An interesting conversation

I had an interesting conversation the other day. I got chatting to a woman in a shop, and the conversation ranged over a number of topics, until it settled on same-sex marriage.

So this woman had loads of gay friends (so she said), and she was OK with civil partnerships, and yet she was opposed to same-sex marriage. Her reason was "but it says in the Bible..."

So I said, "But what about David and Jonathan? The Bible says that David's love for Jonathan surpassed his love for women". Oh yes, said the woman.

Then I said, "And what about Ruth and Naomi? The vow that Ruth made to Naomi is used in wedding ceremonies." And I talked about how amazing Ruth's love for Naomi was, that she was prepared to go to another country and risk being sold into slavery because she loved her so much. (Thanks to Kittredge Cherry for wising me up to the story of Ruth and Naomi.)

And then I said, "God is Love, right? And LGBT people love each other, so that must be godly."

And it seemed that I had succeeded in changing her mind.

Now, if I had called her a "bigot" at the outset of the conversation, that would have been it - end of conversation. And I don't think she was a bigot; she wanted to understand, and she seemed genuinely pleased to be offered a different interpretation of the Bible.

So, be careful before you jump to calling someone a bigot before you have found out what their real views are, under a possibly very thin veneer of religious conformity.

Also, it helps if you know how to do liberal Biblical interpretation.

The complexity of marriage law - update

Legal (permitted by law and recognised by the state):

• Opposite-sex church weddings (couple legally married and registered)
• Same-sex civil partnerships in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Opposite-sex marriages in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Religious civil partnerships (civil partnership ceremonies in a religious building)

Being made legal soon:

• Same-sex weddings in register offices and those churches & synagogues that want to do them (couple legally married and registered)
• A transsexual person married to a person of the opposite sex to their original sex wanting to change their birth certificate to reflect their new sex will no longer have to divorce their partner (because when same sex marriage is legal, they can stay married).
• A transsexual person civilly partnered to a person of the same sex will be able to change / "upgrade" to a marriage (8.5 on page 27 of the consultation outcome document)
• Pagan same-sex handfastings in Scotland

The new arrangements for trans people are still not very satisfactory, as the conversion from one type of legal recognition to another will cost them money. This is particularly annoying for people who have already had to change their relationship status under the previous arrangements.

Not forbidden by law, but not recognised by the state

• same-sex blessings in a church / synagogue
• Pagan handfastings (weddings) in England & Wales
• Blessings of polyamorous relationships
• Humanist weddings - both same and opposite sex

Illegal (not permitted by law):

• Opposite-sex civil partnerships in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Marrying more than one person

Legal (permitted by law and recognised by the state) in Scotland only:

• Pagan opposite-sex handfastings where the celebrant says the required form of words (the same as for all other legal weddings)

This video makes me uncomfortable

The Campaign for Equal Marriage video, Homecoming, made me uncomfortable.

As I am sure you are aware if you read my blogs or follow me on Twitter or Facebook, I support marriage equality. I want people to be able to marry each other if they want to, or have civil partnerships if they want to, regardless of gender. I want religions that want to perform marriages to be able to marry whoever they want.

So why did the video make me uncomfortable?

The main thing was the military setting. I'm a pacifist. I accept that wars happen sometimes, and that soldiers also carry out peacekeeping roles, but I think that we should do everything in our power to avoid war, and not to glorify it. The guy who is coming home is clearly returning from a military campaign (presumably in the Middle East as he is wearing desert camouflage). Given the controversy over Britain's recent wars in the Middle East, I find this difficult.

Then there's the statement at the end of the video "All men can be heroes: all men can be husbands". This has its good points, in that it undermines the myth that gay men are "effeminate" - but it also reinforces the view that gay men are OK if they're butch, but not if they're effeminate. And what about women who want to marry? What about bisexual and transgender people? What about disabled people who want a same-sex marriage? The statement is almost (but not quite) saying that being prepared to die for your country is what confers civil rights (so no marriage equality for conscientious objectors, then). No - being a citizen of a country is what confers civil rights.

Many GSD (gender and sexually diverse) people have criticised the marriage equality campaign for trying to make GSD people too much like the straights, and/or seeking to reassure the straights that we are just like them. I can understand this criticism; I do not want to be straight, I have never wanted to be straight, and I don't want to reassure the straight population that we are just like them. I think this video is a prime example of trying to reassure the straights that we are just like them. Would I be right in thinking that this video is aimed at people who read the Daily Mail?

What I did like about the video was the tender expressions on the faces of the two men, and the kneeling to propose marriage, and putting the wedding ring on the guy's finger. That was lovely. Put it in a non-military setting and I'll watch it lots.

But please, can we have a video with two guys, or two women, or both, in an ordinary setting?

Support marriage equality

Now is a good time to write to your local county councillors to ask them to support marriage equality.

