I know that Jae Kay has had a few things recently to say about our party's public statements on Equal Marriage, here's hoping for an official federal policy position to be taken on this soon. I totally agree that allowing civil partnerships in religious places is just a muddle. For a start the only religious places liable to carry out such ceremonies are those that want to allow same-sex marriage anyway.
It makes me sad when I hear comments, like I heard earlier in the week, from fellow Christians that they merely respect the right of same sex couples to have a civil partnership, but not to allow them a marriage, also denying them the right to a choice between a religious or civil ceremony depending on their choice. They often claim that their religious organisation doesn't allow it, yet they are also ruling out the possibility that other religious organisations may be in favour and wanting to offer it. Yet we maintain a blanket ban rather than liberating the rules on what can be.
Therefore I think us Liberal Democrats who believe in equal marraige should breakaway from a coaltion with David Cameron and insist that Boris Johnson is installed at number 10. Why? Well at today's London Pride the following exchange happened on the platform at the start:
Peter Tatchell: David and Sam Cameron can Marry – Gays Can’t. End the Ban on Gay Marriage.
BoJo: If we can have a coalition between Tories and Lib Dems, why can't we have gay marriage?PT: There you are – the mayor supports gay marriage.
So Boris is offering us a coalition that supports equality in marriage.
3 comments:
Does it matter these days? It is not the 1930s when marriage was actually a commitment for life. Do you really need a bit of paper to prove you are committed to something? And is it really a good thing to chase equality for its own sake rather than through a desire to see injustice undone?
Yes it does make a difference.
There is currently a two tier system. David Cameron even had to ick himselpf up after he introduced 'tax breaks' for 'married couples' to then expand it to 'civil partnerships' because the language differentiates as well as the practice.
Currently there are religous groups who want to be able to perform same-sex marrige but their are those who want to deny them that right. There are religious gay people who want to have their relationship recognised in the sight of their god. But a civil ceremony in a religious setting only goes part of the way. It is not a religious ceremony so that is not equal.
And yes you do need a bit of paper either from a civil or religious ceremony to acquire some rights without having to do extra legal stuff.
I have more to say I'm afraid. Statement to Pink News, from Mayor of London's office, confirms he meant civil partnerships.
Boris was just confused. *sigh*
Post a Comment