Despite Church of England scaremongering, there are important legal implications caused by marriage equality

The Church of England is up to it's usual game of playing up being an established church yet undermining Her Majesty's Government whenever they can. Seriously, if you are going to be a state church then you have to toe the line. If you want, quite reasonably, to be able to criticise the Government then perhaps disestablishment isn't a risk but an opportunity?

Regardless of their less than sensitive or subtle way of making their case, we must accept there are important implications, to them and others, from the legalisation of equal marriage. Right now, as the current plans stand, legislation shall be written undermining religious freedom (not that the big churches care as it only undermines other people's religious freedom) by denying religious organisations the right to hold legally valid same-sex marriage ceremonies. However, it is unclear how the Government plans to work around the fact that we have an established church who currently has a duty to marry any Anglican (and often anyone in general) within a parish who wants it.

I've expressed before my concerns that the way the Government is pursuing marriage equality risks not only leaving both sides of the debate unhappy but creating a legal fudge that may leave religious organisations open to being forced to marry people the organisation doesn't want to.

As disestablishment, my preferred option that would make the task of introducing marriage equality far easier, is unlikely in the extreme it is clear we need to look at other examples of how to move forward.

The consensus on Twitter seems to be a rather radical (for our conservative isles) move of removing the function of civil marriages from all religious bodies. Akin to France, or some American states, the civil component would be performed in a registry office and then any religious element would be up to the couple and religious organisations as a completely private matter.Whilst I think this would be a huge step in the right direction I still don't think it addresses the fact that we have a state church.

The other option is to follow what Denmark has very recently done. Denmark, like us, has an established church (one in full communion with the Church of England!). There no priest will be forced to marry a same-sex couple. However, as it is a state church and one that actually appears to understand it's place, same-sex couples have the right to a marriage in their local church but a supportive priest would need to be found (with the help of the unwilling one!) to carry out the service. This seems more in keeping with the Church of England's position in our society, and whilst it's not one I like I think it's the way forward. If the Church of England really wants to remain as an established church then it needs to start acting like one. They won't like this idea, of course, as the Church of England is far too independently minded to really remain as our state church any longer. But perhaps this idea might make them reconsider their role once and for all.

Then other churches will be free to decide whether or not they want to perform such ceremonies, which would be a huge win for religious freedom in our country.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Men's Rights Activisits: Should I Hate Them?

I'm a man. Brought up by two strong, independent women. I've never really seen women as anything other than equal to men. In fact I find gender politics confusing. Why anyone would expect all women to be the same is beyond me (i.e. expect them to "stay in the kitchen" etc.) but conversely I don't appreciate certain people acting as if all men are sexual perverts and violent monsters. I find this "us vs. them" approach crazy. Some men are bad people. Some women are bad people. When will we just accept this?

And yet the idea that there is some vast chasm of difference between the genders is deeply ingrained into our society. Our advertising plays this up hugely, often casting women only as mothers who have to look after their men who are portrayed as helpless child-like creatures or there's the other side of the coin is that women are overly emotional, confusing people as shown in the advert below:

 

And this Mitchell and Webb piece is amusingly spot on.

 

Or how about how this piece on male stripping which suffers from a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

Why do men strip? Why the hell not? Not for them the ominous low-lit venues and sexual vulnerability of female stripping; when it comes to men taking their clothes off, they're the ones in charge.

Because all women who choose to do this are all victims, forced into stripping as they have no option and are completely at the mercy of drunken men? Is that what this piece is trying to say, that no self-respecting woman would do this sort of thing but men knock yourselves out?

But do the boys ever feel exploited? "Definitely not," he insists. "Physically speaking, they're stronger than their audience, which creates a different power dynamic than with female strippers. These guys like showing off and frankly, I don't think they mind being objectified. That's precisely what they enjoy." It's hard to imagine that male stripping, though seemingly far less demeaning than its female counterpart, doesn't involve some kind of Faustian pact. Surely anything that requires you to 'drop trou' for a living must have consequences. What, for example, do the boys do when their looks go?

Less demeaning than female stripping because the male strippers can beat people up? That seems to be the argument here. Men finding women getting naked attractive = disgusting, women finding men getting naked attractive (and being "rowdy") = all in the name of fun. That's the message I'm getting from this article. 


