Today could have been the day I became married

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that today could have been the day that I got married.

While I was over in Scotland there was a serious relationship with another man the talk did get towards the stage of should we look towards a civil partnership. In the end our lives took over and we ended up not having enough time for each other and drifting apart, on this occasion it actually wasn't me in an election year that led to the lack of time.

So it is possible that in some alternative universe he and I could today be converting our Scottish civil partnership into a marriage. It would seem appropriate for someone who campaigned to get equal marriage as a policy for the Scottish Liberal Democrats including the conversion of CPs to do so on the first day. As it is I am sitting here in Northern Ireland single and knowing that my friends here who are in civil partnerships will not be able to convert them. Worse I know that all those recently converted CPs into marriages, and those in England and Wales already and those from Scotland from 15 days time who were never in a CP but married will find themselves in a civil partnership if they come over here.

The fight for equal marriage in the UK is not yet complete.

First the recognition of same sex marriage is still not being recognised by the politicians that represent about half the electorate in Northern Ireland. It is almost as if protestant, unionist and loyalist LGBT people do not exist. Tell that to Julie-Anne Corr.

But then we do have to expand it so that humanists can have a tailor made wedding ceremony to fit them if they desire, rather than the bland heavily regulated and scripted prescribed civil ceremony that town halls offer.

We need to deal with the issues facing Transgender people, ending the spousal veto, restoring lost years from the forced dissolution of marriages and civil partnerships before transitioning was allowed to take place.

There is also the fact that civil partnerships remain and make equality skewed. If we are to keep them we need to open them up to mixed sex couples who do not want to have a marriage for whatever reason, but have the protections and rights under laws that other long term committed relationships have both in live and death.

Today's news in Scotland is welcome and I look forward to the first marriages without conversion on Hogmaney. But there is still work to do and some in this great country of ours to make all things equal.

Equal Marriage was never just about gay rights

Apparently number 10 Downing Street are about to ignore overwhelming support to a public consultation and block opening the right to carry out marriage to humanist celebrants in England and Wales.

This would have brought England and Wales in line with Scotland where since 2005 humanists have been able to marry mixed sex couples. It would also put them at the forefront along with only USA and Australia in having humanists able to carry out marriage at all. It is a sign that those of use who were fighting for marriage equality were not only thinking about it as a gay rights issue.

Sadly the Conservatives in Westminster have already diluted some of the aspects that the Liberal Democrats recognised when we formed policy on marriage equality in 2010 with relation to transgender people, so this is an attack on the other thread of what we understood and vote for in relation to equal marriage.

You see equal marriage isn't only about allowing same-sex couples to marry. It was about those people who are transgender not having to divorce or dissolve an exisiting marriage or civil partnership and not losing the years that before now would not count while they transitioned if their partner remained with them. It is about expanding who can carry out marriages further than the established church, to other denominations and faiths to also include humanists in our society. It is also about opening civil partnerships to those of mixed gender who do not want a marriage but want civil protections for their partner in the event of their death, life, illness or creating new birth.

Equal marriage is not just a gay rights issue. It is an equality issue.

The Conservatives just think it is about ticking one box but actually it is deeper than that and I am proud to have been part of the process to seek to give that equality to others when it does not affect me directly.

Note: This is what differentiates a humanist wedding from a mere civil ceremony

In which I agree with C of E on civil partnerships in church - sort of

So the Church of England have said they won't hold civil partnership ceremonies in their churches. I say good.

Now many of you who know that I am a campaigner for equal marriage may be a little shocked by opening line, but let me explain.

The consultation in England and Wales is not as complete as the one the is drawing to a close in Scotland this week. It only has one option a civil partnership to be carried out by a religious celebrant. The Scots are looking at equalising marriage, allowing religious groups to carry out same sex marriage and looking at the necessity or not of maintaining civil partnerships if that is the case, as well as looking and the England and Wales proposals. You will notice as I do that Northern Ireland hasn't got any consultation on equal marriage of any type going on or pending.

However, why do I agree with the Church of England on this? Probably not for the reason that the Bishops are in opposition but for the sheer hypocricy of the idea of civil partnerships being carried out on religious premises when a civil marriage is carried out by the same registrar at the registry office of other designated building. Of course the Government aren't proposing that civil marriage is to be carried out on religious premises that would be pointless. If people want a religious location to carry out their ceremony of commitment they want the hymns, prayers, religious lesson for marriage all interspersed within the ceremony. But with a civil partnership that cannot be the case, so it is nowhere near equal.

