Scottish Parliament votes overwhelmingly for same-sex marriage

(Please see UPDATE at end)

Today, 4th February 2014, is an historic day in Scotland, because today the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly for same-sex marriage, or more colloquially for "equal marriage". The negative amendments proposed for the 3rd reading of the Bill (formally known as the "Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill") were all rejected and the Bill, once it has been given Royal Assent, will become law.

With this vote, Scotland becomes the 17th country in the world to legislate for same-sex marriage.

As mentioned earlier, the vote in the Scottish Parliament today was massively in favour of this legislation, with 105 voting for and only 18 against (* - see below).

In a post-vote video-message the Scottish Government's Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing welcomed the vote:

- according to what Alex Neil MSP said, the Scottish Government will now be working with the UK Government at Westminster to ensure that the first same-sex marriages can take place in Scotland before the end of 2014. It will be recalled that the UK Parliament at Westminster has already legislated for same-sex marriage in England and Wales and it is likely that the first such marriages will take place there during the first half of 2014; Royal Assent for this legislation was granted during July 2013.

Unfortunately the Northern Ireland Assembly has not so far proposed similar legislation for Northern Ireland and from what I can gather has no current plans to do so, but at least in the other three parts of the United Kingdom (England, Wales and now Scotland) this welcome legislation is now almost in place - Royal Assent has already happened for the England and Wales legislation and I expect similar Royal Assent will be granted for Scotland quite soon. I mention Northern Ireland not to be negative on this joyous day, but simply to highlight that the job is not yet finished and that efforts must continue to ensure that all parts of the UK legislate for equality.

* - Once I have full details of the "105 for / 18 against" votes I will add an update at the end with relevant information.

See also:
- Equality Network: Scotland Legalises Same Sex Marriage;
- BBC: "Scotland's same-sex marriage bill is passed"

UPDATE (Tuesday 4FEB2014 22.35 CET) I now have full voting information for today's vote in the Scottish Parliament - please see full details here. The 18 who voted against the Bill were as follows:
Dr Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Gavin Brown (Lothian) (Con)
Roseanna Cunningham (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Fergus Ewing (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con)
Richard Lyle (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Siobhan McMahon (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con)
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Dave Thompson (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
(SNP - 7, Conservatives - 8, Labour - 3)
- seemingly there were 6 out of 129 MSPs who did not vote or who abstained;
- see some reactions to the vote here.

The consequences for the Conservatives if ..

.. some Conservative MPs succeed in derailing the Coalition Government's plans to legislate for same-sex marriage. Well, it is difficult to know for certain, but what is absolutely clear is that I shall never vote Conservative again if they do succeed.

Over the past few days there seems to have been concerted action by a number of Conservative MPs who oppose same-sex marriage to galvanise opinion amongst fellow Conservative MPs so that they will vote next week to oppose the proposed legislation to allow it. They have asserted that if such a measure is approved a Conservative majority government will be impossible in future. A prominent 'spokesman' for this point of view has been David Burrowes MP (Conservative, Enfield-Southgate), for example here (published in the Telegraph on Friday, 1st February) - I heard him on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 on Friday morning pushing this line of reasoning. Against this line of reasoning one has the Prime Minister, David Cameron, stating that he supports same-sex marriage not despite the fact that he is a Conservative, but because he is a Conservative, a point of view shared by gay Conservative MP Nick Herbert, who believes (as do I, to be clear) that: "A much bigger danger for the Conservatives is to go the same way as the Republicans in the US, losing by failing to see that society has changed and with it attitudes to gay people."

Against those Conservatives, such as Mr Burrowes, who say the 'sky will fall in' for the Conservative Party if gay-sex is legislated for (a doubtful assertion in my view) is the sure certainty that people like me, who resigned from the Conservative Party in 2001 when Iain Duncan Smith became its short-lived and disastrous leader and who has voted for the Conservatives only sporadically since or abstained, will never ever vote Conservative again if MPs such as Mr Burrowes succeed in derailing this vote and very probably will, in addition to merely abstaining (by 'spoiling' my vote) as I have occasionally done in recent elections, will very probably vote for another political party completely, specifically one that has the chance of damaging the Conservatives the most. (Point of information - I live in a part of the UK where a Conservative MP, or MSP, is never likely to be elected, except under the MSP 'list' category, however.)

