Freedom Is Not The Problem

The Real Issues With The Proposed Amendments To The Same-Sex Marriage Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:51:00 +0000

Next week the Lords will be discussing marriage equality in the (full house) committee stage of the bills progression through the House of Lords.

A few of the proposed amendments have now been published and I find them quite revealing in their prejudices. Here are a couple just to give you a flavour (full listings here and here)

After Clause 1
LORD DEAR
Insert the following new Clause— “Protecting belief in traditional marriage: public authorities
(1) A public authority, or any person exercising a public function, shall have regard to the following—

(a) that prior to the coming into force of this Act, marriage was the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others (“traditional marriage”);
(b) that belief in traditional marriage is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society;
(c) that no person should suffer any detriment because of their belief in traditional marriage.
(2) In this section, a public authority is a person who is specified in Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010, and a public function is a function that is a function of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.”

You might think that those of us who value religious, and individual, freedom would be happy to see such a clause in the bill. But if you do think that you have a rather 2D view of the world. For is it not true that it is actually those who are in favour of equal marriage who stand at more risk of censure once this bill passes? The Catholic Church has made it clear that voicing a belief in marriage equality would be enough to get you fired. If our opponents truly believed in individual freedom they would be introducing amendments that protect those they disagree with as well as those they agree with. Unfortunately they clearly only value freedom for those who share their views. Certainly tells us all we need to know about them, in my opinion.

BARONESS O’LOAN
LORD SINGH OF WIMBLEDON
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, no regard may be had by any public authority to—
(a) any decision by a person whether or not to opt-in, conduct, be present at, carry out, participate in, or consent to the taking place of, relevant marriages;
or (b) the expression by a person of the opinion or belief that marriage is the union of one man with one woman.”

An excellent one here. Note the use of "relevant marriages", a description that would limit this freedom only to refusing to conduct same-sex marriages. Do these people not truly believe in freedom? Why should a Christian registrar marry atheists or Muslims? Or why can't an atheist turn away any Christians who for whatever reason marry in a registry office (such as divorced Catholics)? What is the difference? Again you see here that for all these talk of protecting people they are simply protecting discrimination against one group rather than supporting actual freedom.

LORD DEAR
Page 56, line 6, at end insert—
“39A After section 26 (harassment) insert—
“26A Discussion or criticism of same sex marriage
For the purposes of this Act, and for the avoidance of doubt, discussion or criticism of same sex marriage shall not be taken of itself to be discrimination or harassment.”"

That is fine Lord Dear as long as everyone else is protected in criticising "traditional marriage" and protesting outside churches that conduct such marriages whilst they are being conducted will not be harassment? That okay? No? WHY?

The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement has spotted something I hadn't noticed. Under the current bill registration of religious buildings for same-sex marriages will be separate from registration for opposite-sex ones and will cost the same as registration for civil partnerships (which are prohibitively expensive and more than for opposite-sex marriages). Which bears out my previous concerns that what we are getting with this bill is gay marriage and not marriage equality.

So Will #EqualMarriage Affect How Female Same-Sex Couples Register Children?

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:01:00 +0000

I've no answer to this question, it is simply a question for those more in the know. Tiffer Robinson has pointed out on Twitter an area of possible concern that doesn't seem to be quite covered in the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill.

At the moment female same-sex couples have two different ways they can register their children?

Female civil partners

Either woman can register the birth on her own if all of the following are true:

the mother has a child by donor insemination or fertility treatment

she was in a civil partnership at the time of the treatment

her civil partner is the child’s legal parent

Female non-civil partners

When a mother isn’t in a civil partnership, her partner can be seen as the child’s second parent if both women: are treated together in the UK by a licensed clinic have made a ‘parenthood agreement’

However, for both parents’ details to be recorded on the birth certificate, they must do one of the following:

register the birth jointly

complete a ‘Statutory declaration of acknowledgement of parentage’ form and one parent takes the signed form when she registers the birth

get a document from the court (for example, a court order) giving the second female parent parental responsibility and one parent shows the document when she registers the birth

The bill only mentions:

Common law presumption

(1)Section 11 does not extend the common law presumption that a child born 5to a woman during her marriage is also the child of her husband.

(2)Accordingly, where a child is born to a woman during her marriage to another woman, that presumption is of no relevance to the question of who the child’s parents are.

Which doesn't really answer whether married female same-sex couples will be treated the way civil partners are now. Any ideas oh knowledgeable ones?

Archbishop of Canterbury Gets What He Wants In The Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:34:00 +0000

The Archbishop of Canterbury intervened in the debate over same-sex marriage with this little gem.

"The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense predating the state and as our base community of society is weakened.

For these and many other reasons those of us in the churches and faith groups, who are extremely hesitant about the bill in many cases, hold that view because we think that traditional marriage is a cornerstone of society and rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all, this bill weakens what exists and replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective."

Of course, the concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation has been lost a long time ago. Unless you are to force reckless opposite-sex couples to marry before (or even after) they procreate there really is little one can do to put the genie back in the bottle. Certainly it is simply not regarded as "normative" to get married and then have children within most parts of our society nowadays.

