Polyamory Now Legal In Utah

I wrote last year about the Brown's of "Sister Wives" fame and their campaign to end Utah's regressive laws on "religious cohabitation".

Utah has, I'm sure you'll know, a long and complicated relationship with both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and polygamy. In the 19th century polygamy was a central tenet of the LDS Church and they played a cat and mouse game with federal authorities to keep the "Principle" alive in Utah. By the 20th century the federal authorities had won and the LDS Church gave up the "Principle" in order for Utah and the church itself to commence normal relations within the Union.

By the middle of the 20th century the LDS Church was busy rebranding itself and, in so doing, sort to ever further distance itself from its polygamous past. It did this with the help of Utah state authorities and passed, in 1973, a law which banned living with more than one person as if you were married.

“A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.”

Not only did this allow authorities to intervene in some cases of abuse among fundamentalist Mormons, it also became a rod to beat those who were causing harm to no one else. A couple of years ago the Brown family themselves fled their beloved Utah home and settled in Las Vegas in order to avoid jail for the adult members and family separation.



Now the Brown's have won a victory that will allow others of their faith to practice non-legally binding plural marriage without fear. This is absolutely fantastic news, marking another step forward for freedom. It may be appealed however so fingers crossed this ruling is a keeper.

As predicted last year Lawrence v. Texas (which ended US state's anti-sodomy laws in 2003) played its part:

“Consensual sexual privacy is the touchstone of the rational basis review analysis in this case, as in Lawrence.”

Gay rights lead to human rights. Good times!

DOMA and #Prop8 Struck Down (Probably): A Historic Day For American LGBT People

It has been a long wait for the resolution of the Prop 8 cases. It has been nearly 5 years since the voters of California decided to overrule their fellow citizens ability to marry. It has been 3 years (and I really can't believe it has been that long!) since Judge Walker overturned that vote. In that time the opinion polls have rapidly changed and even the main financial backers of the proposition have backed off from their role in the campaign. Now the US Supreme Court has decided that those fighting to keep Prop 8 in place have no standing before the court. This leaves some complications as they thus made no decision on what this actually means practically. 

Though the Governor of California has advised clerks to prepare to issue marriage licenses when this decision takes effect in a few weeks time, there is some concern that legally the decision may only have a limited effect (i.e. only the plaintiffs may have the right to be married or only people in the counties they are from). Time will tell as the authorities in California begin to work out the issues. 

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has also struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. This will have a huge effect upon the lives of married same-sex couples across the USA. Extremely awesome ruling that doesn't over-extend the power of the federal government into state affairs. Well done to the Supremes! 

With Rudd now likely to become Prime Minister of Australia (the first openly pro-equality PM they've had, he's changed since the last time ;), if only briefly, is another good sign. Plus tomorrow Scotland will release their marriage equality bill. 

Another good week for the cause of equal marriage!

Another Test For Freedom: Protesting Funerals

Having introduced an unpopular tax, been hanged in effigy and seen an unprecedented series of protests during their time in office, some were still taken aback when plans were announced for protests at the recently deceased leader's funeral. Thinking Margaret Thatcher? Wrong.

Massachusetts Lt. Governor Andrew Oliver died in March 1774 just a few months after the tumultuous events of the Boston Tea Party (and a few years after his official, if not personal, support of the Stamp Act which helped lead up to it). Samuel Adams, who would go on to become one the USA's Founding Fathers, was taken aback at plans to honour Oliver at his funeral and at Oliver's funeral a contingent of the Sons of Liberty (including Sam Adams) turned up and cheered as Oliver's body was lowered into the ground.