In summary, I would love to be able to return to being a Conservative Party member as I consider it to be the best manager of the UK economy in the long term, but nor will I be so masochistic as to support a Party when, even today, too many of its members seem to despise gay people. Demographics clearly show that opposition to same-sex marriage is highest amongst older voters, whereas younger generations are much more favourably inclined toward it, or at worst indifferent. My hope is that sufficient Conservative MPs will see where their own long-term interests are by reflecting more accurately the views of British society as it is now, rather than what it may have been 30+ years ago and what they wish it still was, and instead voting overwhelmingly for the legislation supported by the Prime Minister, by voting for the future and for the personal liberty and freedom that has been the hallmark of progressive Conservatism over the decades.

Logically the Conservatives should have won a handsome majority 2010, against one of the most unpopular (Labour) governments and Prime Ministers (Gordon Brown) in living memory, but did not do so because of the residual memory of the Conservatives as the 'nasty' party, because of some of its retrogressive policies - despite the desire of people like Mr Burrowes to resurrect the failed socially conservative policies of people like Iain Duncan Smith and others who think like him, the electorate has clearly rejected this course. People like Mr Burrowes are, to be realistic, 'flogging a dead horse' electorally speaking - it's time they recognise this.

Spain's Constitutional Court again upholds gay marriage law

Spain's Constitutional Court has once more upheld the 2005 law granting same-sex couples the right to marry, with 8 voting for and 3 against with one judge abstaining.

This follows on from the similar vote earlier in the year, which I wrote about here.

As I wrote in that earlier article, doesn't Mariano Rajoy have more important things to worry about than attempting to reverse gay-marriage laws, for example getting the Spanish economy back into some semblance of order?

(NB/ This article is cross-posted from my Spanish blog casabill.blogspot.com)

Rajoy's attempt to reverse gay-marriage law rejected by Spain's Constitutional Court

(Please see UPDATE at end)

Spain's economy may be in a complete shambles, but at least some sense still prevails. The Constitutional Court has rejected an appeal by the governing Partido Popular and President ('Prime Minister') Mariano Rajoy against the 2005 change in the law which permitted same-sex marriage on the grounds that it was 'unconstitutional', asserting at the time the law was changed that it flouted article 10.2, relating to protection of the family, women and children. Of course he ignored the fact that a ban on same-sex marriage would constitute gender discrimination, and segregation on the grounds of sexuality, two situations forbidden by the Constitution.

I may think that Zapatero's PSOE was a lousy manager of Spain's economy (just as was the last Labour government in the UK), but both introduced reforms of the law which brought their countries into the forefront in terms of granting badly-needed rights to enhance the equality of their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.

It is great to know that the Spanish Constitutional Court is prepared to stand up to the government when it seeks to deprive a segment of the population of recently-won and hard fought-for rights. I recall at the time the last government introduced the change how vehement was the opposition of the then opposition and the Roman Catholic church. We are seeing exactly the same opposition to the changes currently under discussion in the UK from the very-same Roman Catholic church. Although Spain is nominally a Catholic country, whereas the UK is not, both are modern democracies which have, fortunately, moved well beyond the crude propaganda efforts of the Church and neither is a theocracy, a concept the main churches in both countries (Catholic and CofE respectively) will just have to learn to live with!

And referring back to the first line of this article, doesn't Mariano Rajoy have more important things to worry about than attempting to reverse gay-marriage laws, for example the urgent task of sorting out the Spanish economy, which still has a very long way to go (quite frankly)?!

