Countering The "Civil Partnerships Are Enough" Argument

One of the most persuasive and effective arguments opponents of marriage equality (and oft-quoted marriage equality agnostics like Christopher Biggins) use is that civil partnerships are so close to marriage that there really is no reason to pursue marriage equality*.

If we ignore the, sometimes glaring, differences between civil partnerships and marriage, civil partnerships do offer extremely strong protections for same gender relationships. Gone are the days of long term partners being denied hospital visitation or inheritance rights. Those heartbreaking moments that were once so brutally common are now consigned to history.

Civil partnerships were successful enough to dampen the call for marriage equality, and it's one of the reasons I still have a bit of a downer on them to this day. They truly do undermine, when dealing the issues superficially, the case for marriage equality.

So it is important to take a step back and consider: are we just being greedy? Are we seeking to "redefine" marriage, as our opponents claim, just because we are selfish and ungrateful? Are we placing a great deal of importance in just a word? Is the "cost" worth it?

One thing so often forgotten (or ignored for ideological reasons) by our opponents and agnostics alike is the plight of transgendered people and their partners in marriages or civil partnerships when getting gender recognition. The wonderful Sarah Brown describes the problem here, and the paragraph below shows the heartache caused by keeping civil partnerships and marriage separate entities.

This trans woman was me, and I made that faustian bargain in 2009, surrendering my marriage of eight years and, after much bureaucracy, converting it to a civil partnership. I now bitterly regret doing that. We had both convinced ourselves that it was just paperwork, and didn’t really mean anything, but we were wrong. It hurt deeply, and it still does. We had a wonderful civil partnership ceremony with friends, but I wish I could take it all back.

So civil partnerships certainly aren't enough to stop people having their marriages dissolved forcefully by the state. 

Then we have international recognition and the protection of the rights of British citizens abroad. The case of Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger represents the slap in the face caused by the current downgrading of one's perfectly legal marriage in another country to a civil partnership here. If we recognise opposite-sex marriages under the same foreign laws, then how can we pretend people aren't married under those same laws just because their genders don't meet our requirements? It's totally unfair.

Even more concerning are the problems (and they will grow as marriage equality becomes more widely recognised in the coming years) caused when someone in a civil partnerships visits or lives in a country with equal marriage laws. Because civil partnerships, unlikely marriage, aren't an internationally recognised standard it is highly likely that they will not be recognised as marriage in those countries. It is bad enough that civil partners won't be protected in countries without same gender partnership rights, but worse that because we don't have marriage equality they might not be registered in countries that do protect those rights! Following what will, fairly obviously, be an internationally recognised standard makes sense.

So civil partnerships are a typically British fudge that are not enough to avoid insult to those married abroad nor avoid the risk of non-recognition of the rights of British ex-pats and travelers. 

This argument also suffers from another problem. If civil partnerships are so similar to marriage what is the issue with marriage equality? Surely it makes sense to bring such similar institutions together in a simplified way to make sure case law applies equally. And Rupert Myers has a similarly probing question for proponents of this argument:

If civil partnerships are sufficient for gay couples because they provide the same package of rights, is that significantly different from saying that Rosa Parks should have been happy to sit at the back of the bus because it took her to the same place as the white people at the front?

Are civil partnerships enough to allow religious freedom? Some might say that those religious organisations wanting marriage equality so they can marry members of their faith should just accept their, newly won, right to conduct religious civil partnerships. Unfortunately for those wishing to stop marriage equality, local authorities have conspired to make the cost of being allowed to register civil partnerships much greater than marriage. This is putting an unfair burden on churches that support same gender partnerships than those who don't. With a properly worded marriage equality law allowing freedom of conscience for the religious this problem would cease to exist.

So civil partnerships aren't enough for those who believe in religious freedom. 

There are other examples of how civil partnerships aren't good enough, feel free to add them in the comments if you so wish!

