Freedom Is Not The Problem

YouGov Again Show No Basis For Tory Jitters Over #EqualMarriage

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sun, 19 May 2013 08:35:00 +0000

Let's take a look at this weekend's YouGov poll which has a number of questions on same-sex marriage. I think it will make sad reading for those desperately trying to make same-sex marriage into a storm to bring down David Cameron.

The first question was "Which of the following issues will be important to you in deciding how you vote at the next election? Please tick up to three or four" Out of 17 options same-sex marriage came 12th (beating out "Other", "None of these" and "Animal Rights") in terms of importance in influencing votes and got only 7% overall (note 7% was also the number of Tories AND UKIPpers who felt this issue would influence their vote!).

These 7% were asked "In the previous question you said that the issue of same sex marriage would be important to you in deciding how you vote at the next election. Will you"

Be more likely to vote for a party that supports same-sex marriage - 58% (of Tories 28% and UKIP 24%)

Be less likely to vote for a party that supports samesex marriage - 42% (of Tories 72% and UKIP 76%)

Now by my calculations this means that, overall, 4% of the population are likely to base their vote mostly on whether a party opposes same-sex marriage or not. 5% of Tories are likely to vote against the party over marriage equality. This is hardly a major rebellion!

Next question: "Since 2005 same-sex couples have been able to enter into civil partnerships. While civil partnerships offer the same legal rights as marriage, same-sex couples are not able to marry. Would you support or oppose changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

A leading question, one which some critics sometimes wish was asked more often as they feel it favours the anti-equal marriage cause. This poll doesn't hold that hope up. 55% said they support changing the law over 36% opposed (consistent with most other polls). 48% of Tory voters oppose over 45% supporting. Yet we've seen those who oppose have more important issues that influence their votes. Even UKIP have "only" 53% opposed (I say only given the weight many are giving this issue).

It does go on to stress a strong support for civil partnerships being extended to heterosexuals and moderate support for a referendum (39% to 34%) but then most people support referendums when given the opportunity for most things.

It becomes clearer with every poll that the Tory right-wing "loons" are out of touch not only with the public but with the issues that their own supporters think are important. Time to focus on what they really want...

Muslim Leaders Come Out Against #EqualMarriage, And Yes They Are Wrong!

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sun, 19 May 2013 07:56:00 +0000

One of the most annoying criticisms one receives as a gay liberal is that, in some bizarre way, I must thus be some Muslim fanboy who wouldn't dare criticism Islam because obviously everyone politically to the left of Nigel Farage must be in kahoots with fundamentalist Muslims! "Oh you criticise us Christians but you'd never dare criticise a Muslim!" is the commonest formulation of this argument (usually used by UKIPpers who, on this issue, are ironically allied with Muslims!).

The main reason I spend less time moaning about Islam than I do Christianity is that we live in a Christian country (our Head of State is the head of the Church of England, if we weren't so damn British about it all we'd be living in a Christian theocracy!). Most of the powerful and organised vocal opponents of LGBT rights are Christians. The people physically attacking the police in Paris and attacking LGBT rights activisits in Tblisi weren't Muslims, they were Christians led to the protests by their priests!

But that doesn't mean I think Islam isn't just as silly as Christianity is. And I know some Muslims are just as dangerous to LGBT people as Christians are. Here in Britain some Muslims have called for us to be tortured, to be put to death and have even threatened to kill Muslim politicians who support our rights. It is in the light of this that one must look upon the recent letter to the Telegraph from ranking Muslims. Where was their letter condemning the death threats or the incitements to violence? What makes them angrier: my prospective marriage or my prospective murder?

The letter suggests they are concerned about children, their education and their care. Laudable aims except whilst they feel we want their children educated on marriage equality (a side effect rather than an aim I'd suggest), they themselves imply they would rather our children were taken away from us (and that would appear to be an aim rather than a side effect of their opposition to marriage equality).

Which is worse? I think you know where I stand.

Tory Minister Has To Remind Senior Lib Dem What Equality Is About

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Tue, 14 May 2013 18:10:00 +0000

Simon Hughes has never really been my cup of tea. This blog post of Younger (Angry) Jae got quoted in the Guardian just because of my deep seated dislike of the man. Whilst I apologise now for the harsh tone, the sentiments have very much returned today as Maria Miller, a Tory might I remind you, had to tell Hughes exactly what believing in freedom and equality actually mean:

“One factual error in what you said is that there was a very clear statement by the Conservative Party around looking at same-sex marriage in our Contract for Equalities that was issued at the general election. It was in a very extensive manifesto commitment document around equalities and it highlighted commitment to equality in this area.”

She added: “Any claims that this has been fast-tracked is not accurate. The amount of consultation, the largest consultation that Government has ever seen, really took place over a year. Since the consultation, extensive analysis of that, then discussion around the bill.”

And fast tracked? Whilst we've been labouring from consultation to consultation, changed Equalities Minister and suffered through some seriously unfunny arguments from our opponents (remember old O'Brien's grotesque comments?), Minnesota went from voting on whether to ban same-sex marriage 6 months ago to voting it into law today! We are moving at a snail's pace as marriage equality becomes law in more and more countries.

Simon Hughes once answered a question of mine and confirmed his support for marriage equality. Obviously "support" means "drag my feet kicking and screaming whilst paying lip service to supporting it" in Hughes' language.

A Majority Supports Introducing #EqualMarriage... And Doing It This Year!

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sun, 12 May 2013 07:25:00 +0000

I know. You won't read that headline in the Telegraph (which appears to be C4Ms publicity machine) but those are the figures shown in the latest YouGov/Sunday Times poll.

