Bill gets married

Friends on Facebook and Twitter already know this, but I recently got married (to a man, lest there be any smidgen of a doubt); we are very happy. Our wedding took place at the Registry Office in the Court House, Nairn on 29th February 2016; our very nice cake was made by Asher's and lunch followed at a nearby Chinese restaurant, The Dragon Pearl, all in the presence and company of friends, neighbours and relatives. Later that day we had a lovely dinner with family and friends at another local restaurant, The Classroom. Our quasi-honeymoon began the following day with a couple of days spent in Edinburgh, although we plan a somewhat longer vacation sometime later in the year.

Those who may be interested can view an online gallery of some of our wedding photographs in my personal website here.

Catholic "sky fairy" cult continues its campaign against same sex marriage in Scotland

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic "sky fairy" cult in Scotland has caused to be read out in all 500 parishes in Scotland the following subversive message, designed to enlist the followers of this cult to attempt to thwart the will of the elected Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') in its stated aim of legislating for same sex marriage in Scotland:

A Message for Marriage Sunday 26 August 2012 from The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland In all things, we as Catholics look to Jesus Christ as our model and teacher. When asked about marriage He gave a profound and rich reply: “Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, ‘made them male and female’, and said: ‘This is why a man must leave father and mother and cling to his wife and the two become one body’. (Matthew, 19: 4-5) In the Year of Faith, which begins this October, we wish to place a special emphasis on the role of the family founded on marriage. The family is the domestic Church, and the first place in which the faith is transmitted. For that reason it must have a primary focus in our prayerful considerations during this period of grace. We write to you having already expressed our deep disappointment that the Scottish Government has decided to redefine marriage and legislate for same-sex marriage. We take this opportunity to thank you for your past support in defense of marriage and hope you will continue to act against efforts to redefine it. We reaffirm before you all the common wisdom of humanity and the revealed faith of the Church that marriage is a unique life-long union of a man and a woman. In circumstances when the true nature of marriage is being obscured, we wish to affirm and celebrate the truth and beauty of the Sacrament of Matrimony and family life as Jesus revealed it; to do something new to support marriage and family life in the Catholic community and in the country; and to reinforce the vocation of marriage and the pastoral care of families which takes in the everyday life of the Church in dioceses and parishes across the country. For that reason, in the forthcoming Year of Faith we have decided to establish a new Commission for Marriage and the Family. This Commission will be led by a bishop and will be composed mostly of lay men and women. The Commission will be charged with engaging with those young men and women who will be future husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and with those who already live out their vocation to marriage and parenthood in surroundings which often make it hard to sustain and develop the full Catholic family life we cherish. We wish to support too, those who are widowed, separated and divorced and all who need to feel the Church’s maternal care in the circumstances in which they find themselves. The new Commission will promote the true nature of marriage as both a human institution and a union blessed by Jesus. The Commission will be asked to develop an online presence so that prayer, reflection, formation and practical information on matters to do with marriage and family life can be quickly accessible to all. It will also work to produce materials and organise events which will support ordinary Catholic families in their daily lives. During the course of the coming year we will ask for your support for these initiatives. Our faith teaches us that marriage is a great and holy mystery. The Bishops of Scotland will continue to promote and uphold the universally accepted definition of marriage as the union solely of a man and a woman. At the same time, we wish to work positively for the strengthening of marriage within the Church and within our society. This is an important initiative for all our people, but especially our young people and children. We urge you to join us in this endeavour. Pray for your own family every day, and pray for those families whose lives are made difficult by the problems and cares which they encounter. Finally, we invite you to pray for our elected leaders, invoking the Holy Spirit on them, that they may be moved to safeguard marriage as it has always been understood, for the good of Scotland and of our society.