Maybe it's because I'm gay and have little vested interest in this sort of sexual politics but I just don't get it. It's just like the cognitive dissonance in debates over porn. 


I have a major problem with some forms of feminism for just the reasons above, that they seek to paint all men as potential aggressors and all women as potential victims. So sometimes I read stuff from Men's Rights Activists pointing out the excesses of some feminists and I find myself agreeing with them. Some times pieces on blogs like A Voice For Men have a core that I can agree with.


But then the problems start. They do the thing which they accuse some radical feminists of doing, they take things to the extremes. They moan about how awful it is that women aren't back in the home or insult women using slurs. Often the answer to a serious question (such as why there is hardly a groundswell of demands for equality on the front line where men are still mostly expected to risk their lives [thankfully the Senior Service is a little more enlightened than the army]) descends into misogyny of the first order. As someone who wants true equality, it is very uncomfortable reading some of the stuff put out by some MRAs.

Where is the Voice for Sane People blog? I don't want this "us vs. them" debate any more. It serves only to keep society trapped in some backwards abyss. Men and women who believe in equality need to start speaking to each other. Women's rights still have a long way to go and a lot of minds still need to be changed to ensure the safety and well-being of women in this country. But the dismissive way men who ask pertinent, sensible questions are treated by well-meaning women's rights activists cause a great deal of resentment. We need to work together, to fight for true equality for all.

So I think I do hate most MRAs. I hate them just the way I hate most radical feminists, they are divisive and unhelpful. Can we have some sanity please?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Slave Labour For Her Majesty's Jubilee? Heads Must Roll

I don't think I need to remind you that I'm a royalist, and I absolutely adore the Jubilee. Driving through the villages of west Kent yesterday I was thrilled to see all the bunting and village parties. Flags were flying and children were having fun, nothing better for a Bank Holiday weekend national celebration.

But perhaps what you may not know is just how despicable I find "Workfare". As someone with libertarian sympathies I find the concept of the Government forcing people to work quite appalling. It is nothing but slave labour, in my opinion.  

So I was somewhat aghast this morning to see this story in the Guardian.

Firstly, and most importantly, is the way in which we are treating unemployed people as slave labour. It's bad enough making them go to work for no pay, but forcing them to camp out? I had never even considered that as an option. Who thought that making people do work they probably don't want to do AND camp out in the cold was a reasonable thing to do in 21st century Britain?

Secondly, and with quite worrying in its indications of the stupidity of those who arranged these workfare workers, who signed off on this? Her Majesty and Her Household have been VERY careful to avoid controversy. They have avoided using public money to pay for the Jubilee as much as possible. I am quite convinced nobody in a position of responsibility in the Royal Household would have signed off on this, due to the bad PR this would lead to. Because this is AWFUL PR. Someone has brought Her Majesty into disrepute here by tying her Diamond Jubilee celebrations with the extremely controversial Workfare scheme. This shows a level of idiocy I never could have imagined.

Someone is responsible for this. Someone must be held accountable because abusing the unemployed in this way and at the same time bringing our monarch into murky political waters is perhaps the most intolerable thing I've seen in the UK in a long time.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Her Majesty: An Avatar For The Better Angels of Our Nature

This isn't going to convince a republican. In fact I wouldn't try to convince a republican as, and I've said this before, I'm mostly convinced by the more rational republican arguments. My love of the monarchy is wholly irrational.

But I wanted to say a little something about what I think is the best quality of Her Majesty; that is that she embodies our better qualities.

In the world of Second Life, users create avatars for themselves based, usually, not on what they actually look or act like but as they would wish to be. They use these avatars as their "front" to meet others, to interact and explore.

Her Majesty is the avatar of the United Kingdom. She is compelled by protocol and tradition to represent the better qualities of our nation. She, and her forebears, are stoic when faced with disaster. Polite and courteous no matter the situation. Strong yet not aggressive. Humble (in manner if not in more material matters) yet not grovelling. We send Her Majesty as our avatar to other countries to put our best foot forward and use her to greet the good and the great who visit us.

No greater example of this can there be than in the events surrounding the death of the Princess of Wales. When our country mourned (I won't get into my feelings on those events!), we forced her to adapt to our requirements, to grieve a little more publicly than she would have liked to personally. She is not a free agent, but is the beating heart of our country.