And exactly what is Welby's "normal sense" of the family? The nuclear family that the defenders of "traditional marriage" usually (but I accept not always) seem to defend tends to imply that prehistoric hunter-gatherers were wandering around in pairs with 2.4 children or that communal living arrangements were not common at most points before the industrial revolution. Our traditional sense of the family is woeful as we fail often to look back beyond the Victorians nor outside of our own borders when insisting "it is the same everywhere and for all time". Yes, children have always had mothers and fathers (regardless of what input they had in their lives) and a majority of those mothers and fathers will have been joined together in something akin to marriage. But there is little we can say beyond this, and thus this concept of a "traditional" form of the family is simply silly.

One of the prime problems with what Welby is saying here is that he completely ignores the fact that not only do LGBT people in relationships have children in their care, often they are procreating them too. Maybe not with each other, but that is similar to many step-families in this country today. What is meant to happen with these children in a world where divorce is possible? If procreation and the upbringing of children is so central to marriage why on Earth would you wish to deny this to same-sex parents?

Ultimately it always boils down to the belief these sort of people have that same-sex couples shouldn't be "allowed" children, as if the children we have have been acquired by malicious means (rather than, shockingly, often being flesh and blood descendants of one partner at least). Well I'm afraid we've had this argument before and same-sex couples are allowed to have children and, don't tell the Catholics, are allowed to adopt them. The battles on divorce and same-sex parenting have been fought and, especially on divorce, the church has gone remarkably silent about them. Arguments against same-sex marriage which fail to spell out your determination to make divorce illegal and ban same-sex parenting are arguments that are either flawed or dishonest. Let us see the Church of England tell the world it will no longer marry divorcees. Come on Welby, take a stand for the traditional family!

Remarkably the Archbishop appears not to have understood the implications of the (flawed) bill itself. It is not creating equality, he is quite right to point this out, and is instead creating a new creature known as "same-sex marriage" which is quite independent of "traditional marriage" with its concepts of consummation and adultery. But isn't this what he wanted? "A new and valued institution" is what is being created and in no way are opposite-sex marriages going to be "weakened". Unlike in every jurisdiction other than South Africa where same-sex couples marry under the same law as heterosexuals with true equality, here we will not. The Archbishop said he'd support this, yet remarkably fails to do so.

So yes, I'm little aghast to see Christian fanboys crying out with joy about how fantastic the Archbishop's arguments are. They fail to defend this thing he calls "traditional marriage" and they fail to make any logical sense with regards to the bill itself. His arguments amazingly end up more flawed than the legislation he is arguing against.

A Loaded Topic Indeed, But Shops Should Be Allowed To Sell Lad Mags

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Mon, 27 May 2013 13:42:00 +0000

The fate of lad mags must surely be the one thing on this planet that I really shouldn't be concerned about. 1) I'm gay, so most of the content (i.e. barely clothed women) is of little interest to me, 2) I regard cars, football and exercise with the disdain they all very much deserve and 3) I'm nearly 30!

If Loaded, FHM, Nuts, Zoo and pretty much any other magazine aimed at the majority of young men were to suddenly disappear, would I really feel that bad? Probably not, I would have thought. In fact, if you had told me yesterday that they were going out of business I may have taken you out for a celebratory pint.

However...today, a "Lose the Lads' Mags" campaign was launched via a letter to the Guardian. Rather than attempting to convince men that such magazines are beneath them or just pressuring stores that sold them to drop them, they have taken the tack of threatening the use of the Equality Act to get rid of these magazines from stores to protect employees from "pornographic material".

Something about this really rubs me up the wrong way. I've heard all the arguments about the objectification of women, the evils of pornography and the horrors that result from a man reading Nuts (personally I think the true horror is what a man needs to be like to actually want to read Nuts, but hey that is just me). But none of them ever really address things with an even view. Gay men, and I very much include myself in this, objectify other men all the time. I've had women not just reading 50 Shades of Grey in my presence but openly discussing the intricate details of what is described in there (including within my work environment). In fact I've had women at work send me half naked pictures of men and ask me exactly what I think about them. But my sexuality, and those of the women I work with, seem to be "acceptable", yet heterosexual male sexuality is looked at as if it something to be deeply ashamed of, controlled and kept away from "decent" people.

I believe sexism still very much exists. And I think rape and violence are real issues (when they happen to women or to men) that need to be discussed and solutions looked into. I do not believe that reading Nuts is what changes a man from being a decent, upstanding member of society to being a rapist or a abuser or someone who doesn't hire a woman for a job she is capable of merely because she is a woman.

But I also believe there is an almost puritanical dislike of heterosexual men's sexuality that really is beginning to border on the insane. So shops get rid of Nuts, Zoo, Loaded etc (is Loaded even still published, let alone still read?). Shouldn't they get rid of Gay Times and Attitude too (especially their naked editions)? Aren't those naked issues actually sexual harassment of any male employees? Are gay bars and clubs up and down the land in breach of the Equality Act for exposing their employees to copies of the free gay mag Boyz? Let me tell you, the contents of that magazine make Nuts and Zoo look like a Ladybird book. I've asked this question many times before but are male porn stars being objectified? If men reading Nuts makes them have a poorer attitude to women (rather than that I suspect some of those who read Nuts have a poor attitude towards women, which is quite a different thing) doesn't looking at gay porn mean I'm more likely to treat men badly? I personally don't think it does, and thus is can't be the act of objectification that is the problem.