Here is the letter I have written to my local councillors:

I am writing to ask you to support marriage equality in Oxford County Council.

Thanet has become the first local authority in the UK to endorse the government’s proposals for marriage equality.

Some county councils have not yet made available information on how churches and synagogues that wish to do so can register for religious civil partnerships, and the registration fee is higher than for registering as a marriage venue. Please could you lobby for Oxfordshire County Council to do this.

In addition, I want to see marriage equality in the UK, and would hope that Oxfordshire's county councillors would support this. I want to see religious same-sex marriage made available for those religions and denominations that wish to perform these ceremonies (namely Unitarians, Liberal Judaism, Reform Judaism, Quakers, and the Metropolitan Community Church). Pagans would also like to be able to perform same-sex marriages, but as Pagan opposite-sex weddings have no legal standing in England and Wales, the nature of the obstacle to Pagan same-sex weddings is more complex.

Please also support the option for same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships. This is important as many same-sex couples would like the opportunity to be married, and many opposite-sex couples would prefer the less traditional option.

This is also important for transgender people, who may be in either a civil partnership or a marriage currently, and in order to register as the opposite sex to the one they are currently labelled as, would have to divorce their partner and get either a civil partnership or a marriage.

The background to this is that Thanet County Council has endorsed the government's plans.

Thanet has become the first local authority in the UK to endorse the government’s proposals for same-sex marriage. Please ask your councillors to pass a motion supporting same-sex civil marriages & opposite-sex civil partnerships. Find out your local councillors & email them via this website: www.writetothem.com

BBC report 

Pink News report 

Please ask councillors to support same-sex marriage for those religions who want to do same-sex marriages too.

Fiddling while Rome burns

The thing that really amazes me about those religious groups that are opposed to marriage equality is that they really have nothing more important to worry about than who puts what where and whether it is legitimised by the state or not.

Wake up, people! There are asylum seekers to help, starving children around the world, countries that execute LGBT people and emos (oh wait, religious conservatives probably agree with that), climate change, environmental destruction on a vast scale, persecuted tribal peoples... the list is very long - so why spend so much energy on preventing two people who love each other from getting married?

Religious considerations

Interestingly, there's a poll on the Telegraph website to find out if people support same-sex marriage.

The options are as follows:

No - It would be too offensive for many religious people 8.41% (2,927 votes)
No - And I think that even civil partnerships go too far 10.81% (3,762 votes)
Yes - Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else 43.61% (15,182 votes)
Yes - Religious considerations have no place in a modern society 37.18% (12,945 votes)

I selected "Yes - Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else".

I am a secularist because I think that it is the best way to guarantee religious freedom (the freedom to profess whatever religion you choose, or not to profess any religion). But is it true that "religious considerations have no place in a modern society"?

So people who don't think that religious considerations have any place in a modern society obviously think that people of religion should not criticise abuses of power by the rich and powerful, then? (Well, obviously not if the churchmen concerned are themselves rich and powerful, because then they would just be hypocrites.) Many people seem to have conveniently forgotten that many reforms and freedoms were won because of campaigns by people from liberal religious traditions.

• Unitarians have campaigned for women's education since the 1840s.
• Unitarians campaigned for the humane treatment of prostitutes.
• Methodists and Quakers (and many Unitarians) campaigned against slavery.
• Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal Jews, Pagans and the Metropolitan Community Church are campaigning for same-sex marriage.
• Missionaries in China campaigned against foot-binding.
• Rammohun Roy (Brahmo Samaj) campaigned against widow-burning (sati).
• Many Christians who support equal marriage support it because they believe that God loves everyone equally, or that everyone, LGBT or straight, is created in God's image

Anyway, for whatever reason, I am pleased that over 80% of respondents support same-sex marriage.

The complexity of marriage law

The subject of marriage and what is legal and what is not is getting increasingly more confusing, especially since a Liberal Jewish synagogue was in the news recently for performing a same-sex marriage (which is recognised by Liberal Judaism but not by the state). Apparently Scotland is just about to begin a process of consultation about same-sex marriage. So here's a list of what is and is not currently legal:

Legal (permitted by law and recognised by the state):

• Opposite-sex church weddings (couple legally married and registered)
• Same-sex civil partnerships in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Opposite-sex marriages in a register office / registered premises for weddings

The law allows, but there's no mechanism for implementing:

• Religious civil partnerships (civil partnership ceremonies in a religious building)

Not forbidden by law, but not recognised by the state

• same-sex blessings in a church / synagogue
• same-sex marriages in a church / synagogue where the marriage is recognised by the church / synagogue  but not by the state
• Pagan handfastings (weddings) in England & Wales - both same and opposite sex
• Pagan same-sex handfastings in Scotland
• Blessings of polyamorous relationships

Illegal (not permitted by law):

• Same-sex church weddings (couple legally married and registered)
• Opposite-sex civil partnerships in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Same-sex marriages in a register office / registered premises for weddings
• Marrying more than one person

Another difficulty is that if a transsexual married to a person of the opposite sex to their original sex wants to change their birth certificate to reflect their new sex, they would have to divorce their partner (whereas if same sex marriage were legal, they could stay married).

