Blogged elsewhere: Those who didn't want to redefine marriage try to redefine marriage...badly

Remember how just the other week opponents of equal marriage were saying you can’t redefine marriage.
Well take a look at some of the amendments that they have been lodging in the House of Lords.

Clause 1

LORD HYLTON

LORD CORMACK

Page 1, line 5, leave out “Marriage” and insert “Union”

Looks like a redefinition to me, of course this only applies to those of same-sex couples as can be seen by a withdrawn amendment on the same line:

LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFERN

Page 1, line 5, at end insert “and shall be referred to as “marriage (same sex
couples)””

Withdrawn

Yup.
But apparently marriage as we know it now is no longer good enough for those that are married. It needs redefined and renamed....

Read the full list of redefinitions and comments about them on LGBT+ Lib Dems Northern Ireland

You know you're on the right side of civil liberties when...

...Jack Straw, David Blunkett and Alan Johnson are on the other. These were the men who felt it was alright to hold people for 90 days without trial in this country. A figure that if I recall at the time would have left us only behind Russia, Georgia and China (I stand to be corrected on these facts) and the unfortunates at Guantanamo Bay.

One advantage of having a blog that is almost 8 years old is that I actually blogged about the result of that vote on 90 days back in 2005. It was of course under their successor Harriet Harman that the Digital Economy Bill got rushed through Parliament in the dying days of the last Government.

So the debate now is should we allow a snoopers charter. Or at least publicly acknowledge on as it appears that America's National Security Agency (NSA) has already been doing just that in operation Prism.  Of course the really determined could probably still access information without having to go online, apparently there are places called libraries that have information on all kinds of stuff. As for planning meetings with co-conspirators. A text saying meet you at X, is innocuous. But then I doubt terrorist planners are likely to text

"Gentlemen, meet me at the Duck and Drake Sun 20th, we need to discuss blowing up Parliament. GF x"

or the equivalent.

Just like with tapping phones, police already have the ability to acquire warrants to follow everyone's text and emails. With mobile broadband and wireless connectivity these days it is harder to keep track on individual computers and what they are seeing. Something that the snoopers charter still fails monumentally to address.

Knee-jerk reactions, like the Digital Economy Act 2010 show that Government is willing to blame things on the internet, whether through lack of knowledge or understanding. But at time fails to grasp the complexities and also the fact that those who want to hide can actually do that very well online.

It's Friday...it's farewell to Sharpe, Williams and Walker

It's Friday, it's five o'clock and it's been a while since I did one of these but we have lost a variety of artistic people this week so it felt right.

First on Thursday it was announced that novelist Tom Sharpe had died. He work black comedic novels such as Blott on the Landscape and Wilt. Both were adapted for TV the first as a series the second as a film. But another Sharpe adaptation was the one whose theme tune sprang to my mind when the news came to me that was Porterhouse Blue. Here is a brief glimpse of what sort of dark humour Sharpe could produce.


This morning we heard that Esther Williams had died. In the era of the big Holywood musical she had her own niche in that she was the one that brought synchronised swimming into the mix. Here is a glimpse of
some of her work.

 

Finally earlier in the week Graham Walker who was one of the original members of The Grumbleweeds. A comedy musical group that also had an impact during the 70s and 80s as I was growing up.

Even then he was the bald one with the long hair, a style I have not subsequently followed with my own receding hairline.

Here are the Grumbleweeds doing a very good parody of another iconic 70s/80s band ELO.

Hey Tatchell, Leave our Jeff Alone

Today has been a good day for the LGBT community the Lord were not content with Lord's Dear's amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill one that would have stymied progress. But no doubt I'll be hearing Peter Tatchell going on about how this is one small step which needs to go further.

The thing is earlier today I read Peter Tatchell about a spat that Peter Tatchell was having a go at Jeff Dudgeon for remaining within the UUP. Now I'm sure when Peter was up outside the Lords yesterday and today he would have looked around him and seen that there were members of many parties as part of the vigil.

Maybe if he were to look at Northern Ireland and the inequalities that still exist there, far behind where the rest of the UK is, he will notice that the same is true. In fact Jeff and his long-time but dearly departed friend PA McLaughlin were pioneers of the cross-community LGBT politicised community in Northern Ireland. Jeff in the UUP and PA in the SDLP both working away with the moderates on both sides and important step to advance LGBT equality as a whole.