53% of those surveyed supported introducing marriage equality, 36% were opposed and 12% were Don't Knows. When asked if the Government should change the law this year 46% said yes it should against 37% saying it shouldn't (i.e. almost wholly those completely opposed).

These figures back up the Coalition for Marriage's own findings through ComRes the other day which found only 34% wanted marriage equality off the agenda completely.

In other interesting news a majority of Tory voters now support marriage equality (48% to 41%). Political betting shows that this is quite likely due to the rise of UKIP, although other polling suggests the increase anti-equality voter base of UKIP is merely a symptom rather than the driving force behind the vote switching.

Of course a majority supporting something doesn't a moral case make. Nor are these positions set in stone. And those polled aren't the ones who will be voting which is why it is important for you to contact a peer today and make sure they know about these new figures.

In the light of these figures, the fact Tories are calling for a public referendum suggests they are no longer as confident with the capability of the Lords to vote this down as they were before. You'd have to be desperate to put this issue up for a public vote right now.

Charles Moore and Nadine Dorries On #EqualMarriage: Your Dose of Hate In The Morning

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sat, 11 May 2013 08:42:00 +0000

Last night Charles Moore's latest article on how awful marriage equality is went up on the Telegraph's website. A few of us mocked it on Twitter for how rubbish it was and we moved on. Unfortunately some credulous MPs found it thought-provoking. Enter Nadine Dorries.

Charles Moore states some rather bizarre things in his article.

According to the “public sector equality duty”, all acts and institutions of government must enforce Equality in all its various “strands”. (There are seven of them, and “gender reassignment” is given the same status as “religion”.

Because believing in whatever deity you may means you are way better than those evil transgender people who just want to... erm... live their lives? Instead of calling it "equality" we should refer to it as "treating people as we would wish to be treated". I shall label it the Golden Rule. Could found a few religions on that...

But it failed to still the anxiety. If marriage is redefined by statute to include same-sex marriage, then a teacher who refuses to teach this as right is in breach of his public sector equality duty. And while a church will be protected in its own premises, a Christian charity providing services to all, or religious groups wanting to hire council facilities, can be banned by the accusation that they are “homophobic” organisations.

Moore ignores fact teachers are at risk of being sacked right now for supporting equality if they work in a religious school. And ignores that, under "public sector equality duty", Christian charities and religious groups will be under no more risk than they are today of being refused facilities. Why? Because they could be labelled as "Homophobic" organisations with or without marriage equality. Such a red herring.

The Government has listened too much to pressure groups and far too little to people who know about marriage. Thus the gay lobby group Stonewall has become a partner with government in educational projects (such as Lesbian and Gay History Month). Its 60,000 signatures in favour of gay marriage were accepted during the Bill’s consultation period as representing that number of individuals, whereas the Coalition for Marriage’s petition signed by 650,000 – more than 10 times the Stonewall number – was counted only as the single voice of one group.

Ignoring the fact that Stonewall submitted no such petition. And the Coalition for Equal Marriage's petition (which I suspect he thinks Stonewall is behind!) was NOT accepted. Both petitions were treated the same. Even the Telegraph states that here.

Too late, they discovered, this cannot be done. Civil servants, confronted with the embarrassing task of working out what defined the consummation of a homosexual relationship, faltered. Since homosexual acts have no existential purpose and no procreative result, consummation is a meaningless concept. From this it followed that the Government could come up with no definition of adultery in a homosexual marriage. A law designed to be equal, is not. Under the Bill, non-consummation will not be grounds for divorce in same-sex marriage. Nor will adultery.

By accident, then, the Government is introducing, for the first time, a definition of marriage which has no sexual element. Yet it refuses to face the logical consequence of this surprising innovation. If sexual intercourse is not part of the definition of same-sex marriage, why should blamelessly cohabiting sisters not marry one another in order to avoid inheritance tax? Why should father not marry son? Why shouldn’t heterosexual bachelor chum marry heterosexual bachelor chum? What, come to think about it, is so great about the idea of monogamy, once sex and children are removed from the equation? Does the word “marriage” any longer contain much meaning?

This total non-issue is a quirk of English and Welsh law and not of the fundamental nature of marriage. Hence why this hasn't been part of the debate in other jurisdictions. Has everyone forgotten Scotland? Charles Moore has.

Why shouldn't a mother marry a son in Scotland? I don't know. Charles Moore presents no argument here. Charles Moore gets so carried away with trying to link homosexuality to incest that he sort of forgets to think outside of the London Metropolitan Elite (see what I did there?) and pay attention to how things work in other areas of our own country!

So most people reading this highly flawed article would have thought "Oh Charles Moore, what were you thinking?". Except Nadine Dorries. Who thought it was amazing?

If gay marriage bill takes sex out of marriage could a sister marry a sister to avoid inheritance tax? telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/…
— Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) May 11, 2013

If David Cameron wants Conservative party to lose as many as fifty seats at next election he must push forward with the gay marriage bill
— Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) May 11, 2013

If sex is removed from the legal definition of gay marriage. If it can't take place in a church,what is gay marriage? What defines it?
— Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) May 11, 2013

If the answer is love, if legally is only link between gay/straight + marriage is being re defined to accommodate, why do we need marriage?
— Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) May 11, 2013

Charles Moore writes the most intelligent and eloquent case for David Cameron to stop and think telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/…
— Nadine Dorries MP (@NadineDorriesMP) May 11, 2013

Oh Dorries. What are you going on about? Same-sex marriages, under the proposed law, can be conducted in a church. Does Nadine think a humanist marriage in Scotland is unacceptable? Does she want to tell those humanists to stop what they are doing immediately? No. She just doesn't like gay marriage. It really is that simple.