(NB/ This article is cross-posted from my Spanish blog casabill.blogspot.com)

UPDATE (Wednesday 7NOV2012 06.41 GMT) Spain's Constitutional Court has re-affirmed the 2005 law granting same-sex couples the right to marry. See later post here.

I'm Out4Marriage - are you?

As part of the Government's consultation process on the advisability of changing the law to allow same-sex civil marriages, campaigns have been started by people who hold opposing viewpoints on the matter. This article is about those who support a change in the law (you can find out about the other side - those who oppose permitting same-sex marriage - for yourself, if you are interested).

I support the concept of same-sex marriage. Period. My only 'disagreement' with what the Government is proposing is that same-sex religious marriage should also be permitted, for those religious bodies which wish to carry out such ceremonies (and there are many) and I fully accept, without any quibble whatsoever, that those religious organisations that oppose such unions should not be obliged to carry them out.

In any case, many individuals have been happy to add their support for same-sex marriage and have recorded video-clips in the support of the Out4Marriage campaign and you can see the play-list of those who have done so, so far, here in the YouTube website. I high-light two of those who have so far added their support:

Theresa May, MP - Home Secretary


Desmond Swayne, MP - Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, David Cameron


So far there are 103 video-clip recorded in this series, many from quite well-known people in politics (of many political view-points), or business, etc.

Equality is for everyone and those who oppose equal marriage rights for same-sex people are on the wrong side of history - I am pretty certain that in fifty years time it will seem just as bizarre to most people that same-sex marriage was once not permitted, just as most today find it difficult to comprehend why equal votes for women were once not permitted, why inter-racial marriage was once not permitted in some places, why equal rights irrespective of race, creed or colour were once not recognised in many countries. It really is that simple.

If you support the idea that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry if they wish, please sign the petition to support this by visiting the website of the Coalition for Equal Marriage here. Finally, to those who say that Civil Partnerships already give the same rights as marriage, the sad truth is that this is not entirely so and that there are important differences between the two which generally disfavour Civil Partnerships; the following video-clip explains clearly some of the disadvantages of a Civil Partnership when compared with a marriage:

If you support same-sex marriage, show your support!

The UK Government is currently consulting on whether to allow same-sex [civil] marriage. It is the stated policy of the current (Coalition) Government that same-sex marriage be legislated for and the Prime Minister, David Cameron, has stated that he is personally in favour of same-sex marriage because he is a Conservative, not despite being a Conservative.

I have signed the petition organised by the Coalition for Equal Marriage calling for same-sex marriage to be legislated for - you can sign the C4EM petition here.

I have also completed the Home Office consultation survey - you can complete it too, by visiting the relevant part of the Home Office website here.

The legislative proposals put forward by the Government provide only for same-sex 'Civil' marriage, in other words it does not contemplate allowing same-sex marriage in a religious context, even where a particular religious organisation would be happy to do so. I think this is wrong and that religious organisations which wish to do so should be allowed to. I do not think that any religious organisation should be forced to conduct same-sex marriages if this would be in conflict with its theology - any more than certain religious organisations currently are forced to conduct heterosexual marriages under certain circumstances which they find objectionable (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church will not consecrate marriages where one partner is divorved or has a former marriage partner who remains alive). However, the legislative proposals by the Government are a huge step forward and should be strongly supported, even if they are perhaps not the ideal solution.

I urge you strongly to sign the petition and to complete the Home Office Consultation survey without delay!

Conservatives trying to have it both ways on gay rights

One has to wonder whether the Conservative Party has really changed or not. This latest revealing comment by shadow home secretary Chris Grayling seems to me to be trying to having it both ways on gay rights. He tells a sympathetic audience what they want to hear - that he is 'on their side' and supports the right of those who maintain bed&breakfast establishments to refuse accommodation to people based on their sexuality and [that he] wanted to be "sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups". Then he goes on to say he does not want to see a change in the law.

But the law, Mr Grayling, currently says [the relevant law is - the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007]: no one should be refused goods or services on the grounds of their sexuality.