Many years later the country Samuel Adams fought for so earnestly has faced a new wave of uncomfortable and disturbing funeral protests from a small but vocal group. The Westboro Baptist Church has become infamous for its protests since the 1990s. They came to international attention, especially among LGBT people, in 1998 when they protested at the murdered Matthew Shepard's funeral. And they didn't just stop there, finding even greater notoriety (something the WBC appear to thrive upon) in protesting the funerals of soldiers of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

So abhorrent a concept as protesting someone's funeral has been rightly condemned almost universally. This group that protests at the funerals of everyone from gay men to "true American heroes" is one that managed to breakdown the barriers between the Culture War opposing camps and allowed those camps to join together in shared disgust. And this widespread feeling was not slow in being acted upon by local, state and national authorities.

In a test for the right to free speech these authorities have for years tried to restrict and, occasionally, even ban the WBC from protesting at or near funerals. Just this week Florida has expanded its restrictions. But ultimately the courts have upheld the right of the Phelps family and their followers to freely protest even when that protest may be extremely distressing.

I've very mixed emotions over the concept of protesting at funerals. Just thinking about someone doing so makes me upset and angry. I cannot begin to imagine how hurtful and distressing these protests must be for the families of those who have died. And yet, when the Phelps were banned from visiting the United Kingdom, I wrote in their defence. Like many other things, such as porn for example, you may not like what you see or hear but the Westboro Baptist Church have a right to protest just as anyone else does.

Which brings us to next weeks funeral for Margaret Thatcher. Rumours of protests are floating about, and have been long expected. I'm no fan of Margaret Thatcher. She is often held up as a strong defender of freedom yet her Government never really lived up to what I'd expect freedom to mean. But even so I don't think she deserves the reputation she has been given nor does anyone deserve to have their funeral protested. Be they a young murdered man or an elderly former Prime Minister, a funeral is a time for someone's passing to be mourned. So talk of protests saddens me greatly.

But... the police, media and supporters of Thatcher must understand there must be a right to a peaceful protest, no matter how abhorrent it might be. No matter how disgusting, creepy and downright inhuman those who protest a funeral might be, they must have rights too. I hope that right is respected on Wednesday, although I hope ultimately those planning such crass acts see sense beforehand.

Remember protesters you share a tactic with the Westboro Baptist Church. Stay classy.

Best Couple Of Days For #EqualMarriage Yet? #C4EM #Prop8 #USElection

Yes, yes PME2013 totally beat me to publishing on this (and is far more eloquent than I am!) but I have other links and other news!

It doesn't seem possible, but 4 years have really passed since Proposition 8 was approved by the voters of California. Every leftie liberals happy day as Obama was originally elected was given a little dent.

Now it wasn't all bad. We got Prop 8: The Musical, which has Kathy Najimy in it. That almost made it all worth it.



I jest, of course, but it was US election day yesterday and, along with the Presidential election and various other federal and state elections, there were 4 states holding marriage equality pertinent votes.

In Maine an initiative to introduce marriage equality (into a state that had previously voted it down in a referendum) was put to the voters. In Washington and Maryland successful legislation was put to a popular vote before being implemented. In Minnesota there was an attempt to constitutionally redefine marriage as between a man and a woman.

In Maine the initiative passed, finally bringing to an end NOM's argument against marriage equality; "Gay marriage has never been approved in a referendum of the people!".

The earliest gay and lesbian couples could marry will likely be early January. The Secretary of State's Office has 20 days to certify results, Gov. Paul LePage has 10 days to approve them, and after that, there's a constitutionally mandated 30-day waiting period for the law to take effect, according to the Secretary of State's Office.

The opponents in Maine have conceded.

In Maryland marriage equality was approved (I highly recommend the video on that link) and marriages should begin in January 2013.

In Minnesota the attempt to ban equal marriage was defeated in a closely fought contest. Despite this not having any material effects on the lives of Minnesotan LGBT folk, it does have the feeling of being a watershed moment. It feels like the turning of the tide.

The results are still not fully in for Washington. At the half way mark, the yes to marriage equality side are winning but it's close and there are no guarantees. Looking at the breakdown I think there are still a fair few anti-equality votes to come in. But if it is successful Washington will become the 9th state of the Union to approve marriage equality (almost 20%!) and marriages could start as early as December the 6th!

