On the resignation of Tim Farron as Leader of the Liberal Democrats

This is my brief "editorial" ['pretentious' - Ed.] on the resignation earlier this evening of Tim Farron as Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party:

If religion hadn't historically tried to impose its will on society, often by physical force and often by social pressure (very often even more powerful in controlling a gullible population), sceptics wouldn't be so fearful of the menace it has too often represented when it gains the upper hand.

Tim Farron [may feel he] has been harshly treated or at least "misunderstood", and to a certain limited extent even I, as a gay man, would tend to agree that he has, but one cannot divorce what has happened from the historical context of how religious dogmas have always behaved if they thought they could. It's not so long ago that one of the country's greatest heroes (Turing) was chemically castrated, because at that time merely being homosexual was a crime, largely based I would argue on the influence of the Christian religion in framing the country's laws then, and now another of these wacko religions (Islam, lest there be the merest scintilla of doubt to what I refer), because it can, is throwing gay men off of buildings, and consigning women to slavery.

To be clear, I don't think Tim Farron is any kind of danger as an individual, but the kind of thinking his beliefs represent, if they had the upper hand, petrifies me.

So Tim Farron has taken the, in my view, somewhat petulant decision to stand down from the Leadership of the Liberal Democrat Party and ended with the jibe that this is because the country is not truly 'democratic', nor 'liberal'. This is nonsense. The harsh reality is that a significant proportion of the population in many of what are self-described as "advanced societies" no longer 'believe in' nor are prepared to be dictated to by religion. If he had clearly said what his own personal views/beliefs are, when asked about it, but that this would not be used to influence his views on public policy, I think that would have defused the matter completely, indeed his own voting record in Parliament is pretty "respectable" in this regard. Instead however he repeatedly shied away from simply stating what his views are. So he has been somewhat harshly treated, but his own reaction to the pressures he has felt he has faced have been "sub-optimal", to put it mildly. And so he "exits stage left" from the political stage of party leadership.

NB/ I have deliberately avoided touching on his views on 'Brexit', by the way (about which he never stopped speaking); if he had been similarly open about his views on certain aspects of his religious beliefs, I do not think he would have landed up in this dilemma of his own making.

My take on the "Gay Pardons" campaign

A campaign to "pardon" about 49,000 men who were convicted under laws outlawing male homosexuality (no such law ever existed for females) has recently begun to achieve a much higher profile than formerly, specially since the brilliant code-breaker Alan Turing was the object of a public "unequivocal apology" by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown MP in 2009, then in 2013 he was granted a Royal Pardon by Her Majesty the Queen. Alan Turing died by suicide in 1954, after having been convicted of "gross indecency" in 1952 and offered a choice of prison or "chemical castration" as punishment for his crime (i.e. what was considered a crime at the time).

The basis of the campaign, apart from being a desire to right a wrong, or "gross indecency" (geddit? -Ed) in fact in the law then and its application, is because it is contended (rightly in my view) that every person convicted under this unfair law was just as wronged by it as was Alan Turing. A new film production of the life of Alan Turing, called The Imitation Game, starring Benedict Cumberbatch who plays the role of Alan Turing, has obviously raised the profile of this historic injustice.

So, what do I think of all this? Well I am generally in favour of the campaign, although I have certain reservations about it and similar pardons for other historic injustices. Specifically, Alan Turing was driven to commit suicide in 1954 by the atrocious treatment meted out to him. Comforting as it may be to some of his family now living for this recognition of the wrong he suffered, he is himself no longer in a position to care one way or the other. A wrong has been done which can NEVER be righted, however many times a government of our time says "sorry" or Her Majesty grants a Pardon, no doubt issued on the recommendation of the government in place in 2013 under David Cameron, as it tries to make amends.

The same applies to any of the other 49,000 who are, like Alan Turing, dead. If any of these individuals are still alive then a Royal Pardon might have some real value to them, but for those of them who are dead it serves no real purpose, other than to try and salve the conscience of "the country" collectively. As readers here know, I am a cynical soul, so I cannot refrain from pointing out that one of the principal reasons, in my opinion, for waiting until most or all of these individuals are dead is because compensation claims can be avoided. Granting the Pardon during a person's lifetime would almost inevitably leave the government open to substantial compensation claims.

I feel the same about other historic apologies or Pardons where those directly affected are no longer alive (e.g. US citizens of Japanese descent automatically interned during WWII without looking at individual cases, similar internments of German citizens here during WWII, including some Jewish people who had fled Germany to save their lives).