Is this 'dog whistle' campaigning a warning that a future Conservative Government might seek to change the law to water down legislation to weaken the equality afforded by the law to gay people?

What I find particularly alarming is the comment made by a Conservative party spokesman that Mr Grayling had made it : "absolutely clear that in this day and age, a gay couple should not be turned away from a hotel just because they are a gay couple.". What Mr Grayling has done, and the Conservative Party spokesman has not refuted this, is to try and draw a distinction between different kinds of business offering accommodation for payment - between hotels and guest houses and/or bed&breakfast. Many establishments calling themselves hotels fulfil the dual role of being the home (and property of) the hotel-keeper. Where would such establishments fit into the world as envisaged by Mr Grayling?

I really do think the Conservative Party needs to repudiate Mr Grayling's comments clearly and unequivocally, or the suspicion will be left that the Conservative Party has not, in actual fact, changed very much at all and would not hesitate to reverse and/or weaken equality legislation if it thought it could get away with!

PS/ Mr Grayling's subsequent attempts to 'clarify' his statement only serve to 'muddy the waters' further. The current law is quite clear and Mr Grayling says he does not wish to change it. So what exactly does wishing to be 'sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups' mean, Mr Grayling. What practical effect do you seek to see brought about and how can this be achieved within the current legislation, which you say you do not wish to see changed?

Why doesn't he just come out (ho! ho!) and admit that he was caught out by an undercover recording revealing his prejudices and is now trying to row-back furiously from them, whilst passing a message to religious bigots that he really does support them?

I'd be really pleased if someone could point me to any misanalysis in my article.

Scottish Parliament likely to pass new hate crime law

The BBC report linked to states: 'The Offences Aggravated by Prejudice (Scotland) Bill, which would have the effect of widening the definition of hate crimes, would bring Scotland into line with the rest of the UK.' Also included in the report is this: 'The effect of the new law, Under the legislation, crimes motivated by hatred of gay or disabled people would be considered as aggravated offences.'

I may not be a supporter of the Bill's sponsor, Green MSP Patrick Harvie, but I see passage of this Bill as an unequivocal 'good thing'. The Conservatives, however, are as usual on the wrong side of history apparently as they opine idiotically, according to the report: '... it could create a two-tier justice system, allowing some victims to gain more rights than others'.

If the article reports the Conservative view accurately then what they seem to be saying sounds suspiciously, whisper it please, 'socialist', for they seem to want all victims to suffer 'equally' - have no real idea what they are trying to say here, but it sounds like the worst kind of Labour-lite nonsense.

Earlier reports here and here amplify the debate about this Bill, from the latter of which the antediluvian views of [Scottish] Conservative Justice Spokesman Bill Aitken may be gleaned. It really is time the Conservatives 'get with the programme' and stop trying to dress-up naked prejudice and bigotry as a worry about equality - it doesn't wash! Will I vote 'Conservative' tomorrow in the European elections - I had more or less decided to, but now I'm not so sure.

David Davis and his voting record on gay issues

There has been a controversy in the blogosphere over the past couple of days over whether or not David Davis is a 'homophobe'; an earlier related article there has now disappeared (heading: "David Davis 'wells up' at civil-partnership ceremony" - first lines of text: "Political blogger and newspaper columnist Iain Dale has revealed this week how his civil partnership ceremony, which took place on Sunday, brought a tear to the eye of senior tory David Davis.").

Whatever David Davis is or is not, his voting record in the House of Commons on matters affecting homosexuals is very clear; he has voted against most changes (i.e. liberalisations) affecting homosexuals and on the remaining votes he was absent. He seems never to have voted for any changes affecting homosexuals.

His voting record on other topics can be accessed here.