Meanwhile in Europe....

Yesterday Spain Constitutional Court upheld marriage equality in the country after a challenge from members of the ruling People's Party. In France the French Cabinet has approved a marriage equality and adoption bill for debate in January 2013.

And then in Australia....

Slightly more frivolous stuff but last night Big Brother viewers chose the latest Australian winner and he promptly proposed to his boyfriend live on air (his boyfriend said yes!). Hopefully this will raise the profile of the campaign for marriage equality there.

But wait there is more....

Remember Prop 8? Well it was overturned by the courts in California as being unconstitutional. It has made its way slowly up the chain and on November 20th it (along with several other equal marriage cases) will be considered by the United States Supreme Court. We should hear on November 26th if they make a decision and if so what that might be.

A lot has changed in 4 years. Let's hope it keeps on changing.

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

Whoever Wins On Tuesday, I Think America Loses

Four years ago I declared my support for Barack Obama. I truly believed he would return the USA to something more resembling Clinton's America (well the imaginary Clinton's America in my head anyway) than Dubya's America.

Sadly Obama has simply been "Dubya with a human face". He signed the National Defense Authorization Act. He had a US citizen assassinated. Let me repeat that for you: HE HAD A US CITIZEN ASSASSINATED! The list of civil liberty violations continues to grow and the Democrats have removed most of the civil liberty supporting parts of their platform for 2012.

Regardless of any benefits he brings, Obama has continued to destroy the very things I loved to imagine made the USA great. I cannot bring myself to support him.

So you support Mitt Romney then? I hear the angry lefties cry.

Of course I don't. Yes, as someone who enjoys Mormon history and theology I think it would be historically interesting to have a Mormon in the White House. But do I believe Mitt Romney would be any better than Obama? No I do not and on marriage equality, abortion etc. I think he could be a whole lot worse.

It is depressing but the choice facing most Americans is between frying pan and fire.

But it does not have to be this way. They could vote for Gary Johnson. He's a candidate with really strong beliefs on individual liberty. I know his economic views won't go down well with the lefties but at least he's consistent and doesn't want to kill anyone. Not bad for a US Presidential Candidate!

So this blog comes out for Gary Johnson in 2012, but there is little hope of him getting anywhere near the President's office. Which is a shame for America.

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

Gays, Lies and The Presidential Election 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teachers Face Sack For Personal Morality (By Religious Schools)

Spreading fear is something religious organisations are good at. Right now they are scaremongering over the consequences of marriage equality and their leading with the possibility of teachers being sacked for expressing anti-marriage equality views.

So I wondered about how people expressing their personal beliefs are treated at religious schools, obviously I expect they are given the space to hold views contrary to the organisation that runs the school?

A Seventh Day Adventist Church school in Melbourne, Australia sacked a teacher because he expressed support for marriage equality on Facebook.

A Catholic school in St. Louis, Missouri, USA sacked a gay teacher for... getting married.

A Catholic school in Minnesota, USA sacked a teacher who dared to say she disagreed with the church on marriage equality.

These cases are all outside of the UK, I couldn't find recent cases involving teachers on either side of the debate here in the UK (feel free to point them out). But I'd be interested to know where our religious friends stand on this matter. Do they support sacking teachers for their personal morality or not? And are they saying that a school has no right to tell a teacher what they can and can't tell the children?

Ultimately I suspect you'll find hypocrisy somewhere in their arguments....

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

Marriage Equality Opponents Around The World Undermine Their Own Cause

The anti-equality campaign down in Australia suffered a rather unnecessary own goal this week when Jim Wallace, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby, suggested that the homosexual male "lifestyle" was more dangerous than smoking. Interestingly he cited the same life expectancy reduction of 20 years as the Scottish Catholics, who were quoting a 2005 study based on obituaries. I've dealt with the fairly obvious faults on the more dangerous than smoking line before.