Of course this is not a surprise, at her coronation she swore to serve our country. Her office is not of ruler but as a representative of something larger than her and than us all, of something a politician can't embody for more than a short time. She is our history and our nations soul given a body and allowed to walk among us.

That, I believe, is why Her Majesty is so special, for she has taken these duties upon herself with never a public complaint or an urge to stamp her own personal beliefs upon the institution. And it's also why it's always sad to see people try and bring her into political matters.

For 60 years she has served us, and served us well. I wish her many more years on the throne!!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Thanet Conservative Councillor Leaves Homophobic Abuse On Fellow Councillor's Phone

One of the architects of the equal marriage debate at Thanet Council, Cllr John Worrow, recently received a homophobic message.

It has today come to light that this was the work of Cllr Ken Gregory who is a Tory.

 Here's a statement from Cllr Worrow:

 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Shepway And The Diamond Jubilee

There's plenty to look forward to this weekend in Shepway, from the local street parties to the Folkestone Airshow and other organised events. A large floral tribute to Her Majesty The Queen is in place on the Leas, shops are putting up their bunting and posters are up for both the lighting of the Jubilee lantern and the fairground on the old Rotunda site. But there's one little bizarre thing that I don't think Shepway thought through correctly.

The other day I got home to find a large Union flag flying outside my house. I smiled and thought it was for the Jubilee. The next morning I took my new dog Ayden for a walk up my street, and stopped to look at some of the other flags which obviously weren't Union flags. Hmm... other Realms? Commonwealth nations? Erm... no this one is Morocco! I racked my brain for connections to the Jubilee and then realised... they were up because of the Olympics!

Now forgiving the slight slap in the face that gives to Her Majesty (Diamond Jubilees are a tad rarer that Olympic games in this country), it's caused quite a bit of confusion. Those I've spoken to about have mostly genuinely thought the flags were for the Jubilee and either thought the other flags were Union flags or thought Shepway Council was just a completely useless organisation that would put up any old flags as they didn't have enough Union flags!!

It seems bizarre, absolutely crazy in fact, to put up flags for the Olympics a few days before Her Majesty's Jubilee. Why do it? Why not allow a weekend of national celebration to pass before moving on to the next excitement? Last year during the Royal wedding celebrations I drove through Reigate High Street, which was covered in Union flags. It was absolutely fantastic. We even had flags up here in Folkestone. But obviously this year Shepway District Council doesn't think highly enough of Her Majesty to even postpone the Olympic flag raising let alone put up some British flags to celebrate.

I really don't get it.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Marriage Equality Should Be Above One's Own Ego

As you all know, far too well I suspect, I've been moaning about and then campaigning for equal marriage for a number of years. You can't really call me partisan on the issue as I've been criticised in the past by Liberal Democrats for being "unfair" on the party when it still hadn't adopted marriage equality as policy and still when Lynne Featherstone announced what I considered (and still consider) to be inadequate plans for equal civil marriage. And I have in the past attempted to convince myself that I should be conciliatory towards those who have not been in favour of equal marriage until recently.  As we all know that is very much still a work in progress.

As someone who spent a great deal of time getting marriage equality into the news agenda and on to the agenda of the Labour party, it is extremely hard to see people who previously had no interest in the issue suddenly championing it. And I don't mean people who just kept quiet, I'm talking about people I approached directly and asked to support it years ago, especially in the Labour party, and who told me it was not an important issue and not one they cared about. Now suddenly they are begging others to come out in support of it under their own campaigns (Labour for Equal Marriage, for example). It really pains me, and makes me incredibly sad to see this sort of bandwagon jumping on an issue that, in my opinion, is a matter of human rights.

And I've got to get over it. Yes it hurts that in the future people might look back and think Stonewall and Labour were behind the marriage equality struggle. It hurts that campaigners like Peter Tatchell, organisations like Pink News/C4EM and the fact it was more Stonewall's uselessness that pushed the agenda than anything else will probably be forgotten. But you know what? If we get equal marriage, even if it's just civil marriage for now, then we'll just have to swallow our pride and be happy.

The worst part is, this is what Labour activists always tell me to do. Shut up and just be happy and forget about the truth. *sigh* Playing politics is such an unrelentingly shit game for unrelentingly shit people.

I just have to start looking forward to my marriage and move on....

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist