Blogged Elsewhere about a #MailFail

If you want to find out why these two campaigning postcards somehow managed to end up back on my desk, then I suggest you scoot on over to LibDemsNI and find out.

What do you mean you're not following LibDemsNI on Twitter? That's how you get all this stuff first.

Penny Saving Ideas for Pope Benny

He wants to come here and talk about natural law, but strangely omits the yogic flying element, yet sees it fit that we the British tax payer should shell out £20m for the privilege of him telling us we are wrong. Well EasyJet have offered to fly him here for 'nothing', diddly squat, gratis*.



So I think we the British public should put our heads together on how Pope Benny can talk to his flock without affecting our economy. May be we should chip together to get him one of these:



It would make the new Popemobile cheaper for him too.

Nearly ten thousand have signed the petition (have you?) to make the Pope pay his own way when he comes visiting in September, after his comments the other day. So the above acts of British charity may well be welcome. Surely it is the least we can do to trim his £20m tax burden to visit his flock. It is the 'natural' thing to do as long as he keeps out of our 'law'.

Update There is also a second petition call on the Government to distance itself from the Pope's comments.

*Need to speak the Vatican vernacular.

The Oxymoron of Natural Law

So the Pope is saying that the equality bill defies 'natural law' that may be his belief but it is also an oxymoron.

Natural law, think about it, what does that mean? Look at the book of Genesis to see what natural law actually means in the bible. There is lying, fratricide, stealing, cheating on wives etc. it gets so bad that at one point God wipes out mankind bar one man, his three sons and their wives in a flood.

You see natural law in the bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" now that may be something that the Pope has forgotten. Being elevated to the level of the 'infallible' while still a mortal may do that to someone. You see there is no thing as natural law, even the church teaches natural lawlessness, if it didn't it would be out of business. So that attack stems from an oxymoron.

Somehow this country can ban religious extremists from entering this country if they want to, but the Pope is unique in that he also is a Head of State, therefore he get lavished with a £20m of taxpayers money to come and visit his flock. He can hold views that are contrary to the law of the land and expunge them from a platform in front of thousands and yet we the taxpayer will be helping to pay for him.

He claims to have the same God that I do. One that says that I am fearfully and wonderfully made. One who accepts me for who I am, yes all of me. There is no oxymoron in the fact that Christians are sinners saved by grace only in the fact that the Church can try and defy nature by placing laws on it which do not exist.

UPDATE: There now is a Downing Street Petition calling on the Government to distance itself from the Pope's comments.

Fisking Harriet Harman

So today in (Deputy) Prime Minister's Questions Vince Cable stepped up to ask Harriet Harman about the widening inequality gap, which I'd picked up on earlier.

So in response Ms Harman said it had got wider under the Conservatives.

Well to be honest it did, but that is not the end of the story, it got even wider under Labour. Indeed the differential (equivalent to 100 times the wealth) between the top 10% of earners and the lowest 10% is greater than at any time since 1961.

One wonders just how Harriet can justify her statement that her Government have helped the poor when the opposite appears clear.

Nick Clegg Sets Out the Real Gay Rights' Agenda

Earlier this week David Cameron made what looked like an ad hoc adjustment to his income tax marriage person's allowance announcement when he added in civil partnerships. After the slap dash 50 minutes in which he took to clarify his position when he first announced those plans, this addendum looked like an add on from policy wonks to answer some, though not all of the inequality questions his proposal raised.

Nick Clegg this morning talking in The Independent goes further than any other leader ever has to knock out the last few areas of inequality for the gay community. He's basically saying enough of 'equal but different' why can't we just be equal.


Education

First up Nick calls for all schools to adopt anti-homophobia bullying policies and to teach that homosexuality exists and is normal. This he wants to apply even to faith schools. Many people grow up in a faith community feeling they are isolated, the feelings that they are going through are not something they can share with teachers, fellow pupils or whatever because of the way that homosexuality is treated. It can, and does, lead to depression in a number of people. Of course such feeling are not exclusive to such an school environment, but they do accentuate it in a faith school environment. At least having access to information and feeling more able to talk about it is something that people who actually are of that faith and find themselves to be gay need as much as every other teenager in our country.

As for protection from homophobic bullying, not every child has the opportunity long after the bullying ceases to go up to the bully and say, "You know you were right". To looks of confusion from the bully like I did a few years back.

Equal Marriage

Nick is calling for the same marital rights for gay men and women as straight couples. The Tories appear to be wanting to tinker around the edges of this, acknowledge it in the tax code but not much else. David Cameron talked earlier this week about extending the 'marriage' allowance to include 'civil partnerships' Nick wants to make those unions marriage. By full marital rights Nick is also saying that those that want a same sex marriage to be solemnised within a faith may do so if they find a clergyman or woman willing to do so. He's not forcing the churches, mosques, synagogues or whatever to all carry out such ceremonies merely allowing those who are inclined the option of being involved in such a ceremony where currently they are banned.