No, what would be of more value, would be cessation of certain government policies today that are just as awful, for example the repatriation of asylum seekers who are gay to countries where homosexuality is not tolerated, with the near certainty that such people will be abused or in extreme cases even executed in their home countries:
- Two gay asylum seekers deported from UK (a case from 2008);
- Ugandan woman branded by iron over sexuality faces deportation from UK (a case from 2011);
- Report tells Home Office: Don’t ask gay asylum seekers ‘sexually explicit questions’ (report from October 2014).
(Whilst I accept it may be difficult to ascertain fully if claims by an asylum-seeker that he or she is homosexual and in genuine fear of returning back to their home country for that reason are true, we know enough about the policies and practices in many of the relevant countries to be sure of what would probably happen if their homosexuality were to be discovered; telling someone to "behave discreetly" so as not to draw attention to himself or herself is laughable and insulting. It seems that the desire of mainstream political parties of the left and right to placate the "anti-immigration lobby" and political Parties such as UKIP is perhaps making our government blur the lines of what is acceptable.)

In summary, it is all very well for our government to issue rather meaningless apologies and Pardons to people who are for the most part dead, but a more concrete illustration of a real change in behaviour would be the righting of current rather than historic wrongs as they relate to homosexuals. In other words, by all means Talk the Talk, but you must also Walk the Walk.

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!

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.

US Senate votes to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"!

I break my blog hiatus briefly to report on the historic votes today in the US Senate, earlier to defeat a fillibuster motion sponsored by Republicans (63/33) and later to vote for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (65/31); the US House of Representatives had already voted for repeal. Now the bill will have to be signed into law by President Obama, but he has already indicated he will do so if presented with the bill.

Here is the full text of the statement by President Obama issued to coincide with the Senate vote for repeal:

Today, President Obama released a statement on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 - Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend. By ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love. As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known. And I join the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the overwhelming majority of service members asked by the Pentagon, in knowing that we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness. I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Lieberman and Collins and the countless others who have worked so hard to get this done. It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

At long last the US joins most other liberal democracies (such as the UK, Holland, Spain and many others) in allowing all its citizens to serve openly and proudly in the military. We in the UK got rid of the ban on gays serving in the military some years ago, with absolutely no adverse-effects on military effectiveness whatsoever, despite the earlier whining of those opposed to the change. I suspect strongly that in a few years time the US experience will be precisely the same and that they will be asking themselves why they delayed so long and what all the fuss was about.

A good day!

UPDATE: (Sunday 19DEC10 09.10 GMT) Here's a BBC report with embedded video-clip of campaigners celebrating the decision.

Pride London - an estimated 1 million celebrate!

I didn't see a segment about today's Pride London event in the BBC1 News at 5.35pm, but they do have an article up about it now, with embedded video-clip. I'm glad to see that some of the players of the Kings Cross Steelers Rugby Football Club (of which I have been a supporting member for many years) were well in evidence near the beginning of the clip.

Four decades after the Sexual Offences Act this kind of nonsense still happens?!

We are told often that life is so much easier for homosexual people in the UK now than it was pre-1967 when the Sexual Offences Act partially decriminalised homosexual acts in private and I am sure it is, even if I don't have relevant personal memories of the period before this, having been only about 15 years old at the time. However, every so often something happens that brings me up with a jolt. Some joker in Portsmouth thought he could make a 'fast buck' by pretending to be an undercover police sergeant and making blackmailing married men 'cruising' in a gay haunt a lucrative proposition, by extracting 'instant fines' from them. The apparently genuine threat of the 'shame' of a court appearance on charges of 'gross indencency' made some of the men involved willing to hand over several hundred pounds each. Presumably one of his potential victims decided to go to the real police (who mostly react somewhat differently now than they would have 40 years ago), leading to Lee Creamer (aka 'Sergeant Perry') being gaoled at Portsmouth Crown Court for three and a half years. Judge Peter Henry correctly summed-up this despicable individual:

"The people you were targeting undoubtedly would have been in that frame of mind where they weren't going to think straight. You were relying on the fact they were going to panic and pay the money."

Even though homosexuality was decriminalised quite a long time ago, many gay men (and women) are still reluctant to 'own' who they are, so leaving themselves open to this kind of nonsense. To some extent this is understandable because however 'right on' we may like to kid oursleves that Britain is today, there are still a lot of prejudiced people around who don't hesitate to make life difficult for gay people if they think they can get away with it (just remind yourself how successful a number of major religions are in having their prejudices accepted and in a number of cases enshrined in law). Whilst this is in some respects a depressingly familiar type of case, at least it has a 'happy' outcome - the culptrit has been brought to book.

Pride in the British military

Yes, there's a double-meaning there! Firstly because of the prominent role played by members of different parts of our military forces in London Pride last Saturday and because the presence of lesbian and gay personnel is now widely-accepted and uncontroversial in most quarters. It is specially pleasing to see the latest issue of Soldier (*) (which is published by the Ministry of Defence) and various of the articles it contains (for example - "Equal Partners: Gay Soldiers Hail Army's Strides In Diversity." ).

