Why the Drewitt-Barlow's going to court have got it wrong #equalmarriage

This is not what I wanted!

What you may ask?

Well Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow are going to take the Church of England to court to make them have to carry out same-sex marriages. You may remember them as the first same-sex male couple in the UK to legally be both named of fathers of their children.

But what are you opposed to them doing that, you may ask, aren't I a gay Christian too?

Well yes I am, but I don't want to coerce any faith group into having to carry out marriage irregardless of the sexuality involved, I want them to come to that decision voluntarily. That is done not by threatening them, but by being inside and asking them why not. Not just from the LGBT couples but from our straight friends, families and allies.

We live in a country that allows both personal freedom and religious freedom. If someone's religious freedom means that they don't want to marry a same-sex couple in their church that freedom is to be protected just as those faith groups and people of no faith who do want to carry our a same-sex marriage is also protected. We cannot demand anything of another group and claim it to be in the name of personal freedoms when we are denying their. That is why in the Liberal Democrat policy on Equal Marriage we allow any faith group 'that wishes to do so' to perform same-sex marriages.

We are not in the business of interfering with outher freedoms. Until the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act comes into effect no faith group is even allowed to legally carry out a marriage ceremony for two people of the same-sex, nor is any registrar, nor humanist celebrant. What the act does is enable most faith groups to come to their own decision within their own Governance structure.

The one glaring exception of course if the Church of England. They wanted protection behind a quadruple lock, which should a General Synod at some point in the future decide in all three houses that they do want to carry out same-sex marriage will need secondary legislation to untangle the web that the Bishops and their supporters in both Houses have put in the way of them doing so.

The Drewitt-Barlow's say "The government is attempting to enshrine discrimination in law against people just because they are gay." going on to say "It’s not just about human rights; it’s about doing what is right?" Yet they are prepared to roller coaster over the religious freedoms, which along with sexual orientation are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. They are discriminating in a different way and that is the issue, another wrong doesn't make it right.

Read also Jae has also covered this in his own inimitable style.

Let's delay...until we might have a majority

Yeah that seems to be the approach of certain members of the Conservative party who delivered a letter to the Prime Minister today calling for a delay on the vote on marriage equality. Maybe they are finding themselves like Indiana Jones at the start of The Temple of Doom faced with a giant boulder that has gained too much momentum that they cannot stop it.

The momentum behind the boulder is public opinion, including that which was expressed in the consultation. Many of those who expressed an opinion, as opposed to merely signing a petition that they were against period, said that the constraints on religious freedom by not allowing faith groups that wanted to to carry out same sex-marriage was an error in the proposals. That is why the Government came up with a proposal more in line with Lib Dem policy (with the exception of the truly equal transgender elements).

You see unlike the larger party in Government this has been debated my the Lib Dems, our MPs really have heard the grass roots opinion of the leadership. They have heard some people of faith opposing the policy, but they also heard many who were in favour.

They used to say that the Church of England was the Conservative Party at prayer, but with the Church of England being one of the strongest voices opposed to marriage equality it is true that we see that link still present. The Church have tried every trick in the book to oppose marriage equality, from saying that allowing it would prevent them maintaining their status as the state church, to which many said that isn't such a sacrifice for the rest of us. Some of the language, and indeed lies, that has come from Church leaders makes one wonder just which parts of the bible they adhere to as it certainly isn't love or telling the truth that seems utmost in their minds.

So is the last roll of the dice to try and delay legislation until after the general election? Is this in the hope that conservative Conservatives may end up in a majority of the house? Is it a delay to try and show that there is no mandate for this? If so is that not a matter of the giant boulder heading towards them which cannot be stopped? The fact is that latest predictions show at least 55% of the House of Commons in favour of The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill so in a representative democracy likes ours it appears that our representatives have already made up their mind on this one.

If they were successful in getting it delayed one thing is certain. No young person who weren't aware of the Conservative's support of Section 28, will trust them for a while on delivering LGBT equality, personally I think that is something that David Cameron is determined that his party will not set themselves back to.

In which it is not 100% equal

Today the Government has announced its proposals for equal gay marriage.

As regular readers will know I never refer to marriage equality as gay marriage. The reason is simple that is not what I, even though I am a gay man, want. I want marriage equality irregardless of sexual orientation, or gender, or religion. So today we really only fully got one of those three.

There are six key words in the Liberal Democrat policy that I am so proud are there:

That wish to do so

You see it really is that simple. There should be civil partnership or marriage depending on what people wish. Every faith group should be allowed to offer it, if they wish. Every person who undergoes gender reassignment should be allowed to maintain whichever relationship status they are in without a state mandatory divorce or annulment. What we got today failed on some of those liberal principles.

First up making it illegal for the Church of England and Church in Wales to opt in to equal marriage is an error. It has been made to appease the Tory backbenchers and Lords Spiritual. It was put in to assuage them that there would be no legal challenge to the established church. There is an error in including the Church in Wales straight off. It has been disestablished since 1920, therefore Government has no power over its governance and decisions. Therefore passing law to legislate over the Church in Wales cannot hold up if legally challenged, Westminster has no jurisdiction there. The error with then making the act illegal, yes that is the word used, in the Church of England is that the General Synod should have the same right as any other faith group governing body to take this decision. 

