Tag Archives: Homosexual

Lynne’s Gay Marriage fiasco!

21 Sep

So I thought under (Meow’s) suggestion I would actually start a blog and post when I can, so predictably; I thought I’d start with an equalities issue. Probably because I’m utterly obsessed with equalities issues and also because its really just struck me as the most bizarre event in the last couple of weeks. And boy I really did just think… “oh good grief…”

I’ve got to tell you, I was really proud to be amongst the first to sign Equal Love’s petition for the legalisation of Gay Marriage so Lynne Featherstone’s announcement regarding the legalisation of Gay Marriage was to my mind, probably the most important and symbolic change the coalition government has done so far. This is a ban which should have been lifted decades ago, or rather more accurately, should never have existed in the first place.

One thing to consider is that I always like President Obama, but I never converted to the cult that existed in his honeymoon period, simply because I did not believe that he was liberal enough for me. Then what happened? The end of don’t ask don’t tell happened…

Essentially these are two entirely different things, legalisation of Gay Marriage and an end to the crime of Sodomy in the military are two entirely different issues, but I’m in my heart of hearts an equalities activist so equalities and civil rights is always going to win me over, but why this specifically?

Because there is no glory in it at all. Seeing as the US is enormously more culturally segregated and partisan than the UK is by a country mile, its fair to say that US Republicans get tarred with the same brush, and that brush in many respect comes with a huge glob of religious fundamentalism, specifically Christian. Since anyone who like me has read the joy of joys that is the gospel according to Leviticus (its in the Bible), full well knows that homosexuality is called an “abomination” we can fairly accurately reflect that not only are US Republicans considered anti homosexual, they’re pretty much viewed as being on a pretty harshly homophobic platform. So what does this matter? Well personally I don’t like being insulted very much, but I’ve never really been called an abomination, so I think we can take it as read that overwhelmingly most homosexuals vote Democrat, there is of course actual evidence to support this, but you see my point I hope. In return deeply Christian or conservative voters who sway during elections might be compelled to be anti Mr Pres for sticking up for persecuted people.

So why do it at all?

Because at the end of the day there’s a difference between right and wrong. Some things are worth fighting for even if there’s no glory in it and even on the worst of occasions there is no hope. The same applies here, why do it?

Well Liberal Democrats customarily have strong support amongst the LGBT communities, unsurprisingly really considering we’ve been jumping up and down on every administration for decades to fix just this, amongst other things of course. Not to¬†diminish¬†the members of the LGBT communities that do vote Labour or even Conservative, because I know those that do, but the question here is more of a practical one. Sodomy is a crime in the US Military, principally it is illegal to be gay. As opposed to Civil Partnerships in the UK exist between same sex couples are recognised in law in almost exactly the same way as marriage, so easy win right? Everything’s fine?

Wrong. If you’re telling me its the same thing, then why do we legally have to use a different name out of respect for the institution of marriage? That is to my mind, pathetic and just plain abhorrent. There are subtle differences between the two but more than anything its simply the principle of the thing, you cannot reasonably ask someone to control who they fall in love with, certainly not between two consenting adults. So big win for equalities and everybody goes home a bit happier surely?

Apparently not…

We’ll skip the part that it has to go to consultation first, which I’m not wild about, but hey letting the public have their say could well improve the policy itself (we’ll get to that later), besides being the proud Liberal that I am, I must concede the right for people to oppose what seems utterly common sense to me. Hey its democracy, you gotta love it…

People are upset…

Who’s upset? Well Peter Thatchell apparently and some other equal rights campaigners. They have a few complaints.

 

  • It goes to consultation
Well that’s a bit tough I suppose, I have to live with it, so I suppose you do to. Price of democracy and all that…
  • Religious ceremony marriage is still universally banned
Yep, I’m with you and the Quakers on this one. If I believe, which I do that religion should play no part in the legislation or running of the state or government, I have to accept that until any religious organisation goes as far as to cause harm to another individual, government has no right to interfere with the running of it. More over Government shouldn’t be telling anyone what they can and cannot think on the matter.
  • Civil Partnerships are not open to heterosexual couples
Okay, now personally as a heterosexual man, I don’t have a problem with marriage at all, in fact one thing that I really want to do is get married, cos I’m a not so closet romantic. However there are people that just prefer the connotations of civil partnership rather than marriage to cement their relationship. That’s fine and its more than reasonable, however I suggest that’s a problem with an archaic and sweeping generalisation of marriage within society, which is a cultural thing that needs to evolve rather than just replace it, but hey I don’t really have a problem with Civil Partnerships at all.
So what really gripes me about the whole fiasco? The fact that those complaining are so adamant at utterly condemning the action by government. I had to take a breath at that point. As someone who believes in what these people are supposed to be fighting for tooth and nail, I actually find this condemnation absurd and more than a little offensive to be honest. I agree with these issues, but to me it is utterly ridiculous that we get to the point of finally overturning an utterly unacceptable legal ban that is heavily discriminatory, and all some campaigners want to do is attack Lynne Featherstone.
This is finally going to be overturned! Why are campaigners attacking the very people who are trying to help them? If its to score political points then my patience with these “friends” of mine is going to wear thin. The law being put forward is not perfect, but in reality they very rarely are. Even my beloved human rights act is not perfect, but that’s life. So how about we all use this upcoming period of consultation for what its supposed to be for? Lets allow the government to consult with us and try and fix these issues before it becomes law. Let’s just stop bickering and get it done.
Advertisements