Fisking some of 118 Tory MPs on Marriage Equality

So the Daily Fail (apologies for this link) are naming 118 Tory MPs who are liable to vote against marriage equality, in the biggest sign of just how much the Conservative party haven't changed on LGBT issues since the last time Westminster voted on any.

So I shall fisk in red each of the statements from those quoted:

"I Marvel at why we're bringing this forward. There is no clamour for this at all within the gay community." Conor Burns - Bournemouth West

I've already dealt with the Belfast born, gay, MP's comments earlier (see here) 

"I believe marriage is an institution ordained to sanctify a union between a man and a woman. If a vote is called, I shall vote in accordance to my beliefs." David Jones - Clwyd West

I need to define a couple of words to start this so the free dictionary says:

or·dain  
tr.v.

1.

a. To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.

b. To authorize as a rabbi.

2. To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.

3. To prearrange unalterably

sanc·ti·fy  

tr.v. 

1. To set apart for sacred use; consecrate.

2. To make holy; purify.

3. To give religious sanction to, as with an oath or vow.

4. To give social or moral sanction to.

5. To make productive of holiness or spiritual blessing.

Yeah you get that, both words have significant religious connotations. So for something to be ordained to sanctify something surely it has to be religious. So would Mr Jones be voting, if there one called to do away with civil marriage?

"I share the view of a great many Christians and people of other faiths who have a strong conception of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. When it comes to redefining the concept of marriage in law, I don't think that Parliament should seek to alter the current position." Stephen Crabb - Preseli Pembrokeshire

Time for another definition:

 Conception
n.

1.

a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.

b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.

 
2.

a. The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions.

b. Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought.

I take it he refers to the latter. So it is only an understanding of a mental concept. Like once we thought the earth was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe, we mocked Einstein's theory of relativity, or continental drift. So see out conception of so much has changed as our understanding has grown. The last two of those in the last hundred years and indeed at the same time that we were actually coming to terms that gay sex should be allowed. Conceptions change and unlike Mr Burns Mr Crabb doesn't say that everyone is of the same opinion I know a number of people of faith Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Straight who all want to allow faith groups that want to to carry out same sex marriage. They have a different concept of marriage yet the same faith.

"I remain concerned that re-defining marriage is unnecessary given the established legal rights, which effectively mirror marriage, for same-sex couples through civil partnerships." Esther McVey - Wirral West

If something were effectively giving a true representation of something else in mirroring it everything would be the same. We would have civil and religious ceremonies, of course we don't. We have the legal rights but only one of the options is open. Any same-sex couple of faith has to leave their god, favourite Hymns of religious passages at the door if they want to be joined in civil partnership. 

"I think there is something a little arrogant about ministers supposing that it is for them to redefine communal rules that have existed for centuries." Douglas Carswell - Clacton

First off this is going to a vote in the commons the ministers aren't doing it without the representatives of the people having a say, isn't that the way our parliament works. Second there are some rather ridiculous and outmoded communal rules still on the statute book, that is the point that the Lib Dems raised in the General Election a Great Repeal Act to do away with some of them, some of them have been around for centuries and serve no purpose in the 21st Century. This is being taken forward by Government, how arrogant of them!

 "People's private lives are a matter for them. Marriage on the other hand is not an entirely private matter. It is a civil institution.

"If, as I hope, there is a free vote in Parliament on this  issue as it is a matter of conscience, I shall be voting against the law to introduce marriage between homosexuals." John Hayes - South Holland and the Deepings

 I agree with the first paragraph of the above. The first sentence being key. It is a matter for each individual, no body else marriage impinges on the marriage of anyone else. It is a civil institution. 

James Wharton  - Stockport South "unique religious connotation of marriage"

I refer you to the answer I gave to David Jones, there are such things as civil marriage. These have not hindered people of faith having religious marriages, they have merely allowed those that don't adhere to a faith to get married without making oaths before a god they do not believe in (or maybe just share or doesn't look kindly of their divorce).

"As a Christian, I am only too aware of the controversies, not only surrounding this issue but others to do with equality.