From the updates to the first link above, written by someone who knows David Davis well, it would appear that in his personal dealings with gay people he is courteous and friendly and any suggestion that he is 'homophobic' is strongly disputed by that person (just as a few years ago he disputed that John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia at the time, was a 'homophobe'). However, as a legislator, David Davis has used his vote in the legislature either to oppose gay rights or to abstain on such votes, just as John Howard did in Australia when he was in power. To put it mildly there is some kind of dichotomy going on here!

None of this detracts from the fact, however, that on anti-terror laws and ID Cards, David Davis has voted moderately or strongly against the Labour government's proposals to tighten controls. He voted against the proposal to extend detention without trial to 90 days, but he did vote for 28 days, so his record is not entirely 'clean', quite frankly.

I do not resile from my strong support for his stance on the specific issue of the erosion of civil liberties, though, but it would be quite wrong to be deluded into believing David Davis to be some kind of 'libertarian', for it has for many years been quite obvious that he is no such thing.

California Dreamin' ...

... and now, for Californians, the dream is a reality!



Yesterday at 5.01pm local time, same-sex marriages became legal in California (free registration may be required). There was celebration and criticism.

Unlike in other jurisdictions in the US where gay marriage is permitted, California will allow Americans from out-of-state to avail themselves of the new legislation. It may all come to an end in November if opponents get a question added to the ballot. I hope that won't happen and if it does I hope it will be rejected. Whatever happens, though, there will be several thousand legal gay marriages by then, almost impossible to roll back! It's a good day!

Police State Britain - the fightback begins!

David Davis is not my favourite Conservative politician, largely because of his long-standing rigid views on social matters (judging by his voting record in the House of Commons on equality issues affecting the gay community) and his championing of the Conservative policy to repeal the Human Rights Act if elected, deliberately conflating this as a creation of the EU, when its origin is the ECHR, which pre-dates the EU/EEC several years and was largely drawn up by British lawyers in the aftermath of World War II.

However in resigning as an MP to force a by-election on the issue of the growth of the 'police state' and 'surveillance society' largely created by the Labour government since it came into power in 1997, I suspect he may have found the issue he was always destined for and I applaud wholeheartedly his principled stand on this vital issue, even if I am under no illusion that his views on social matters are likely to have changed much; indeed this issue is addressed squarely here. His resignation announcement yesterday was certainly a powerful indictment of Labour and its attemtps to push through increasingly authoritarian measures of which the latest is the attempt to legislate for 42-day detention without charge:



This would be an extension the already far too long 28-day period which, worryingly and perplexingly, Mr Davis seems to have supported. I think he has to clarify why he thinks that the 3-day detention period, which had existed for a long time, was no longer good enough, considering that we have had two major wars in the 20th century and more recently considerable domestic terrorist activity over the status of Northern Ireland. From what I understand there are adequate emergency powers available to government to cater for dramatic situations, without the need to legislate to lock people up for increasingly long periods (3 to 14days, 14 to 28 days, a failed attmept to go from 28 to 90 days, now from 28 to 42 days). Having said all this, David Davis's desire to widen this to cover the whole issue of increasing State surveillance of citizens certainly strikes a chord with me; I have been writing about the dangers of Police State Britain for some years. It is good to see him joining the battle to oppose this in such a personal and courageous way. Nevertheless I hope someone will ask him detailed questions about his current view on the Human Rights Act; perhaps it requires modification, but certain basic protections it enshrines in law must not be jeopardised, such as those which proect the LGBT community.

Finally no-one should be fooled by Labour attempts to portray David Davis as 'unhinged' or that the Conservative Party is in 'disarray'; unlike the quasi-Stalinist outfit that Labour is, the Conservatives accept people may have different views on detailed policy issues, but I doubt very much that this present situation constitutes 'disarray' for them. Labour's propaganda spin should be seen for what it is - a government that has run out of ideas and is lashing out in its death-throws. I do believe that much of the British media and 'political class' have fallen for Labour's ridiculous posturing; I think the greater perspective of some of the foreign press, at least, is much more balanced.