On this issue Nick has said:

"If we don’t want to discriminate, why do we make differences in language? Language is a hugely important signifier of how we segment society and how you seek to create differences between people. Since we don’t want to make differences on this and the law has moved a great deal to do that, we should be linguistically the same too."

Blood ban

As I said at Scottish Spring Conference last year, there is fallacy in the Blood Transfusion Services definition of "risky" sexual behaviour of those who donate. It isn't actually based on behaviour it is based on a categorisation of an entire section of the population, ignoring more risky sexual practitioners in the straight community over the safer members of the gay one. Recently I read another article about the shortage of O negative blood as a result of the recent cold weather, crying out for donors to come forward. My O neg of course could have helped if they'd only let me.

Asylum seekers

Currently there is no recognition that someone fleeing their country for sexual persecution can seek asylum in this country. We have sent back young men to some countries where they face certain death for admitting they are gay. We offer such protection for those who are politically or religiously persecuted. These people if they are faced with eminent danger should they be returned home will often face a favourable hearing for their case for asylum.

This of course is not about immigration but offering help to those who face persecution. Even the Christians would have to own up that Jesus told them to help those who face persecution, he didn't put any provisos unto that appeal.

On the issue of asylum seekers Nick added:

"It's a moral stain on our collective consciousnesses. The public debate has transformed asylum seekers into threats rather than human beings."

He said Lib Dem policy would be that Britain should provide sanctuary to those fleeing persecution because of their sexual orientation:

"It’s not just me that says this, it’s international law that says it."

Uganda

For those that do not know Uganda are currently debating a new policy that will lock up anyone involved in homosexual practices for live. Any who are HIV positive or who have AIDS face summary execution. Considering the rate of HIV infection on the African continent this could well turn into a cull. After all the use of HIV may well turn into the only 'evidence' that homosexual activity took place.

As with the asylum regulations above this is something we could not condone. While most of those asylum seekers come from countries where we may well have little sway with sanctions, Uganda is part of the Commonwealth and we have in the past excluded such members for taking actions against the spirit of the Commonwealth.


Finally

Speaking of the Conservative positioning on gay issues Nick said:

"He [David Cameron] is a confection. I don’t really know what he believes in. I don’t know what his convictions are and the reason is because they keep changing – and they seem to change for convenience. So when it mattered, when people went through the lobby to vote on Section 28, his convictions were on the wrong side. Suddenly they’ve changed and we get an apology!"

Mr Clegg questioned the Tory leader’s record of supporting gay equality, highlighting how Mr Cameron voted against the repeal of Section 28 (he last year apologised for the Tories’ introduction of Section 28) and how he has allied his party with right-wing anti-gay groups in Europe.

"The surveys of a lot of the next generation of Conservative MPs show massive residue of indifference at best, prejudice at worst [to the subject of gay rights]."

Nick is also being interviewed in the February edition of Attitude magazine which is out this week. But as I haven't seen that article a separate blog entry will probably follow.

Question for Cameron

OK Dave here's the score. As you eventually made up your mind this evening about recognising marriage in the tax code, are you:

a) going to expand the same provision to civil partnerships?

or

b) going to allow same sex marriage?

I suspect the answer to both is likely to be in the negative. Even though Cameron himself has said:

"I stood up… and said that marriage was important, and as far as I was concerned it didn't matter whether it was between a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman."

Therefore I suspect that the Conservative party are going to put heterosexual commitment through a marriage act above that of heterosexuals.

Read also: Helen Wilkinson CiF in the Guardian, Mark Valladares on where you rank in the Tory scheme of things, Nick Robinson of the Camervows "I do", "I might", or "I won't tell", or Mr Valladares again on which awfully familiar (or airbrushed) person helped started dismantling the Marriage Couples Allownace in the first place.

Civil Partnership Should be Available to Hetrosexuals - A Response to Donal Blaney

I wasn't going to blog anymore today but Iain Dale's Daley Dozen alerted me to this post by Donal Blaney. In he he talks about marriage for gays an argument he prefaces with this before going into his argument:

"As a libertarian and a Christian myself, I really do not give two hoots whether someone is gay, bisexual or whatever. We are taught to love the sinner but to hate the sin."

So you can imagine this open line brings in a couple of conflict which grate. First he claims to a libertarian yet is imposing a restriction on liberty. Also he then says he doesn't give two hoots about being gay, bisexual or whatever before calling those that are sinners, admittedly ones that he loves, but you get a felling that maybe that is out of commandment, rather than fully heart felt.

