared with England and Wales' attempt.
Not that this is the first time the Pitcairn Islanders have been ahead of the curve...
Come on Northern Ireland (and the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey etc.). If the Seventh-day Adventist Pitcairn Islanders can do it, you can too!!!
Also they managed to do it in a gender-neutral, and vastly superior way, when compared with England and Wales' attempt.
Not that this is the first time the Pitcairn Islanders have been ahead of the curve...
I've just seen that Pitcairn Island, thanks to UK's laws, is well ahead of other territories in Polynesia on LGBT issues #imperialpride
— Jae Kay (@JaeKay) July 15, 2010
Monday, 18 May 2015
Tim Farron And Same-Sex Marriage
If I had been an MP in the last Parliament (stop thanking deities I wasn't back there!) I'd have had many second thoughts about voting for the same-sex marriage bill. I went over my reasons for that repeatedly during the debates but they are summed up here.
I state that as a way of saying I'm open-minded (a rare state for me, as you well know Dear Constant Reader) about those who may have had similar concerns about a very flawed bill and even those who abstained (but I'm far less open-minded about those who voted against it as it was clearly a step in the right direction and not worthy of total rejection!). Cheerleaders who hold the same-sex marriage act up as some amazing piece of progressive legislation will not get much of a warm reception from me.
Tim Farron, in the midst of a Lib Dem leadership campaign, has come under fire from his opponent Norman Lamb on the issue of same-sex marriage. I've seen some less well-informed Tweeple (especially non-LDs) claiming Tim Farron was against same-sex marriage. That is absolutely not true.
Farron voted for the same-sex marriage bill in its early stages. He abstained from voting during it's Third Reading. He states this was because of his concerns over protections for some religious communities and conscientious objectors.
I've expressed a great deal of concern regarding Farron's actions regarding some issues around religion in the past. So I'm no Tim Farron fanboy (though, for full disclosure, I am currently planning to vote for him). But, to give him his due, he has been unfailingly consistent in framing his stances on very clear individual liberty grounds. Some of his positions have made me feel uncomfortable but, I admit, have often made me consider whether I'm holding a position from the point of view of consistency or because of some prejudice I may have. And whenever I've engaged with him he has been willing to listen, to respond politely and to appear to consider other points of view.
Farron has made it clear he regrets that his abstention may be taken as a lack of support for same-sex marriage in principle and that he very much supports it and will defend it should it come under attack from the new Tory Government. We can't really ask for more than that now can we?
Well he could champion some of my concerns with regards to the act, of course... ;)
I state that as a way of saying I'm open-minded (a rare state for me, as you well know Dear Constant Reader) about those who may have had similar concerns about a very flawed bill and even those who abstained (but I'm far less open-minded about those who voted against it as it was clearly a step in the right direction and not worthy of total rejection!). Cheerleaders who hold the same-sex marriage act up as some amazing piece of progressive legislation will not get much of a warm reception from me.
Tim Farron, in the midst of a Lib Dem leadership campaign, has come under fire from his opponent Norman Lamb on the issue of same-sex marriage. I've seen some less well-informed Tweeple (especially non-LDs) claiming Tim Farron was against same-sex marriage. That is absolutely not true.
Farron voted for the same-sex marriage bill in its early stages. He abstained from voting during it's Third Reading. He states this was because of his concerns over protections for some religious communities and conscientious objectors.
I've expressed a great deal of concern regarding Farron's actions regarding some issues around religion in the past. So I'm no Tim Farron fanboy (though, for full disclosure, I am currently planning to vote for him). But, to give him his due, he has been unfailingly consistent in framing his stances on very clear individual liberty grounds. Some of his positions have made me feel uncomfortable but, I admit, have often made me consider whether I'm holding a position from the point of view of consistency or because of some prejudice I may have. And whenever I've engaged with him he has been willing to listen, to respond politely and to appear to consider other points of view.
Farron has made it clear he regrets that his abstention may be taken as a lack of support for same-sex marriage in principle and that he very much supports it and will defend it should it come under attack from the new Tory Government. We can't really ask for more than that now can we?
Well he could champion some of my concerns with regards to the act, of course... ;)
Saturday, 26 July 2014
Anti-#EqualMarriage Minister Gets Stonewall Staffer As Special Advisor
Imagine... A Stonewall head of education working for an anti-marriage equality Tory Minister.Who'd of thought it? Everyone? Oh.
But Jae, I hear you say. The debate is over. We've got equal marriage. Let's move on and work together. It is about helping end bullying (well if its homophobic anyway, otherwise the kids are on their own). Blah blah blah. Won't somebody think of the children? Etc.
Well it isn't over. And it isn't right. We still have plenty of work to go before we achieve actual marriage equality. And the idea that Luke Tryl, who probably had a fair bit of input into this piece of sex-shaming, will somehow make Morgan's positions more acceptable is laughable.
I'm no radical queer here. You guys often tell me off for holding things politicians did 30 years ago against them today (because being anti-LGBT youth turns out to have an "unacceptability" expiry date). But this is something she did last year! We haven't even got marriage equality yet, and instead of opposing such an incredibly awful choice for equality minister people at the very top of the "leading" LGB charity in this country are choosing to help her (though I hasten to add Tryl has left his position at Stonewall to go and aid Morgan).
Does nobody else find this infuriating? Am I the only person just aghast at this whole rubbish chain of events? I don't really agree with much of what Peter Tatchell believes but I'm thinking I need to increase my £5.00 monthly donation to him just to bring back some balance.
But Jae, I hear you say. The debate is over. We've got equal marriage. Let's move on and work together. It is about helping end bullying (well if its homophobic anyway, otherwise the kids are on their own). Blah blah blah. Won't somebody think of the children? Etc.
Well it isn't over. And it isn't right. We still have plenty of work to go before we achieve actual marriage equality. And the idea that Luke Tryl, who probably had a fair bit of input into this piece of sex-shaming, will somehow make Morgan's positions more acceptable is laughable.
I'm no radical queer here. You guys often tell me off for holding things politicians did 30 years ago against them today (because being anti-LGBT youth turns out to have an "unacceptability" expiry date). But this is something she did last year! We haven't even got marriage equality yet, and instead of opposing such an incredibly awful choice for equality minister people at the very top of the "leading" LGB charity in this country are choosing to help her (though I hasten to add Tryl has left his position at Stonewall to go and aid Morgan).
Does nobody else find this infuriating? Am I the only person just aghast at this whole rubbish chain of events? I don't really agree with much of what Peter Tatchell believes but I'm thinking I need to increase my £5.00 monthly donation to him just to bring back some balance.
Monday, 2 June 2014
Roger Helmer Finally Says Something Pretty Clear On LGBT Stuff
Roger Helmer, a candidate for a party with the silliest policy on same-sex marriage, has finally stopped muddying the water on LGBT issues after the tweet below came back to haunt him...
Now that he's articulated a libertarian position on ex-gay therapy, perhaps he might want to help David Coburn come up with a libertarian response to the equal marriage debate rather than the codswallop that is currently masquerading as Ukip party policy.
And then he can move on to perhaps suggesting to his fellow Ukippers about respecting actual religious and individual liberty.
Why is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex-change operation, but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to "turn" a consenting homosexual?
— Roger Helmer (@RogerHelmerMEP) January 16, 2011
3 and a bit years later, he has finally decided that (instead of asking silly unclear questions) to be a bit clearer about his position after an interview with the Mail on Sunday went a bit wrong. His response to that interview is, I will admit, the very first thing I've EVER seen from Ukip that actually 1) appears to be a libertarian position and 2) sets out clearly that he doesn't seek to intrude on people's personal lives. He's on the same page as me on this one.Now that he's articulated a libertarian position on ex-gay therapy, perhaps he might want to help David Coburn come up with a libertarian response to the equal marriage debate rather than the codswallop that is currently masquerading as Ukip party policy.
And then he can move on to perhaps suggesting to his fellow Ukippers about respecting actual religious and individual liberty.
Wednesday, 2 April 2014
Mea Culpa: I Was Wrong On #EqualMarriage
I'm not a "radical queer". Oh I had pretensions in my youth but, ultimately, I'm too lazy to be a radical queer. And, let's face it, I've been in a monogamous relationship with the man I love for 10 years, living in domestic bliss with a dog, a bearded dragon and plans for a wedding. I'm about as radical as the man who chooses to repaint his house in a slightly different colour of beige.
I didn't choose to make marriage equality "my thing". I didn't go looking for an issue to get a bee in my bonnet over. Marriage equality sort of just fell into my lap. Unwanted but insistent. There I was, a happy 21 year old working weekdays and trolling down Old Compton Street on the weekends, and suddenly people started getting all excited about civil partnerships. I couldn't understand it. That's not equality you dimwits, my less than tactful inner monologue said, that's just crumbs to keep you quiet. I couldn't comprehend the fact no one else, other than folks like Peter Tatchell, could see what was happening. All my gay mates were beside themselves with glee and the media was lapping it all up, and I was sitting grumpily in a corner wondering if everyone had lost their mind. I was naive.
I was naive to one think that LGBT politicians would stand up for what was right rather than do deals behind the scenes. I was also naive to believe that most LGBT people had the ability to see things more clearly than most other people. I stupidly had this odd notion LGBT had more common sense than Joe Public. Which probably in itself proves we don't.
At the same time I fell deeply in love. My connections with the gay scene dwindled as my other half and I disappeared into our own little romance. Safely out of touch with the general lack of excitement of LGBT people for it, I started to argue for marriage equality.