If you were truly making marriage equal, every faith group should have the right to make the decision to proceed, if they wish to do so. 

One additional point on religion which I was glad to see Julian Huppert raise towards the end of the questions was the issue of humanist celebrants. We learnt today that those outside Protestant or Catholic religion was on the rise, so why can't a humanist celebrant carry out any marriage or civil partnership like they already can in Scotland?

Nor for that matter does it allow for civil partnerships of mix-sexed couples that are not related. Another issue that needs to be addressed if CPs are to persist only for same-sex couples if you want true equality.

The issue with gender reassignment was the one I moved as an amendment in the Scottish Lib Dem debate. I'll admit now it was a ploy to get extra time to explain the reason why, because sadly most people don't get why it is needed, even within the LGBT community. The fact is that with the introduction of civil partnerships there was a chance for those who changed gender to enter a relationship with their pre-existing spouse after transitioning. But the issue was that the couple had to split before the transition could even start. We as a state were telling the partner of someone going through transition, that vow of 'til death do us part' means nothing even if you still love them. The state split up couples and made them go through the alternative commitment ceremony afterwards. It was like saying I'm not the gender I was born into means you can't love me.

This proposal does nothing to address those missing years of friends and others who have faced this dilemma and fails to address the issue of the enforced separation. One of the Tory backbenchers asked about the non-consummation element of divorce law, but nobody raised the issue of state mandated divorce that would still exist. This isn't equal for the trans community and yet again the LGB community may leave them behind having achieved what is in it for them. You can be assured that won't apply to me.

The other issue is one that seems ludicrous to me after what has been going on here in Northern Ireland over the last week or so. Unionists have been shouting about how a piece of material not being present 365 days of the year on a certain metal pole chips away at their sense of Britishness. For the LGBT community in Northern Ireland now that the rest of the UK has proposals in place to allow some forms of marriage equality we see there is a big chip of our Britishness that has yet to be given to us, never mind being chipped away. Those of us in Northern Ireland that wish to do so, will not be able to enter into a same-sex marriage locally. Like those who want an abortion we will have to travel to England, Scotland and Wales maybe to have one, but will we be recognised as married when we return, and why should we, our families and guests be penalised the added expense of traveling elsewhere in the UK to get married. That is something that together with Equal Marriage NI I will also continue to work on.

However, this proposal would fail an equality appraisal to be described as equal marriage. For the reasons above it falls short, so there still is work to be done. Let us not lose sight of the end goal, which for me is every aspect of the Liberal Democrat policy. 

Don't get me wrong it is an important step, but that is all it is, there are still some steps to go until we cross the finish line on Marriage Equality

Onward, Church of England, inching to reform

Rather appropriately the tune to Onward Christian Soldiers is written by Arthur Sullivan, no doubt if he and W.S. Gilbert would be getting down to write and Operetta about the Church of England, women bishops and gay clergy right about now.

In the meantime here is a little something to sing to that tune of his.

Onward, Church of England, inching to reform
With selective bible standards cited as the norm.
Christ, the royal master, treating women as the men
But he got that wrong, for ever and Amen!

Refrain:

Onward, Church of England, inching to reform
With selective bible standards cited as the norm.

Women though not silent, nor to husbands subject,
While some preach from pulpits shall not rise to Bishopric.
With their heads uncovered, they can sing your praise
But the House of Bishops can not bend to their ways
(Refrain)

Sisters in Scotland or Ireland, Bishops they could be
But we can't allow that in the C of E
We are all divided, not one body we,
Kick out hope for doctrine picked selectively.
(Refrain)

Crowns may pass to women, Bishops' thrones no way
The Supreme Governor wears a dress, but our Bishops nay.
We'll let you ordain women, but glass ceiling will prevail,
They'll not wear a mitre, now in purple cassocks sail
(Refrain)

Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
Blend with yours our voices, women Bishops are wrong.
Glory, laud and honour, and misogyny
Shall for countless ages rule the C of E.
(Refrain)

Equal marriage = disestablishment of C of E???

So marriage equality will lead to disestablishment of the Church of England according to an article in today's independent.

Well they said similar stuff about Catholic emancipation, yet nothing so cataclysmic has happened since the Catholic Relief Act of 1829. It was the Church of England's superior outlook that led to the Acts of Uniformity in 1559 and 1662. Yet these were repealed in 1828 so that Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Methodists and others became eligible for many forms of public educational and social benefits.

Jews were also expelled from England in 1290, and although in 1656 a small community was found to exist but no action was taken to expel them by Oliver Cromwell at the time. Their emancipation came at roughly the same time as those above. Either in 1829 or in 1858 when Jews were finally allowed to sit in Parliament.