My objective in quoting the text of this letter here is not, just to state the obvious, because I support it in any way, but because I think it is important for as many people as possible to read for themselves the full measure of the delusions that afflict this particular 'sky fairy' cult. Let no one ever forget that this is the same organisation which for decades in many of the countries in which it operates actively covered up the criminal misconduct of its paid operatives (aka 'priests') in their deviant paedophile activities involving children of both sexes, misguidedly placed under their care by parents and guardians. Supposedly this organisation has now 'cleaned up its act', but I remain sceptical and whatever changes it has made have been brought about solely by the threat of financial sanction, not because it has fundamentally changed its ethos of intimidation and control, as is amply demonstrated by this ridiculous and hateful 'pastoral' letter. For a religion which is supposed to stand for peace and support for the weak and downtrodden is in fact nothing more than a crude protection racket in the Roman Catholic 'cult' version of it.

Of course, adherents of this subversive cult have the right in our democratic society to believe whatever nonsense they choose to and even to promulgate their deluded ideas should they so wish, but it gives them absolutely no right to have any more attention paid to their notions than that accorded to any other citizens. Elected politicians are how we as a country choose to run our affairs and it is time that this subversive cult remembered this. The Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') will, I hope, carry out its stated policy of legislating for same sex marriage as soon as possible.

Separately, the UK government has held consultations on introducing similar legislation in England and Wales and will, no doubt, continue to be the object of similar tactics there on the part of the Roman Catholic 'sky fairy' cult; I hope the UK government will be just as resolute in standing up for democratic values.

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:

US President Obama 'comes out' in support of gay marriage

It is good to see US President Barack Obama finally affirm what have been thought to be his views on the issue of gay marriage (or his 'evolving' views) - that same sex couples should be able to get married. It has taken him some time to state this plainly, rather than couching his views in decidedly ambiguous language, but this is a sensitive issue in the US and in many other countries and of course it has certainly required some courage in a US Presidential Election year:



Here's a reasoned riposte to the recent passing, 2 days ago, of Constitutional 'Amendment 1' in the US State of North Carolina which outlaws any form of civil union other the marriage of one man to one woman, a very retrogressive step indeed. However, as this video-clip points out, North Carolina has 'form' when it comes to unpleasant legislation as it was only as a result of a Supreme Court ruling (the case of Loving v. Virginia) in 1967 that laws against inter-racial marriage were finally deemed unconstitutional and in North Carolina it was not until 1971 that the first legal mixed-race marriage took place:



One day soon I hope same-sex marriage will be allowed and uncontroversial in the US - and of course of more relevance to me in the UK, too.

PS/ I hope you find my little joke in the title of this article amusing.

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!

A video-clip religious bigots should be forced to watch ...

... to try and get it into their thick skulls that hatred and bigotry hurt real people. Yes, this is relevant to the consultation currently going on in Scotland about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and if so whether such marriages may take place in a religious setting or officiated over by religious bodies or whether they should be possible only without religious intervention. I'm not 'religious' in any way myself, but some people are and for them it is important. On the other hand I think it reasonable that particular religious bodies should not be obliged to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies if they do not wish to and I cannot imagine why any same-sex couple would wish to be married in circumstances where those conducting it objected to doing so, but that does not mean that religious bodies should have any kind of veto over allowing civil same-sex marriages. Tolerance needs to work both ways - and neither Scotland nor the UK generally are theocratic states, but secular democracies, even if we have the bizarre system of having 'established' churches.

Anyway, I came across this powerful video-clip today which, although obviously put together by a young American boy, is a very powerful testament to the types of consequences which can flow from the hateful beliefs of some religious bodies which they have been spewing forth these past weeks against the possibility of allowing any kind of same-sex marriage here:



(thru Boy Culture - relevant post here.)
- this boy, despite being bullied, taunted and made fun of because of the possibility he is gay and having indulged in 'cutting' and thought about suicide in response to the treatment he has received, has decided he isn't going anywhere. Far too many 'teens (specially male teens and young people) have committed suicide over the years for the same reason - read the statistics about suicide in Scotland.