The own goal part came when Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister of Australia, cancelled her top billed speech at the ACL's conference next month. Gillard, an opponent of marriage equality herself, said:

 ''To compare the health effects of smoking cigarettes with the many struggles gay and lesbian Australians endure in contemporary society is heartless and wrong,'' 

''Although everyone is entitled to their own view, these statements reiterated again today on behalf of ACL are totally unacceptable. In light of this, I believe my attendance at the conference would be inappropriate." 

''There are a range of deeply held views in the community on the issue of same-sex marriage but it is the responsibility of all parties in this debate to be respectful and responsible in any public comments they make.'' 

The more exposure the anti-equality groups arguments get, the more the moderates and the undecideds move away from them.

Meanwhile over in the United States of America...  a Democratic member of the Maryland House of Delegates, Emmett C. Burns Jr., was very unhappy with the pro-marriage equality position of Brendon Ayanbadejo (an American football player for the Baltimore Ravens) and wrote a letter to the team basically asking them to shut him up. Whilst the team rather maturely decided not to respond to him, one of Ayanbadejo's footballing colleagyes, Chris Kluwe, gave him a strongly-worded and rather amusing response which has since gone viral on Twitter.

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words)... 

...Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"?... 

...I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster.

Yet again the anti-equality movement shoot themselves in the foot, giving time and publicity to the pro-equality arguments whilst they end up looking authoritarian and foolish. Thank you anti-marriage equality activists, you are really helping our cause!

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

Polyamory Is On The March Again In The Americas

Polyamory (or polygamy as the media prefers) is back in the news again. Three people have managed to get a civil union approved by a Brazilian notary. Rather puts paid to the slippery slope argument of anti-marriage equality folks, it is their (suddenly beloved) civil partnerships they need to be careful of!

Sadly, rather than prompting a discussion on legal protections for "unconventional" (as if any relationship is conventional) relationships, it has unleashed the fear and loathing of the Brazilian Christian community. I know it is to be expected but I am still always somewhat taken aback at the level of disapproval some busybodies express for the lives of others.

This comes as the Brown family, of "Sister Wives" fame, prepare to launch a law suit to have the rather regressive laws of Utah overturned. Full disclosure: I love "Sister Wives". It is a touching, interesting and amusing look at a way of life that is outside of my personal experience. Plus the four wives are hilarious, intelligent and strong. I love them all.

The case for polyamory in Utah is immensely complicated. As you, Dear Constant Reader, know I have a fascination with the history of the Latter-day Saint movement. It is compelling stuff. The baggage of that history, of their embracing of polygyny, of the persecution they suffered for it and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' eventual surrender of that practice hangs over the heads of those who continue to practice "The Principle" today. And, at the same time, the actions of a large number of groups and individuals who have (or had) polygynous relationships bring a nasty taste to the mere mention of polygamy. Domestic abuse, child abuse, benefit "fraud" (it's complicated....) and quite a number of other issues continue to occur in many of the Mormon fundamentalist groups. However I think it is clear polyamory doesn't make people bad and the issues that lead to the problems described above are not going to just suddenly occur because two women live with a man. There are deeper problems within those communities that need to be faced but they won't be until everyone moves beyond "POLYGAMY IS EVIL!!"

In Utah the argument is not about legal recognition. It is about simply being allowed to live AS a married couple with someone (not as a legal married couple) when one is already legally married. That is why instead of using marriage equality as an example, the Browns are focussing more on Lawrence v. Texas. Drawing parallels with (or even laying blame on) the marriage equality movement is a tad simplistic. In the USA gay people can now live together as a couple but in many places polyamorous people can't. In Utah the fight for polygyny really is a fight for freedom.