Coalition for Marriage Admit Only 34% Want #EqualMarriage Dropped

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Tue, 07 May 2013 19:34:00 +0000

The Coalition for Marriage asked people to choose between ditching two completely unconnected Coalition policies (unless we're getting back to that whole "Gay sex is more dangerous than smoking" stuff); same-sex marriage and plain cigarette packaging. Only 34%, of 2000 people, chose to ditch same-sex marriage. Everyone else chose neither, don't know or plain cigarette packaging.

In order to get a headline they decided to pit marriage equality against something completely unrelated so they could say "more people are against same-sex marriage than..." This is where their polling has taken them. Remember when they said 70% opposed same-sex marriage? Either that polling was completely wrong or we are seeing one of the biggest swings in favour of something in a very long time. Thanks to the Coalition for Marriage for documenting this transformation!

Tories Are Just Looking For An Excuse To Drop Same-Sex Marriage Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Mon, 06 May 2013 08:25:00 +0000

The media is reporting today the suggestions Tory MPs have for fighting back against the "UKIP surge". They still aren't even in Parliament but Tory MPs spook easily it would seem.

Peter Bone, the Wellingborough MP, said Mr Cameron should halt the gay marriage Bill, currently going through Parliament, and cut overseas aid. "Those are things that Conservatives want and that's what Ukip voters want."

UKIP voters want to halt the same-sex marriage Bill? Really? Let us look at the evidence. The Coalition for Marriage, understandably, likes to terrify the jumpy Tory traditionalists with its tales of doom for any who support marriage equality. They crow about how the same-sex marriage Bill is causing people to leave in droves. Yet their own survey shows only 26% of 2010 Tory voters would be less likely to vote for them because of this issue. That is less likely not "completely unlikely" and that percentage is not even all those Tory voters who oppose same-sex marriage (last year half of all 2010 Tory voters were stated as opposing it).

C4M likes to draw conclusions that because this many say this and this many say that there is some link between same-sex marriage and the Conservatives current woes.

However in a YouGov survey this week, where potential 2015 UKIP voters were asked to mark up to 3 issues as their top reasons for supporting UKIP, only 12% of those surveyed marked opposition to gay marriage as a reason.

Even the more open, but possibly related, reason "Ukip reflect personal values and beliefs" only got 20%. By far and away the top reasons for voting for UKIP were immigration and the EU (no surprise there then). As many Tories like to say: the public don't care about equal marriage.

The equal marriage bill is something that will benefit few people but, when asked, a majority support the legalisation of same-sex marriage. For all C4M and the right-wing Tory carping, it is a non-issue and even if UKIP had an equal number of MPs to what the Lib Dems have at the moment there'd still be no reason to suggest this marked a complete rejection by the electorate of this policy.

The Tories are projecting their desperation to vote down equal marriage on to an electorate who have quite different priorities. Showing just how out of touch they really are and perhaps that explains the rise of UKIP more than any one policy.

Why I Might Seem To Be Obsessed By My Sexuality

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sat, 04 May 2013 14:35:00 +0000

My obsessions come around on such a regular basis and have such a cyclic nature that I can almost mark them down on a calender.

Among the topics that crop up are dinosaurs, Mormonism, Scientology, Star Wars, Doctor Who and comics. Pretty much all over them occur at a low level most of the time but one will flare up here and there and consume most of my time for a while (right now I'm coming down from a very intense obsession with Mormon history, to the point of reading decades old BYU dissertations and editing Wikipedia entries).

Yes I'm gay and I write about LGBT issues (mainly equal marriage) on here and Twitter which seems to mean I'm "obsessed" with my sexuality (or "sexuality" in general) .It's a bit of a weird statement to make to a man in a monogamous relationship, who isn't on the scene, doesn't buy gay mags (that is Attitude and Gay Times before any of you dirty minded people make assumptions!) and doesn't even see his gay mates much at all. And the idea I'm some nympho who spends all day obsessing over sex is as far from the truth as can be possible. I spend most of my day wondering whether Joseph Smith knew he was lying or really believed he was a prophet of God (I'm erring on the side of a little of both).

That isn't to say I wasn't once obsessed with my sexuality. I used to be out on the scene, into cruising, regularly at Pride, bought every gay mag there was and was just generally fabulous. Even just a couple of years ago I was part of an LGBT grouping at my job. But as I've grown older and settled down with Jim I've mellowed. Now the practicalities of life, and the rights I have, are mainly what concern me. Hence my focus on things like marriage equality.

And that focus is only on Twitter and here. Sure I write letters and bug relevant people IRL too but I think sometimes people assume what I choose to focus on in certain outlets is what I am completely focussed on everywhere. I use Twitter mainly as a place to be political and thus it will contain an overwealming percentage of tweets about LGBT issues. This doesn't mean I'm obsessed with my sexuality. It means that it has I choose to use Twitter.

And the whole idea my sexuality shouldn't be something I'm concerned about strikes me as a bit bizarre. It doesn't matter how quiet you are about who you love, eventually you'll have to face some sort of annoying and unwelcome intervention or reminder of your difference.

Item: A couple of years before I met Jim my then boyfriend and I had stones throw at us for daring to hold hands in public.

Item: Every time we check into a hotel we face the usual "Are you sure you want a double room?" question from the reception. And it is not likely we don't have to be concerned we might be refused one. It has famously happened before!