Legal (permitted by law and recognised by the state) in Scotland only:

• Pagan opposite-sex handfastings where the celebrant says the required form of words (the same as for all other legal weddings)

Have I missed anything?

Religious civil partnerships are on!

Equality Bill Passed
I am pleased to report the successful passage of the Equality Bill through its final Commons stages on 6 April 2010, in what is known as the 'wash-up' before Parliament was dissolved yesterday for the General Election. This will mean civil partnerships can be celebrated on some religious premises as supported by the [Unitarian] denomination, the Quakers and Liberal Jews. Looking to the future the Bill provides for an order-making power to register religious premises for conducting civil partnership ceremonies in England and Wales.
Derek McAuley, Chief Officer, Unitarians

Oh that is marvellous news, I am so pleased. How wonderful. (Next goal - marriage & civil partnership available to all, whether same-sex or opposite-sex relationships.)

Next steps

A press release from Peter Tatchell:

Ban on church civil partnerships voted down by House of Lords

Next battle: End the ban on same-sex civil marriage

London – 3 March 2010

Last night’s vote by the House of Lords to end the ban on religious civil partnerships is “another advance for gay equality and religious freedom,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of the LGBT rights group OutRage!

“Allowing faith organisations to make their own decisions on whether to conduct same-sex civil partnerships is the democratic and decent thing to do.

“By banning religious civil partnerships, the current law is denying religious bodies the right to treat gay couples equally. It is forcing them to discriminate, even when many of them do not want to.

"The Quakers, Unitarians, Metropolitan Community Church and liberal synagogues wish to conduct civil partnership ceremonies and should be allowed to do so.

“Following a change in the law, we expect civil partnerships will be conducted by gay-affirmative religions, including the Unitarians and Quakers, and some Anglican churches and liberal synagogues.

“Our next goal is to secure marriage equality, to end the prohibition on lesbian and gay couples having a civil marriage in a registry office. Already, 61% of the British public believe that same-sex couples should be able to have a civil marriage, according to an opinion poll conducted by Populus and published by The Times in June last year.

“The gay rights group OutRage! is planning to challenge the bans on same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships in the European Court of Human Rights. Our aim is full equality for homosexual and heterosexual couples. We hope to file an appeal to the European Court by summer of this year. Already, four couples have agreed to join the legal challenge.

“If we win in the European Court of Human Rights, the government will be required to change the law to allow gay partners to have a civil marriage and to allow heterosexual couples to have a civil partnership. It will ensure, at last, full equality in the laws governing relationship recognition and rights.

“Last month, the Greens became the first and and only political party in Britain to officially support an end to the ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship. Their Spring party conference voted almost unanimously to end the prohibition on religious civil partnerships.

“I may disagree with religion and want a separation of religion from the state, but I still object to religious same-sex couples being denied the option of having a civil partnership in their place of worship. If that is what they want, it is up to them. Exclusions based on faith or sexuality are wrong,” said Mr Tatchell.

A victory for common sense

This is fantastic news!

The House of Lords has voted by 95 to 21 votes to allow civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises. This means that denominations and religions who want to can marry same-sex couples.

Stonewall UK, Peter Tatchell, Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal Jews and the Metropolitan Community Church have campaigned for this change. The liberal think-tank Ekklesia has also welcomed the news.

However, what is needed now is a push towards full marriage equality for LGBT people, and also for other groups who are currently excluded, such as Pagans and the polyamorous.

Pagans also want to do same-sex legal weddings. However, Pagan opposite-sex weddings are only legal in Scotland, but they are not allowed to do same-sex legal weddings there. Hopefully this change in the law will also mean that LGBT Scottish Pagan couples can have legal weddings, even if neither opposite-sex nor same-sex English Pagan couples can.

Greens vote for same-sex religious weddings

A press-release from Peter Tatchell:

End ban on religious civil partnerships, Greens urge

Current law forces churches to discriminate against gay couples

London – 23 February 2010

The Greens have become the first and and only political party to officially support an end to the ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship.

The new Green Party policy would allow gay-affirmative churches, such the Quakers, Unitarians and Metropolitan Community Church, to host civil partnership ceremonies for the first time. They are currently prohibited by law from hosting religious civil partnerships.

The vote at the Green Party’s Spring conference, which took place in London on the weekend, makes the Greens unique among British political parties. No other party has the same commitment to end this discrimination.

