Campaign For Marriage Is Doing Far Better Than They Should Be

So the Coalition Against, sorry, For Marriage's campaign is doing well. Oh, I'm not too worried that they are about to tip the balance against the Government's civil marriage equality plans. But they are doing far better than they should be.

Their petition against marriage equality has, at the time of writing, just under 65,000 signatures. The campaign for equal marriage has just over 10% of that number signing up. They've also got vocal supporters who are much more able to get press coverage of their authoritarian views. Be it Ann Widdecombe suggesting marriage equality is being foisted on an unwilling populace, or Peter Bone who thinks the idea is "completely nuts", they are the ones getting all the attention. They even have Labour MPs like Joe Benton and Jim Dobbin signing their petition (Gordon Brown and Jack Straw next perhaps?).

Thanks to the neutering of the debate due to the introduction of civil partnerships, we don't have supporters in the public eye who are even half as devoted to marriage equality as their opposite numbers are devoted to defeating it. It's not an issue that get's the LGBT friendly types excited. We don't have someone of Lady Gaga's stature in popular culture calling for it. We don't have politicians doing more than offering their support. We don't have champions willing to get dirty for it. The best we have, and I shake my head as I type this, is Ben Summerskill! The only truly pro-marriage equality story to make the big time news wise was Lynne Featherstone's recent show of support, and that's only because she's a Minister (the story getting into the news that is, her support isn't questioned!). Peter Tatchell, hero that he is, isn't forgotten but the media tend to ignore him unless he is 1) violently attacked or 2) arrested and I hope he doesn't need to do either of those two things in the name of marriage equality in the UK!

Even worse, we still have the radical anti-marriage folks (who I have sympathy with but they want to BAN marriage where as I want to make it a private matter) playing right into the campaigns evil plans! Just check out Julie Bindel, she of transphobic fame, getting all upset at the time wasted on marriage equality. She might think it's wasted time, she doesn't need to campaign for it, but for some of us it's about being able to marry the one we love! I know, romance is dead and all that...

Who is going to be to marriage equality what Ben Cohen and Gareth Roberts have been to the campaign against homophobia in sport? We need a hero!

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

Workfare and Council Prayers: The Tories Must Be Tamed

The benefit cap and the European Union veto must have gone to the Tories' heads. With much popular support (more lukewarm on my behalf especially on the EU stuff) they probably thought their time had come. Forgetting they hadn't quite managed a majority at the last election and are currently showing no sign of a surge, the Tory party's more nasty wing may have got a little over-enthusiastic.

Firstly comes workfare (or, as it's called, "Get Britain Working", which sounds like something from the 50s). There are some interesting ideas in there. The idea of having people on benefits do some constructive work is appealing. The argument goes that they will gain useful experience of work and the probability of a job interview whilst those they work for gain cheap labour for menial tasks and get the chance to try before they buy on applicants.

But I'm very concerned about several aspects.

1) Welfare isn't just given out to life-long welfare scroungers as the Tories would have you believe. It's given out to people who have worked, paid their National Insurance and taxes, and thus have reasonable expectation of getting assistance when they need it without the need to work for it again!
2) This amounts to a Government subsidy of private enterprise. It's impractical to expect small to medium enterprises or charities to have the resources to give applicants the training they would need and, by default, this would mean subsidising the larger (and generally already pretty successful) businesses. My opinion of the public sector and private sector mixing is very low.
3) Will the jobs offered, such as shelf-stacking, really give anyone the experience they need (beyond at turning up on time and following instructions)? I am very suspect over this.

So it's hardly surprising there has been a very successful outpouring of displeasure from many quarters, especially towards those businesses involved.

If this as aimed at the long-term unemployed, was completely voluntary (it actually is voluntary but it sounds like there is a great deal of pressure to get on it) and offered something more than just Job Seeker's Allowance (as suggested on Twitter earlier perhaps a wage below minimum wage on a fixed-term contract) then I think it might be useful. It'd give people a little more cash, still offer the benefits to business but not quite as significant as before and give people the self-esteem boost by getting out there a little. Even so I'd probably still be against it on principle, benefit reform is a good thing and I support the benefit cap but this is just a step too far for me.

The Tories are fitting themselves in to the usual stereotype of hating the poor and helping out their corporate mates.

And then comes even more "Same Old Tories" nonsense. Prayers at council meetings.

I would've thought that given we live in a religiously diverse country Christian prayers during council business would be a thing of the past. However they weren't and all those attending council meetings had this bizarre practice thrust upon them. No amount of mentioning Matthew 6:5 will dissuade Christians and Tories this will change their minds on the rightness of it.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

Thankfully this week this was ruled as not in keeping with the Local Government Act and such prayers were there-by banned. They could still be held before the meetings just not as part of the agenda, allowing those who didn't wish to take part (like people who actually listen to what Jesus said) to turn up a little later. A good compromise.

Alas, the Tories couldn't help themselves. Along comes Eric Pickles to the rescue, once more allowing prayers during council meetings. I thereby urge all free-thinking councils to engage in Jedi prayers, Muslim prayers, Flying Spaghetti Monster prayers and see just how soon it before the Daily Mail screams blue murder. Go on... do it!

The Tory Christians are my least favourite kind. Intolerant and inflexible. Well okay, the BNP supporting Christians are worse but they have the excuse of being stark raving loons. The Tories should know better, but sadly they don't appear to be engaging their brains.

I suspect if they keep playing into the stereotype Labour wants them to play into, Labour might win the next election. Even with Ed Miliband as leader. Liberal Tories... where have you gone?

