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

The Dangers Of Marriage Equality

For many years I was single-minded in raising the profile of marriage equality. I never had the luxury of stopping and reviewing the wider implications to my world view as there just weren't that many people interested in getting past the "But why do we need it?" argument.

Now the campaign has moved beyond me and better campaigners are heading the charge. I no longer need to spend time writing to people, getting media attention on the issue or arguing with opponents. I now have the time to sit back, watch what happens and finally see the wood for the trees.

And I am concerned.

I've always been someone with sympathy for "unconventional people" (an awful phrase and I apologise for using it but you know what I'm saying). I believe, fundamentally, that our society needs constant reinvention and improvement and unconventional people and their lifestyles are, in my opinion, the people pushing the boundaries of our existence. And I despise bullying of others just because they are different. Basically, I oppose conservative social attitudes with a passion.

I suppose, given how conservative an institution marriage is, that I shouldn't be surprised that conservatism is rearing its ugly head in the marriage equality campaigns. I like to think it's just "situational conservatism" used as a pragmatic way of winning the argument. But when have I ever liked pragmatism? I couldn't support those who misled Parliament about opposing marriage *cough* Chris Bryant *cough* during the civil partnership debates, and I won't support those opposing other people's way of lives, just to advance marriage equality, now.

It's enough to make me concerned that naysayers like Mark Simpson and Julie Bindel may have a point. Are we at risk of losing something special as we gain something conventional?

I think it is a great risk, but I also think their views ignore the dilemmas of others and are, in their own way, deeply conservative. Conservative in that it favours preserving the status quo over reforming it. And the others they ignore include the troubles transgender people face under our current separate systems. So whilst I think there is a danger, I also think that in not pushing for marriage equality we risk harming others. And that will not stand.

I've always been clear marriage, as it currently exists, isn't what I want in my vision of the perfect future. But I believe it is important to fight for marriage equality now to even out some of the cruel and perverse consequences of our current systems (especially on transgendered people, I've always been clear it is their predicament that is my number one issue with how things are). But that doesn't mean I will stop defending polyamorous relationships nor that I won't be less than honest that I find some arguments in favour of legalising incest compelling. It might make my position open to easy attack by authoritarian haters but that is another risk I am willing to take to avoid being a hypocrite.

I refuse to compromise on my belief that everyone has the right to live their own lives, free from the oppressive conformity of society. And marriage equality is just one step in a greater battle and, indeed, just the start of the slippery slope. There's nothing wrong with progress when it's done to strengthen our liberty. 

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

The Equal Marriage Debate FAQ

There are a number of false assumptions and misunderstandings doing the rounds on the internet and, sadly, in news studios the country over. I hope to answer some of the serious questions and concerns people have about marriage equality in order to make things a little clearer. 


Would legalising same-sex marriage force churches to carry out ceremonies whether they wanted to or not? 

(As asked by Guy Fawkes here)

Firstly consider that, at this stage of the debate, the Government has no official plans to allow ANY legal same-sex marriages to be carried out on religious premises. They have specifically planned this so as to ensure churches aren't forced to carry out any marriage they don't want to.

But it would be disingenuous of me not to admit that most people arguing for marriage equality do want  religious organisations to be allowed to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies. That is quite different to wanting to force all religious organisations to do so, something that the Law Society says won't happen if religious marriage equality ever became a reality in the future. Religious same-sex marriage would strengthen religious liberty not destroy it.

Many lay people seem to be very concerned, mainly due to some rather suspect comments by the large churches, that no religion is forced to do something it doesn't want to. Rightly so. That is not going to happen under the current proposals, especially considering the current proposals only concern civil marriage.

Also, for those who think marriage is a purely religious institution, there's a fantastic brief history of marriage in the UK here.

Many people, including gay people, think there's no need for marriage equality. Aren't civil partnerships good enough?


(As suggested by Ben Bradshaw and Andrew Pierce)

Civil partnerships were, I'll admit, a great step forward in protecting the private lives of LGB couples. Without it we'd still be living in a country where hospital visits could be denied, homophobic families able to force partners out of funeral arrangements for their other halves and many other nasty things. Civil partnerships were a plaster to heal some very deep wounds.

But, as I've stated many times before, there are differences in the rights and responsibilities bestowed by civil partnerships and marriage. They are not the same. And the separation unfairly affects transgendered people and their partners.