In Nairn we have a weekly newspaper, published every Tuesday - The Nairnshire Telegraph does not have any online presence, so it is not possible to link to their articles, but one item they carry every week is a sort of 'moral homily' from some religious bloke signing himself 'Sandy Shaw - Nairn Christian Fellowship' and they are usually pretty trite, apart from being poorly written and full of logical non sequiturs. The article this past week was titled 'Marriage' and yes, it was about that old hobby-horse, religious objections to gay marriage. I reproduce the article below so you can read it for yourself, but I will be making a few comments about it further down this article:

The Nairnshire Telepgraph Tuesday, November 29, 2011 - page 6

Now to the fisking of this piece of tosh:

"For centuries, heterosexual marriage has been recognised across cultures as the most successful building block for sound solid society"

- I don't quarrel with the basic premise of this sentence, but the word "heterosexual" is completely superfluous, because it has been the only kind in recent centuries, but in those few countries where same-sex marriage already exists there is absolutely no evidence that this has led to societal breakdown or to heterosexual marriage being in any way diminished in value, one of the postulations put forward without any evidence by those who object to the concept of same-sex marriage. In any case, the modern concept of marriage does not have the deep roots in history which Sandy Shaw would have us believe; it has evolved over the centuries - and this is as true of same-sex as heterosexual marriage. Read more here.

"Marriage recognises and acknowledges the uniqueness of the complimentary genders of male and female, and their ability to produce children."

- I do not wish to be unnecessarily rude to ignorant fools like Sandy Shaw, but he really does need to learn the difference between "complimentary" and "complementary", the latter being the word he should have used. His statement, with that correction, seems at fist glance to be not completely nonsensical, but then of course we come to the not enormously rare number of cases where marriage partners (a man and a woman, just to be clear) do not have children, either through the incapacity of one or other or both to procreate or because one or the other or both does not desire to have children. It almost seems as if Sandy Shaw is implying that marriages without children are not valid marriages - I expect he would deny this interpretation hotly, but it is certainly a logical interpretation of what he has written.

His next sentence: "Jesus Christ honoured marriage and put his imprimatur upon this holy institution" is a matter of belief without any concrete historical evidence, but in modern cultures (including that of the UK) civil marriage is just as valid and legal as marriage under religious auspices and indeed in many countries (for example France and the Netherlands, of which I have personal knowledge) it is the civil ceremony which is required by law to make a marriage legal, with a religious ceremony following on only for those who wish to have one, but has absolutely no status under civil law.

"When people have asked if marriage will make any difference, where a couple are living together, one response has been, "It will make it right"." and "This move to redefine marriage marriage is far more serious than many realise"."

In his first sentence I wonder of Mr Shaw has thought through the implications of what he has written. It has been held, or I always thought it had been, that for a [heterosexual] couple to 'live together', specially if they procreate and have children, that such a couple is 'living in sin' from a Christian perspective. But as Mr Shaw must know, just as much has me, this has become an increasingly common occurrence in recent decades, whatever he or I may think about this, so to 'correct the matter' by formalising the relationship must surely be a 'good thing' in his terms? Of course one response has been that "It will make it right", but there may be other responses. Then he proceeds with his logical non sequitur in the second sentence, because the earlier sentence could apply equally to hetero-sexual marriage as to same-sex marriage. But why is it "far more serious"? Sandy Shaw makes that statement, but then of course blunders on with his article without providing any information to justify it.

"It has been suggested that Government has no right to redefine marriage. To do so would be acting ultra vires - acting beyond their powers and authority."