Polyamorous marriages and civil unions prompt dismay not just from spiteful religious people hellbent on forcing everyone to live how they want them to live, but also from more thoughtful and respectful commentators. They bring to light many of the issues some of us have with the way Government's deal with relationship rights and the control the Government has over our personal affairs. The way marriage is set up makes legal polyamorous marriage nigh impossible. And that is why I find polyamory so utterly fascinating. If same-sex marriage will open up marriage to everyone, polyamory might be the thing that finally forces the Government out of marriage completely. It is unlikely to be an issue here in the UK for quite some time (and the Coalition is working on closing down loopholes recognising foreign polyamorous marriages) but it is going to be interesting to watch where the battles in Utah and the coming one in Brazil (as the forces of conformity try desperately to claw back control) take us.

I set out my agenda two years ago. Personal freedom to make relationship contracts is the goal. If same-sex marriage will bring equality, polyamorous marriage might well bring us all liberty.

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

When LGBT Activists Become The Bad Guys

Lots of people know about the Stonewall Riots but less people know about the homophile movement, including such groups as the Mattachine Society, who were around at the same time. The reason for this is that the Stonewall riots were not approved of by these more mainstream LG organisations. This disapproval ultimately cost the homophiles the support of LGBT people in great numbers as they, rightly, regarded the Stonewall riots as just violence against unjust actions by the local authorities.

Ever since then there has been a great deal of conflict between LGBT folk willing to take radical action (such as Peter Tatchell and OUTRAGE) and those who work in less provocative ways (like Stonewall, although I suppose being absolutely useless is pretty provocative to some). From the Compton's Cafeteria riots and the Stonewall riots, we have incidents such as the White Night riots, the various antics of the UK Gay Liberation Front and more frivolous incidents such as when lesbian activists invaded the BBC newsroom. We should not overlook the importance of these radical (and often violent) actions in support of LGBT rights. Most of the great leaps forward have come through peaceful legal or political action, but these radical actions kept the spirit alight during the darker days. There is a time and place for both types of action.

But things are really coming to something when radical action involves spray-painting "Tastes Like Hate" on a fast food outlet, or bullying people in entry-level jobs (whilst lying about your sexuality, Harvey Milk would NOT be proud) or it involves being dicks to a homeless guy reading a Bible. When did our righteous anger at injustice become so petty, so hateful and so anti-intellectual? Radical actions these were not.

We need a new rule for LGBT activism: don't be dicks. Look at how the least appealing members of the anti-LGBT movement act and DO NOT COPY THEM. It's really quite straight forward. Do sit-ins, kiss-ins, protests and marches. Be respectful but clear and direct. You don't need to be angels but try not to be the sort of person any decent individual would cross the road to avoid.

It really isn't that hard, is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

A New Danger From Civil Partnerships?

Opponents to marriage equality from both the LGBT community and the anti-LGBT groupings often complain that LGBT folk don't need marriage because they already have civil partnerships which gives them all the rights they need.

If we ignore the obvious argument that this isn't quite true, we must face the fact that civil partnerships (as a separate institution) allow politicians to far more easily undermine those rights at any time. This week this is exactly what has happened in Queensland, Australia.

Unlike with marriage where LGBT folk are either "allowed" access to this institution or forbidden it (and sometime forbidden after being allowed such as in California, USA), the separate institution of civil partnerships allows politicians to tinker with which rights they will allow and which they won't at any time without consequence for the majority of the population of their jurisdiction.

This puts LGBT people's relationships at far greater risk than when covered by a gender neutral marriage law. It's far harder to demote LGBT's marriages to some sort of "not quite marriage" at any moment without risking legally undermining all marriages. Sure you can ban same-sex marriages completely but even then, in most cases, marriages performed before the ban are left unaffected. It'd take a cruel politician to destroy someone's marriage after the event! But in the case of civil partnerships it seems quite acceptable for politicians to giveth and then taketh away willy-nilly.