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

The News... In Brief

Just some quick looks at a few stories that have piqued my interested

How can Ken riddle anything with LGBT people positively? - Not the best phrasing although maybe not as nasty as it seems after a second reading. Silly Ken though. Riddled is definitely not the best choice of phrase.

Court overturns California gay marriage ban, appeal planned - Brilliant step forward in the fight over Prop 8. Unfortunately it's not the end of the fight. Onwards and upwards.

Falklands issue to be taken to the UN - This issue has been causing me to shake my head in disbelief at some of the stuff Argentina and it's allies have been coming up with over the Falkland Islands. Nothing, however, has quite got to me as President Kirchner's latest request to Britain to "to give peace a chance". As if we are the one's who would want a war! As far as we're concerned the issue is settled in our favour, why would we want to rock the boat??? And the idea with militarising the Falklands is hilarious given the history. We went to demilitarise the Falklands in the early 80s, and then Argentina promptly took that as a sign that we didn't care and invaded. They are only militarised now to make sure Argentina understands we shan't let them annex a small group of islands by violent means against the wish of the inhabitants.

Ironically there'd probably be no military in the Falklands now if Argentina had never INVADED in the first place. I sometimes think the whole world has forgotten that they were the aggressors last time. The Falkland Islanders were their innocent victims. Let's remember that.

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

Do I Support Ex-Gay Therapy? I Think I Do But Widdecombe's Still Wrong.

Feels like Twitter storm is brewing over Ann Widdecombe's latest comments on homosexuality. In the Express (better bedfellows you could not find!) she has voiced support for allowing "unhappy gays" to seek ex-gay therapy following the Patrick Strudwick's (one of my least favourite left-wingers) entrapment of a therapist offering this service upon request.

You know what? I agree with her.

First a few provisos:

1) I don't think ex-gay therapy works.
2) I think it can be very damaging especially to the self-esteem of young LGB people  (as can it's anti-trans equivalent)
3) I can't for the life of me understand why a grown adult would have a problem with being gay but that's my own bias I suppose.
4) No one should be forced to attend ex-gay therapy by anyone else (I'm looking at you parental types out there).

But... if someone is desperately unhappy being gay and believes ex-gay therapy will help them, who are we to stop them doing so of their own freewill? So there you go, case closed. Etc.

Except... where Widdecombe's argument stumbles is on the example she has used. For if one wishes to be accredited by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, then one should follow their requirements for that accreditation. Lesley Pilkington failed to do this, and thus hasn't really got a defense. There's nothing actually stopping ex-gay therapists operating nor stopping "unhappy gays" seek therapy.

So what was Ann Widdecombe's point again? Oh yes, we're all picking on Christians and not Muslims and that is simply not fair!

It's nice to know she never changes. Good ol' Ann, mad as a hatter as always.

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

Common Ground With Archbishop Sentamu?

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

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

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

So said Archbishop Sentamu in the Daily Telegraph this week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tories and their Nasty Brigade #legalizegaymarriage

The Tories have a problem. They have made leaps and bounds in the last few years on the LGBT rights front. Here we have a Coalition consisting primarily of Tories liberalising the blood ban and supporting marriage equality. We need to give them some props for that. Excellent work. But fundamentally, at the very heart of the party in Parliament, there are still the hardcore right-wingers.

A coalition of evangelicals, Catholics and grumpy old people, these right-wingers have not gone away and their hatred of LGBT freedom is clear to see even when they are so desperate to hide it, as they did over the recent attempts to undermine religious civil partnerships.

All parties in this country consist of a wide coalition of groups, some with totally different ideas of what direction the party should go in. But it's only in the Tories that the loony fringe common to all parties seems to have really maintained it's grip in Parliament. That's because until the late nineties, that fringe WAS the Tory party.

The latest shenanigans, led by David Burrowes, to rebel against the civil marriage equality legislation which is on the cards show that whilst this fringe doesn't have the power to defeat this legislation (thanks to the liberal Tories, the Lib Dems and the saner members of the Labour party giving it a good chance of success) they still have the power to give voice to the homophobia that is common among certain classes of people.

And that's why I could never, ever bring myself to vote for the Tories. They cannot pretend this fringe doesn't represent a sizeable component of their supporters. They may have tamed their crazy urges, but it'll only take a bad election defeat of the liberal leadership under Cameron for them to regain command again. 

We must be sure to keep pressing the reasonable members of Parliament to support marriage equality (both civil and religious) to ensure they take the matter seriously enough to keep it on course. The risk of a derailment is small but these guys aren't going to miss the vote and we need to make sure our side don't either!

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

How To Lose A Referendum Part 1

David Cameron and the British Government have been playing silly-buggers with our Union and it's pissing me off. We all knew, after the election victory of the SNP last year, that a referendum on Scottish independence was inevitable in the next few years. And if you're a grumpy old unionist like me, then you've known it was on the cards ever since Labour's poorly thought out devolution (I favour a clearer, federal structure). Given this, I think it's a little thoughtless for the British Government to turn around and tell the Scottish Government when and how they can hold this referendum.

In a statement to MPs, Mr Moore said the government's "clear view" was that the power to hold a referendum was "reserved" to Westminster under devolution laws passed in 1998 and that the Scottish government could not authorise a referendum on its own.

Do they have any idea on how that comes across? It might be the legal situation left thanks to Labour's rubbish future planning, but that sounds like just the sort of soundbite that plays straight into slippery Salmond's hands. We need to show the Scottish people why they should vote to stay in the Union not give them good reasons to resent interference from Westminster!

And lest you think this is a Coalition foul up, Labour appear to adopt the same sort of attitude. Here's what you do, accept the Scottish Government's date, make sure the question asked is clear and fair and then fight like mad to show all the benefits of being together rather than living on this island apart from each other. Is it really that hard?

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