Well, many things have "been suggested", but it doesn't necessarily make it so and of course Mr Shaw provides no evidence to back up his statement, because of course there is none. The Government, provided it can get a Bill passed through Parliament (whether at Westminster or at Holyrood in the case of Scotland) and get the resulting Act signed into law by Her Majesty the Queen (which She does automatically, by convention, when Parliament passes Bills), can make whatever laws it chooses, with the only sanction being that a subsequent Government, after an election, might reverse or nullify that law. Those are the facts, Mr Shaw, so to "suggest" the Government "has no right" to redefine marriage or anything else is just idiotic. I could suggest the Earth is flat all I like, or that the Earth was created a mere six thousand years ago, but apart from in my own little fantasy world no-one else would have any obligation to take me seriously. Of course in Sandy Shaw's special 'fantasy world', merely making the suggestion makes it a fact, as he then goes on to talking about it being "ultra vires", as if his cod misuse of Latin makes his contention any more believable, or valid.

"If Government is so rash as to define marriage, then that is what will be taught in schools, and will be upheld by other public bodies, and woe betide anyone daring to be controversial or intolerant, by simply holding to the traditional biblical pattern.

Fair enough, Sandy Shaw may assert that such a change would be "rash", but of course he provides no evidence to back up the assertion. It used to be held that marriage between members of different races was somehow "wrong" - there was even a word for it "miscegenation", just like it used to be believed in some places that children of different races should attend different schools, or that people of different races should use different beaches or sit in different parts of buses. So, Mr Shaw, please provide some evidence to back up your assertion, but please don't peddle your bigotry and petty prejudices as having some kind of objective validity. As for "... holding to the traditional biblical pattern", well I hate to be the one to have to point this out to the delusiuonal Mr Shaw, but neither Scotland nor the rest of the UK are theocracies - people like Mr Shaw are free to believe whatever nonsense they wish, but until a theocracy is established in this country, his view on this matter is no more 'valid' than my 'belief' that green wine gums are somehow 'better' than orange ones, but I expect some others think the opposite, or that yellow ones are the best. It's a matter of opinion, nothing more.

"Take this one stage further. If marriage is legally redefined in this one area, why not polygamy."

Oh, I accept it could happen, but do not think it terribly likely - and indeed polygamy has existed at different times and in different cultures throughout human history. Really, Sandy Shaw is 'clutching at straws', or 'dredging the barrel' with this tired argument (and I apologise for my use of cliches, but I find it difficult to take people like Mr Shaw seriously).

I'm nearly reaching the end of this yawn-fest. His penultimate and before penultimate paragraphs are so logically chaotic that I think I will leave them to stand in their sublime meaninglessness, but his final sentence:

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."

is presumably his basic contention that "the country is going to the dogs" by considering a change to permit same-sex marriage, but as with the rest of his assertions he provides no corroborating evidence. People like Mr Shaw said similar things when buses were desegregated in the US South, or when women were campaigning for voting rights in the early part of the 20th century in the UK. Societies evolve. It is no longer considered 'sinful' to have clothes made of mixed threads or to eat shellfish or to eat milk and meat together, all things which are in his Christian Bible.

I usually glance at Mr Shaw's 'homilies' each week when I am in Nairn; they are all of a type - prejudice masquerading as 'morality'. His subject the week before was "Money", but I shall spare myself the penance of de-constructing that article and any readers the tedium of reading about it.

I hope the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') will, after its consultative programme, get with the 21st century and pass the Bill into law to allow same-sex civil marriage and permit those churches that wish to permit adherents to use their premises or personnel for this purpose to do so.

Obama on gay marriage and civil unions

Now that Barack Obama is about to become US President there is increasing scrutiny of the detail of what he has said about various political issues at various times and how his views may have 'evolved'.

I came across a very interesting look at how his views on the subject of 'gay marriage' have changed since 1996, when he was running for the Illinois State Senate for the 13th district. At that time he was quite clear that he supported 'gay marriage'. By 2004, however, when his transformation from a State to a national politician was beginning he had modified (see also here) his public views to say that he did not support 'full marriage' for gays, but instead supported 'civil unions', and his reasons for changing his views were quite clearly stated in terms of naked political strategy:

Q: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions? I am a fierce supporter of domestic- partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, ‘absolutely.' And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?', then suddenly ...