"While I fully support civil partnerships, which I believe allows two gay people to declare their lifelong commitment to each other, I am afraid that at this stage, the concept of gay marriage [sic] is too much in advance of public opinion and I am afraid that I would not support it in a vote in the commons." Simon Burns - Chelmsford

also

"I shall almost certainly be voting against any proposal to bring forward gay marriage. I do not consider myself to be homophobic, but, apart from anything else I do not think there is any demand for this." Andrew Robothan - Blaby

I'm afraid to tell Mr Burns that there is only one recent opinion poll that shows public opinion that anyone claims is against "marriage equality". That was when Catholic Voice  but didn't actually ask a question about expanding marriage yet was used to claim that 70% of people objected to it. As for Mr Rothbothan similarly deciding something purely on demand while very free market in outlook, fails on the basis that there obviously is some demand or else it would have got this far.

I believe that Parliamentary legislation should focus on those issues that matter to most people across the country: safeguarding their well-being and restoring the economy to health." Andrew Tyrie - Chichester

Strangley at the end of last month Mr Tyrie who is chairman of the Treasury Select Committee found time to vote on the issue of circus animal wellfare. Of course due his his committee chairmanship most of his utterances in the House have been on economic matters, but of course Parliament does talk about other things, and as I have mentioned before even during the war other things were discussed rather than just war related business.

"I wish it were not happening...don't try and tamper with the timeless concept and meaning of marriage, which for most of us means one man and one woman."

Well if marriage's definition is so timeless how come the bible had so many ways to define it.

 

 Update: Interestingly the Daily Mail have removed Conor Burns and a full list of names from its article.

Ten Things that Rupert Murdoch Doesn't Own

Following the news (EXCLUSIVE TO SKY) that Rupert Murdoch claims he owns the Sky© in Skype here are ten things he doesn't own.

10. The Skye Bridge lyrics written by Sir Harold Boulton, Bart. (1859 - 1935)
9. The Skyways Hotel, London or in any other location
8. The Sky at Night still screened on BBC
7. Himmelbjerget also known as the Sky Mountain in Denmark
6. Skypark in Glasgow
5. The Skye Boat song
4. Sky Blue Way, owned by the people of Coventry in honour of their football team.
3. The Minneapolis Skyway System
2. He is not one third of the MPs for Ross, Skye and Lochaber that is our own Charles Kennedy.
1. Last I checked the sky itself was still public property

I would add the movie Vanilla Sky, but would you want to and Sky Movies© probably already own rights to show it.

Fisking the AFA Over Judge Walker Impeachment Call

Well it is a little over 24 hours since Judge Vaughan Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Well tonight I've just received a mailing list from the American Family Association (AFA), who else, calling for the judged impeachment.

Time for a little fisking in red.

August 5, 2010


Dear Friend,

Well if you are going to add me to your alert list when I sign up to your site to complain, feel free to call me a friend.

Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.

As far as I'm aware equal marriage rights does nothing to infringe on the rights of one-man to take one-woman (or indeed a series of women) to he his lawfully married wife (wives). The proponents of gay marriage are saying that each man should be cleaved to another man and each woman to another woman in matrimony. They are protecting current existing marriage but expanding it's availability to everyone irrespective of sexual orientation.

In doing so, he frustrated the expressed will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.

The vote was 7,001,408 for Prop 9 52.24% and 6,401,482 against. Indeed the Proposition was called 'California Marriage Protection Act' as if the act of heterosexual marriage was under some kind of threat. If there was such scaremongering in the naming it is surprising it didn't pass more comfortably.

As Alex Foster pointed out earlier this is the only occasion that equal marriage has been overturned anywhere in the world after it has been introduced. Also should majority rights be put to a majority vote. If they did every time would America still allow slavery, at least in certain states? Would apartheid still be practised in the southern states? Minority rights need to be protected that is what the judge stood up for.

Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.

Actually that same constitution separates Church and State. The State is to rule as a secular body and take the whims or fancies of the Catholic and Mormon churches who heavily supported Prop 8 and the legal defence in this case to task.

Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."

In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.

Hang on! Wouldn't an openly heterosexual and religious Judge also have had to excuse themselves on that reckoning. Should we then only appoint judges who aren't prepared to make tough decisions, it would make things so much easier.

Some facts about Judge Walker he was a Reagan nominee. Talk about conservative. The current Democrat speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, opposed his appointment because of his alleged 'insensitivity' to gays and the poor.

What can be done?

Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.

These checks and balances are also what the judges have the right to uphold the constitution when a state proposition goes against the ethos of the founders.

Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

When we are talking about good behaviour lets look at one of the two Prop 8 witnesses who must have perjured himself under oath by saying that a child is 12 times more likely to be abused by a gay, when the government findings, as I wrote yesterday, indicate that the overwhelming majority over 100 times more likely to be a heterosexual person. And most common someone known to the child.

Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.

Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.

Sincerely,

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

So there you have it, that is what the AFA want to do next, instead of actually paying to put up a good defence of their cause in court, they relied on myths and falsehoods and a poor performance. Sore losers, scaremongers and perjurers. Jumping straight to impeach rather than the Supreme Court shows desperation and a need to attack the LGBT, which only has two openly gay judges in the entire USA.

The Hardest Word Lacking Feeling: Jan Moir has Spoken Again

So Jan Moir has spoken again, below is her article in full with my comments in red. yeah I've pinched the format straight off Cardiff Blogger from her first article.

Last week, I wrote in this column about the death of Boyzone star Stephen Gately.

To my horror, it has been widely condemned as 'homophobic' and 'hateful'. Obviously, a great deal of offence has been taken and I regret any affront caused. This was never my intention. Interesting then that the whole opening tenant was to build up from Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger. Then to speculate about the demises of Robbie, Amy, Kate, Whitney and Britney.

To be the focus of such depth of feeling has been an interesting experience, but I do not complain. After all, I am not - unlike those close to Stephen Gately - mourning for the loss of a much-loved partner, son, family member and close friend. Oh yeah, that was clear they were prepaying to bury the guy the next day, when you wrote this piece, even casting aspirations at the mother saying her insisting of the family heart history was irrelevant.

To them, I would like to say sorry if I have caused distress by the insensitive timing of the column, published so close to the funeral. Pity you didn't think of distress in you timing of publishing.

The point of my article was to suggest that, in my honest opinion, Stephen Gately's death raised many unanswered questions. What had really gone on?

After all, Stephen was a role model for the young and if drugs were somehow involved in his death, as news reports suggested, should that not be a matter of public interest? You not heard of Richard Gasquet whose toxicology results indicated partaking in cannabis but was cleared after supposedly kissing a girl who had. I dread to think how my toxicology tests would look after delivering leaflets on certain estates.

We were told that Stephen died of 'natural causes' even before toxicology results had been released. This struck me as bizarre, given the circumstances. Actually you're own article said the lawyers stated they believed. Also those present had more idea of what actually went on leading up to that incident that you did, with your spurious remarks.

Absolutely none of this had anything to do with his sexuality. If he had been a heterosexual member of a boy band, I would have written exactly the same article. Well I doubt you would have had a go at civil partnerships, gay activists, mentioned the sad suicide of Kevin McGee. Nor the coming out story.

Yet despite this, many have interpreted my words as a 'bigoted rant' and suggested that my motive was to insinuate that Stephen died 'because he was gay'.

Anyone who knows me will vouch that I have never held such poisonous views.

It is worth stressing that the version of events I recounted in my column had already been in the public domain, having been described in detail in several newspapers. Surprising I remember reading that there was a three bedroom flat. That Dochev found Stephen on the sofa and went into Cowles room to wake him. Normally I find that leaving a bed I've shared with someone they would have been stirred no matter how careful I've attempted to be.

What had been reported about that night is that Stephen and his civil partner Andrew Cowles went to a nightclub and brought back a Bulgarian man to their apartment. Yeah as I've done numerous times with friends because otherwise I'm on the 23:18 home, no fun. I don't sleep with all of them as a result. Dochev had actually been a friend of the couples for years.

There were also reports of drug-taking. Yet the official report, the one that matters, denies drink or drugs were any part of it. Following this, it was reported that Cowles went to the bedroom with the Bulgarian, while Stephen remained on the sofa. The eye witness statements that Dochev went to a guest bedroom leaving the partners on the sofa, then woke Cowles in a different room. Such speculation is denied in a court of law. I have never thought, or suggested, that what happened that night represented a so-called gay lifestyle; this is not how most gay people live. Oh yeah, well you've jumped to your own conclusions, most of those press reports came before any toxicology tests and didn't feature on the official post mortem.