Another compelling reason to fight for marriage equality instead of (or as well as) civil partnerships.

There is, of course, an even better way to protect relationships from Government meddling.

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

Concerns Over Marriage Equality and #CashForCameron

Looks like both sides of the Atlantic have their fair share of underhand anti-marriage activists. 


Over here we've had a bit of confusion. Christian Concern at first attempted to have us believe that, as part of the current "Cash for Cameron" scandal, a Tory donor had paid to influence the party in favour of marriage equality. They have since removed that article but can still be seen here. The reason is because blogger Archbishop Cranmer (No friend of LGBT equality, he) has revealed it actually seems like the donation was aimed against marriage equality instead!

Even more concerning is the suggestion that this actual had some effect on the current consultation questionnaire! It would be rather scandalous indeed if this were true, and I truly hope our Lib Dem Equality Minister takes a look into this matter. The accusation that the Tories may be attempting to dilute and even postpone moves to marriage equality is one that needs serious investigation.

We need to keep a close eye on this one.

In the USA the National Organisation Against For Marriage appears to have been playing divide and conquer, thinking it's clever to organise race groups against LGBT groups.

The strategic goal…is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots… 

The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation.

Charming tactics indeed!



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

The Liberal Case For A Ron Paul Presidency

I've never been a big Obama supporter; I preferred Hilary Clinton in 2008. However, after George W. Bush, and considering the uselessness of the McCain/Palin ticket, I was more than happy to see him elected. A breath of fresh air, I thought. But how disappointing he has been.

I think the Liberal Democrats in Coalition in this country have managed to do more useful things in the last year than the Obama administration has managed since he was elected. Health care reform was a useless fudge, he has failed to close Guantanamo Bay or begin to roll back the worst excesses of the terror laws introduced by Dubya Bush, his attitude to LGBT rights leaves a great deal to be desired (he is against marriage equality for example even though he used to be in favour!) and he has appeared ineffective throughout his Presidency (except when it comes to breaching other country's sovereignty to murder criminal suspects). This is just a continuation of the Bush years under new management. I have no particular urge to see his administration rewarded with a second term and as he is the really the only possible candidate for the Democrats, my hopes for a "liberal" replacement must lie elsewhere.

The Republicans have come a long way since the days of Lincoln and even Eisenhower. A long way, in the wrong direction... many of it's elected representatives lack the intellect or independence to make any headway in improving the United States and seem too busy with their own pet projects; i.e. dodgy dealings with corporations (a lot like the Democrats). It's a tough job seeing any goodness in the current field of Presidential hopefuls (though it is early on). However Ron Paul, who is becoming a perennial Presidential candidate, is a REAL breath of fresh air.

In 2008, I will admit, I was quite taken with the Reloveution and kept an eye on the attempts by Ron Paul fans to publicise his campaign throughout social media (especially on Digg). But I hadn't really realised just how staid the two party system of the United States had become and instead placed my hope in the Democrats in offering a new start. Now, as the 2012 Presidential race starts to rev up, I am cynical enough to see that nothing is ever really going to change unless something radical happens. And Ron Paul is nothing if not radical.

Why should classical liberals support Ron Paul for President of the United States?

1) He's non-interventionist. Intervention in other country's affairs is all very well when you have a Rwanda or a Holocaust on hand. But banning trade with Cuba, repeatedly entering Pakistan's territory and killing people there, financing Israel's ongoing battles and almost every other intervention by the United States in the last few decades has been completely without legal, and almost without any moral, justification. Ron Paul supports cutting back on the USA's vast overseas involvement.

2) He's against the terror laws that have been piling up since 2001. He opposes over-the-top airport security, the Patriot act, ID cards, and other civil liberty issues such as eminent domain, conscription and domestic surveillance.

3) His stance on LGBT rights is... difficult for a liberal to digest but you need to see he comes at it from a different angle. He does arrive, almost, at the same point as us though. His views are based around "states' rights" whilst liberals are more about "individual rights". For me his views shown here differ only slightly from my own views on marriage equality shown here.