He was pinned down with further questions, eliciting these further remarks:

Q: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well. Since I'm a product of an interracial marriage, I'm very keenly aware of ...

This continued:

Q: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn't going to happen so you won't support it at this time? What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

And then:

If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage? I would oppose that.

According to Windy City Times he called later to clarify he was opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and that he proposed the two State bills (in 2004) banning same-sex marriage. WCT states that he has remained consistent with this 2004 view during his Presidential campaign. WCT concludes its report by writing: "A rose is a rose is a rose, but civil unions are not “marriage” unless 100 percent of the benefits are the same across all states and the federal government."

It will be instructive to see what he does now that he has the power and prestige of Presidential authority to back his views, even if such power is in practice limited by what he can get through Congress.

The wages of 'sin' ...

... is exposure. That pesky 'freedom of information' culture has bitten some fine pillars of the community who are bleating about being 'outed' (geddit? - lol) as having donated amounts above the disclosure thresh-hold to the 'Yes on 8' campaign in the recent elections in California (held concurrent with the Presidential election-cycle), the State Proposition which, since it was approved by a small majority of voters, has taken away the right of same-sex partners to marry there. Here's Frank Schubert, campaign manager for 'Yes on Proposition 8' moaning about the 'injustice' to his donors:

"It's really awful. No matter what you think of Proposition 8, we ought to respect people's right to participate in the political process. It strikes me as quite ironic that a group of people who demand tolerance and who claim to be for civil rights are so willing to be intolerant and trample on other people's civil rights."

Completely pathetic, Mr Schubert, and totally disingenuous! The reality is, as Fred Karger, a retired political consultant and founder of 'Californians Against Hate', who compiled lists of donors to the 'Yes on 8' campaign from publicly available sources has stated:

"My goal was to make it socially unacceptable to give huge amounts of money to take away the rights of one particular group, a minority group. I wanted to make the public aware of who these people are and how much they're giving and then they could make a decision as to whether or not they want to patronize their businesses."

People in the US, just like in the UK, are completely free to donate however much or little to whichever cause they wish to support, within the laws of the two countries. No one is suggesting any of the donors have broken any law. However, everyone (me and you and all the donors, as well as all the protesters) is ultimately responsible for whatever we do with our time on Earth. Larger donors, above the disclosure thresh-holds, are perfectly free to make their donations, but they should have thought about the potential consequences to their careers and businesses before doing so. Some of their customers (gay and no doubt many 'straight' customers too) might be disconcerted that a firm or a person they dealt with supported something so disgusting as taking rights away from one segment of the population. Why aren't these folks shouting to the roof-tops how glad they are to have supported a cause in which they believe? Or are they only happy to support bigotry and hate when they think they can remain in the shadows? Democracy and freedom of information imposes discipline as well as granting rights. Actions have consequences. Peaceful, noisy protests with as much publicity as possible are a necessary consequence.

The Mormon Church (which reportedly gave in excess of USD20mio), certain demographics (a high proportion of African-Americans for example), various dentists, accountants, veterinarians and diverse commercial firms (such as Container Supply Co., Inc. of Garden Grove, Calif., which gave USD250k) are now reaping the consequences of their vote for or financial support for this odious legislation. As Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry is quoted as saying:

"In any fight, there will be people who say things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying against this, that it's a terrible injustice. Anyone who steps into a political fight aimed at taking away fundamental rights from fellow citizens opens themselves up to criticism. The First Amendment gives them the right of freedom of speech and to support political views, but people also have the right to criticize them."

- I repeat, actions have consequences!

PS/ Read also these articles:
- Gay Group's Complaint Says Mormons Hiding Prop 8 Contributions;
- Bill Marriott: Marriott International did not contribute to the campaign to pass Proposition 8;
- Complaint filed over Mormon aid to Prop. 8.