Item: Jim used to get concerned about me buying GT because of what might happen to me if the wrong people saw me carrying it in the street.

So of course my freedom to just live my life with Jim and ensure our life together is protected ranks up there on my list of worries. When some people suggest it shouldn't I just wonder how they feel about their other halves and family. Aren't they the one thing that is important above all else? We still have people in this country not only calling for people like Jim and I to break up but actively working to get into power to make sure it happens. I'm not going to sit back and say "Oh well".

I'm the boy who has had a "Has it happens" Google Alert for Jurassic Park IV since 2005. If you think I'm obsessed by my sexuality, then you can't possibly comprehend how much more I'm obsessed with other things!

C4M Leaflets: The Coalition For Mayhaps/Could Be/What If #equalmarriage

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:09:00 +0000

So remember the Coalition for Marriage? They are still campaigning away.

@ukip what are your views oncampaigns like this from The Coalition of Marriage? Do we not live in 21st century? twitter.com/RealCarlPage/s…
— CarlJamesPage (@RealCarlPage) April 28, 2013

Without any hard facts they have now resorted to speculation in their leaflets, all maybes and coulds and very little "This is absolutely the case". Why? Because they know that they can't back up the facts. Let us break down their points.

Education: We're still on the "Oh my God, children might be taught about same-sex marriage!" Last I checked school was about teaching children what to expect in the real world and how to deal with it so completely ignoring something they might encounter would, surely, be a bit silly. And the old "teachers will be sacked" meme has run its course. The Government has stated clearly it would not support teachers being sacked for opposing equal marriage. This is in contrast to some religious organisations who are determined to sack teachers for supporting equal marriage! I know that is a bit inconvenient for C4M's narrative but those are the facts.

Families: This is not a second point. It is again about education. There are quite a number of things parents don't get a right to opt-out of. Feel free to debate this much wider topic rather than suggest this is just an equal marriage issue.

Children: NOT AN EQUAL MARRIAGE ISSUE. There is nothing in the current same-sex marriage bill that affects fostering or adoption. Why? Because that issue has already been resolved. C4M are just trying to cloud the issue we are talking about now with their pet peeves from the past.

Careers: Back to Education again.

Churches: Now realising that churches will have their right not to perform same-sex marriages respected they've moved on to demanding they still be given grants or refused permission to hire halls for church use. Hmm... moving those goal posts again. I look forward to churches renting out their halls for Grindr meet-up at the earliest opportunity.

The leaflet shows one thing. The arguments they've been using haven't been working and they are now down to desperate "What if" scenarios based on a couple of past incidents (that occur, obviously, before marriage equality has been introduced!) and speculation.

Awesomely weak. This gives me hope.

"Smearing" UKIP AKA Showing You One Of Their Leaflets

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:16:00 +0000

UKIP is currently very concerned about the LibLabCon conspiracy against them which is smearing them relentlessly. Not only are UKIP candidates tweets and Facebook posts being reviewed but also their "anti-Zionist" rants on forums and, heaven forbid, their leaflets are being published. This sort of smearing is also known as "letting voters know what other candidates actually think". Oh how far our democracy has fallen when opponents actually quote things a candidate has said. UKIP yearns for the days of the dodgy Lib Dem bar graph, obviously.

From this blog's point of view, one of the most interesting smears has been the publishing of the below leaflet.

What is "homosexual education" and how does one promote it?

Anti-equality teachers will be sacked will they? Despite the Government stating that this will not happen and the Catholic church has made it clear they will sack pro-equality teachers, this is one of the main focuses of anti-LGBT people out there. When will they start decrying the evils of the Catholic church sacking people for their conscience?

The age of consent stuff is absolutely bizarre. The age of consent is already equal. Marriage equality has nothing whatsoever to do with the age of consent, police enforcement against child abuse nor in fact child abuse whatsoever. This is simply the typical attempt, however vaguely, to link homosexuality to paedophilia despite what hundreds of studies show.

Then the leaflet complains that marriage equality isn't equal enough!

The cartoon is an absolutely bizarre take on the slippery slope argument. Usually you get polygamy, sometimes incest or, for the truly loony, bestiality rolled out as the next step. But here it is bisexual's rights. I'm concerned that I might make someone cry if I pointed out marriage equality is something that will benefit bisexuals too.

"A child has a right to a mother and father". That is about gay adoption or surrogacy. Those things are already legal. Marriage equality will not change the situation of same-sex parenting rights, or the rights of children, one jot. Not one jot.

Sorry. I'm smearing UKIP again. Oops.

It Is Time To Contact The Lords and Ladies About #EqualMarriage

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:54:00 +0000

With the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill heading for its Third Reading in the House of Commons, it is time to start contacting the members of the House of Lords.

Peter Tatchell called for people to start lobbying the Lords yesterday, which was rather coincidental as that is when I began contact the Lords myself. I've already received a positive response from Lord Attlee, and I hope to receive more! The Lesbian and Gay Foundation have also called for lobbying of the Lords to begin.

I second Peter Tatchell's suggestion. We need to lobby the Lords and make sure them see that there is a substantial number of people calling for marriage equality in this country, despite what some might have you think.

You can see how to address a Lord or Lady here and their contact details can be found here. There is a letter/email template text at the bottom of here, but I think it is always best to personalise the letter to make it a bit more obvious you aren't just a robot!