(*) - You can download the complete .PDF version of the July issue via the link at the foot of the linked page.

The other aspect of pride in our military forces relates to their bravery and courage, or more precisely the profound respect they have earned and which is if possible heightened by the recent surge in fatalities they have suffered in Afghanistan.

I salute them all.

The 'Gays in the Military' debate rumbles on in the US

I don't write much any more about the bizarre debate which continues to rumble on (fester, really) in the United States over whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military, whether the current policy of "don't ask, don't tell" should continue, or even in a few case that a complete ban should be reinstated. And in any case the excellent FiveThirtyEight blog did projections some months back on the slowly evolving attitudes across the 50 States on the matter of homosexuality, indicating that in the next decade or so the bulk of the country would be completely comfortable with it (that was the 'gist' of the analysis, so far as I recall) and that various changes in the current legislation in force across the States might be likely to happen.

In any case, what provokes me to write this article now was a link to an article I wrote five and a half years ago in my visitor stats last night, from a new article written by Jason, the same blogger referred to in my article all those years ago. At that time Jason was serving as an officer with the US military in Iraq; it's not clear where he is now or even if he is still a serving military officer or is now a 'vet'. His recent post is quite interesting and as usual finely-honed, with the final paragraph seeming to me to display a pragmatic attitude to dealing with the practicalities of the law (or 'military code') which officers must operate under, given the existing legislation. It obviously still bugs Jason that my initial assessment of his 2004 article was that it was a 'homophobic rant' even though I later in amendments modified that view somewhat. I don't pretend to understand fully the motivations underlying attitudes toward homosexuality, gays in the military, 'gay marriage', 'gay adoption', etc. in the United States, except that the stock phrase that the UK and US are "two countries divided by a common language" seems apposite.

The US is a much more 'religious' country than the UK - no politician here who has any sense makes his/her own religious affiliation, whatever it is and if he/she has one, an issue, rather it is kept deliberately low-key and semi-private; basically no-one cares much. Those that transgress this rule are quickly made to realise that their lives in politics will be limited as we are uncomfortable with overt religiosity in our politicians; there have been a few recent examples. In the US, on the other hand, prospective elected politicians are almost obliged to profess a strong religious faith, whatever it might be - an admission that religion plays little or no part in someone's life is probable political suicide. I don't want to take this analogy too far, but I think it does have some merit. However, if you believe the analysis in FiveThirtyEight, younger generations in the US are generally more comfortable with homosexuality than were preceding generations. Maybe it will all 'come right' in the end.

Civil Partnership law to be passed in Ireland

An agreement has been reached between the political parties in Ireland that a Bill to be introduced into the Irish Parliament (the Dail) in the Autumn to allow Civil Partnerships will receive speedy passage and is expected to become law early next year. The subject of same-sex partners adopting children has not been addressed, but the legislation is generally welcomed by the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN) as representing a "beautiful day for Irish society".

"Change has come to America"

Take a look at the quickly-transformed official website of the White House to reflect the priorities of the new regime in Washington.

Under 'the AGENDA' in the top menu bar, the Civil Rights section seems to confirm the new President's intention to make real progress on LGBT rights, firstly under the 'Combat Employment Discrimination' section:

Combat Employment Discrimination President Obama and Vice President Biden will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. They will also pass the Fair Pay Act, to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

and the 'Expand Hate Crimes Statutes' section:

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.

- but even more comprehensively under the section entitled 'Support for the LGBT Community', which I quote in its entirety:

Support for the LGBT Community "While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect." -- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007 * Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law. * Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. * Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights. * Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples. * Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals. * Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not. * Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. * Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

This reproduces what was included in the temporary post-election official Change.Gov - The Office of the President-Elect website (now no longer operational, of course), which I wrote about soon after the election here.

However, as I mentioned in that earlier post, this probably won't satisfy those gays/lesbians in the US who set such store by the name 'marriage' for legally-recognised same-sex relationships, but these policies, if achieved, would give the US LGBT community all they want in practical terms and envisages Federal recognition, a vital consideration. US hang-ups with religion are a mystery to me, I freely confess, specially in a country where religion has no official status of any kind and indeed is barred from any such status by the country's Constitution. I hope the US LGBT community will keep its eye on the main issue and support this agenda - even with the Democrat majorities in both Houses of Congress I don't expect it will get through without a fight from the religion-lobby.

PS/ I haven't taken a look at the satirical whitehouse.org website in at least a couple of years, but am pleased to see it is still operational and carries a very amusing article entitled Full Text of President Bush's Emotional Farewell Speech Cataloguing His Unparalleled Competence and Intelligence; it does of course lay it on with a trowel.

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.