There was a genuine injustice to be corrected. Civil partnerships were not equality, though they served a purpose, and I was not going to just allow that to be forgotten. I came up against a brick wall when it came to LGBT politicians and organisations who seemed to think I was completely mad. Marriage? Why ever would we need that? Labour, in particular, seemed unable to grasp the concept that their beloved civil partnerships may not have been perfect. And that just spurred me on. I'd always, in my younger days, been open to radical queer theory, but when I encountered arguments from that perspective against marriage equality (that it would serve to neuter our sexual expression, for conformity on to us etc.) I dismissed them as just more lefty incomprehension of the injustice I saw.
I admit I never really wanted marriage equality. I had bigger dreams. But the rejection I got from all I brought up the subject with (a lot of people!) turned my belief in equal marriage from a principle into an obsession. And soon I found others who actually did share my views and eventually they reached the right people and here we are 9 years later with same-sex marriage.
And now the chance to rest and see if what we have created is good. And I do not think it is. Partly that is because it isn't equal marriage. Same-sex marriage is yet another messy compromise and, in the same way as happened with civil partnerships, most people refuse to acknowledge that fact. We failed here in England and Wales to get marriage equality.
Mostly though, now I feel the fight has reached a stalemate (I doubt the changes we need to fix same-sex marriage will come about any time soon), I look upon what has been created and shake my head with shame.
This was meant to be a liberation. Same-sex couples could marry and enjoy the same benefits as opposite-sex ones. We could choose our futures and live our lives as we wished, whether that was through a marriage or by fucking our brains out with a different guy every night. Suddenly we'd have the right not to have to conform to any one culture. Conservative gays and radical gays and all those in between finally had the right to be themselves. How stupid was I hey?
Instead a new conformity seems to be forming around a conservative homosexuality (trans folks need not apply), I realise this was happening before 2014 but I was too single-mindedly obsessing over equal marriage to notice. Through chats with others about my opposition to many of Stonewall's latest prudish initiatives and my issues with how gay couples have gone from pariahs to Disney-fied paragons of virtue on TV I realise same-sex marriage has helped shore up the more conservative outlook of some LGBT people. It plays into the hands of those who wish to demean sexually active teenagers, who wish to prudishly oppose even partial nudity and who wish to close bathhouses and "clean up" the gay scene. Now I know those people weren't in this fight from the beginning. I know many of these folks didn't even think about marriage equality until the bandwagon was practically over the finish line. They were the very people, in some cases literally, who dismissed my questions and arguments about marriage equality pre-2010. But... now I've supported giving them a weapon with which to craft a new narrative of clean-cut, prudish homosexuality. I've supported giving them a new rod with which they can beat those who don't conform. I should have seen what they'd do with even this slight amount of freedom. And I didn't.
And I was wrong not to see this. Foolish. Naive. I'm angry now to know that, in years to come, pain will be caused to those who don't conform because of something I supported. Angry that now emboldened elements will up their fight to desexualise, normalise and "sanitise" others.
This isn't what I hoped for. This isn't the freedom I signed up to. And I just don't know how it can be made right.
I still think fighting for equal marriage was right in principle. But the consequences... I should've seen them coming.
I didn't choose to make marriage equality "my thing". I didn't go looking for an issue to get a bee in my bonnet over. Marriage equality sort of just fell into my lap. Unwanted but insistent. There I was, a happy 21 year old working weekdays and trolling down Old Compton Street on the weekends, and suddenly people started getting all excited about civil partnerships. I couldn't understand it. That's not equality you dimwits, my less than tactful inner monologue said, that's just crumbs to keep you quiet. I couldn't comprehend the fact no one else, other than folks like Peter Tatchell, could see what was happening. All my gay mates were beside themselves with glee and the media was lapping it all up, and I was sitting grumpily in a corner wondering if everyone had lost their mind. I was naive.
I was naive to one think that LGBT politicians would stand up for what was right rather than do deals behind the scenes. I was also naive to believe that most LGBT people had the ability to see things more clearly than most other people. I stupidly had this odd notion LGBT had more common sense than Joe Public. Which probably in itself proves we don't.
At the same time I fell deeply in love. My connections with the gay scene dwindled as my other half and I disappeared into our own little romance. Safely out of touch with the general lack of excitement of LGBT people for it, I started to argue for marriage equality.
There was a genuine injustice to be corrected. Civil partnerships were not equality, though they served a purpose, and I was not going to just allow that to be forgotten. I came up against a brick wall when it came to LGBT politicians and organisations who seemed to think I was completely mad. Marriage? Why ever would we need that? Labour, in particular, seemed unable to grasp the concept that their beloved civil partnerships may not have been perfect. And that just spurred me on. I'd always, in my younger days, been open to radical queer theory, but when I encountered arguments from that perspective against marriage equality (that it would serve to neuter our sexual expression, for conformity on to us etc.) I dismissed them as just more lefty incomprehension of the injustice I saw.
I admit I never really wanted marriage equality. I had bigger dreams. But the rejection I got from all I brought up the subject with (a lot of people!) turned my belief in equal marriage from a principle into an obsession. And soon I found others who actually did share my views and eventually they reached the right people and here we are 9 years later with same-sex marriage.
And now the chance to rest and see if what we have created is good. And I do not think it is. Partly that is because it isn't equal marriage. Same-sex marriage is yet another messy compromise and, in the same way as happened with civil partnerships, most people refuse to acknowledge that fact. We failed here in England and Wales to get marriage equality.
Mostly though, now I feel the fight has reached a stalemate (I doubt the changes we need to fix same-sex marriage will come about any time soon), I look upon what has been created and shake my head with shame.
This was meant to be a liberation. Same-sex couples could marry and enjoy the same benefits as opposite-sex ones. We could choose our futures and live our lives as we wished, whether that was through a marriage or by fucking our brains out with a different guy every night. Suddenly we'd have the right not to have to conform to any one culture. Conservative gays and radical gays and all those in between finally had the right to be themselves. How stupid was I hey?
Instead a new conformity seems to be forming around a conservative homosexuality (trans folks need not apply), I realise this was happening before 2014 but I was too single-mindedly obsessing over equal marriage to notice. Through chats with others about my opposition to many of Stonewall's latest prudish initiatives and my issues with how gay couples have gone from pariahs to Disney-fied paragons of virtue on TV I realise same-sex marriage has helped shore up the more conservative outlook of some LGBT people. It plays into the hands of those who wish to demean sexually active teenagers, who wish to prudishly oppose even partial nudity and who wish to close bathhouses and "clean up" the gay scene. Now I know those people weren't in this fight from the beginning. I know many of these folks didn't even think about marriage equality until the bandwagon was practically over the finish line. They were the very people, in some cases literally, who dismissed my questions and arguments about marriage equality pre-2010. But... now I've supported giving them a weapon with which to craft a new narrative of clean-cut, prudish homosexuality. I've supported giving them a new rod with which they can beat those who don't conform. I should have seen what they'd do with even this slight amount of freedom. And I didn't.
And I was wrong not to see this. Foolish. Naive. I'm angry now to know that, in years to come, pain will be caused to those who don't conform because of something I supported. Angry that now emboldened elements will up their fight to desexualise, normalise and "sanitise" others.
This isn't what I hoped for. This isn't the freedom I signed up to. And I just don't know how it can be made right.
I still think fighting for equal marriage was right in principle. But the consequences... I should've seen them coming.
Friday, 28 March 2014
Not To Rain On Anyone's Same-Sex Marriage Parade But...
Way back in 2009 and 2010 when I was discussing marriage equality with some left-wingers (such as members of LGBT Labour), their reluctance to listen to any mention of marriage stemmed quite strongly from their belief that I was "undermining" civil partnerships. My attempts to point out civil partnerships were not perfect and did not grant legal equality (on issues I laid out here) were seen as an attack on their current, or future, relationship.
They'd taken civil partnerships to their heart and any criticism of the legal issues was seen as a criticism of their own personal choices. So, as I am about to embark on yet another adventure in being the only miserable one at the gay pride party, I want to make it clear from the start here: I do not begrudge anyone who is going to enter into a marriage under the newly introduced law. I plan to take advantage of the opportunity, partner willing of course, to enter a blessed state of matrimony (blessed by the arms of Thor in case you were wondering ;) ). I wish those getting married every happiness and success. Enjoy yourselves!
However... same-sex marriage is not what I was arguing for back in 2009. As I said here, what we are getting solves only a small percentage of the issues that created the need for something better than civil partnerships in the first place.
Our Government has done marriage equality on the cheap. Stonewall, after they got over the opposition of 10% of their members drowning out the other 90%, have been next to useless in doing anything useful other than cheering from the sidelines. I don't think even today they've realised how rubbish the legislation really is, and it'll probably be another 10 years before they even get around to declaring their opposition to any correction of the failings.
We must continue to fight for a correction to the errors made over the last couple of years and make the same-sex marriage act into something even better. I'm not sure I have the heart for that fight. But I'm principled enough to point out that we are not yet there...
They'd taken civil partnerships to their heart and any criticism of the legal issues was seen as a criticism of their own personal choices. So, as I am about to embark on yet another adventure in being the only miserable one at the gay pride party, I want to make it clear from the start here: I do not begrudge anyone who is going to enter into a marriage under the newly introduced law. I plan to take advantage of the opportunity, partner willing of course, to enter a blessed state of matrimony (blessed by the arms of Thor in case you were wondering ;) ). I wish those getting married every happiness and success. Enjoy yourselves!
However... same-sex marriage is not what I was arguing for back in 2009. As I said here, what we are getting solves only a small percentage of the issues that created the need for something better than civil partnerships in the first place.