No one really knows how the Lords stand on this issue. Most assume the vote will be tight. So get writing, telephoning or, if you happen to see them and you doing it politely, asking them in person to ensure the members of the House of Lords know marriage equality isn't something the "metropolitan elite" thought up but is something desired by many people across our fair land!

Some More #EqualMarriage Stuff

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:59:00 +0000

Further good news from the United States on marriage equality... Rhode Island's Senate has passed marriage equality and, barring some unexpected legislative change of heart in the Assembly, it will become law within weeks and marriages can begin from August 1st.

The news from Colombia is sadly less upbeat, with a sliver of hope. There the Senate overwealming defeated a same-sex marriage bill. But there the situation is a little more complicated as the Supreme Court has ruled that if nothing is put in place giving same-sex couples all the rights of different-sex couples then they can begin registering their marriages in June. Definitely a country to keep an eye on.

Meanwhile here in the UK, the SPUC is still up to their old tricks.

Got home&these have been put through my door.To say I am FUCKING FUMING is an understatement.I am shaking. twitter.com/rachelpadfoot/…
— Rachel Lamy (@rachelpadfoot) April 22, 2013

My favourite argument is that being male and female will become meaningless (everyone will be so confused!) I'm assuming they will be hunting down "evil" intersex children next...

And what is this from our Christian friends in America? A big slice of crazy? Yes indeed.

Yes, because falling in love with someone of the same-sex is exactly the same as cheating on someone you love. And yes we all demand you affirm us and attend Pride parades because that is the law!

The only people sexualising same-sex relationships are our opponents. They don't have a clue how we really feel.

Marriage Equality Marches On Even In The Face Of French Violence

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:13:00 +0000

Yesterday France took the final legislative step towards marriage equality when the National Assembly voted it through. It still needs to get through an appeal with the Constitutional Court before the President can sign it into law, but they have already ruled in the past that this issue is in the hands of the legislature not the judiciary so it is likely to successfully overcome this last hurdle (cross those fingers!)

Here are two images from last night showing some of the opponent's reactions to the vote.

Violence and aggression have characterised the French opponents campaign. Now judging the opposition by their protesters is unfair. Violence and vandalism (on an admittedly smaller scale) did occur after Prop 8 was voted through in California in 2008. But let us not pretend this was just a heat of the moment thing. The opposition's protests have had violence (perhaps not help by the police and their heavy handed approach) for a while now. Just look at this protest with some visible Catholic priests looking rather shocked as the protest turns violent (and trying to put themselves in the way of the police arresting/beating protesters which didn't go down well although kudos to them for trying to protect their flock, even when that flock is being a bit nasty themselves).

And all this anger over people in love wanting to marry. That is all. I think this picture from a few weeks ago serves to contract the hate of the opposition and the hopes of the pro-equality side rather nicely.

Love not hate. That is all we want. Peace and freedom to be with who we want to be with and to have our families protected (in shock news LGB people don't suddenly become infertile when we have sex with someone of the same sex, hell there's even a child living in my house and that was definitely not something I was expecting!)

Good news too from Rhode Island where marriage equality successful passed a Senate committee and is now due to be voted on in the Senate today. And in Delaware last night the House of Representatives passed marriage equality too which will now head to the Senate there.

Colombia's Senate, after two postponements, is due to vote on marriage equality today. Fingers crossed it goes through although there the nation isn't really behind this law like it has been elsewhere.

Marriage equality is on the march. There are no guarantees of success, no divine right to win, no "wrong side of history" to rely on. The only thing that will see us through is by pressing the real issues: love and freedom. Our opponents see marriage, couples and children as simply cogs in an unfeeling wheel designed only to serve the state. We see marriage, relationships and families as units held together by love, free will and commitment.

I know which vision I prefer.

Making My Peace With Nationalism

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:19:00 +0000

Ugh. It is "St George's Day" yet again.

This blog was, once upon a time, created more as a reaction to nationalism than anything else. I know that is hard to imagine as I moan about marriage equality so often now, but yes indeed the posts I actually received the most response on (including being invited to speak at conferences(!), something I turned down as I'd be absolutely useless) were about nationalism. I explained why I'm a unionist, why you shouldn't call me English, and asked why those who bang on about flags never seem to treat them with respect.

In my personal life, when I lived in London, if you had asked anyone my politics they probably would have answered "He's obsessed about Britishness, just don't refer to anything as English" as they hushed you to be quiet lest I hear. My unionism, more all-encompassing than the most right-wing DUP nutter version, has been a central feature of my life.

But I accept I am in the minority. Wherever I look nationalism is no longer just "on the rise" but is here to stay. I mentioned merging two Wiki pages the other day, one about Latter-Day Saints in the UK and one about Latter-Day Saints in England, as they duplicate information. I've mellowed in my old age and wasn't even thinking about my old "Ugh England" agenda, yet was instantly attacked by someone determined I don't go near the Welsh or Scottish entries and telling me all about the evils of English colonialism (something that amused me as someone who probably despises the concept more than they do). Nationalists are everywhere. Alas.

I must simply accept that my distaste for Englishness (and the other forms of nationalism that prevade our world) is to be a solitary pursuit and leave the nationalists to fight over the bones of our islands. I shan't correct others when they call the UK "England".

But don't you dare call me English. I may not be able to convince you of the worthiness of unionism as a political concept, but at least respect who I am. I still treasure the parting gift I got upon leaving the first London job I had. It was a drinks coaster that said "Kentish First, British Second, European Third". My colleagues knew me well.