Obama wins, unfortunately so does Prop 8 in California

Barack Obama is President-Elect and will become the 44th President of the US next January - it is a good result. Blog poll coverage is here (FiveThirtyEight) and the BBC coverage is here. I watched the evening's events in the US until a little after 3am GMT this morning, when it had become pretty clear Obama would win even if he hadn't yet reached the magic barrier of 270 Electoral College votes - I went to sleep happy.

Against this happiness, however, is the news from California that State Proposition 8 has succeeded with 3,854,984 (53.1 per cent) voting for it and 3,168,671 (46.9 per cent) opposing it, although as I've been watching the figures have been slowly changing, indicating that not all results are yet in, but if anything the scale of the defeat (for the 'no' vote) seems to be growing slightly - but see UPDATES below. As a result the right of same-sex couples to marry, granted by the California State Supreme Court only a few months ago, has been eliminated. If you compare the results map on that page, with the map of the California results for US President, the split between most of the coastal counties (Obama) and the inland counties (McCain) is starkly clear - with some of the crucial coastal or near-coastal counties (such as Orange County, Merced County, Stanislaus County, San Joaquin County, Sacramento County, Yolo County and Lake County) supporting Obama for President, but nevertheless supporting Proposition 8 to eliminate some citizens' rights); social liberality seems very much to be a function of being near the ocean.

UPDATE: (08.55 GMT) The Prop 8 result in California seems to be evolving, with the gap becoming somewhat narrower, so perhaps the final result will be less bad (if not different overall) than I had feared - visit the Prop 8 results page to see the latest position. (10.09 GMT) So far about 80.9 per cent of the votes are in, with the margin continuing to narrow, but probably not by enough. (13.54 GMT) Voters in both Florida and Arizona have voted to outlaw gay marriage in these two States.

George and Ellen get hitched - not to each other, I hasten to add!

Yes, George Takei - better known as 'Sulu' in the original Star Trek has married his partner of 21 years, Brad Altman, in a multi-cultural extravanganza; and how can I fail to feature the procession into the ceremony preceded by a kilt-clad piper!



Assisting were former Star Trek colleagues Walter Koenig ('Chekov') as best man and Nichelle Nichols ('Uhuru') as best lady.

Here's a very interesting interview George Takei and Brad Altman gave last month in which the topics of Star Trek, gay marriage and internment (George, a Japanese-American, was interned as a child during World War II) were discussed:



Thirdly, here's an interview with the two soon after their intention to marry first became known a couple of months ago:



... and finally, here's the lovely video, which I saw a week or so ago, of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi (see origin of her name here) homely yet glamourous wedding montage and the preparations for it, including a touching comment from Portia's mother, who had come from Australia for the wedding:



Not being in any way 'religious' myself, at least not so far as Christianity is concerned, it is of no interest to me personally whether the mechanism by which same-sex partners may legalise their relationships is by way of Civil Partnership (as we have had here in the UK for some years) or by way of Marriage (as has been legalised recently in California and a few other places in the US and elsewhere for a few years), but it is certainly important that same-sex partners be able to declare their relationships proudly and openly both before their own families and friends and before the state - and to accept the obligations and receive the benefits that accrue to any other legally partnered couple. It is a curious feature that in the US, where the state and religion are separated formally, that religion plays such a large part in most Americans' lives and the consequent importance that so many seem to attribute to the status of 'marriage', whereas in the UK, where religion has a formal role in the legislature, but our politics are almost wholly 'secular', that the status of 'marriage' is important only to the relatively small proportion of homosexuals for whom religion occupies an intergral place in their lives - for the rest, such as me, it is of no imortance, particularly as the regime of 'civil partnership' seems to me to provide a perfectly acceptable level of recognition. But that's not how it is for most of our American cousins, theoretically a constitutionally secular nation, created specifically in rejection of the monarchical regime which we in the UK continue to enjoy or endure (depending on your point of view), but which nevertheless bears on its currency the phrase 'In God We Trust'. It's a bizarre conundrum that affects in profound ways how our two countries operate, but in this context it is necessary to put aside all such deep analyses and simply wish George and Brad, and Ellen and Portia the happiest and most enduring marriages with their chosen partners. Congratulations!