Those, such as our "friend" Ben Bradshaw, who make the "civil partnerships are enough" argument must be challenged on it. They are often simply uninformed on the issues, usually blind to trans issues and make the remarks in an off-hand manner. It is important to correct them loudly to stop this lazy argument in its tracks. It is simply wrong. Civil partnerships were not enough in 2004, and they are not enough now. Marriage equality is the only way to resolve all these issues in a clean, clear-cut fashion.

*Another way this argument is put is that people do not understand why gay people would want a marriage in a church when they have civil partnerships and Christianity hates them. 

There are so many faults with that argument it is worth pointing them out.

1) it assumes LGBT people want to marry in a church. Marriages, in this country, don't have to be performed in a church. 
2) it assumes all churches are against LGBT relationships and that all LGBT people are atheists. Do I really need to point out this is fairly obviously untrue?
3) it takes a rather evangelical and Protestant view that Christianity is a cohesive whole when we all know it is far more complicated than that. 

I have to say that whilst I try to treat opponents with as much respect as I can muster, if you make the mistake of assuming all LGBT are atheists or all Christian churches think the same thing then I tend to dismiss most of your other arguments without further consideration. So let's stick to sensible arguments only please. 

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

Nick Clegg and An #EqualMarriage Promise?

It would appear Nick Clegg hasn't given up on reaching for the stars. In a move that would make sense, given that the Scottish Government will be pushing forward for both religious and civil marriage equality, he has again restated Liberal Democrat policy that both should be introduced here in England and Wales.

Sadly, for those of us who want to see this too, it's quite clear he isn't speaking on behalf of the Government but simply personally as a Liberal Democrat.

"It is Liberal Democrat party policy, and my personal view, that those organisations who do wish to conduct same-sex marriages, should be free to do so. It is not the place of government to mandate religious organisations to conduct gay marriages. But nor is it the place of government to ban them from doing so."

More interesting is the news that Whitehall sources confirm a majority of responses to the Westminster consultation on civil marriage equality were against. It is hardly surprising given the strength of feeling among the religious that they should be able to say who can and can't get married.

Thankfully it looks likely that the Government will ignore those responses as they weren't actually asking if they should introduce it but simply seeking opinions on how it should be done.

However, in the wake of the Lords Reform debacle, I have growing concerns that this fight will be even harder than this pessimist thought it would be. With the Tory rebels getting cocky it could be a rough ride through the House of Commons and then it faces even stauncher opposition in the unelected Lords. Will we get marriage equality introduced in this Parliament? Only time will tell.

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

And with that, I think the Lib Dems and I may be over.

I'll admit that in my youth I was a bit of a philanderer with regards to my choice of political party. At 13, in the midst of the 1997 election I declared myself a Tory like my forefathers before me. But, as I learnt about the multitude of evils (i.e. MPs) within that party, I soon came under the delusion that Tony Blair and his New Labour project was the way forward. The momentum of this forward motion sadly propelled us into war. Not being an utterly heartless, warmongering bastard I decided New Labour was no longer the place for me. And thus, by a process of elimination and a brief flirt with Caroline Lucas and the Greens, I found myself wondering what the Lib Dems were all about.

My first recon mission introduced me to some local Shepway Lib Dems who were everything I'd been looking for. First Peter Carroll and then, eventually, people like Lynne Beaumont and Tim Prater (among many others!) seemed to me to be intelligent, caring and extremely hard-working people. The sort of people one would want to aspire to be like. And those first impressions remain to this day. They truly are amazing people.

Then came the policies. And I found them rather sensible. I liked their love of freedom and my, still recovering, New Labour self liked the fact they were rather generous towards those in need. I won't pretend to be the most dedicated Lib Dem ever (Lazy is my middle name) but since about 2003 I have been completely loyal to them. As I found my political beliefs move from social democrat through to classical liberal, I found the Lib Dems were a broad enough church to still keep me in it.

Despite the fact that I learnt, as a political gay teenager, that the Tories aren't just to be treated warily but should be actively disliked I've stayed through the Coalition. Some of the things, especially the Income Tax allowance changes, have been amazing Lib Dem wins. Other things have been uncomfortable but I've stuck them out thinking that eventually there would be a prize worthy of my beloved party's destruction.