It's Alright, It's Okay, Another Gay Sunshine Day

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:38:00 +0000

You know it has been a long time since I've been out on the scene or even been to watch a Pride march (let alone be in one). And since leaving London I don't even have a work LGBT group to ~~conspire with~~ attend. With my singular focus on the fight for marriage equality, my views of LGBT normality have become somewhat skewed as I wade through the hate thrown at us by our opponents. Thus it is good to sometimes get my head out of the mud and remember that being LGBT is fantastic.

Thankfully this is helped by scenes like the one seen in New Zealand's Parliament today when they successfully passed a marriage equality bill.

What a wonderful moment and a touching celebration of love. And that is what this is all about. Our love for those we love and our wish to ensure their full protection under the law should the worst happen to us.

Well done New Zealand, with Uruguay also passing marriage equality and France nearly there it has been a busy month! We've equaled the best year ever for equal marriage (2010) with 3 countries legalising it (yes I'm counting France early, shame on me) and the serious prospect of a few more to come, including if we're lucky England and Wales plus Scotland!

Onwards and upwards!

Another Test For Freedom: Protesting Funerals

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:31:00 +0000

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.

Greg Mulholland's Amendments To The Same-Sex Marriage Bill Might Be Just What We Need

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:01:00 +0000

I'm very wary of amendments to LGBT rights related bills. During the civil partnership debates we saw a lot of "wrecking" amendments that were unhelpful at best. But I am of the opinion that the Same-Sex Marriage Bill very much needs amending.

Greg Mulholland, North Leeds' Lib Dem MP, is proposing to take legal marriage away from the religious organisations. I haven't seen the full details yet so my support is currently lukewarm, but it would seem the proposals would mean religious couples would have a civil ceremony followed (or preceded by I suppose!) a religious one (which is how I understand most Muslim couples do it at the moment anyway). And he is also proposing to repeal the Civil Partnership Act which would at least make sense even if that might prove a little controversial among LGBT folks.

Sure these things wouldn't solve all the issues I have but it would certainly help this bill start to make a lot more sense and improve our marriage law by removing the concepts of adultery and consummation.

I doubt these amendments will get anywhere but it is nice to see someone offering sensible amendments and perhaps beginning an open debate on the flaws of the bill that we are being offered.

So I've Renewed My Lib Dem Membership

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:56:00 +0000

Since the turn of the New Year, I've been wondering whether I should renew my Lib Dem membership. Ever since the disappointment that was the failure of attempts to reform the House of Lords I've been sailing towards ~~apostasising from the church~~ resigning from the party. The recent spring conference controversy over secret courts and Nick Clegg's (formerly beloved round these parts) appalling reaction (or lack thereof) has done little to make me sing the party's praises.

But being a political independent doesn't sit right with me. I'm an idealist and political independence has a powerful and romantic draw. But what would it achieve? Very little I suspect. And the, serious, political alternatives just aren't really alternatives. The Conservatives have been doing a lot to appear more attractive to classical liberal sorts, but the crazy backbenchers show me all I need to see on what the party is really about. And Labour. Do I even need to spell out all of Labour's faults? I don't have the time nor the inclination. Short version: hypocrites (they don't get that when, perhaps rightly, they scream "Hypocrites" at Lib Dems they are actually being hypocrites! I'm being a hypocrite aren't I?), dreamers, warmongerers and plain old crazies. I just read the Guardian every time I start to feel like I might be getting nostalgic for old Left-Wing Jae.

So no thanks, they aren't for me. So why stay with the Lib Dems?

Loyalty is a big part of it. Tribalism, even my own honest sort, is a malignant but powerful force. But there are also all the good people I know who are members of the Lib Dems. Some of the most intelligent political thinkers with whom I have personal acquaintance tend to be in the Lib Dems (and even the ones I like outside seem to somehow end up in the party. My own bias? As if.). I've always been more interested in social issues and civil rights over economic matters so the Lib Dems social liberalism attracts me, but so does the success of their income tax allowance policy. If I imagine who I'd prefer in charge of the country out of the big three parties (don't get me started on UKIP...) then there is no confusion. A Lib Dem Government would be my choice without a shadow of a doubt.

I don't pretend there aren't major problems that I now have with the party. I'm no longer going to take party promises on face value. But they aren't anything compared to the problems I have with the other parties.

So yes. I'm a Lib Dem for another year. It'll be 10 years in the party in 2014. Scary huh?

Have those opposing the same-sex marriage bill actually read it?

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:53:00 +0000

I've not tried to hide my deep disappointment with the Government's same-sex marriage bill. Having read it, it is quite clearly not the marriage equality I, among others, had been hoping for. Don't get me wrong, this would be a great leap forward. But it'd certainly leave me unsatisfied.

You'd think that once the bill was published our opponents would have breathed a sigh of relief. This bill would, if passed, see the creation of a new concept that we can call "gay marriage" (the same approach the South Africans have taken). It would not "redefine" marriage. It'll be a separate institution.

But alas. As Lord Carey made clear in his article over the weekend, some who oppose marriage equality haven't even realised this bill is significantly different to that proposed in the Coalition's consultation document (Lord Carey still thinks the Government is trying to create a separation of "religious" and "civil" marriage, which is what was proposed originally, but that is no longer the case). Instead of grasping this compromise and laughing all the way to the wedding chapel, they are hell bent on defeating the bill in the House of Lords.

It would please me to see the Government's bill passed. But it might actually please me more to see it defeated. Why? I hear you cry...

1) Defeating the bill in the House of Lords will definitely give the pro-equality side a great cause to rally around. We'd become the "injured party" (something the anti-equality side have been desperate to show themselves as) and a new "narrative" could be weaved. And it might cause just an itsy bit more resentment towards the House of Lords which would please this reform supporter greatly.