Our Government has done marriage equality on the cheap. Stonewall, after they got over the opposition of 10% of their members drowning out the other 90%, have been next to useless in doing anything useful other than cheering from the sidelines. I don't think even today they've realised how rubbish the legislation really is, and it'll probably be another 10 years before they even get around to declaring their opposition to any correction of the failings.
We must continue to fight for a correction to the errors made over the last couple of years and make the same-sex marriage act into something even better. I'm not sure I have the heart for that fight. But I'm principled enough to point out that we are not yet there...
Sunday, 23 February 2014
Something Happened On The Way To The Bathhouse: The Rise Of LGBT Sex-Shaming
Something has gone very wrong on the road to LGBT freedom. This month is not only LGBT History Month but it is also marks my 16th "gayaversary" since I embraced my sexuality, which probably means it is as good a point as any to look back on my personal views on where LGBT rights are going.
When I came out to myself (10.25am, 26th February 1998 outside room 12 at the Harvey Grammar School, I've always been a stickler for being precise about such things...) LGBT rights were in a bit of a funny place.
On the one hand the fights over Section 28 and an equal age of consent were still raging. Fighting over adoption and civil partnerships had barely even begun and the idea of same-sex marriage would have been ludicrous to all but the most optimistic. Even a couple of years later the atmosphere was tense enough for my then boyfriend and I to have stones thrown at us in the streets of Folkestone for daring to hold hands.
And then on the other hand there was a thriving scene. The gay bars and clubs were always heaving in Canterbury and Pink Cadillacs, hidden away in the countryside outside Ashford, was bustling. Cruising was still very much a thing. 10 years ago you could still pull off into a lay-by near Detling at any time of the day and be assured of seeing some rather naughty things in seconds. Right there by a busy road. In the day time. In 1999 there would be some serious controversy over a TV series named Queer as Folk but it was allowed to show some pretty exciting gay sex scenes regardless.
Could you imagine men cavorting on the side of the road as openly as they did in Detling now? Sure cruising still happens, and in lay-bys, but the sort of daytime unashamed cruising seen in the late 1990s/early 2000s is a thing of the past. The controversy in 1999 over Queer as Folk was just that it showed gay sex. Nowadays the Guardian's Comment is Free would be filled with articles complaining about its depiction of an adult male and underage boy having sex. I'd expect the Stonewall Chief Executive of the day would be calling for a follow up episode where the adult male is arrested and jailed lest such a depiction may corrupt our youth (or in Stonewall parlance they are "overly sexualised").
Now we have won many victories both legally and culturally. Coming out, as an adult at least, is a lot easier (if not always easy). We have won legal victory after legal victory. Our opponents, such as the recently formed and increasingly powerless Coalition for Marriage, have changed from being the "voice of the majority" (as they once claimed) to being defenders of an under attack Christian minority (with just enough truth to be more believable than their previous claims). But as things have become ever more easy, and as we approach attacking important issues like bullying, the opposition to LGBT liberty has come more from our own "LGBT rights organisations" than from anyone else. This is not without historical precedent, of course.
The Mattachine Society spun out of the far-left in the United States in the early 1950s. It sought to "Educate homosexuals and heterosexuals toward an ethical homosexual culture paralleling the cultures of the Negro, Mexican and Jewish peoples". It was opposed to "subversive elements" and attempted to portray homosexuality as ordinary, non-offensive and American. Though it did help lay the groundwork for what was to come, its slow, prudish pace and its alienation of those who didn't fit its apple pie image lead to it being swept away following the Stonewall riots by a more inclusive radical LGBT movement who made huge strides towards freedom in the pre-AIDS era and ultimately leading in those last few, in hindsight, blissful years before the epidemic to the elevation of people like Harvey Milk.
In the early years of the "gay cancer" "scare" a new conservative brand of homosexual rose as the free sex culture was ravaged by the illness. They called for less sex not from prudery but out of a sense of survival. Ultimately they failed to "rescue" many from the evil that had set itself among the LGBT population because they ignored human nature, focussed too much on closing bathhouses rather than safe sex and thus never won the hearts and minds of gay men.
By the time safer sex education began to make itself more assertive and brought AIDS to the level it is now at, LGBT rights groups were back on the track of fighting for more conservative aims such as, ultimately, marriage equality. Post-civil partnerships here in the UK, Stonewall adopted the same tactics as the Mattachine Society of presenting gay people (ignoring bisexuals and trying to pretend transgender folk don't exist) as thoroughly respectable members of society. Through education, and through their growing corporate links with Government bodies and the police, they have begun to work on neutering the sexuality of LGBT people.
You may think that last sentence is the stuff of conspiracy nuttery. You may think I've finally jumped off the deep end. But one read of Stonewall's latest efforts (supported by, of all folks, O2 and happily shared on Twitter by several police forces) to "protect" LGBT young people online reveals their disdain for any sexuality that doesn't involve some sort of long-term relationship and "love". Ruth Hunt's opening words reveal much about their attitude:
As you can imagine, if their document starts off from this premise things can only get worse. I'll let you read the whole thing yourselves but here are two particularly telling parts which I find indicate a disturbing dislike of teenagers exploring their sexuality.
Worse though was this one paragraph which, when thought through, opens up a world of terror for young gay people.
The slow creep of a leftie conservatism into the LGBT movement has left us at the stage where Pink News expresses surprise that lots of gay men prefer sex without a condom. Well of course they do! That doesn't mean they are then going to be unsafe, if they are told the possible consequences and given the means to take personal responsibility for their bodies. It is just an expression of fact, not some salacious, indecent belief.
The strength of Grindr, taking over where Gaydar left off, and other sex apps underlines that the LGBT rights leadership in the western world is out of step with the real lives of many gay men and women. We have still not gotten to the stage where we accept LGBT people all have different moralities and lifestyles, and our "leaders" still try to force a conformity on us that does not fit.
I take great pride, and a deep personal satisfaction, in my 10 year monogamous relationship with the man I have been blessed to spend the last decade with. But I take no less pride, nor less personal satisfaction, in my early years as a 14 - 21 year old screwing around, cruising, dating and having fun. Some people are monogamous, some people are not. Get over it. And start supporting them with whatever choice they make!
When I came out to myself (10.25am, 26th February 1998 outside room 12 at the Harvey Grammar School, I've always been a stickler for being precise about such things...) LGBT rights were in a bit of a funny place.
On the one hand the fights over Section 28 and an equal age of consent were still raging. Fighting over adoption and civil partnerships had barely even begun and the idea of same-sex marriage would have been ludicrous to all but the most optimistic. Even a couple of years later the atmosphere was tense enough for my then boyfriend and I to have stones thrown at us in the streets of Folkestone for daring to hold hands.
And then on the other hand there was a thriving scene. The gay bars and clubs were always heaving in Canterbury and Pink Cadillacs, hidden away in the countryside outside Ashford, was bustling. Cruising was still very much a thing. 10 years ago you could still pull off into a lay-by near Detling at any time of the day and be assured of seeing some rather naughty things in seconds. Right there by a busy road. In the day time. In 1999 there would be some serious controversy over a TV series named Queer as Folk but it was allowed to show some pretty exciting gay sex scenes regardless.
Could you imagine men cavorting on the side of the road as openly as they did in Detling now? Sure cruising still happens, and in lay-bys, but the sort of daytime unashamed cruising seen in the late 1990s/early 2000s is a thing of the past. The controversy in 1999 over Queer as Folk was just that it showed gay sex. Nowadays the Guardian's Comment is Free would be filled with articles complaining about its depiction of an adult male and underage boy having sex. I'd expect the Stonewall Chief Executive of the day would be calling for a follow up episode where the adult male is arrested and jailed lest such a depiction may corrupt our youth (or in Stonewall parlance they are "overly sexualised").
Now we have won many victories both legally and culturally. Coming out, as an adult at least, is a lot easier (if not always easy). We have won legal victory after legal victory. Our opponents, such as the recently formed and increasingly powerless Coalition for Marriage, have changed from being the "voice of the majority" (as they once claimed) to being defenders of an under attack Christian minority (with just enough truth to be more believable than their previous claims). But as things have become ever more easy, and as we approach attacking important issues like bullying, the opposition to LGBT liberty has come more from our own "LGBT rights organisations" than from anyone else. This is not without historical precedent, of course.
The Mattachine Society spun out of the far-left in the United States in the early 1950s. It sought to "Educate homosexuals and heterosexuals toward an ethical homosexual culture paralleling the cultures of the Negro, Mexican and Jewish peoples". It was opposed to "subversive elements" and attempted to portray homosexuality as ordinary, non-offensive and American. Though it did help lay the groundwork for what was to come, its slow, prudish pace and its alienation of those who didn't fit its apple pie image lead to it being swept away following the Stonewall riots by a more inclusive radical LGBT movement who made huge strides towards freedom in the pre-AIDS era and ultimately leading in those last few, in hindsight, blissful years before the epidemic to the elevation of people like Harvey Milk.
In the early years of the "gay cancer" "scare" a new conservative brand of homosexual rose as the free sex culture was ravaged by the illness. They called for less sex not from prudery but out of a sense of survival. Ultimately they failed to "rescue" many from the evil that had set itself among the LGBT population because they ignored human nature, focussed too much on closing bathhouses rather than safe sex and thus never won the hearts and minds of gay men.
By the time safer sex education began to make itself more assertive and brought AIDS to the level it is now at, LGBT rights groups were back on the track of fighting for more conservative aims such as, ultimately, marriage equality. Post-civil partnerships here in the UK, Stonewall adopted the same tactics as the Mattachine Society of presenting gay people (ignoring bisexuals and trying to pretend transgender folk don't exist) as thoroughly respectable members of society. Through education, and through their growing corporate links with Government bodies and the police, they have begun to work on neutering the sexuality of LGBT people.