Al Gore on gay rights and equality before the law

This is a remarkable rebuttal of the 'family values' argument often used in the US (and indeed in the UK by some people) to justify not permitting gays and lesbians to have equality before the law in all spheres:

"Shouldn't we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one's partner regardless of sexual orientation?"

Frankly I have never before heard a senior politician in any country express the views Al Gore expresses quite so candidly and unambiguously.





Before I get carried away, though, Al Gore has the 'luxury' of not standing for office and not having to win the votes of many people who would not be prepared actually to vote for someone expressing the views he does now. A luxury granted him by his status as a former Vice President and more recently by his quasi-elevation to 'secular sainthood' since becoming a Nobel Prize winner. I doubt very much if any of the current batch of potential Presidential candidates in the US, whether Democrat or Republican, would be prepared to endorse, far less emulate, Al Gore as they would know, probably quite rightly, that it would be electoral suicide; the same could probably be said of most politicians in the UK, too, even in a country which already has Civil Partnership legislation in the statutes. Unhappy as I am to write this, it is the bald truth. Very good to see it though and even if he's not standing for election nevertheless quite courageous.
(thru Andrew Sullivan)

Saudi Arabia may permit women to drive

One of the curiosities of living in Saudi Arabia (Jeddah in my case) many years ago was that women were not permitted to drive; that is still the case today, around thirty years later! Of course this caused frustration to women and I certainly know that many of the foreign women whom I knew (mainly the wives of colleagues or friends working for other companies or embassies) led rather bored lives because they weren't allowed to work either - a few did manage this trick, indeed we had a few working for our company, but very definitely on a 'need to know' basis. But of course some younger Saudi women, and their husbands, were also frustrated at the restrictions they lived under, specially those who had attended universities in either Europe or the US, and they used every opportunity to escape for a few weeks to other counrtries where they could be rather more relaxed. At home they had to conform - although a few did try and bend the rules, with young husbands allowing their young wives to drive on isolated roads. Fine until the religious police caught up with them - I witnessed that at the 'Creek' just north of Jeddah on quite a few occasions.

Anyway, it appears that a very slow programme of 'softening up' the Saudi population to the possibility that women might one day soon be permitted to drive seems to be making progress. The Telegraph reports today recent comments by the Deputy Information Minister, Abdulaziz bin Salamah:

"In terms of women driving, we don't have it now because of the reticence of some segments of society. For example, my mother wouldn't want my sister to drive. "It's something she cannot grapple with. But there is change on the way. I think the fair view is that one can be against it but one does not have the right to prevent it."

Limited as this is, and however bizarre it would seem if it were sopken by a government official in almost any other country on the planet in the 21st century, I nevertheless recognise that it does represent a kind of progress in this very traditional Moslem (Wahhabi) society. Comments attributed to Mohammad al-Zulfa, a reformist member of the Saudi consultative Shura Council, indicate that he considers the possibility of reversing the driving ban to be part of a "clever" strategy by King Abdullah to bring about incremental reform:

"When it was first raised, the extremists were really mad. Now they just complain. It is diminishing into a form of consent."

Not everybody is convinced by these modest steps toward change! A letter in al-Watan ('The Nation') newspaper illustrates this only too clearly:

"Allowing women to drive will only bring sin. The evils it would bring - mixing between the genders, temptations, and tarnishing the reputation of devout Muslim women - outweigh the benefits."

Certainly when I lived there in the late 1970s I think such attitudes were pretty commonplace amongst most Saudis (possibly not some of the younger senior Princes and the growing numbers of the foreign-educated middle classes and merchant classes, though, but they generally kept their views on such matters strictly to themselves) and whilst I would wish to see the ban on women driving there to be dropped at once I think one has to recognise that the tensions in Saudi society probably mean that a process of gradual change is the correct one.

Not too gradual, however, I hope! Let's wait and see if the ban is overturned before the end of this year as the article indicates may happen - I hope it will be, but I'll not be terribly surprised if it remains in place for a while longer after that.