Tatchell says of Jeff  "A high-profile external challenge that shames and embarrasses the party is likely to secure more change – and more quickly." I think that shows how little he understands of how things work in Northern Ireland. The fact that last October the Northern Irish assembly came within 6 votes of actually voting in a majority for equal marriage shows that we are not that far off it. Now is the time for gentle persuasion.

The thing is as Jeff said a couple of years ago when he was sat across the table from me at the Pride Ball with PA also at the table, he could look around that room and see that the fate of LGBT rights in Northern Ireland were in the safe hands of the next generation. Some of who are the suffragettes that Tatchell wants us all to be and some are the suffragists prepared to take a stand whether in our party, with our MLAs or in our churches chipping away. You see Jeff realises that in Northern Ireland you need both to get things done. Those who are ready to explode at anything and those who stoically keep on keeping on.

The one thing that Jeff has in the LGBT community in Northern Ireland that Tatchell doesn't is an almost universal respect, which in Northern Ireland across traditional community divides is something. Jeff put his name to the landmark case to end the criminalisation of us all, and hasn't stopped working for equality since. Tatchell though has a tendency to be more like Marmite you can love him or hate him.

The obstacle that we have left to full LGBT equality in Northern Ireland now is on the Unionist side, so what we do need is people to work alongside their MLAs to persuade them to take that final step. Two of the best Unionist advocates for LGBT rights have left the party for other reasons so they will be a high-profile external challenge to unionism on a whole host of issues including this one. Meanwhile others who have the respect from within need to work away diplomatically, people like Jeff.

Who next?

I seem to remember posting something similar as a title in 2009/10 when David Tennent announced that he was stepping out of the Tardis.

I was also one of those who having watched Party Animals when the answer was finally revealed knew that Matt Smith knew that the new choice then would be a good addition to the eclectic fusion of the 10 previous TV incarnations of the Doctor.

So the question is who next?

Could it be a Ginger Actor?

After all there have been post regeneration comments about 'still not ginger' in the rebooted franchise. So maybe a ginger actor.

Could it be a woman?

When David regenerated into Will, one of the first reactions to the new hair was 'I'm a woman!' before further checks proved otherwise. So there is a clearly now defined the possibility that the gender of a Time Lord is not predetermined to remain continuous for each regeneration.

Now obviously there is one ginger woman who has an intimate knowledge of the Doctor. So could Alex Kingston be the next Doctor? Is there another twist in the River Pond/Melody Pond saga that we do not know yet. Don't forget there are pages in River's diary that The Doctor has yet to know about. So what if River is actually The Doctor in an future form, who merely took on the name of Amelia Pond's daughter in a way to interact with a predecessor.

Maybe too far fetched even for the Moff.

But I'm going to throw some names out there:

Andrew Lincoln - Egg in  This Life and Simon Casey in Teachers. However as he is currently appearing as Rick Grimes in the US series The Walking Dead which was announced as being renewed for a fourth season at the end of last year, so prying the star away, even at the end of that to start shooting might be too big a hiatus for Doctor Who fans who will be wanting new stories by spring of next year.

Russell Tovey - Of course Russell was last seen in the Doctor Who episode The End of Time when Midshipman Alonso Frame (previously seen on the Starship Titanic) was being chatted up by Captain Jack Sparrow. Of course Doctor Who have used actresses who have appeared elsewhere as companions, both Freeya Agyeman and Jenna-Louise Coleman (?) seemed to have appeared as another character before they became the companion. But it is rather out of character for the same to apply for the Doctor him/herself. Update: Overnight a friend did point out the exception to prove the rule Colin Baker had appeared as Commander Maxil in Arc of Infinity during his predecessor Peter Davison's stint in the Tardis.

Paterson Joseph - was in the frame last time and the Peep Show and William and Mary actor was then widely tipped as being the first non-white Doctor. He has of course already appeared in Doctor Who as Roderick in the Bad Wolf and Parting of the Ways episodes so has the same issue as Tovey above of no Doctor has previously appeared elsewhere in the cannon.