You may think that last sentence is the stuff of conspiracy nuttery. You may think I've finally jumped off the deep end. But one read of Stonewall's latest efforts (supported by, of all folks, O2 and happily shared on Twitter by several police forces) to "protect" LGBT young people online reveals their disdain for any sexuality that doesn't involve some sort of long-term relationship and "love". Ruth Hunt's opening words reveal much about their attitude:
Unfortunately, as we’re increasingly aware, the internet has a darker side. Young people are encouraged to develop an overly sexualised view of relationships as a result of the widespread prevalence of pornography and many young people are creating sexual images of themselves.I'm not sure how much LGBT history Ruth Hunt has read but "overly sexualised" is one way to describe most out, and quite a few closeted, young and old gay men pre-AIDS. Harvey Milk wasn't some angelic being who lived with one man all his life. He cruised from an early age and even in those final years as a San Francisco supervisor he still played the field. And she relies on some dubious logic widely subscribed to by conservatives and feminists that 1) pornography is demonstrably bad (some studies suggest it may even have positive effects and help reduce violent crime) and 2) that young people are needing special protection from the evils of sex (another issue very much disputed).
As you can imagine, if their document starts off from this premise things can only get worse. I'll let you read the whole thing yourselves but here are two particularly telling parts which I find indicate a disturbing dislike of teenagers exploring their sexuality.
"There is a 14 year old lad who has managed to download Grindr (a ‘social media’ app – let’s be more honest – it’s an app for men who have sex with men to meet and hook up for sex). Well this 14 year old has been nipping out of his bedroom window, sideling over to the local park at midnight and made himself available to all and sundry after agreeing to meet them on Grindr. Clearly he has put himself at a huge risk of HIV and all the other STIs and of course statutory rape." MSM (Men who have sex with men) Communities worker (South East)Sharing this piece of sex-shaming really gets to the heart of Stonewall's fundamental beliefs. Grindr is a source of great evil, and 14 year olds shouldn't be enjoying sex. There are risks to sex, absolutely, and kids should be made aware of them so they can make their own choices about their life and have the means to protect themselves. BUT the language used here to illustrate Stonewall's dislike of "inappropriate" unsafe sex is deeply concerning and would, I'd imagine, frighten any exploited teen away from seeking help if their sexuality is going to be discussed in such a matter. It should be a moment of great shame for Stonewall to endorse such horrific views.
Worse though was this one paragraph which, when thought through, opens up a world of terror for young gay people.
Report sexting and online abuse to the police or CEOP. If your child has come across illegal content, report this to the Internet Watch Foundation. You can help your child feel as safe and supported as possible by asking if they need extra support to deal with what has happened. They may want to talk things through with a gay support group or confidential counselling service like ChildLine.Report sexting to the police is a piece of advice suggested a couple of times in the document, I've taken here the least concerning use of it. Imagine the scenario. You are a 15 year old closeted gay teen. You have been sharing pictures of yourself with your current boyfriend (who is also 15) for a few weeks. One of your parents finds pictures of you and him on your phone. Following Stonewall's advice they contact the police. Your first experience of discussing your sexuality with your parents comes with a police escort. The teenager would certainly need support and the assistance of ChildLine after that particularly scarring experience, of that I have no doubt. His boyfriend will need that support too! The problem for Stonewall is that their links with the Government and police are now so strong that they are unable to offer even a minimum of common sense advice to parents such as "discuss this with your teen and discover whether this is exploitative or damaging". They can't do this because that is not the legal advice they have received. Instead they side with criminalising our youth, risking them getting prosecuted in some cases, over supporting LGBT youth and their families with really useful advice on staying safe whilst maintaining a healthy sexuality.
The slow creep of a leftie conservatism into the LGBT movement has left us at the stage where Pink News expresses surprise that lots of gay men prefer sex without a condom. Well of course they do! That doesn't mean they are then going to be unsafe, if they are told the possible consequences and given the means to take personal responsibility for their bodies. It is just an expression of fact, not some salacious, indecent belief.
The strength of Grindr, taking over where Gaydar left off, and other sex apps underlines that the LGBT rights leadership in the western world is out of step with the real lives of many gay men and women. We have still not gotten to the stage where we accept LGBT people all have different moralities and lifestyles, and our "leaders" still try to force a conformity on us that does not fit.
I take great pride, and a deep personal satisfaction, in my 10 year monogamous relationship with the man I have been blessed to spend the last decade with. But I take no less pride, nor less personal satisfaction, in my early years as a 14 - 21 year old screwing around, cruising, dating and having fun. Some people are monogamous, some people are not. Get over it. And start supporting them with whatever choice they make!
Sunday, 19 January 2014
Ukip Has An Anti-LGBT Freedom Problem, And It Is Far Deeper Than Just Religious Belief.
Ukip want to be presented as the freedom-loving party. They try desperately to pretend, for it is not true, to be "libertarian". But when it comes to Ukippers themselves and how they deal with others personal lives, you truly come to see the "real" Ukip. And the real Ukip has a major issue with LGBT people and their freedom.
Any reader of this blog will know I occasionally mention their odd candidates and their even odder views on homosexuality. There was Mike Mendoza who believed 1) gay people don't like football, 2) people who don't like football are more likely to be paedophiles and then 3) put those two thoughts into one paragraph. There was David Nixon whose leaflet was used to "smear" Ukip. Winston McKenzie said same-sex couples adopting was akin to child abuse, ironically not long after a council had tried to remove kids from a Ukip supporting family! And then there was Julia Gasper who was suspended from her position in the party many, many months after she first aired her dislike for LGBT folk.
When you follow those stories through you find Ukip, as a party, really doesn't know how to handle these people. The current example is a case in point. David Silvester, an ex-Tory Ukip councillor in Hendon, wrote a letter to his local paper criticising David Cameron and same-sex marriage and, in the strange style we've come to expect from US based evangelicals, blamed the recent flooding around the country on the passing of the same-sex marriage bill. A small Twitterstorm broke out and gradually the story found its way on to large news service's headlines.
Nigel Farage and the party spokesperson defended his right to express his religious beliefs, even if unorthodox. This would be more acceptable if Ukip hadn't sacked Olly Neville over his support of same-sex marriage! The concept of liberty is an important one, but if it doesn't apply to all then it is not liberty.
Today David Silvester, being admirably if catastrophically consistent, did an interview with BBC Oxford radio where he called homosexuality a disease. The story continued to spread and on a day when Ukip should've been shouting from the rooftops after a fantastic opinion poll (for them if not for those of us who believe weather and climate are based on a little more than who has sex with who) they were instead being made to look terribly stupid.
Realising the game was up, Ukip reversed course and suspended him this afternoon. Unfortunately for them not only does this mean they'll have to weasel their way out of yesterday's statements (blaming it, I suspect, on Silvester not following party procedure or some such thing) but they will also have to deal with the social media fall out of their supporters getting very cross over the suspension and saying even more ridiculous things.
The problem for Ukip is that, to the vast majority of sensible people (even those who oppose much of the LGBT rights agenda), their candidates are often seen as being a bit out of touch and very offensive. But if they sack them or punish them in anyway they risk alienating their core support who quite obviously agree with them!
This is evident in Ukip's very poorly articulated policy on same-sex marriage. It wants to be all things to all people, but manages only to be an absolute mess. See here and here.
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place and unfortunately the rock keeps bashing against them. Just see this latest story reporting a Ukipper's dislike of "gays, Catholics and Communists" in Glasgow.
They've hitched their tent on religious freedom. There is no dishonour in that. But they forgot to set their own beliefs clearly enough to avoid being tarnished by every nasty comment uttered by one of their members. This was a rookie error, and I wonder just how many other Ukip policies are as ill-thought out and ill-considered as this.
Worryingly nearly 2 people in every 10 currently state they'll vote for them. Then again far more believe in ghosts and UFOs in this country so perhaps that sort of number was inevitable.
Any reader of this blog will know I occasionally mention their odd candidates and their even odder views on homosexuality. There was Mike Mendoza who believed 1) gay people don't like football, 2) people who don't like football are more likely to be paedophiles and then 3) put those two thoughts into one paragraph. There was David Nixon whose leaflet was used to "smear" Ukip. Winston McKenzie said same-sex couples adopting was akin to child abuse, ironically not long after a council had tried to remove kids from a Ukip supporting family! And then there was Julia Gasper who was suspended from her position in the party many, many months after she first aired her dislike for LGBT folk.
When you follow those stories through you find Ukip, as a party, really doesn't know how to handle these people. The current example is a case in point. David Silvester, an ex-Tory Ukip councillor in Hendon, wrote a letter to his local paper criticising David Cameron and same-sex marriage and, in the strange style we've come to expect from US based evangelicals, blamed the recent flooding around the country on the passing of the same-sex marriage bill. A small Twitterstorm broke out and gradually the story found its way on to large news service's headlines.
Nigel Farage and the party spokesperson defended his right to express his religious beliefs, even if unorthodox. This would be more acceptable if Ukip hadn't sacked Olly Neville over his support of same-sex marriage! The concept of liberty is an important one, but if it doesn't apply to all then it is not liberty.
Today David Silvester, being admirably if catastrophically consistent, did an interview with BBC Oxford radio where he called homosexuality a disease. The story continued to spread and on a day when Ukip should've been shouting from the rooftops after a fantastic opinion poll (for them if not for those of us who believe weather and climate are based on a little more than who has sex with who) they were instead being made to look terribly stupid.
Realising the game was up, Ukip reversed course and suspended him this afternoon. Unfortunately for them not only does this mean they'll have to weasel their way out of yesterday's statements (blaming it, I suspect, on Silvester not following party procedure or some such thing) but they will also have to deal with the social media fall out of their supporters getting very cross over the suspension and saying even more ridiculous things.