It's funny really, I always thought my disillusionment with the Lib Dems would come over some matter of individual rights, sexuality or internet freedom, something which would really get me angry. I never thought that the straw that would break the camel's back would be Lords Reform.

It may well be better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all. It may well be we did the right thing in putting national interest ahead of party interest. But in doing so the Lib Dems have lost our soul and, a minor consideration I know, broken my heart.

Now I am totally aware of my previous pledges of loyalty to the Lib Dems over their support of my heart's desire, marriage equality. I shall honour those pledges but not in the spirit they were intended. I shan't resign as a member, I shall pay my dues. I owe the party that much. But I am no longer a Lib Dem at heart or maybe I am but the party isn't. Either way, we're definitely separated and I'm simply paying maintenance.

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

Trolling Along

troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument 

This is a bit of ramble but hey ho...

Don't feed the trolls. Those of us who have been online for a fairly long time cannot have failed to have encountered that oft chanted mantra on a forum or, dare I out my age, newsgroup. It has served us well for all these years.

Trolls, like dirty old men and fangirls, are an internet hazard. They've been a part of the internet ever since it entered it's "modern era" in the late 90s, and they are unlikely to go away. And part of me has become fond of them as part of the fabric of the internet along with other sub-groups such as the furries or the Youtubers.

Sadly there appears to be somewhat of a troll related moral panic occurring in this country and it is just growing worse and worse.

Who is and who isn't a troll has never really be clearly defined but, in forums at least, you knew one when you saw one. However now the word troll is used to refer to allsorts of people, interacting in allsorts of ways. Say something someone, especially a celebrity or "respected" individual, doesn't agree with, and you're a troll. Here's a classic example:

@davidallengreen @fleetstreetfox Good? So racism & threatening behaviour can be excused because free speech is bigger?

— James (@JamesReckons) August 1, 2012

@jamesreckons @fleetstreetfox Oh dear, are you still trolling.

— David Allen Green (@DavidAllenGreen) August 1, 2012

It's becoming a way to silence debate, stiffle criticism and belittle and insult those who you disagree with.

Take another example of this, not exactly troll related, but hidden among some obvious examples of nasty messages on Youtube, displayed in this catchy tune, one just doesn't quite seem right.



The message that most upset Steve Furst? "ur NOT funny and never will be". That might not be the politest message in the world but that is pretty clearly a reasonable opinion someone might have. No one is funny to everyone. Some people may not find Steve Furst funny (to be honest I've no idea who is but I'm sure he's a lovely and hilarious person even if this particular nitpick of his suggests an overly large ego). That isn't hate. It's not trolling. It's just an opinion!

And so we come to the Tom Daley fiasco. I can't stand rudeness, and what was said to Tom Daley was uncalled for, disgusting, thoughtless and unreasonable. The threats of death were, as you can imagine, without defense. And yet we reach the problem. Tom Daley retweeted the original nasty tweet and instantly Reece Messer came under attack from Daley fangirls and fanboys. He was, in turn, subject to the same sort of abuse he gave to Daley. Yet he was arrested, and those who abused him were not! And he'd done this sort of thing before but not until Tom Daley was involved did the authorities care. The police CANNOT police the internet. It is a complete impossibility.

In the days of forums, forum hosts banned persistent and unwanted "trolls". In the days of Twitter users get banned for abusing corporations but don't seem to have to worry if they abuse others (unless they are famous). If one has an open resource such as Twitter, which is so immense that it is near impossible to moderate, there must either be an acceptance of total freedom or it might as well close down. It's really that simple.

And the reeks of double standards on a whole different level as pointed out by fleetstreetfox.

I've become increasingly unhappy with how anti-discrimination and anti-social behaviour laws are being used to undermine free speech, free expression and to suppress debate from those deemed unworthy of having an opinion. If you can't handle seeing people for who they really are (from the epic and the kind-hearted to the mundane and the mean-spirited) writ large across your screen then perhaps you need to log off. Because the internet shows up our species for its best, it must show up it's worst as well. That is in its very nature.



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

Scottish Marriage Equality Judgement Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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