I absolutely hate to say this but: Toby Young makes some good points over at the Telegraph. Caron makes some reasonable points about feeling uncomfortable with men reading these sort of magazines in public. However, I feel uncomfortable when a straight couple start making out in front of me (a mixture of not wanting to appear to be looking at them and not wanting to be seen to be not looking at them on purpose as this would mean I had seen them which would be embarrassing enough; a very British problem), but does this mean I would expect them not to? I'm not a big fan of it that is for sure. What about the man who gets uncomfortable because the guy across from him is reading Attitude? Is that man within his rights to remonstrate with the Attitude reader? I think not.

This is all a bit of a brain dump, and would almost certainly be ripped to shreds by any feminist intellectual out there, but I really feel very uncomfortable indeed about telling off men (generally of the lower, poorer classes) for daring to buy something others don't like.

Very Little Time Left To Help Get #EqualMarriage Passed

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sun, 26 May 2013 07:22:00 +0000

In just over a week the Lords will have their Second Reading of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill. The House of Commons easily passed this Bill (with the usual ineffective Tory and DUP grumbling), but all signs point to a tougher fight in the House of Lords.

It is absolutely essential that, if you support marriage equality, you write to a peer or two to let them know how you feel. There is simply no time to hang around. Do it today.

Don't know what Lord to write to? Let me know, there are few that still need to be contacted.

The debate on the 3rd of June is looking to be very long and, I suspect, rather unpleasant. Positive voices may help keep it a little more civil that the Commons.

Write to a peer, be polite, be sincere and you never know what might happen.

The time to act is now!

Ex-Gay Therapy And I

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Sat, 25 May 2013 16:23:00 +0000

When it comes to how to deal with ex-gay therapy, I'm deeply conflicted.

On one hand:

- I'm pretty confident that it does not work. Suppressing your sexuality is not changing it. The evidence seems to back this up and even former ex-gay leaders are starting to admit this.
- As it doesn't work, giving "false hope" to those, often vulnerable, individuals who want to change their sexuality is dangerous. It serves only to make them feel even worse when they are told their sexuality can change but it doesn't.
- You don't go to a Doctor and expect to receive homeopathy (unless you're a little mad) so you don't go to a psychiatrist and expect to be offered ex-gay therapy. It seems to be deeply wrong for any professional psychiatrist or counsellor to offer this.
- I just don't really get it because I don't see why anyone would want to change their sexuality. But that's just my bias...

On the other hand:

- As long as there is no coercion, this seems like a straight-forward case of freedom both for the individual to pursue this sort of therapy and for people to offer it.
- I don't want people to be gay. I want them to be happy. If not being gay makes them happy, who am I to deny them the right to work on that? Although how finding one gender attractive and the other not can make you happy/unhappy I don't know. Oh bias again...
- Ex-gay therapy is often given a good kicking but when will we review all other sorts of dangerously unscientific therapies like "sex addiction" therapy or anti-masturbation counselling (trust me, the Mormons have this!)

So yes, I'm pretty conflicted on this subject but feel I should welcome Diana Johnson's proposal for Parliament to tackle the subject. Certainly the idea that NHS funds have been used for conversion therapy makes me feel a little sick. I just know that if this subject ever does make it to Parliament, the debates will be just awful to behold.

Some Of Us Have Been Waiting For Today For A Very Long Time... But It Isn't Over Yet

noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay) — Tue, 21 May 2013 19:14:00 +0000

I've been arguing, I hesitate to say fighting, for marriage equality for a very long time. Way back in 2005 I was rather distressed at the introduction of civil partnerships, and in 2007 decided that sitting around moaning about it wasn't going to get anywhere so I began writing to MPs and blogging on the various efforts to convince people that marriage equality was something worth fighting for.

We are not there yet. But today was one major milestone in the journey. The Government's Same-Sex Marriage Bill passed through its third reading in the House of Commons by 366 votes to 161. It was weirdly anti-climatic as, despite the House of Commons being our elected part of our legislature, the Bill is only halfway to being law. But it is a chance to take a moment and think how far we've come from the days when people like Ed Miliband seemed a little shocked to even be asked if they supported marriage equality.

That is due, in no small part, thanks to hard-working MPs like Lynne Featherstone, Nick Herbert and Julian Huppert. And thanks to campaigns like the Coalition for Equal Marriage. These are the people who put marriage equality on the agenda. And I feel we owe them a great deal of gratitude.

The Same-Sex Marriage Bill remains deeply flawed, lacking pension rights and transgender rights supporting amendments. And the fight in the Lords is likely to be tough.

If you can help by writing letters or emails to peers, or even donating some money so more can be posted, then please let me know. We've won this battle, and some!, but the fight for our freedom continues.

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?