Rupert Grint - well he is ginger. The former Harry Potter Actor may be two years younger than Matt Smith was when he was announced as the eleventh Doctor but he has spent ten of the last twelve years in front of some very big cinema audiences while doing other work.

Tim Minchin - not an obvious choice but the comedian and musician does live here (after been born in Northampton to Australian parents). He's another ginger option and could bring a comic turn to the Doctor once again.

Finally if the Alex Kingston option is too far fetched and incestuous, there is another ginger actress who has been appearing a lot in BBC produced series who might fit the bill - Gillian Anderson. She appeared in the Crimson Petal and the White, Great Expectations and currently The Fall. However, while another series of The Fall has been commissioned she is also signed up for an upcoming US TV action/thriller series Crisis which is due to debut in January 2014. So there would be further contractual and scheduling issues to get the former X-Files actress to become The Doctor.
 

In response to Simon Hughes

Today on Lib Dem Voice Simon Hughes outlined his reasons for abstaining on the third reading of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill earlier this week.

He does what Simon does so well and put out an argument that seems to make sense, and it clearly does to him based on his vote on Tuesday. However, there are some holes in his argument.

Primarily it appears his main reason is the establishment of the Church of England. I'm sure like me many Liberal Democrats at fringe events have heard Simon say that with his Welsh roots he is proud to be associated with the disestablished Church in Wales. In his article on Lib Dem Voice he says:

"I believe that heterosexual, gay, lesbian, transgender and non-gendered people should all be able to have the choice of an identical sort of civil partnership or of a civil  marriage or union. This should be separate from Christian or other faith marriages. But the way of reconciling the two is for us first to separate completely in law the recognition of relationships by the state from the marriages conducted by churches, other faith groups – and humanists, but then also to allow those faith communities which wish to recognise gay and heterosexual marriages equally in their ceremonies the ability to do so, and with identical consequences in the law of the land."

To me the only way to achieve that is disestablishment of the state churches church. Sorry there is only one left the Church of England, that would be the same church that is protected behind a quadruple lock that even some of those not taking sides in that Church say is a bit much, and would take so much effort such events change in the future. Now disestablishment is a very liberal ideal, indeed it was one that William Gladstone advocated. But he didn't achieve it beyond the Church in Wales and the Church of Ireland. There was a blockade in the Church of England then and there isn't much clamour for it now. So something that hasn't been achieved in over 100 years of liberal campaigning and some of that with a majority government of our own doesn't bode well. I don't think LGBT couples are prepared to wait and see if disestablishment actually can be achieved.

The other thing I notice in that statement is that Simon is quite prepared for LGBT people to have either a civil partnership or union that is separate from Christian and other faith marriages!

Hang on there, what will happen to civil marriages (even those between heterosexual couples)? What will happen to the faith groups that want to carry out same-sex marriages? Simon appears in the paragraph quoted above to separate church and state and then to separate marriage and some other form of partnership recognition altogether! Surely that is not equal marriage? That is like playing with words in the same way that Ian Paisley junior did on last night's Question Time.

Simon does urge us to read his three speeches (here, here and here) over the second and third readings carefully.

In the first on 5 February he was calling on the minister to proceed carefully, with maximum consensus saying "I will be voting against the timetable motion for just that reason, but I shall support the Bill.", He carries on to say:

"The Bill ought to be amended to make it clear that the principal purpose is to provide for equal civil marriage for gay and straight couples and for others to opt in if the Churches and other denominations so wish, but that is not how the Bill is drafted. The Bill ought to make it clearer that we are not seeking to redefine traditional marriage as previously understood in custom and law. That would be helpful to Church communities and others."

Yet as I have pointed out above not once in his article today does he talk about giving LGBT people access to marriage, merely some other ceremony. Maybe Simon should amend his article on Lib Dem Voice to make it clear if the Bill he was prepared to support in February principally about marriage for all is something he is willing to support. His comments today are backing the traditional and not the radical move forward that Liberals have been renowned for for generations.

On the second occasion on Monday he said:

"not all gay people take a strict view that everything in this set of proposals is absolutely perfect and that there are no questions; not all straight people think that the Bill is a terrible abomination; not all Christians share the view of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of England; and not all people who do not have faith might not have problems with the Bill. I hope that we have got across the message that the debate is much more complicated."

