Fisking UKIP Councillor Henry Reilly

Newry and Mourne's District Council's UKIP member Henry Reilly wrote and opinion piece in the Belfast Telegraph today. I have decided that the best way to deal with this is Fisking it line by line (as usually my comments are in red).

As a democratic and libertarian party definition of libertarian - a) an adherent of libertarianism b) a person who advocates civil liberty, UKIP believes the state should play only a minimal role in the lives of its people. Marriage for instance, happily existed for millennia without any interference from the state whatsoever so the 1753 Marriage Act where you had to be married in the Church of England was not interference for the Roman Catholics, dissenting churches, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Muslims was quite correctly lifted in the 1836 Marriage Act it was an end to state interference. While I personally cannot condone the 'gay' lifestyle Here we go with the lifestyle thing again. Is it my drinking coffee, going out to work every day, shopping on the street, enjoying time with friends, or falling in love that you cannot condone, or is it merely what I may get up to in the privacy of my bedroom you want to 'interfere' with which I believe is damaging to the individuals as I said before where is the damage in my lifestyle which doesn't differ than much from others involved I recognise that not all people have the same values and beliefs as me.

Civil partnerships are a recent development. UKIP recognises that they provide a way of allowing  people to formally register relationship commitments wonder if he calls opposite-sex marriage a way to register relationship commitments, this is about love is it not? and have a legal means of dealing with the problems that had been identified in the past like tax arrangements and the distribution of joint property assets legal means yes, but in a way of keeping that love commitment separate and compartmentalised away from those who object and do not condone the so called 'gay' lifestyle. The civil partnership  arrangement allows all people the same fundamental rights as married heterosexual couples not all as those LGBT people of faith who want to marry a same-sex partner are not allowed to be joined in a faith setting with hymns. prayers or God being mentioned, nor faith groups that currently want to the ability to fulfill this equality if they choose. Why? Because Northern Ireland currently is alone with in the UK in not lifting this prohibition.

A difficulty arises however when the state seeks to punish those for practising sincerely held principles or religious beliefs again there are those who religious beliefs differ on this issue of same-sex marriage and indeed homosexuality in general. I believe that it is profoundly unjust that Christian business people like B&B operators or printers should be subjected to the threat of jail for simply practicing what they believe or council staff and church ministers who believe that marriage is a sacred Christian rite between a man and a women. First up these people are providing a service. If you have advertised that you are providing a service and then refuse it merely because of the sexual orientation of the customer you are discriminating. No Blacks, no Irish ring a bell.

That’s what the Progressive Unionist Party effectively called for at the weekend, when it passed a motion to introduce homosexual marriage in both Northern Ireland without an MLA they cannot introduce anything, but they did pass a motion to support marriage equality twice debated in Stormont and are one of the first unionist parties to do so and the rest of the UK like UKIP the PUP have no elected representatives in the rest of the UK legislators. Admittedly, David Cameron promises those who object to homosexual marriage – most notably churches – in England and Wales will be protected from it. But like any of ‘Cast Iron Dave’s’ promises, they’re not worth the paper they’re written on in England, Wales or anywhere else I don't read of any churches having to marry Jews after 1836 lifted that prohibition, indeed the 1753 Act meant they had to, clearly the paper that previous marriage acts was written on was worth it.

For so long as the UK remains subservient to the European Court of Human Rights, it is inevitable the law will be challenged. It is similarly inevitable it will be deemed to be ‘unfair’ by a panel of judges in Strasbourg, which interferes in everything yet is accountable for nothing.

Consequently, there is a real danger that ministers, church officers, registrars and wedding venue owners could be jailed or heavily fined if they fail to agree with David Cameron or Billy Hutchinson actually if there is any forcing of ministers or church officers being forced he should come and see me, I don't feel that they should be any coercion but faith groups that wish do so can come to their own conclusion. As for registrars they already carry out the civil partnerships that UKIP apparently recognise and many refer to is as being like marriage and venues would surely love the extra revenue.

That’s wrong; no person or group can be allowed to force their ideas on society or compromise hard won personal freedoms there is a juxtoposition of ideas here. He is claiming that one group can not force their ideas on society while at the same time allowing another group to do just that. We are talking about two personal freedoms, allowing people of the same sex to marry doesn't affect anyone else, but denying them that equality certainly does so just whose personal freedom is worth more, a true libertarian would say nobody's personal freedom is worth more than anyone else's. Therefore, while I understand civil partnerships, I’m opposed to state-enforced homosexual marriage the state is not enforcing anything, but lifting an enforced prohibition. The motion passed at the weekend’s PUP conference is profoundly illiberal leader Billy Hutchinson said in his speech "However, it is also important to point out that the motion
adopted today does not discriminate against those who hold opposing views on this
issue." just like the Act from Westminster and the Bill before Holyrood, even if it is regretfully consistent with the PUP’s apparent desire to become the foot soldiers of the European Union and a ruling, metropolitan, socialist elite. So nothing to do about being the same as the rest of the UK then, strange that a UKIP Councillor should want part of the UK to not be the same as the rest.

This is me:

In conclusion yet again you have somebody trying to argue for a liberal or libertarian approach that the removal of the prohibition, imposed by the state, is a state imposition of same-sex marriage. They are arguing for the case of personal freedoms but are placing some people's personal freedoms on a higher pedestal that others. The same was once said about women, before that non-caucasions, or Jews and before that slaves. 

Just because personal freedoms have historically favoured one part of societies personal freedoms giving those same freedoms to a group denied them doesn't mean that group lose their own freedom, they merely have respect for others to move at the same level as themselves.

How can removing a state interference be seen as state interference? Especially for a so-called libertarian such an argument is pure nonsense. How can increasing personal freedom and indeed faith groups freedom to operate as they want be seen as restricting them?

There is somewhat a catch 22 situation here. Giving some people the personal and religious freedoms that you yourself have seems to be seen as taking away those freedoms from you. Surely that is not right.