The problem for Ukip is that, to the vast majority of sensible people (even those who oppose much of the LGBT rights agenda), their candidates are often seen as being a bit out of touch and very offensive. But if they sack them or punish them in anyway they risk alienating their core support who quite obviously agree with them!
This is evident in Ukip's very poorly articulated policy on same-sex marriage. It wants to be all things to all people, but manages only to be an absolute mess. See here and here.
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place and unfortunately the rock keeps bashing against them. Just see this latest story reporting a Ukipper's dislike of "gays, Catholics and Communists" in Glasgow.
They've hitched their tent on religious freedom. There is no dishonour in that. But they forgot to set their own beliefs clearly enough to avoid being tarnished by every nasty comment uttered by one of their members. This was a rookie error, and I wonder just how many other Ukip policies are as ill-thought out and ill-considered as this.
Worryingly nearly 2 people in every 10 currently state they'll vote for them. Then again far more believe in ghosts and UFOs in this country so perhaps that sort of number was inevitable.
Monday, 30 December 2013
2013: The Year The Right-Wing Moralists Lost And The Left-Wing Moralists Won
Throughout 2012 the media fed us the, with hindsight, lies of opponents of marriage equality who assured us it'd be all but impossible to get marriage equality on to the statute books. 2013 revealed just how wrong they were and saw their campaign against marriage equality collapse under the weight of its own inconsistencies.
Cardinal O'Brien had been a staunch, and often offensive, opponent of same-sex marriage (and pretty much any LGBT friendly policy). His downfall would've have been delicious if such joy was not tempered by sympathy for all those he hurt. But having one of the most visible opponents be brought down by scandal was not the only thing working against our opponents.
There are some high-minded, intellectual debates one could have about the pros and cons of same-sex marriage. There are some interesting, thought-provoking issues that can be brought up by opponents of two people of same-sex getting married (see here for my review of the most compelling books from the opposition). Fortunately for those of us who favour such marriages, the opposition in this country didn't even touch on such issues. And their low-brow, scare-mongering served only to show how empty their arguments were.
They thought they were on to a winning argument with the whole "teachers could be sacked for speaking their views" issue but were quickly undermined by the Catholic church threaten to sack pro-LGBT teachers. Their attempts to build bridges with LGBT anti-marriage radicals were misguided at best. And their briefings to Parliament were so full of strawman arguments and see-through attempts at misdirection that even I could rebut them.
And when it came to the votes the Government's same-sex marriage bill passed. And it passed easily. Yes, the bill is flawed. But my how far we've come since this blogger started agitating for marriage equality in the UK.
The utter defeat of right-wing moralists would have been utterly sweet were it not for the continued rise of the joyless anti-sex left wingers who have slowly risen to fight the imaginary armies of the Patriarchy (and take out LGBT and other sexual minorities in the cross fire).
These heteronormative campaigns against lad's mags, porn, sex workers and strip clubs have drawn some strong support and had some successes (such as with the Co-op and Tesco's meeting the demands of the Lose the Lad's Mags campaign halfway). And this is despite the campaigns being just as poorly thought out as the anti-LGBT rights campaigns earlier this year.
And even LGBT folk seem to have been bitten by the moralising bug. Just remember, it always leads to this...
Next year... well... new challenges ahead. And huge risks. The EU elections and the Scottish independence campaign loom...
Saturday, 21 December 2013
A Wonderful Year For Marriage Equality
The fight for LGBT freedom globally is one that is far from won. Just this week Nigeria and Uganda have tightened up their anti-gay laws, and Russia has highlighted how even relatively advanced nations are enacting some deeply worrying legislation. But this year one part of the LGBT movement has had levels of success that have astounded even the optimists among us; marriage equality has been one success story of which we can be proud.
Here in the UK, the fight for marriage equality turned out to be a lot easier than we were expecting. Throughout 2012 the right-wing press and activists had declared that the battle would be hard fought and everyone assumed the House of Lords would be a tough nut to crack. Yet when the votes of legalising same-sex marriage in England and Wales went through both the House of Commons and House of Lords, the majorities in favour were overwealming. It was a very quiet revolution. The law itself is far from perfect but all the bleating in the world from respectable folks like Cardinal O'Brien couldn't stop it passing through Westminster.
And in Scotland, a similar bill is currently working its way through the Scottish Parliament. It also appears to have near ironclad support from MSPs. Soon the vast majority of British citizens will live with same-sex marriage laws. Thank you 2013!
The USA has been quite the surprise. After last year;s massive wins for Maine, Maryland and Washington, we've seen a massive increase. Between May 17, 2004 and January 1, 2013 10 states and the District of Columbia legalised same-sex marriage. During that time Prop 8 ended same-sex marriages in California.
This year the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage in California was overturned. Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, Hawaii and Illinois legalised same-sex marriage, whilst New Jersey, New Mexico and, prepare the smelling salts, Utah had their bans on same-sex marriages overturned in court. The result in Utah is, inevitably, going to become the next Prop 8-esqe battle (though perhaps the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should learn a few lessons from that debacle). But this is an absolutely fantastic turnaround from the Bush era of constitutional bans and disappointments.
And it didn't end there for the hated "Defense of Marriage Act" was overturned on a federal level. Truly LGBT folk in the USA can say 2013 was a year to remember!
Elsewhere...
New Zealand, Uruguay and France (overcoming fierce opposition and cleric led hooligan riots) all legalised same-sex marriage this year. And with all these advances the debate has spread to more and more countries. With Ireland set for a referendum on same-sex marriage within a couple of years Northern Ireland may soon be the last significantly populated place in all north-west Europe one can't marry someone of the same-sex.
Well done 2013. What a fantastic year it has been!
This year the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage in California was overturned. Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, Hawaii and Illinois legalised same-sex marriage, whilst New Jersey, New Mexico and, prepare the smelling salts, Utah had their bans on same-sex marriages overturned in court. The result in Utah is, inevitably, going to become the next Prop 8-esqe battle (though perhaps the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should learn a few lessons from that debacle). But this is an absolutely fantastic turnaround from the Bush era of constitutional bans and disappointments.
And it didn't end there for the hated "Defense of Marriage Act" was overturned on a federal level. Truly LGBT folk in the USA can say 2013 was a year to remember!
Elsewhere...
New Zealand, Uruguay and France (overcoming fierce opposition and cleric led hooligan riots) all legalised same-sex marriage this year. And with all these advances the debate has spread to more and more countries. With Ireland set for a referendum on same-sex marriage within a couple of years Northern Ireland may soon be the last significantly populated place in all north-west Europe one can't marry someone of the same-sex.
Well done 2013. What a fantastic year it has been!
Thursday, 5 December 2013
Civil Partnerships: 8 Years Old Today
Let's face it... I've never been very nice about civil partnerships. Even now I feel the bubbling of rage just beneath my skin at the mere thought of them. They were introduced by Labour because of the obvious need for some sort of partnership rights for same-sex couples. That can, really, only be seen as a good thing. But the fact is that, at the time of their introduction, the debate internationally had already moved on to marriage equality. Civil partnerships were, in hindsight, doomed to be considered obsolete within a few years of their introduction.
And that is what really rankles me. In the years after their introduction Labour acted as if the matter was closed. My attempts to discuss equal marriage with LGBT Labour members were dismissed. Chris Bryant called me a numbskull for asking why he didn't even mention marriage as an option during the debates (and why he argued against equal marriage during them). Stonewall were so pleased with civil partnerships that they fought, briefly, tooth and nail to protect their uniqueness against any attempts to pursue marriage itself. And that was despite the multiple problems civil partnerships have.
And now here we stand... the last anniversary of the introduction of civil partnerships that will fall before same-sex marriage comes into place in England and Wales. Isn't it time I just let it go? Forget it ever happened? I wish I could.
But in their weird ideological defense of the obsolete Stonewall and Labour showed that LGBT freedom is nothing but a political game to some. Our attempts to seek liberty will be stymied by the self interest of political organisations and parties. We must never settle for second best and, when we accept second best as better than third best, we must at least state "this is not what we really want". No more politics, no more muddles like the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act, we must continue to argue for what is right.
Civil partnerships were a sham. And whilst some may argue they were a stepping stone to same-sex marriage, I'd say that by becoming an idol (one that was to be defended at all costs) of the Westminster LGBT set it actually served to make this years hard won victory just that little more difficult.
Thursday, 3 October 2013
Scottish Nationalists: Religious Freedom Only For Some On #EqualMarriage
Gosh, it has been a long time since my last marriage equality post!
The Scottish Health Secretary, SNP's Alex Neill, has confirmed registrars will be able to refuse to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, though local authorities will have to ensure same-sex couples can get married.
All very "liberal" you might say, with his use of "common sense" to explain how local authorities with deal with such refusals. Except, of course, fundamentally there is no common sense here because it is giving registrars the right to refuse only one sort of marriage. Why just one sort? Erm... well... the gays aren't very popular.
Fantastic. It'll all be sold under some spin on the concept of "freedom" yet it flies fundamentally in the face of freedom. When will gay registrars get to refuse to marry Christian or Muslim couples? When will white supremacists get to refuse black couples (or interracial couples, heaven forbid!)? Never. Because both scenarios would be deemed unacceptable, offensive, yet they would be actual freedom in action.
What the SNP has proposed is offensive to common sense. It is the freedom to hate for a few, and everyone else will just have to lump it and keep their own opinions on whether other couples should marry to themselves.
Disgusting. Illiberal and unjust. Come back to me when you have a consistent policy rather than a "same-sex couples upset some people" excuse.