By a near unanimous vote, Green delegates voted to strike down the ban on religious civil partnerships.

The motion was proposed by human rights rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who is also the Green Party’s human rights spokesperson. It was seconded by Darren Johnson, the openly gay Green member of the London Assembly and the Green parliamentary candidate for Lewisham Deptford.

A copy of the motion agreed follows below.

The new policy will now be added to the Green Party’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Society.

“The State is denying, by force of law, the right of religious bodies to treat same-sex couples equally. It is forcing them to discriminate, even when they don't want to,” said Peter Tatchell.

"Gay-accepting churches, such the Quakers, Unitarians and the Metropolitan Community Church, want to conduct civil partnership ceremonies and should be allowed to do so.

"The ban on religious civil partnership ceremonies smacks of authoritarianism. This injustice was written into the Civil Partnership Act by the Labour government in 2004, in a bid to appease homophobic religious leaders. At the time, the government refused all requests to remove the prohibition on religious civil partnership ceremonies.

“The Greens are supporting Lord Alli’s bid to amend the Civil Partnership Act to allow faith organisations to decide for themselves whether they want to offer religious civil partnerships to same-sex couples.

“If the law is amended, we expect that gay-affirmative denominations will agree to host civil partnerships. Some individual Anglican churches, and some liberal synagogues, are likely to follow suit.

“I may disagree with religion and want a separation of religion from the state, but I still object to religious same-sex couples being denied the option of having a civil partnership in their place of worship. If that is what they want, it is up to them. Exclusions based on faith or sexuality are wrong.

"The Unitarians are hosting a conference on marriage equality in London this coming weekend, where I will outline new campaigns to challenge the bans on same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships. The aim is full equality for homosexual and heterosexual couples," said Mr Tatchell.

Green Party conference motion RR507 (passed)

“The Green Party supports an end to the ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship, whilst recognising it is up to religious bodies to make this decision and not for the state to dictate to them prohibitions on civil partnerships.”

Pagans also want to do same-sex legal weddings. However, Pagan opposite-sex weddings are only legal in Scotland, but they are not allowed to do same-sex legal weddings there. Hopefully if this is sorted out, at least LGBT Scottish Pagan couples can have legal weddings, even if neither opposite-sex nor same-sex English Pagan couples can.

Liberal Jews also offer same-sex blessings in synagogues.

Hatch and match liturgy

Church of England unveils a two-in-one wedding and baptism liturgy today as it seeks to make peace with families "living in sin"

If they can do joint weddings and baptisms, why not same-sex marriages? Otherwise, it's one rule for the heterosexuals and a different rule for LGBT people. According to fundamentalists, the Bible says not to have sex outside marriage (in fact it doesn't say any such thing, though it implies it in several places). Certainly that's been the teaching of the Church of England, alongside its insistence on heterosexual sex only. So if it can countenance this new "hatch-and-match" liturgy, which doesn't fit in with its teaching, why not do same-sex marriages as well? Or change the teaching to something more sensible.

Personally I think Christians should stop worrying about people's sex lives and worry about climate change, war, mass species extinction, etc., which are actually life-threatening.

Pagan weddings

While we're on the subject of marriage, I would like to see Pagan weddings given legal recognition in England and Wales, and in the USA.

Pagan handfastings already have legal recognition in Scotland.

In 2007, a woman named Cassandra M set up a petition on the Prime Minister's petitions website to make handfasting legal (now closed). The response was that they had reviewed the Marriage Act previously but were unable to come up with anything sensible so it was dropped. Furthermore, they said,

Traditional Pagan ceremonies are held in the open air. All outdoor ceremonies in the UK need an additional legal ceremony for the marriage to be recognised by law.

Well, Pagan ceremonies don't have to be held in the open air - even if we don't own many buildings, we can always hire them. Perhaps we need to re-open this issue with a slightly different wording of the petition.

I wonder if Hindu, Muslim and Sikh weddings are legally recognised under the current provisions for "Marriage solemnized in a registered building without the presence of a registrar, by the authorised person in whose presence the marriage is solemnized" which seems somewhat ambiguous - can Hindu, Muslim and Sikh celebrants be an "authorised person"? Why couldn't a Pagan become an "authorised person"?

Also, both Pagans and Unitarians would like the right to perform same-sex weddings.

Support gay marriage

A clear and concise video explaining why opposition to gay marriage limits the rights of religious minorities who want to perform gay marriages:



Via the Wild Hunt.

Farewell

Del Martin, co-founder of the Daughters of Bilitis and campaigner for LGBT rights, died yesterday. Her wife, Phyllis Lyon, survives her. They were one of the first same-sex couples to be married in San Francisco in both 2004 and 2008. They became lovers in 1952.

Having struggled for the rights of LGBT people for half a century, may she rest in the arms of the Goddess. Blessed be.