2) It would give us a chance, regrettably delayed I know, in the next Parliament for a better marriage equality bill to be created and fix all those annoying problems a great many of us have with the current bill.

As I see it the anti-equality folk are now in a lose/lose situation. But they have a chance to put this issue to bed and come out of it with a small victory. Because the next version of this bill would be far less careful to avoid rocking the boat.

I'm not hoping that the bill gets defeated in the Lords. I'm hoping it gets amended. But if it does get defeated I'm pretty confident that it'll only be to our benefit, and not the other sides.

Remember to get lobbying those Lords!!

Are Christians Really "Marginalised"?

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 15:33:00 +0000

Lord Carey has today written a piece for the Daily Mail which has been quite badly reported. Whilst some have reported on him suggesting Christians are "persecuted", he is pretty clear that he understand such suggestions are exaggerated (and that is putting it kindly).

The real issue he seems to be getting upset about is that Christians are being marginalised in this country. But when you read his article it becomes obvious that what is really upsetting him is the erosion of Christian influence over our Government. He's upset that the Parliamentary chapel might be converted to an all-faiths prayer room. He's mad that the Government might be dividing marriage into religious and civil parts (he is actually a bit behind there, that was their plan prior to the consultation and they are now not creating said difference). And he's upset that teachers might be sacked due to same-sex marriage (something the Government has been clear they don't want but something his colleagues over in the Catholic Church have confirmed they will do [i.e. sack those who openly support it!]).

Lord Carey isn't upset about Christians being marginalised. He's concerned we are heading towards a separation of church and state. Which shows just how kooky politics in this country is. We have an established Christian church whose head is also our head of state. We have set seats in our legislature for members of the established church but for no other religions. We have hundreds (if not thousands) of church schools educating our young people. With the end of the Liberal Democrat dream of Lords reform, none of these things are remotely threatened. In fact former leading members of our established church can say just about anything they want and be assured it'll be reported on in every news source we have (no matter how loony it might be). And yet in Lord Carey's eyes Christians are "increasingly marginalised". Oh to be marginalised!

Now that is not to say that there isn't an increasingly toxic attitude among many secularists towards Christians and certainly any look at the comments on liberal news sources on things like this particular article will show a deep, and growing, hatred held by many towards the religious. I won't attempt to deny this. But perhaps the churches need to realise that it is articles like this that help increase people's negative feelings towards them.

The trap many Christians seem to fall into is believing that having their opinions ignored (i.e. on equal marriage) is the same as being "persecuted". To them not being able to enforce their beliefs on others is worse than their beliefs being enforced on others. It is hard for those of us who regard Christians as just another breed of fanboys (like Trekkers or Whovians) to really understand that they really believe they are right. But if nothing else shows this clearly it is their absolute certainty that what they tell you to do is good for you.

Meanwhile yet another attack on my way of life is about to be unleashed from a Christian. But remember, he's not trying to "marginalise" us. No sirree. He loves us, and loves us so much that he has decided how we should live our lives.

Who Is Engaging In An #EqualMarriage Edit War On Caroline Dinenage's Wikipedia Page?

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 07:35:00 +0000

Wikipedia edit wars are usually not pleasant. However most Wikipedia editors are willing to at least engage in discussion as to the rights and wrongs of their edits. Unfortunately someone is editing Tory MP's Caroline Dinenage's Wikipedia page without discussion and using a Westminster IP address.

Last month a note was added to her page about how she voted on the Government's same-sex marriage bill.

"On 5th February 2013 MP Caroline Dinenage voted against in the House of Commons Second Reading vote on marriage equality in Britain."

It was an uncontroversial statement making no inference or comment. It is simply a fact. Someone, perhaps rightly, disagreed over its inclusion. However their IP address is 194.60.38.198 and they reversed the edit without comment.

That IP address is known to be one used by Parliament. When their reversal was itself reversed due to the controversial nature of their IP address they simply did it again.

It was brought to my attention out of concern for just who in Parliament might have such an interest in hiding how Caroline Dinenage voted on same-sex marriage. And so I got involved, opening up the issue for discussion on the Talk page in the hopes of engaging some debate as to the worthiness of this edit's inclusion. Instead my attempts have been met with silence as the Parliamentary proxy continues to re-edit the web page.

Needless to say I'll be watching the page like a hawk from now on and will continue my efforts to get some discussion on this rather than allow this vandalism to continue. Get involved!

Same Sex Marriage Bill Passes Committee Stage... Sadly Unamended

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:08:00 +0000

The rather flawed Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has been sent back to the House without a single successful amendment. Whilst some have crowed about how all the "wrecking amendments" failed (yes, I'm looking in Stonewall's direction as always) I'm deeply disappointed that not one of the issues I have with the bill has been resolved.

I felt the House of Commons committee stage was the most likely place amendments could be successfully made to make this same sex marriage bill into an equal marriage one. It is not the end of the battle for a better bill but it is certainly a blow to the chances of improving it.

It is weird, if not quite unexpected, that the more popular marriage equality has become and the closer to reality it is, the less happy I become. Perhaps because I had hoped I could finally put this thing behind me and move on with my life and I find that as soon as I stop paying attention the clever people I thought had this in hand have dropped the ball.

I do not want to still be moaning about this for another 10 years so I shall return to the fray and get on with lobbying the Lords anew in the hopes of putting this to bed once and for all. I might be a tiny little insignificant armchair campaigner, but at least I'll be an agitated one for the next few months.