You see for me as an LGBT person of faith a civil partnership in a church just isn't the same as what my other friends get. Also a civil ceremony should not be in a religious setting, if you want a civil ceremony its because for whatever reason you don't want a religious element. However, there are religious groups that want to be able to carry out same sex marriage. There is religious freedom in the proposals which allow religious groups to opt-in to the ability to carry out same-sex ceremonies. Because of that the Church of England is not opposing the proposals.

I repeat.

The Church of England are NOT opposing the suggestion of civil partnerships in religious buildings, they just don't see it as something that their church will buy into.

Note before anyone criticises me for having a go at the good that Lynne Featherstone has achieved in getting this far, I'm not. On the day that she made her announcement at Lib Dem conference I did talk to her about these issues. She said she had done the best she could, seeing as the men who debated our coalition deal had forgotten to include anything in their deal about this issue and that she was aware it was far short of what the Lib Dem policy on the issue was and she'd carry on working for that to be fully implemented.

Conor sets the Irish Daily Fail Right on Civil Partnerships

Today Ireland finally allowed same-sex civil partnerships. One thing that the Daily Fail, even its Irish edition doesn't fail to do is live up to the fail element that us of a liberal nature constantly find it to do. This morning it was the case of Richard Waghorne who seems to neglect the need for it simply because he doesn't want to be civilly partnered or married as a gay man. I'm allergic to cats so don't want to have one of them if I can help it, hardly an argument to prevent others who love cats to keep one for live now is it?

Fortunately my friend Conor has put a rather excellent counterpoint blog post together looking from the point of view of the children of same sex couples, a group that is often overlooked. It is an excellent written post taking on some of the stupidity of the arguments that Waghorne tried to bring to the debate. I urge to go take a read of it yourself.

Of course I'm still hoping to maybe some day get married in a ceremony that allows my God to be part of proceedings rather than an afterthought or a prequel which is what I'd still have to do even if civil partnerships could be held in a religious building. I'd still need to have two distinct parts of a ceremony, not intertwined as my heterosexual friends are able to do. I'd still be treated as a second class person of faith, simply because I'd want to get married to someone of the same sex.

My Funny Valentine

I have a question this Valentine's Day.

Would a heterosexual couple want to have a civil marriage (they not being allowed a civil partnership) in a place of worship?

The answer I think you will find is no. If a heterosexual couple wanted a marriage in a church, synagogue or mosque they would go for a religious marriage ceremony. Therefore why is there talk of allowing civil partnerships to same sex couples to be allowed in places of worship, most particularly are these deemed civil?

As a gay Christian and a advocate for equal marriage I'm actually going to agree with the Archbishop of York in saying that we shouldn't force churches to hold gay marriages. But what I see that he misses is that we shouldn't force those groups, denominations, maybe even parishes that wish to do so not to be able to.

When the Liberal Democrats passed their Equal Marriage motion in September it included the key phrase "that wish to do so", this is the key. If we are truly living in a country of religious equality we must allow those religious groups that wish to carry out same sex marriages to do so, we must also allow those that don't to do so. But to allow for the first group we must enable them all to be able to do so, it is then up the internal governance of that religion to come to their own agreement of what they will allow.

This should not be requirement but an enabling.

The one problem I have with the allowing of "civil partnerships" in religious settings is that a civil partnership ceremony cannot have any religious language, or hymns or any other religious reference into the ceremony. It is basically a non-religious commitment. Surely if a same sex couple want to commit to each other in a religious building they want to do so in the eyes of men and God, but to allow the current format of civil partnership to be carried out in a religious building you are almost saying to God, look we'd love your house and want to use it for our ceremony, but we can't thank you, we can't here from you, in fact you can't be there at all.

What is the point?

Either we get rid of the ridiculous two tier system of marriages and partnerships, or we acknowledge that a ceremony in a place of worship is a religious ceremony whether for marriage or partnership. A civil partnership in a place of worship isn't an act of worship but merely a convenience to try an appease those of us who have faith and same sex attraction. It's a cop out, it's a half-hearted step, it's not equal.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace

After A. A. Milne in light of news of Westminster plans for civil partnership for MPs and members of the public as result.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
They're getting married in the Jubilee Room.
"The Speaker's really a moderning broom,"
Says Alice.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
We looked out over Cromwell Green.
"A smiled thinking the puritan wasn't so keen,"
Says Alice.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
We looked for the Gordon he never came.
"Well, God take care of him, all the same,"
Says Alice.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
Members all parties can do this too.
"Be Civil Partnered like me and you,"
Says Alice.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
A face looked out, but it wasn't the Dave's.
"He's much too busy planning what to save,"
Says Alice.