Of course the Church of England has been disestablished in the past during the Commonwealth 1649 to 1660

You see the argument that the Church of England is under threat has been used in the past against other Christians, other believers, other people. To use it again in light of the history of the oppression of the Church of England of others through the year being as they were the established church and had, and still have a say in laws, is such a red herring and over the top desperate plea that it should be confined to what it is.

There is the other argument that allowing equal marriage will undermine marriage. But the same was said in, 1857 when ordinary people were allowed to divorce. Or 1882 when married women were allowed to own property in their own right. Again in 1923 when women were able to petition for divorce. Or in 1969 when a period of separation rather than have to prove unreasonable contact was all that was required.

So of course I'm still at a loss how anything that allows more people who are lovingly wanting to commit to each other in marriage is a threat to marriage.

UKIP Libertarian unless if comes against the authority of The Church* #equalmarriage #fisk

With a former Conservative councillor defecting to UKIP over the issue of equalising marriage for same-sex couples up steps David Coburn of UKIP's National Executive Committee to promptly put his foot in it by clearly not understanding the first of the big words he used. As usual I shall fisk in red.

 "We are a libertarian party Libertian n. 1.One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will. adj. of, relating to, or characteristic of a libertarian which doesn't believe in the government interfering in how people live their lives. We support civil partnerships, enabling gay men and women to register their long-term commitment to each other. I have fought for this all my life. 

 "But David Cameron seems to be saying that marriage is something else so much for maximising individual rights as true libertarians. If so, it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths – and it is none of government's business to meddle with it. Ok we come to a point here. The consultation before the people is currently for civil marriage nothing to do with how the churches conduct marriage. They are not meddling in religious marriage and have nothing to do with the church and other faiths.

Mind you on the issue of the church and other faiths, some of them want to be able to offer equal marriage (Quakers, Unitarians, some Liberal Jews, and others)  but the current consultation isn't letting them because it is only focusing on civil marriage. Should the government stop meddling there and let each faith group determine what it wants to define marriage as? Surely that is the Libertarian approach.

 "It seems that, through some kind of political correctness, David Cameron is picking a fight with the millions of people whose religious faiths do not recognise same-sex marriages I state again some faith groups do, but he isn't letting them recognise same-sex marriage David Cameron is only working in the civil sphere. That, in our view, is an aggressive attack on people of faith, and an act of intolerance in itself so being Libertarians only so far as it doesn't go against the authority of say the Church of England and the Bishop of Rome (and you thought UKIP didn't want Germans and the rest of Europe to dictate to us here in the UK). 

"In addition, if the government does legislate in this way, we believe that any criticism of same-sex marriage which may be expressed by someone on the basis of their faith could be classified as a 'hate crime' whereas only calling same-sex long term commitments by some second class name so that some can talk only about married couples and ignore that other classification isn't . That would be a grotesque assault on people's freedom of conscience. But not libertarian enough to look at everyone's freedom on conscience"

Of course the problem above has arisen from UKIP claiming to be Libertarian, however that is Libertarian with provisos and caveats. Murray Rothbard describes Libertarianism thus:

"a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Therefore true libertarians should be allowed to be with whomever they want. If they want to marry they should be free to do so whether it is someone of the opposite or same sex, after all that does not invade the person or property of another. If someone wishes to marry someone of the opposite sex it is not diminished by the desire of someone to marry someone of the same. However, if the person married to someone married or desiring to be married to someone of the opposite sex denies someone seeking to marry someone of the same sex and call it marriage that is an invasion.


Walter Block adds:

"The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms."

So unless equalising marriage threatens to bring about violence against others it should be legalised by a libertarian.


So UKIP and especially David Coburn are you Libertarian or against against equalising gay marriage? I put it to you that you cannot be both.


* Capitalisation of 't' in the in the title is because it is the State and Roman Catholic churches that are most vocal in their opposition (there are of course others), there are other smaller churches that are not opposed to equal marriage.

Just who is acting like a dictator Archbishop?

One definition of dictatorship is:

Government by a single person or by a junta or other group that is not responsible to the people or their elected representatives.

So when the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, claims that David Cameron is acting like a dictator when he his holding a consultation on equal marriage he seems to have missed the point. Of course this is a junta of 26 Bishops sitting in the House of Lords who are not responsible nor electable by the people. Indeed even in largely elected second chamber there are still suggestions to keep them in place.

What Sentamu has said is:

"I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can't just (change it) overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

"We've seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don't want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way."

Of course if the government is not able to have redefined very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time, women would never have been allowed to vote, nor would the workers. There would not be social care through benefits or the National Health Service. Jews would not have been allowed to sit in Parliament, nor would Parliament be able to do away with male primogeniture for the heirs of future sovereigns as has been agreed by the Commonwealth which is legislation that now been introduced.

The fact that equal marriage is being put out for public consultation also flies in the face of accusations of dictatorship accusations, which can also be defined as "absolute or despotic control or power".  Somehow you know that a depot is not going to put something out to consultation, as that is not absolute power. No a despotic dictator is liable to just make a change or prevent one on his say so, rather like what Sentuma is trying to do through what he says himself.

So just who is acting like a dictator by having only their view and no other view? Eyes toward the See of York perhaps.