Don't Cry For Cardinal O'Brien

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:14:00 +0000

So the game is up. Cardinal Keith O'Brien may not have specifically admitted what he has been accused of but he has "apologised" for his sexual conduct falling "beneath the standards expected".

"However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal."

"To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness. To the Catholic Church and people of Scotland, I also apologise."

"I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic Church in Scotland."

It did not take long for some LGBT commentators to suddenly feel sorry for him. As with Nigel Evans, it doesn't take long for an opponent to be taken to our bosom just because they are gay (although let's be honest, Cardinal O'Brien is probably not "gay". For once "suffering from same sex attraction" might be appropriate)

Cardinal O'Brien is more a victim of homophobia than a perpetrator of it. He deserves compassion, not jeering
— Johann Hari (@johannhari101) March 3, 2013

Cardinal O'Brien hasn't just been accused of having a bit of a roll in the hay when he shouldn't have. His accusers have suggested inappropriate sexual advances. Does Lord Rennard deserve our compassion more than jeering (Christians need not answer this one)? Can you imagine anyone being allowed to suggest something like that if the victims had been female? No. But because he was doing it to people of the same sex, and has now come clean, suddenly he is deserving of our compassion??

This man preached hate against us for many years. He has admitted to sexual misconduct and he is accused of far worse. If he gets to live a quiet retirement out of the public gaze then he should count himself lucky. He doesn't need any further compassion from us.

That sad little man will sadly not get what he really deserves in the afterlife. Sometimes being an atheist really does suck.

A Catholic Brain Dump

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 10:07:00 +0000

John Cornwell is the writer of "Hitler's Pope"; a book not without some controversy. So when he writes an article for the Daily Mail, which spells out some of the current controversies within the Vatican and postulates that Pope Benedict XVI resigned to bring an end to them, we should read it with a degree of scepticism. But it is an interesting description of the troubles that continue to haunt the upper echelons of the Catholic church.

A lot of the reporting on the Catholic church's scandals is based more on a puerile sort of rubber necking than actual concern for the victims, for the church or for those of us whose relationships and lives get attacked by Catholic cardinals and bishops on a near daily basis. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to care (considering I'd probably open a nice big bottle of champagne should Catholicism suffer some sort of major calamity). But unfortunately, whilst we have people like Cardinal O'Brien trying to influence our Government, we must care about the internal workings of this religion.

Speaking of Cardinal O'Brien... the claims against him remain unresolved and so we must give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of what may or may not have happened. However it is interesting reading one of his accusers remarking on the "cold disapproval" they experienced when they reported their concerns, and that he was warned about the damage his accusations might cause to the church. Which only goes to shows how little the Catholic hierarchy has learnt from previous controversies.

And when one speaks of Cardinal O'Brien one can't help thinking of one word in particular: hypocrisy. If the allegations are true then Cardinal O'Brien has been one of those irritating people who tell us how we must live but fail to live up to their own standards. I saw this blog the other day on the subject of "Hypocrisy is now the only sin... ?" and found it missed the point somewhat whilst still pointing out some real problems with the media narrative. It suggests the problem people have with the Catholic church and people like Cardinal O'Brien is that they aren't living up to our expectations. But that isn't hypocrisy, that would be a naive belief in the goodness of people. No, the problem is that they are not living up their own expectations whilst they continue to demand others follow what they teach. And quoting Brendan O'Neill. Really?

"But I am concerned at how accusations of sexual wickedness have replaced political, moral or theological critiques to become the No1 shortcut to getting one over on people or groups you don't like."

Surely this acts in reverse too. Until very recently the church hardly engaged with homosexuality with political, moral or theological critiques and instead thrived on accusations of sexual wickedness! Now we should expect better of the church's opponents? That is hypocrisy in itself. Ultimately people are flawed (and whether you believe that is because they are part of a "Fallen" world or part of nature is neither here nor there on that front) and that is the cause of all these problems. But where I differ from Christians is that I believe people can become better through their own will in the here and now rather than be redeemed in the hereafter by the blood of Christ. Thus I probably hold us all to a higher standard than Christians do. There is no being let off the hook for your own actions in my worldview....

Which leads us neatly on to this fascinating letter on why Bishops might cover up abuse. It is this sort of insight that a lot of the media narrative has been missing.

Review: The Church of Fear: Inside the Weird World of Scientology by John Sweeney

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:33:00 +0000

If you are looking for a thorough history of the Church of Scientology, then this book is not for you. I'd recommend Piece of Blue Sky or Inside Scientology instead. But if you saw either of John Sweeney's Panorama documentaries and came away wondering what happened between scenes, like I did, then this is most definitely the book for you.

John Sweeney's "exposes" of Scientology turned into more a study into just what the Church does to those who try to expose it. And here, with the benefit of hindsight and evidence from the Church's side of the story, John Sweeney paints a vivid picture of a Church that is dying from within but still strong enough to lash out at those it feels oppose it.

It was fascinating reading the (allegedly real) leaked documents showing the communications between the infamous Tommy Davis and Scientology HQ. The level of abuse in those communications is not surprising to someone who has been studying the workings of the Church for a while, but the documents still leave one
feeling very uncomfortable.

It's an easy read, and makes a good way to introduce yourself to some of the basic history of Dianetics and Scientology. That history is nothing if not utterly fascinating and, occasionally, deeply disturbing.

And to get a picture of the inner workings of the Sea Org, Scientology's holy order, and to get corroboration for what may seem some outlandish claims made by Sweeney, check out Blown For Good.