Stephen seems just as angry as I am, but has even better points...
The Scottish Health Secretary, SNP's Alex Neill, has confirmed registrars will be able to refuse to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, though local authorities will have to ensure same-sex couples can get married.
All very "liberal" you might say, with his use of "common sense" to explain how local authorities with deal with such refusals. Except, of course, fundamentally there is no common sense here because it is giving registrars the right to refuse only one sort of marriage. Why just one sort? Erm... well... the gays aren't very popular.
Fantastic. It'll all be sold under some spin on the concept of "freedom" yet it flies fundamentally in the face of freedom. When will gay registrars get to refuse to marry Christian or Muslim couples? When will white supremacists get to refuse black couples (or interracial couples, heaven forbid!)? Never. Because both scenarios would be deemed unacceptable, offensive, yet they would be actual freedom in action.
What the SNP has proposed is offensive to common sense. It is the freedom to hate for a few, and everyone else will just have to lump it and keep their own opinions on whether other couples should marry to themselves.
Disgusting. Illiberal and unjust. Come back to me when you have a consistent policy rather than a "same-sex couples upset some people" excuse.
Stephen seems just as angry as I am, but has even better points...
Sunday, 22 September 2013
This Leftie/Liberal Love-In For The Pope Has Got To Stop
I can't claim to be an expert on Catholicism. I've grown up a cultural Anglican (though thankfully I've been spared a religious upbringing) whose interest in other religions has never stretched to the Roman Catholic church. I think this is perhaps because the Roman Catholic church is so complicated and has so many different organisations, styles and, above all, saints that it would require a lifetime's study to do it justice. And as I believe it is all make-believe I'm not interested in expending the time on it that I instead give to New Religious Movements (those are the things evangelical Christians call "cults"). So this post isn't really about Catholic doctrine, it is instead about the weird and rather disturbing reaction of some needy liberal types out there to media reports on Pope Francis.
I've got to give Pope Francis credit. He's certainly shaken up the media's perception of the Papacy. Pope Benedict's reign was overshadowed by the child abuse scandals. Pope Francis has managed to change the narrative ever so slightly. Feel good pieces about him responding to an Italian teenagers letter by picking up the phone and having a chat. Stories of him shunning some of the more obvious trappings of wealth normally reserved for the Pope abound. But what the media are really lapping up are snippets of conversations, press releases and interviews that hint at some sort of "liberalising" of Catholic doctrine.
When I say "hint at" what this actually means is "if you read them out of context" or "if you read them and don't quite understand religion at all".
Just take this week's stories on Pope Francis suggesting the Church should "obsess" over gay marriage, contraception and abortion. These stories sprung up from this interview and, more specifically, this paragraph:
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
What Pope Francis was saying is the Church has a more important mission, preaching the Gospel, and it shouldn't get bogged down in a strict focus on certain moral issues. That isn't to say it is changing its mind on those issues, just that it needs to ensure the main message of the Church isn't overshadowed. This is, from a Christian perspective, a bit like saying "I believe Jesus is the Son of God" (sorry Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists, I know you don't quite support that...). I.e. this is a no-brainer, a given, a non-story.
But the reaction on Twitter, both on my personal feed and on my saved "Gay Marriage" feed, was overwealming positive from non-believers and liberal sorts. You'd think he'd come out in support of abortion and marriage equality if you judged by the tone of some of these folks. And some actually believe he did!!
This has got to stop. @michaelcarre described this as people willing to "accept crumbs" and I have to agree. And, this will be controversial I'm sure, it wouldn't matter to me if the Catholic church suddenly supported every social issue I support. It is still NOT TRUE. The Pope is the head of an organisation based on a false belief. Just because a homeopath supports marriage equality I wouldn't suddenly welcome medical assistance from said homeopath. I'd still think they were mistaken.
Whilst you've all been having your love-in over the Pope, the Catholic church has ex-communicated a former priest for setting up an organisation that supports the ordination of women and equal marriage.
Wake up and stop being taken in by poor reporting of a media-savvy Pope. The Pope is, still, a Catholic.
But the reaction on Twitter, both on my personal feed and on my saved "Gay Marriage" feed, was overwealming positive from non-believers and liberal sorts. You'd think he'd come out in support of abortion and marriage equality if you judged by the tone of some of these folks. And some actually believe he did!!
This has got to stop. @michaelcarre described this as people willing to "accept crumbs" and I have to agree. And, this will be controversial I'm sure, it wouldn't matter to me if the Catholic church suddenly supported every social issue I support. It is still NOT TRUE. The Pope is the head of an organisation based on a false belief. Just because a homeopath supports marriage equality I wouldn't suddenly welcome medical assistance from said homeopath. I'd still think they were mistaken.
Whilst you've all been having your love-in over the Pope, the Catholic church has ex-communicated a former priest for setting up an organisation that supports the ordination of women and equal marriage.
Wake up and stop being taken in by poor reporting of a media-savvy Pope. The Pope is, still, a Catholic.
Saturday, 14 September 2013
"Religious Sacrament" Doesn't Mean What Shirley Williams Wants It To Mean #equalmarriage #ldconf
At the Lib Dem Conference Shirley Williams has decided that voting against LGBT freedom wasn't enough. Now she needs to defend her views with ridiculous statements.
The word "religion" is often used in society as a shorthand for whatever flavour of religion dominates in your country. Here we tend to use it to mean "Christianity" (itself a word that means different things to different people). But religion, as a word and concept, is far too wide-ranging to be used for a limited concept. The diversity of religious thought and belief, just in my small little town, makes a mockery of any attempt to present a "religious sacrament" as some sort of monolithic thing.
Religions have a wildly differing views of sexuality, sex and gender. Some religions, I kid you not, have been founded by gay people! Yes, religions are pretty diverse.
And LGBT people are pretty diverse too. Some actually believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Mad, I know.
So what could Williams mean? Could it be that she meant to say "marriage is a Catholic sacrament"? Because that is the only possible thing that makes sense in the light of the fact she, as a Catholic, is unlikely to describe it as a "Mormon Sacrament" (which would actually be communion because sacrament is also a word with lots of meanings) and Catholicism (ooo.... another open word I accept, I mean the Roman variety) is very much opposed to LGBT freedom. And what does that really boil down to? She didn't vote for same-sex marriage because she believes that her God doesn't approve of it.
Of course if she said that, she'd sound pretty disturbing in our secular world. Instead she implies LGBT people aren't religious, and that some religions don't consider same-sex marriage just as much of a "sacrament" as opposite-sex marriage. Sigh. Failing at religious freedom 101.
Shirley says she has always voted for #lgbt rights but is feels that marriage is a religious sacrament. #sldconfIt all sounds so reasonable doesn't it? I don't think LGBT people deserve liberty because marriage is a religious invention. Well it sounds reasonable if you lack the imagination to think outside of your tiny little cultural box.
— Caron Lindsay (@caronmlindsay) September 14, 2013
The word "religion" is often used in society as a shorthand for whatever flavour of religion dominates in your country. Here we tend to use it to mean "Christianity" (itself a word that means different things to different people). But religion, as a word and concept, is far too wide-ranging to be used for a limited concept. The diversity of religious thought and belief, just in my small little town, makes a mockery of any attempt to present a "religious sacrament" as some sort of monolithic thing.
Religions have a wildly differing views of sexuality, sex and gender. Some religions, I kid you not, have been founded by gay people! Yes, religions are pretty diverse.
And LGBT people are pretty diverse too. Some actually believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Mad, I know.
So what could Williams mean? Could it be that she meant to say "marriage is a Catholic sacrament"? Because that is the only possible thing that makes sense in the light of the fact she, as a Catholic, is unlikely to describe it as a "Mormon Sacrament" (which would actually be communion because sacrament is also a word with lots of meanings) and Catholicism (ooo.... another open word I accept, I mean the Roman variety) is very much opposed to LGBT freedom. And what does that really boil down to? She didn't vote for same-sex marriage because she believes that her God doesn't approve of it.
Of course if she said that, she'd sound pretty disturbing in our secular world. Instead she implies LGBT people aren't religious, and that some religions don't consider same-sex marriage just as much of a "sacrament" as opposite-sex marriage. Sigh. Failing at religious freedom 101.
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Are The Drewitt-Barlow's Striking A Blow For Equality Or Fighting Against Religious Liberty?
Though they have mentioned this before it would appear that the Drewitt-Barlow's, regulars on day time television and same-sex parenting pioneers, really are going to sue the Church of England in order to enable them to marry in a CofE church.
Among a certain kind of Twitter user this has already evoked the reaction one would expect. Not only are there grumpy statements of "we knew this would happen" but some are already acting as if the Drewitt-Barlow's have won the case and churches all over the country are now being forced to marry people they don't want to.
To them I'd say: hold your horses! One lawsuit doesn't make a persecution. Maybe express your opposition and wait and see the outcome before becoming convinced the world is out to get you. Some Christians don't just wear a cross, they carry it on their back and act like they are being marched off to their crucifixion. Do they want to build a coalition with those who want to protect them or just be all self-pitying? I'm guessing the latter.
Meanwhile back in the real world. I've no doubt that Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow sincerely wish to get married in their local church. And I've no doubt they sincerely believe it is their right, especially given the onerous fact that we have an established church in this country who previously had the requirement of marrying anyone in their parish (within reason). But I also believe they are wrong to be pursuing change within the Church of England in this manner.
Forcing people to do things against their wishes (unless they are taking our money without our own free choice of who gets it, i.e. Government employees) goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement has worked for throughout its life. And if you don't agree with that then try: I personally think it goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement should have been working for. The right to choose freely, the right to be true to yourself, the right to live in peace. These are cherished things all reasonable people should support.