Rather, I thought it a louche lifestyle; one that raised questions about health and personal safety. Wow, guess I shouldn't be allowed to stand up then

There have been complaints about my use of the word 'sleazy' to describe this incident, but I still maintain that to die on a sofa while your partner is sleeping with someone else in the next room is Objection! (see above), indeed, sleazy, no matter who you are or what your sexual orientation might be. Again no. We have your partner and another asleep somewhere in the flat, you

My assertion that there was 'nothing natural' about Stephen's death has been wildly misinterpreted. Well seeing as the coroner said cause of death was natural, to even deny they was a natural enough cause places you in an area of unearned expertise.

What I meant by 'nothing natural' was that the natural duration of his life had been tragically shortened in a way that was shocking and out of the ordinary. Certainly, his death was unusual enough for a coroner to become involved. Anyone's sudden death that has not been seen by a doctor in the past week is referred for post mortem, d'oh.

As for Stephen's civil partnership, I am on the record as supporting same-sex marriages.

The point of my observation that there was a 'happy ever after myth' surrounding such unions was that they can be just as problematic as heterosexual marriages. Don't know where this happy ever after myth idea comes from. Nobody expects all civil partnerships to last just as nobody expects every heterosexual marriage to last, but we all hope that each one does.

Indeed, I would stress that there was nothing in my article that could not be applied to a heterosexual couple as well as to a homosexual one. What nothing? You sure? Care to reread, see above comment about linking a suicide to a death of this nature. Only link both gents happened to be gay. Would that have been applied to a heterosexual couple in the same boat?

This brings me back to the bile, the fury, the inflammatory hate mail and the repeated posting of my home address on the internet.

To say it was a hysterical overreaction would be putting it mildly, though clearly much of it was an orchestrated campaign by pressure groups and those with agendas of their own. Sorry Jan it wasn't orchestrated. My agenda would have been to end such hatred bile and uninformed opinion about the health issues as much as the homosexual ones. Indeed what was orchestrated was the Mail's campaign against Ross and Brand about their comments on Andrew Sachs and even that didn't have the same impact.

However, I accept that many people - on Twitter and elsewhere - were merely expressing their own personal and heartfelt opinions or grievances. This said, I can't help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged? Or was it a failure of communication on my part? Well answer that second question yourself....could you have worded it so that it didn't reek of bigotry and social intolerance? You covered a lot of ground and used a lot of phraseology that suggested the former. But you're paid for communication skills, as am I, you work it out.

Certainly, something terrible went wrong as my column ricocheted through cyberspace, unread by many who complained, no I read and reread it getting more disgusted with each reading yet somehow generally and gleefully accepted into folklore as a homophobic rant. I've seen some rants in my time and they were nowhere near as abhorrent, factual inaccurate and speculative as what you wrote.

It lit a spark, then a flame and turned into a roaring ball of hate fire, blazing unchecked and unmediated across the internet.

Yet as the torrent of abuse continued, most of it anonymous, I blog under my own name I also had thousands of supportive emails from readers and well-wishers, many of whom described themselves as 'the silent majority'. The outcry was not as one-sided as many imagine. A 'silent majority' of thousands. Wow! Must have been really underground I've seen very few people saying anything positive. Also was this majority more than the 25,000 who took time to write to the PCC.

Their view, and mine, was that it was perfectly reasonable of me to comment upon the manner of Stephen Gately's death, even if there are those who think that his celebrity and sexuality make him untouchable.

Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling. No. We put when they question the official reports, statements and even the words of grieving relatives irrespective of sexuality of the deceased we do. Add to that innuendo in the way the questioning is done and well...yes.

Finally, I would just like to say that whatever did or did not happen in Majorca, a talented young man died before his time. This, of course, is a matter of regret and sadness for us all. Hardly surprisingly a statement lacking from the original and failed to be said in your first response to this issue.

So after all that self justification no admission of factual inaccuracy. No acknowledgement that 12 young people do die of sudden coronary disease every week in this country. I've since learnt of a cousin of someone close who has also passed away at 20. No apology to Margaret Gately for inferring she is a liar about familial medical history.

There is an apology for the timing. But a failure to realise that the framing and language used really does look like a homophobic rant. The fact that a similar piece was carried by Christian Voice (run by a suspiciously similarly initialled person to Ms Moir's anonymous partner) and clearly was homophobic in intent does not bode well.

Sorry may be the hardest word, but Ms Moir has only used in relation to the timing of her article not its content, rumour mongering or emotive language.