Stonewall's top 100 gay-friendly employers for 2009

Stonewall has published its 2009 list of the top 100 gay-friendly employers in the UK. Top of the list is Lloyds TSB and the list includes a mixture of private and public sector employers. Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill is quoted as saying:

"The index is a powerful tool used by many of the 1.7 million gay people in the UK workplace to decide where to take their talent, skills and experience. It is also used by lesbian, gay and bisexual consumers in deciding where to spend their disposable income. And 150,000 gay students studying at UK universities refer to it when deciding where to pursue their careers."

This is certainly a positive evolution of employment practices, although it remains to be seen how it will stand up to the higher levels of unemployment which may be expected over the next few years during the current recession/depression.

Second Conservative shadow cabinet member enters into a Civil Partnership

Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert MP becomes the second member of David Cameron's shadow cabinet team (after Alan Duncan MP) to enter into a Civil Partnership. He 'married' his partner of nine years, Jason Eades (a solicitor), last week in a low-key ceremony at Lambeth Town Hall attended only by close relatives of both men and followed by a reception at Brown's Hotel in Mayfair (London).

In contrast, no member of Gordon Brown's Labour cabinet has so far entered into a civil partnership, although a few Labour MPs have done so.

Mr Herbert has the full support of his constituency association; according to Malcolm Gill, the association chairman in the Arundel and South Downs constituency represented by the MP:

"The reaction among activists has been very favourable. We have a well-respected MP and Jason is very popular, too. We are delighted for both of them."

This is a very welcome reaction in what is by any standard one of the more 'true blue' Conservative constituencies so is perhaps a sign that the Conservative Party really is changing.

Travolta son's death is tragic, but ...

... the story as widely reported in major media outlets may not be the only explanation for what has happened apparently. Whatever did happen, it is very sad.

Barack Obama, 'Change' and LGBT policy

US President-Elect Barack Obama now has a website on the .GOV domain (i.e. an official US government server) Change.Gov - The Office of the President-Elect and there is a dedicated page there devoted to his Agenda for Civil Rights which includes a section on Support for the LGBT Community which I reproduce below in full:

Support for the LGBT Community "While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect." - Barack Obama, June 1, 2007 The Obama-Biden Plan * Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law. * Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. * Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights. * Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples. * Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals. * Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not. * Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president. * Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Barack Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

- of course this won't satisfy those gays/lesbians in the US who set such store by the name 'marriage' for legally-recognised same-sex relationships, but these policies, if achieved, would give the US LGBT community all they want in practical terms and envisages Federal recognition, a vital consideration. US hang-ups with religion are a mystery to me, I freely confess, specially in a country where religion has no official status of any kind and indeed is barred from any such status by the country's Constitution. I hope the US LGBT will keep its eye on the main issue and support this agenda - even with the Democrat majorities in both Houses of Congress I don't expect it will get through without a fight from the religion-lobby.

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.

Gay chef murderer found guilty

As expected, former 'Mr Gay UK' Anthony Morley has been found guilty of the murder of Damian Oldfield. Morley was found to have slashed Mr Oldfield's throat before stabbing him several time and then cutting sections of flesh from his chest and thigh which he then proceeded to cook partially in olive oil and herbs. After this he walked into a nearby takeaway restaurant wearing a bloodstained tee-shirt, telling staff there he had killed someone who had tried to rape him.

It would appear that the jury (correctly in my view) gave this defence argument short-shrift. My own feeling is that Morley was (and probably still is) conflicted about his own sexuality; the fact that he apparently had a girlfriend when he became the first winner of the 'Mr Gay UK' competition in 1993 may be a small clue. The case is obviously both gruesome and sad for all concerned, for Morley himself, but specially for the family of Mr Oldfield.
(My earlier brief blog article about this crime, during the trial when I first heard about it, is here.)

The Telegraph article linked to above does not mention what sentence Morley has been given; presumably the sentencing hearing will come later.

The trial continues ...

This is the phrase with which many newspaper reports of court proceedings end in the UK, particularly when the case being heard is of a salacious or grotesque nature.

Well this case definitely falls into the 'grotesque' category. A former 'Mr Gay UK' is on trial accused of having murdered and partially eaten the cooked parts of another man with whom it is thought he had a relationship and with whom he had just had a sexual liaison. When arrested the accused apparently told the police he had been raped.

Obviously we have only heard the prosecution case against Anthony Morley so far, so it is probably wrong to pre-judge, but unless there is something very strange indeed going on (with the way the case is being dealt with - we already know that the details of the case itself are decidedly strange, of the "couldn't make it up" variety) and unless the defence can come up with a novel case for the defence then the outcome of this trial seems from what I have read so far a foregone conclusion. But as I said it is wrong to pre-judge before all the evidence is in.