Change must come from within anti-LGBT religious organisations. As an atheist I've little interest in changing what a church supports. But I'd hope that if you were interested in that sort of thing, you'd do so from the inside. The Church of England has procedures for change, though these work at a similar speed to cooling lava I accept, and it is through these procedures (as the Government has suggested) that changes such as supporting same-sex marriage should be made.
Forcing an organisation to accept something they don't wish to risks creating a martyr complex, and many Christians have a big enough one of those already. Suing the church is bad for the church (as it doesn't come to terms with the change through internal debate), bad for LGBT rights (as we become the bad guys) and bad for freedom in general. If we are to have the freedom to love who we wish, then we must allow others the freedom to worship as they wish.
Have we not learnt anything from those who despise us on how to be better people than them?
Among a certain kind of Twitter user this has already evoked the reaction one would expect. Not only are there grumpy statements of "we knew this would happen" but some are already acting as if the Drewitt-Barlow's have won the case and churches all over the country are now being forced to marry people they don't want to.
To them I'd say: hold your horses! One lawsuit doesn't make a persecution. Maybe express your opposition and wait and see the outcome before becoming convinced the world is out to get you. Some Christians don't just wear a cross, they carry it on their back and act like they are being marched off to their crucifixion. Do they want to build a coalition with those who want to protect them or just be all self-pitying? I'm guessing the latter.
Meanwhile back in the real world. I've no doubt that Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow sincerely wish to get married in their local church. And I've no doubt they sincerely believe it is their right, especially given the onerous fact that we have an established church in this country who previously had the requirement of marrying anyone in their parish (within reason). But I also believe they are wrong to be pursuing change within the Church of England in this manner.
Forcing people to do things against their wishes (unless they are taking our money without our own free choice of who gets it, i.e. Government employees) goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement has worked for throughout its life. And if you don't agree with that then try: I personally think it goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement should have been working for. The right to choose freely, the right to be true to yourself, the right to live in peace. These are cherished things all reasonable people should support.
Change must come from within anti-LGBT religious organisations. As an atheist I've little interest in changing what a church supports. But I'd hope that if you were interested in that sort of thing, you'd do so from the inside. The Church of England has procedures for change, though these work at a similar speed to cooling lava I accept, and it is through these procedures (as the Government has suggested) that changes such as supporting same-sex marriage should be made.
Forcing an organisation to accept something they don't wish to risks creating a martyr complex, and many Christians have a big enough one of those already. Suing the church is bad for the church (as it doesn't come to terms with the change through internal debate), bad for LGBT rights (as we become the bad guys) and bad for freedom in general. If we are to have the freedom to love who we wish, then we must allow others the freedom to worship as they wish.
Have we not learnt anything from those who despise us on how to be better people than them?
August Is Full Of Marriage Equality Fun!
Today, in Minnesota and Rhode Island, marriages began to be performed for same-sex couples. The relief and happiness of the couples involved must be something to behold!
Though recent puritanical campaigns have cooled me somewhat towards the conservative institution of marriage, I am still very happy to see progress towards ever greater liberty. And I'm pretty thrilled on a personal level for all those having their big day today!
And the good times just keep on coming. On August 5th same-sex marriages will begin in Uruguay (fast becoming a bastion of liberty as it moves towards cannabis legalisation). And on August 19th New Zealand will become the next country to allow same-sex marriages.
Hundreds of thousands of gay people will now have the ability to protect their relationship, to ensure hospital visitation rights and the right to make decisions for each other in emergency situations. And they have the ability to confirm their relationships in front of their family, friends and communities in the way they were brought up to believe in.
Now we must look towards some tougher battles in Ireland, Italy, Finland and Luxembourg. And to battles over civil unions in many other countries.
The fight for freedom continues.
Though recent puritanical campaigns have cooled me somewhat towards the conservative institution of marriage, I am still very happy to see progress towards ever greater liberty. And I'm pretty thrilled on a personal level for all those having their big day today!
And the good times just keep on coming. On August 5th same-sex marriages will begin in Uruguay (fast becoming a bastion of liberty as it moves towards cannabis legalisation). And on August 19th New Zealand will become the next country to allow same-sex marriages.
Hundreds of thousands of gay people will now have the ability to protect their relationship, to ensure hospital visitation rights and the right to make decisions for each other in emergency situations. And they have the ability to confirm their relationships in front of their family, friends and communities in the way they were brought up to believe in.
Now we must look towards some tougher battles in Ireland, Italy, Finland and Luxembourg. And to battles over civil unions in many other countries.
The fight for freedom continues.
Thursday, 18 July 2013
Marriage Equality: Taking Stock And Preparing For The Future (AKA It Ain't Over)
Stonewall, yes that lot, have been crowing with victory over the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act. Celebrity friends have been pouring gratitude upon them and fawning over "man of the moment" Ben Summerskill as if he was the Messiah (and not just a very naughty boy). Perhaps we should pin this law wholly upon Stonewall as another mark against them.
During the process of the consultations on religious civil partnership implementation and then same-sex marriage Stonewall moved from "Meh" through supporting only civil marriage to accepting the Government's plans for religious and civil marriages. At no time did they lead the debate, simply following the suggestions of the Government rather than lobbying them for more. But more telling still is that they seemed oblivious to the flaws of the bill as it proceeded through Parliament and were hellbent only on seeing it pass unamended as originally proposed. This sort of uncritical devotion speaks volumes of Stonewall's lack of real emotional investment in the outcomes of the legislation.
I've said it during the debates and I'll say it again: this act is flawed. That doesn't mean I don't celebrate its passing. It is a brave step in the right direction. But, as I'd wished those who introduced civil partnerships had done back in 2004, I can both celebrate the Royal Assent and commiserate over the missed opportunities (and grave injustices).
When I took the time to really consider why I found civil partnerships so deeply unsatisfying, I discovered the terrible consequences the passing of the Civil Partnerships Act had had on the relationships and well-being of trans people. I won't pretend I knew about these all along, but once I did they persuaded me fully of the rightness of fighting for marriage equality. Before I'd just been grumpy, after I was truly enraged. (Christine Burns does a remarkable job of giving us some history here).
However the Act that has now been passed is not only insufficient in remedying the situation but is, in fact, only making things even more intolerable. Sarah Brown has been involved in bringing the problems with the "Spousal Veto" to everyone's attention and summarises the situation here.
As the situation cools and Stonewall loses interest and moves off in search of footballers who can be persuaded to wear one of their t-shirts, we must begin lobbying the Government to fix this issue.
Another inequality remains undecided. Pension equality was a sleeper issue, though well-known among marriage equality enthusiasts for a long time, and didn't really take off in the Parliamentary debates until the very end with people like Mike Fryer MP and Lord Alli championing the matter. They managed to get an amendment through that will ask the Department of Works and Pensions to reconsider the current restrictions. But that doesn't mean we'll get what we need so we must be vigilant and not let this review pass without careful monitoring.
Civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples is often considered somewhat of a joke but to those who want it, and to trans people in civil partnerships awaiting a GRC, it is important. Another review has been proposed and again we must be careful to ensure it happens transparently.
On a "minor" note, I'm still deeply concerned at the language of the bill which fails to create marriage equality in the style of most nations but instead creates a separate institution known as "same-sex marriage".
And we have the humanist wedding consultation ahead of us, an important challenge to the monopoly religion and the Government hold over marriage.
So there is still plenty to campaign on, to fight for and to defend. It is time to prepare ourselves for battles ahead.
During the process of the consultations on religious civil partnership implementation and then same-sex marriage Stonewall moved from "Meh" through supporting only civil marriage to accepting the Government's plans for religious and civil marriages. At no time did they lead the debate, simply following the suggestions of the Government rather than lobbying them for more. But more telling still is that they seemed oblivious to the flaws of the bill as it proceeded through Parliament and were hellbent only on seeing it pass unamended as originally proposed. This sort of uncritical devotion speaks volumes of Stonewall's lack of real emotional investment in the outcomes of the legislation.
I've said it during the debates and I'll say it again: this act is flawed. That doesn't mean I don't celebrate its passing. It is a brave step in the right direction. But, as I'd wished those who introduced civil partnerships had done back in 2004, I can both celebrate the Royal Assent and commiserate over the missed opportunities (and grave injustices).
When I took the time to really consider why I found civil partnerships so deeply unsatisfying, I discovered the terrible consequences the passing of the Civil Partnerships Act had had on the relationships and well-being of trans people. I won't pretend I knew about these all along, but once I did they persuaded me fully of the rightness of fighting for marriage equality. Before I'd just been grumpy, after I was truly enraged. (Christine Burns does a remarkable job of giving us some history here).
However the Act that has now been passed is not only insufficient in remedying the situation but is, in fact, only making things even more intolerable. Sarah Brown has been involved in bringing the problems with the "Spousal Veto" to everyone's attention and summarises the situation here.
As the situation cools and Stonewall loses interest and moves off in search of footballers who can be persuaded to wear one of their t-shirts, we must begin lobbying the Government to fix this issue.
Another inequality remains undecided. Pension equality was a sleeper issue, though well-known among marriage equality enthusiasts for a long time, and didn't really take off in the Parliamentary debates until the very end with people like Mike Fryer MP and Lord Alli championing the matter. They managed to get an amendment through that will ask the Department of Works and Pensions to reconsider the current restrictions. But that doesn't mean we'll get what we need so we must be vigilant and not let this review pass without careful monitoring.
Civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples is often considered somewhat of a joke but to those who want it, and to trans people in civil partnerships awaiting a GRC, it is important. Another review has been proposed and again we must be careful to ensure it happens transparently.