This is not an argument about semantics, nor about "gay people stealing our words" as some might put it. We do not want marriage because we want to upset heterosexuals, we need it to give us the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

Why do you prefer "marriage equality" to gay marriage? Are you trying to make it sound more acceptable?


I've seen this a few times, mainly in Telegraph and Daily Mail articles, and I'm never more amazed by this obsession with language. I don't stop people saying gay marriage, but I prefer marriage equality (or same-sex marriage depending on the circumstance) as it's more factually correct. Bisexuals aren't gay. Transgendered people might not be gay and this issue is about them too. Gay marriage is so simplistic and takes away from the fact we don't want a separate new form of marriage but just to be allowed the current type... i.e. "marriage".

So no, I didn't adopt it because it sounds more acceptable and, in fact, it's often a hindrance as people might not get what I'm talking about. But it is correct and thus it'll stay.

What other questions could people, genuinely, have? Let me know in the comments below.


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

Ann Widdecombe's Wrong. Again.

Ann Widdecombe has held a webchat on gransnet in which we got this gem.

Presumably you are opposed to gay marriage? What would you say to a mother like me, whose son would desperately like to marry his partner and who feels that he should have the same rights as her daughter.  

I can never understand why the very people who support marriage as a source of social stability would wish to deny this to one group. Surely it would be better to include gay men and women (where they want to be included) then to push them out into the cold?  

I would say that your son would not gain anything from civil marriage that he does not already have in a civil partnership. But under the proposals, your daughter would lose the right to describe herself, legally, as a wife.

This is almost certainly based on the reports earlier this year that legislation will need to be amended if equal marriage went through to ensure the laws were actually going to be applicable to all marriages. This might involve instances of "husband" and "wife" being removed. Now firstly this may not have to happen, as amending all legislation would be a near impossible task, so I suspect some sort of typically British fudge will occur.

No one is going to have to stop calling themselves a "wife" or a "husband". I'm pretty sure those terms will still be used in courts of law across the land. If/when I marry my other half he shall be my husband. The idea there's some secret conspiracy by LGBT activists to destroy marriage by the trojan house of "equal marriage" is one best left for the tin-foil hat brigade.

It's not something one expects from a former MP. But then again one of her old colleagues Roger Gale thinks Shakespeare will be rewritten once marriage equality is achieved! It takes allsorts I suppose.

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

It's Okay To Be Homophobic If You're Gay, Part Two

Two years ago Andrew Pierce outed himself as a homophobe, one who believed that you can't be a homophobe if you are gay. This of course is a ridiculous proposition. Now he's come out with a more direct challenge in his most recent article's title: I’m a gay man who opposes gay marriage. Does that make ME a bigot, Mr Cameron?

Well I think the obvious answer to this is no, it doesn't but you are one anyway. Your hatred of "camp men", your disdain for the truth and the fact you think your sexuality trumps criticism suggests you are indeed a homophobe.

Disdain for the truth?, I hear you ask incredulously. Firstly in this most recent article he uses the same tired phrase of other homophobes; "metropolitan elite". This from a man who lives in Belsize Park! The idea that marriage equality is some secret plan of the queer toffs belies the fact that the people pushing this (such as Peter Tatchell) aren't exactly part of that "elite". And our opposition (including, in the past, such champagne socialists as Ben Summerskill and Chris Bryant) has often come from the very grouping supposedly in support!

He then moves on to quote Ben Bradshaw's (another elite me thinks) ill-thought out comments on marriage equality, without then pointing out Bradshaw will, ultimately, support the move!! Such deception!

But his final move is breath-taking in it's audacity.

Even gay rights campaigners are puzzled by the Prime Minister’s conversion to the cause. Stonewall, a powerful pressure group for gay equality, has not called for gay marriage.  

While the organisation — of which I’m proud to be a member — supports the idea of gay marriage, its priority remains tackling homophobia in schools after research showed that gay men in the 16-to-24 age group are significantly more likely to have attempted suicide than other young men. 

Stonewall did adopt that position.... in 2009! It is now very much attempting to steal the spotlight and "lead" the marriage equality campaign. There's even a whole campaign now!

So even if there's an argument that Andrew Pierce isn't a bigot, I think there's quite a clear argument that he's not to be trusted.

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