I happen to agree with that, like him I had been a member of a church for about 20 years before I became a member of the party. I'm one of those who doesn't share the view of the hierarchy of a church, in my case the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in which I was brought up. I don't think the proposals before the House were perfect, as anyone who heard me move the Transgender amendment at Scottish conference can guess some of the main reasons why.

But he goes on rather unclearly in my view of what he expects teachers to be allowed to do, should the bill come in. The reason may be that he seems to want Churches to me able to say that homosexuality is wrong in the same sentence. So trying to decipher what he means by "getting the balance right" lacks clarity.

On the third occasion he opens:

"I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I agree with a huge number of his comments. He and I have voted similarly pretty well throughout the passage of the Bill."

Later he was about to differ on the most important vote, that on the Bill itself, as amended over the two days. But then he goes on:

"Let me put my position on the record. I believe, have believed and was brought up to believe that marriage is ordained by God. I believe that marriage is traditionally ordained by God to be between one man and one woman. I believe that marriage was set up by God for the creation of children. I believe that it was to link the biological needs of children with their biological parents. I believe that it was for biological complementarity. I believe that it was for gender complementarity, and that it was a gift of God in creation. That is why I have taken a traditional Christian and other-faith view on how marriage has traditionally been—for one man and one woman—which was the case long before we legislated for such things in this country and made them the law of the land."

So I'm rather at pains to see how being liberal, a word he used six times in his article, after having said in his second speech that not all Christians adhere to the view of the hierarchies of the Churches of England and Rome. That he can have such a rigid view of what Christian's or those of faith believe. There are some who want to see same-sex marriage, there are even some that want to be able to allow their faith group the be allowed to have the option to carry out same-sex marriages and actually to implement this.

Now Simon is quite entitled to his view. But to propagate it as a liberal view, that is where I take issue. His view to quote himself is for 'traditional marriage', hardly liberal when others are looking to expand marriage to others. As for waiting to disestablish the church so that all church and state is separate that is a wrecking amendment as we are still waiting for that 150 years after Gladstone started the process of disestablishment. Waiting probably means instead of moving towards equal marriage nothing would ever happen.

However, I'm not going to not campaign for any of the abstainers or voters against. What I do want though is to have time talking with them all.

Junior makes his own Irish land grab

Yesterday's debate in the House of Commons makes interesting reading at one point:

"Like the hon. Gentleman, who is also a great Unionist committed to the Union, I believe that the same benefits should flow whether in the north of England or the northern part of Ulster. [Interruption.] That includes Donegal; we will get it back into the Union at some point soon."

For these are the words of Ian Paisley in response to an intervention from David Anderson the Labour MP for Blaydon. Anderson has referred to the North of Ireland and it appears that Paisley was pedantically pulling him up that the most Northern point of Ireland is not the off shore part of his North Antrim constituency, Rathlin, but is Malin Head in Donegal.

But he has gone beyond pointing out that fact as has asserted that Donegal will be back in the Union soon. Now Paisley's party the DUP have recently been telling Sinn Féin there colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly that there will be no need in the near future for a border poll regarding the status of the six counties of Northern Ireland. So how, if there is to be no border poll, can he claim that Donegal will be back in the Union soon?

Is he suggesting a county by county poll? Results could lead to an interesting patch work across Ireland is certain counties vote to come back/stay in the UK and others vote to leave or remain in the Republic of Ireland.

Or his he going to launch a military strike on some part of another EU member?

Electorally in the last general election it doesn't look like the voters of Donegal are Unionists. Of the six Teachta Dálas elected two were from Sinn Féin one in each seat* and the independent elected for Donegal South West was previously a Sinn Féin councillor.

Now my family has direct roots in Donegal and indeed the neighbouring  county Londonderry. There would be uproar if both of those counties were no longer border regions. The people of Derry couldn't buy their cheap petrol in Euros just over the border an the people of Donegal couldn't buy cheap electronics etc in The Foyleside shopping centre in Derry City.

So just how is Ian Paisley junior planning to get Donegal back into the Union soon?

The answer my friends is simple.

In his (and only his) dreams.

* Indeed in both seats electing under STV Sinn Féin topped the poll. In Donegal North East it was enough to be elected on the first count, in SouthWest it left them 202 votes short of quota.