On a "minor" note, I'm still deeply concerned at the language of the bill which fails to create marriage equality in the style of most nations but instead creates a separate institution known as "same-sex marriage".
And we have the humanist wedding consultation ahead of us, an important challenge to the monopoly religion and the Government hold over marriage.
So there is still plenty to campaign on, to fight for and to defend. It is time to prepare ourselves for battles ahead.
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
Same-Sex Marriage Turns Out To Be A Quiet Revolution
Remember how much press was given whenever Cardinal O'Brien used to totter out to declare homosexual relationships as grotesque or some such tomfoolery? When the Church of England issued concerns about the same-sex marriage bill it was given prominent place on almost every news site, including the BBC.
Yet over these last three exciting days barely a whisper can be heard of the good news that same-sex marriage is now legal (if not practicable just yet). In fact Google trends suggest there was more coverage last year, before any of the debates, than there has been of it's successful passing.
Weird. It is almost as if the media, including our liberal friends at the Guardian, were really only interested in what our opponents had to say and when they discovered no one else was interested in that they just gave up. The smooth, though nerve-wracking, passage of the bill through both Houses shows that all the scaremongering of our opposition were mere lies. We won. We won easily. We won not despite the opposition but partly because of it (our opponents seriously need to take a good hard look at their campaign methods after this debacle). There was no need for all the big scary headlines.
We've done it. Not completely, there are so many loose ends that need tying up, but we've got enough to pat ourselves on the backs and hopefully look back at where we went right and where we went wrong. Because our opponents aren't going away. They will still be around "defending religious freedom" (but only for their friends). We must be prepared to defend liberalism, secularism and full blooded religious freedom rather than their corrupted version.
The battle is won yet again. The war for freedom and liberty for all remains undecided.
Oh what a joyous week it has been though.
Yet over these last three exciting days barely a whisper can be heard of the good news that same-sex marriage is now legal (if not practicable just yet). In fact Google trends suggest there was more coverage last year, before any of the debates, than there has been of it's successful passing.
Weird. It is almost as if the media, including our liberal friends at the Guardian, were really only interested in what our opponents had to say and when they discovered no one else was interested in that they just gave up. The smooth, though nerve-wracking, passage of the bill through both Houses shows that all the scaremongering of our opposition were mere lies. We won. We won easily. We won not despite the opposition but partly because of it (our opponents seriously need to take a good hard look at their campaign methods after this debacle). There was no need for all the big scary headlines.
We've done it. Not completely, there are so many loose ends that need tying up, but we've got enough to pat ourselves on the backs and hopefully look back at where we went right and where we went wrong. Because our opponents aren't going away. They will still be around "defending religious freedom" (but only for their friends). We must be prepared to defend liberalism, secularism and full blooded religious freedom rather than their corrupted version.
The battle is won yet again. The war for freedom and liberty for all remains undecided.
Oh what a joyous week it has been though.
Thursday, 11 July 2013
#EqualMarriage: The Endgame (Sort of) Approaches, Thank You!
I've been moaning about marriage equality for just under 10 years. Over that time I've evolved from "grumpy with the halfway house solution of civil partnerships" through "passionate marriage equality evangelist" to "grumpy that Government proposals don't meet my rather extensive requirements".
And the response I've got has moved with that. In the beginning I was mainly blocked on Twitter for calling out prominent people (mainly LGBT Labour members) who refused to even acknowledge the subject or insulted by (soon to be ex) followers who felt I was belittling their civil partnerships by arguing in favour of full equality. Sometimes I'm sure I did come across as overly aggressive and single-minded. Then something, somewhere, changed. Prop 8 brought the issue to the attention of the less politically minded people in the LGBT community and slowly different groups and individuals started demanding change. Peter Tatchell (although he had been arguing for it for far longer than any of us), Tom French, various prominent Lib Dems (who orchestrated both the vote in favour at Conference and the shaming of Ben Summerskill), and Pink News really helped take the issue into the political arena. Without them, and without politicians like Lynne Featherstone, we'd never even have reached this point.
2010 was the big year, the year when I did more than just tweet and really started gunning for victory. And along came awesome organisations like the Coalition for Equal Marriage, Out4Marriage and Freedom to Marry who helped lobby those in power.
Our opponents have been surprisingly weak. The intellectual arguments were notable by their absence. They were still fighting the Section 28 and same-sex parenting battles, battles they'd already lost and they have singularly failed to mount a sensible, compelling defense of their views on marriage. Unlike in the USA (and France) our opponents have relied solely on silly arguments like "It wasn't in a manifesto" (That isn't how British Parliamentary democracy works plus it sort of was), "Gay marriage will lead to more abortions" or "What next, people marrying dogs?" The far more high-minded arguments, as expounded in such works as "What is marriage?", barely made a mark on our own "traditional marriage supporters". This has been a boon for us given the often lukewarm support of prominent pro-equality politicians like Chris Bryant and Ben Bradshaw and the reluctance of Stonewall to help out.
Now it is hard to believe that after all this it might finally be approaching reality. On Monday the Third Reading of the same-sex marriage bill in the House of Lords is due which will be followed by "Parliamentary ping-pong". Whilst it is not absolutely certain to pass, and there are still risks of wrecking amendments, previous events tend to suggest that our own version of marriage equality will become a reality next week.
It isn't really the end though. We have reviews of opposite-sex civil partnerships and humanist weddings ahead. And probably a review of pension equality too (hurrah). And this bill has done much to hurt transgendered people and is expressly written to treat them in an incredibly unfair way. So come Tuesday next week I still expect that those of us I like to call "marriage equality enthusiasts" will still be moaning away, but I do hope we can all take a moment to smile at how far we've come.
In 2010 I wrote a blog post where I declared that marriage equality was so unlikely we might as well not get our hopes up. I never expected the results of the 2010 election, obviously. I am so pleased to declare that I was wrong. Marriage equality is possible. It will happen. Here, in the United Kingdom. First same-sex marriage will come to England and Wales. Soon it will come to Scotland too. And I'm sure we can convince our Northern Irish relatives that they need to join the club. And soon we shall overcome the failures of this current bill in Westminster. It is a matter of time. I'm not saying it is "inevitable" and I'm not saying "we're on the right side of history". But I can say I'm a glass half full kind of guy these days.
For everyone who has done anything, no matter how small, towards gaining marriage equality: thank you. Thank you so much. You may well know how much it means, but I can barely describe how happy it will make me.
Thank you!
And the response I've got has moved with that. In the beginning I was mainly blocked on Twitter for calling out prominent people (mainly LGBT Labour members) who refused to even acknowledge the subject or insulted by (soon to be ex) followers who felt I was belittling their civil partnerships by arguing in favour of full equality. Sometimes I'm sure I did come across as overly aggressive and single-minded. Then something, somewhere, changed. Prop 8 brought the issue to the attention of the less politically minded people in the LGBT community and slowly different groups and individuals started demanding change. Peter Tatchell (although he had been arguing for it for far longer than any of us), Tom French, various prominent Lib Dems (who orchestrated both the vote in favour at Conference and the shaming of Ben Summerskill), and Pink News really helped take the issue into the political arena. Without them, and without politicians like Lynne Featherstone, we'd never even have reached this point.
2010 was the big year, the year when I did more than just tweet and really started gunning for victory. And along came awesome organisations like the Coalition for Equal Marriage, Out4Marriage and Freedom to Marry who helped lobby those in power.
Our opponents have been surprisingly weak. The intellectual arguments were notable by their absence. They were still fighting the Section 28 and same-sex parenting battles, battles they'd already lost and they have singularly failed to mount a sensible, compelling defense of their views on marriage. Unlike in the USA (and France) our opponents have relied solely on silly arguments like "It wasn't in a manifesto" (That isn't how British Parliamentary democracy works plus it sort of was), "Gay marriage will lead to more abortions" or "What next, people marrying dogs?" The far more high-minded arguments, as expounded in such works as "What is marriage?", barely made a mark on our own "traditional marriage supporters". This has been a boon for us given the often lukewarm support of prominent pro-equality politicians like Chris Bryant and Ben Bradshaw and the reluctance of Stonewall to help out.
Now it is hard to believe that after all this it might finally be approaching reality. On Monday the Third Reading of the same-sex marriage bill in the House of Lords is due which will be followed by "Parliamentary ping-pong". Whilst it is not absolutely certain to pass, and there are still risks of wrecking amendments, previous events tend to suggest that our own version of marriage equality will become a reality next week.
It isn't really the end though. We have reviews of opposite-sex civil partnerships and humanist weddings ahead. And probably a review of pension equality too (hurrah). And this bill has done much to hurt transgendered people and is expressly written to treat them in an incredibly unfair way. So come Tuesday next week I still expect that those of us I like to call "marriage equality enthusiasts" will still be moaning away, but I do hope we can all take a moment to smile at how far we've come.
In 2010 I wrote a blog post where I declared that marriage equality was so unlikely we might as well not get our hopes up. I never expected the results of the 2010 election, obviously. I am so pleased to declare that I was wrong. Marriage equality is possible. It will happen. Here, in the United Kingdom. First same-sex marriage will come to England and Wales. Soon it will come to Scotland too. And I'm sure we can convince our Northern Irish relatives that they need to join the club. And soon we shall overcome the failures of this current bill in Westminster. It is a matter of time. I'm not saying it is "inevitable" and I'm not saying "we're on the right side of history". But I can say I'm a glass half full kind of guy these days.
For everyone who has done anything, no matter how small, towards gaining marriage equality: thank you. Thank you so much. You may well know how much it means, but I can barely describe how happy it will make me.
Thank you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)