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!

California Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

Tremendously good news coming out of the US and from various American bloggers (some serious, some whimsical).

The California State Supreme Court has struck down two state laws that 'limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman'; the ruling comes into effect in 30 days and was voted with a 4-3 majority. California Chief Justice, Ronald M. George, wrote the majority ruling:

"In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” he wrote, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

The ruling draws on a similar ruling of six decades ago overturning the then ban on miscegentation (marriage between persons of different racial groupings) and will make California only the second US state, after Massachusetts, to permit same-sex marriage. However, rulings in California often trigger changes elsewhere in the US and, ultimately, the rest of the western world. Our Civil Partnership Act in the UK already gives people much the same rights (and obligations) as marriage confers upon heterosexual couples, but for some the use of the word 'marriage' to authenticate their relationships will undoubtedly provide additional comfort.

California gay [and Republican] blogger Boi From Troy has several posts (earliest first) which are all worth reading:
A Day of New Beginnings?
Equality for All!

"I’m going to defer on the politics of this for now and just let everyone enjoy, discuss and revel. After thirteen years, today, I am fully a Californian."

"…for the first time in history…" (by a guestblogger)
Goodbye, Mister Tonight
Video: LA Press Conference on Historic Court Decision
Some YouTube videos of the event are available here and I embed the one featuring Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for your (I hope) pleasure and information:



The implications for the forthcoming US Presidential election are discussed in this New York Times analysis (registration required); California governor Schwarzenegger has already stated he will uphold the ruling and oppose any initiative to overturn it. I suspect that this ruling, however postively I and many others may view it, will trigger the same kind of odious electioneering practices that marred the last two Presidential elections - that's perhaps a worst-case scenario, but it's as well to be prepared.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders changes his tune on gay marriage

I read about this gentleman's change of heart a couple of days ago; OK, so a Republican mayor of a major city in the US decides to change his public stance on 'gay marriage', which he had formerly been opposed to. When campaigning in 2005 he had stood on a platform which included support for 'civil unions'. Here in the UK we have what are called 'civil partnerships', so I think that for at least some people outside the US the significance of the debate on the ways in which gay 'relationships' should be treated is not always fully understood. I don't profess to understand it fully myself. In any case I decided then that I had other things to think about than yet another Republican in America deciding to change his views on how to treat homosexuals.

Now I have decided to write about it, for reasons which will become clear if you care to read further. My immediate reaction when I read the original story was that someone with at least partially-negative views about homosexuality (he had supported 'civil unions' but opposed 'gay marriage') had changed his views because he was faced with a situation where he knew someone close to him, his daughter, who is homosexual and he had to confront the clash between her happiness and his own views. Of course I don't scorn his change of view (on the contrary, I welcome it), but I am somewhat cynical that he is brought to this change only now that he realises that his own daughter is 'one of them'! I well remember some years ago a neighbour and good friend (now dead, sadly) voicing very negative views about homosexuals, during which he said he had never met a homosexual. Perhaps he had never knowingly met one, although I thought even then that the level of naivete he was displaying was quite extraordinary; I wrote him a letter, which I'm forced to admit (neither with sorrow, nor with glee) that I did not hand to him - he was an old man in ailing health with an equally ailing wife, also now dead. I bit my tongue and remained silent. The implication from what I have written is that I am not fully 'out', which is the situation, although I suspect that many of my friends and acquaintances and certain members of my family have a pretty good idea of the situation and I know that a few read this blog from time to time.