They're changing guard at Westminster Palace -
Christina Robyn is marrying Alice.
"Do you think Nick Clegg knows all about me?"
"Sure to, dear, but it's time for tea,"
Says Alice

Civil Partnership Should be Available to Hetrosexuals - A Response to Donal Blaney

I wasn't going to blog anymore today but Iain Dale's Daley Dozen alerted me to this post by Donal Blaney. In he he talks about marriage for gays an argument he prefaces with this before going into his argument:

"As a libertarian and a Christian myself, I really do not give two hoots whether someone is gay, bisexual or whatever. We are taught to love the sinner but to hate the sin."

So you can imagine this open line brings in a couple of conflict which grate. First he claims to a libertarian yet is imposing a restriction on liberty. Also he then says he doesn't give two hoots about being gay, bisexual or whatever before calling those that are sinners, admittedly ones that he loves, but you get a felling that maybe that is out of commandment, rather than fully heart felt.

He uses the religious argument:

"Marriage is, or rather ought simply to be, a religious ceremony giving God's blessing on the union of one man and one woman."

Problem is that is not the case, there are non-religious marriages going on in registry offices and other locations all across the country. There are also religious people and yeah that included Christian's who are gay, bisexual, transgendered or whatever who have found love and would love to have that blessed before God. Now those that enter non-religious marriage are no less a married couple that does that do so in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple or whatever. The woman is still allowed to take on the husbands name and call herself Mrs. They are married in the eyes of everyone, they are not made to feel second class nor do they have less standing under law than their religious counterparts.

The fact that mixed-sex couples can only solemnise their relationship though marriage and same sex only through partnership means that in the eyes of many a civil partnership is deemed to be an inferior union. Yet there are many mixed-sex couple who do not like the institution of marriage but would like some protection of their rights, which at present for them only a marriage can afford. Similarly there are many gay couple who would be happy being civil-partnered (and what a horrible convoluted turn of phrase that is) but many would also like the option of a marriage.

There is no equality in the system at the present, indeed there are two (three if we count religious and civil mixed-sex marriage as separate) ways in which union can occur and not everybody has access to both. To give perfect equality of status both marriage and civil partnership should be available to couple irrespective of orientation therein surely is the truly libertarian approach.

The greatest injustice of the split between the two systems comes from the case of those who once married find that one partner wishes to undergo gender reassignment. Such as realisation and decision by one of the partners in that relationship can lead to the end of the relationship if the other partner is not comfortable with it. However, what happens if the other partner is supportive and stands by their man or woman through all the stages of gender reassignment. They have shown that they still love the other person by sticking by them as they probably promised at their ceremony, but their marriage has to be divorces or civil partnership dissolved to enable them to recognise their true gender.

Many of the countries that have already allowed same-sex marriage also allow for civil partnerships both of mixed-sex and same-sex couples. That is true equality the individuals decide what level or union type they wish to get joined under, and who will carry out such a ceremony.

Donal says:

"I really do not care what people get up to in the privacy of their own lives as long as it does not cause harm to others."

But in essence you do you blog post has shown that. You are prepared to only let mixed-sex couples who do not approve of the institution of marriage to either get married or take their chances in an unformalised state, which could hurt them or their children in the future. Also there are those you claim to not give two hoots about who you are quite happen to live in the eyes of some, maybe family members, maybe work colleagues or whomever in what is an inferior state as it is not on offer to mixed-sex couples. They can often feel hurt when they are told "but you're not really married" if they really want to be.

Now I'm not calling Donal Blaney homophobic for having his views, though I do believe that rebuke was aimed at Alex Singleton for his Telegraph column which spurred on Donal. But any Christian (i.e. a sinner sanctified by grace) ever forgets the sin in their own eye when casting about some of the statements that he did to justify his position, should look at the hurt that such sayings do cause.

I was a sinner saved by grace at an age before I was sexually aware and active. I spent years fighting with myself over the issue, as it was a right chicken and the egg situation. People making comments like Donal's and growing up in Northern Ireland there was an awful lot only hurt me more. It's not necessarily homophobia but it is a distinct lacking of the love that they at the same time claim to be expressing.

UPDATE: As different colours points out below this opinion is also shared by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and DELGA the Lib Dem LGBT group.