4) He supports liberalising laws on gambling, prostitution and drugs.

5) He has some unique views on environmentalism. Whilst I don't think it's quite the way to go, his ideas on tort law being used to stop companies and industries polluting local environments are interesting.

Sure this is not a man who is perfect. His views on a great many issues are off the wall and very conservative. But most are consistent with his libertarian beliefs and whilst they might be hard to stomach at least make sense intellectually. His stance on liberty is difficult to argue against, something few other Republicans can say.

The United States needs a shake up. This once great country appears to be stumbling under the weight of it's responsibilities and becoming ever more bitterly divided by the "culture wars". The elected representatives of it's people are beholden to vested interests and corporate donors. Something has got to give. I believe Ron Paul, for all his faults, is the man who can do that and fix the problems that have plagued America during it's "Imperial century". I truly hope that Americans will seize this chance for real change...

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

Disturbing Images From The Western World

Whilst the world's attention is focussed on the horrific but also exhilarating revolutions occurring in the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa, other equally disturbing images have been coming from within our own midst.

Hate Comes To Orange County



I find this video almost too upsetting to watch. Muslims families being tormented and insulted by protesters waving American flags whilst elected US officials spread hate among the crowd. I can almost hear the echoes of the fascists in the 1930s and their anti-Jewish rhetoric. Awful stuff, and we are just not condemning this enough.

EDL Thugs

The English Defense League. It's everything I've worried about when I've spoken about English nationalism on here before. Now they bring in violent unionist imagery (no, I do not understand that either, we're English but we support the British cause? Hmm...). They are just a bunch of thuggish little boys terrified of the Other. We must oppose them thoroughly and consistently wherever they go.

The German Question

German interior minister reopens bitter row over Muslim integration. Certainly, Islam is not part of traditional German culture. Nothing controversial there, that's just a historical statement. But I don't think that's what is being said here, and we all know that. The wink, wink, nod, nod of the anti-Islam crowd is almost as disgusting as what they actually say.

"To say that Islam belongs in Germany is not a fact supported by history."

Well some interpretations of German history might suggest Jews don't belong in Germany (they've spent more time as pariahs than they have as equal German citizens throughout Germany's complex history). But you wouldn't say that because that would sound pretty damn disturbing. Are we to get rid of everyone in our countries whose presence isn't backed up by history? And what history are we talking about? Modern or ancient? Perhaps the German people don't belong there either as my memory of Germany 65 million years ago certainly doesn't back up their claim on residence either. History is useful, interesting and complicated. But it's not a Bible. We make our own destinies whilst learning from our history. But Germany seems to be just repeating the same old mistakes.

It's time we stood up and said no more. I'm no fan of Islam. To me it's just another silly religion. But that doesn't mean I do not support Muslims rights to their beliefs nor that I think they are some holier than thou angels without any issues themselves. But we must have a frank and honest debate not a "Them and us" one. The West needs to wake up to the hate it is brewing before it's too late.

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

The Prop Ruling #prop8

Ruling here

None of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents' motion for a stay is DENIED. Doc #705. The clerk is DIRECTED to United States District Court For the Northern District of California enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Agree With Conservatives... Shocker...

Watch this video:



Is there anything in there you can really, fundamentally, say is worthy of note? Two conservatives who believe in equality, but by different means. They don't support one man/one woman only marriage. But Queerty felt the need to talk about them with such derision I felt I needed to make a blog post to point out, some of us lefty-liberals agree with the Tea Partiers on this!

Perry Vs Schwarzenegger: The Facts Of The Ruling

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The "findings of fact" seem to be the most compelling part of Judge Walker's ruling in Perry vs Schwarzenegger, and are worth reading. Here are the best:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." Source

For why the facts will be important for the battles ahead, see here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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