Moving on. Here in the UK we have had 'civil partnerships' for the last few years. These provide, in legal terms, effectively the same levels of priveleges and obligations that come with 'marriage' for heterosexuals and a marriage is no different, legally, whether it is conducted in a church or registry office, or in recent years in any other place authorised to conduct marriages, mainly hotels and the like. The status granted by marriage or civil union is recognised throughout the entire UK, wherever it is conducted. The UK, whilst techincally a Christian country (and religion is protected and privileged in one way or another throughout the country), handles its religion in a fairly low-key manner. Politicians, except in Northern Ireland, are not in practice obligated to declare some kind of religious affiliation - generally speaking it is a matter of little or no account to most people.

In the US the situation is quite different. It is almost impossible to imagine a prospective politician not having to declare some kind of religious faith. The country may officially be 'secular', but 'In God we Trust' is the country's motto and appears on its banknotes. A lot of voters in the US appear to care deeply about religion and politicians have to bear this in mind, whatever their own inner beliefs might be - although I do not wish to imply that the beliefs they do profess are 'fake' in most cases. I am sure they are not.

Another difference is that in those [relatively few] places that allow 'civil unions' (or the even fewer that allow 'gay marriages') the extent of the rights that they grant is generally quite limited and certainly does not carry any weight outside the State where they took place. They give no right to any Federal benefits. The term 'marriage' in the US is linked in most people's minds with religion, even though civil marriages take place there, too. A far greater proportion of people in the US than in the UK claim some kind of personal religious faith.

I think it is in this context that the short speech given by the Mayor of San Diego needs to be viewed. He is I believe coming up for re-election relatively soon; it will be interesting to see how he fares, if he stands again. In any case the Governor of California, also a Republican, has consistently vetoed any attempt to make gay marriage state-wide, however 'moderate' he is said to be; it's nice to be accepted locally, I am sure, but if that acceptance stops at the city or State limits, then it's not really enough, any more than is the lack of access to Federal benefits. Call me a complete cynic, but I was rather disgusted by the level of emotion the Major displayed when making his speech - frankly it made me feel quite sick! I saw the video below on Jae's blog come back to what you know; he remarked that it did not require any comment (so I am left not actually knowing what he thinks about it - although as he is lucky enough to live in a committed relationship with a partner it is probably obvious). As this post shows I think it requires a great deal of comment, though - frankly I wanted to throw a cup of hot, scalding coffee over my computer as it was playing as a wild variety of emotions was swirling around my head! See what you think:

Andrew Sullivan stresses over his forthcoming 'big day'

I've been reading Andrew's blog more or less since he began it (indeed it was reading his blog that got me thinking I should start my own little blog, and I did so not long after). In recent posts he has alluded occasionally to the fact that he is about to get married (to his male partner, for the few people in the blogosphere who may be unaware that Andrew is an unapologetic gay man). In his post on the subject today, however, he writes about his feelings as he approaches the 'big day' and his pre-wedding 'jitters', specially because he will be saying his vows in the prsence of his own and his partner's supportive families. The fact that he is just about to get married has just hit him - and it's pretty extraordinary and wonderful that a gay couple can do this.

I've criticised Andrew over the past few years for quite a lot of what he has written (although of late when his blog moved first to Time and more recently to The Atlantic the quality of his writing, and the relevancy of his views, has improved dramatically), but on this occasion particularly, I'm extremely happy for him - I hope he and his husband-to-be will enjoy many more happy years together.

Civil Partnerships really are just like 'marriage' in the eyes of the law

This is the first case of a person being prosecuted for entering into a civil partnership with another person of the same gender whilst still married to a person of the opposite gender. The law regards this as bigamy, just as much as if it were a bigamous marriage. The lady who committed the offence, by lying that she was single both to her civil partner and to the registrar who solemnised their civil partnership, has been given an eight-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to do 100 hours community service.

Sad as this case may be for all concerned, I regard the court judgement as a very postive signal that civil partnerships have real status under the law and that the responsibilities they impose are just as important as the privileges they grant.

I wonder how long it will be before a case of bigamy occurs where a person who has already entered into a civil partnership goes on to contract a marriage without having first dissolved the civil partnership? Such is the diversity of human relationships that I suspect such a case will occur sooner or later.