He uses the religious argument:

"Marriage is, or rather ought simply to be, a religious ceremony giving God's blessing on the union of one man and one woman."

Problem is that is not the case, there are non-religious marriages going on in registry offices and other locations all across the country. There are also religious people and yeah that included Christian's who are gay, bisexual, transgendered or whatever who have found love and would love to have that blessed before God. Now those that enter non-religious marriage are no less a married couple that does that do so in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple or whatever. The woman is still allowed to take on the husbands name and call herself Mrs. They are married in the eyes of everyone, they are not made to feel second class nor do they have less standing under law than their religious counterparts.

The fact that mixed-sex couples can only solemnise their relationship though marriage and same sex only through partnership means that in the eyes of many a civil partnership is deemed to be an inferior union. Yet there are many mixed-sex couple who do not like the institution of marriage but would like some protection of their rights, which at present for them only a marriage can afford. Similarly there are many gay couple who would be happy being civil-partnered (and what a horrible convoluted turn of phrase that is) but many would also like the option of a marriage.

There is no equality in the system at the present, indeed there are two (three if we count religious and civil mixed-sex marriage as separate) ways in which union can occur and not everybody has access to both. To give perfect equality of status both marriage and civil partnership should be available to couple irrespective of orientation therein surely is the truly libertarian approach.

The greatest injustice of the split between the two systems comes from the case of those who once married find that one partner wishes to undergo gender reassignment. Such as realisation and decision by one of the partners in that relationship can lead to the end of the relationship if the other partner is not comfortable with it. However, what happens if the other partner is supportive and stands by their man or woman through all the stages of gender reassignment. They have shown that they still love the other person by sticking by them as they probably promised at their ceremony, but their marriage has to be divorces or civil partnership dissolved to enable them to recognise their true gender.

Many of the countries that have already allowed same-sex marriage also allow for civil partnerships both of mixed-sex and same-sex couples. That is true equality the individuals decide what level or union type they wish to get joined under, and who will carry out such a ceremony.

Donal says:

"I really do not care what people get up to in the privacy of their own lives as long as it does not cause harm to others."

But in essence you do you blog post has shown that. You are prepared to only let mixed-sex couples who do not approve of the institution of marriage to either get married or take their chances in an unformalised state, which could hurt them or their children in the future. Also there are those you claim to not give two hoots about who you are quite happen to live in the eyes of some, maybe family members, maybe work colleagues or whomever in what is an inferior state as it is not on offer to mixed-sex couples. They can often feel hurt when they are told "but you're not really married" if they really want to be.

Now I'm not calling Donal Blaney homophobic for having his views, though I do believe that rebuke was aimed at Alex Singleton for his Telegraph column which spurred on Donal. But any Christian (i.e. a sinner sanctified by grace) ever forgets the sin in their own eye when casting about some of the statements that he did to justify his position, should look at the hurt that such sayings do cause.

I was a sinner saved by grace at an age before I was sexually aware and active. I spent years fighting with myself over the issue, as it was a right chicken and the egg situation. People making comments like Donal's and growing up in Northern Ireland there was an awful lot only hurt me more. It's not necessarily homophobia but it is a distinct lacking of the love that they at the same time claim to be expressing.

UPDATE: As different colours points out below this opinion is also shared by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and DELGA the Lib Dem LGBT group.

Women Bishops But Not Fully Empowered

On a chess board the two Bishops are dressed in the same colour, start from roughly the same place, seem to have the same focus, but they never meet. The reason is of course that one uses the white square and the other's the black. The King and Queen, between them have the same basic move but the King can only move one square in any direction and the Queen can go as far as she pleases.

The Church of England is planning to legislate so that female bishops will be more like a hamstrung King that a fully fledged Bishop when their ascent to the Bishop's seats comes to be some point after 2014. For yes there are moves afoot to replace a stained glass ceiling in the way of those female vicars that are good enough for being a full participant in the House of Bishops. The Church of England has been listening to submissions from many opposed to the ordination of woman bishops and looking for the need of their special care when the inevitable comes to pass.

Ruth McCurry chairs a group supporting the ordination of woman bishops and sees worrying signs of what is happening:

"You will have a group of people who don't recognise each other as bishops. What kind of church do they think they're in when they are not in communion with each other? You are legislating this schism into existence and you are creating a two-tier church, a category of second-class bishops. People could refuse to receive communion from Rowan [Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury] if he were to ever ordain a woman as a bishop.

"Unfortunately I have come to terms with the fact that you cannot have women bishops without discrimination, lots of men will be discriminated against too, and this poor committee is trying to find an elusive formula that will keep everyone happy. They can't."

So is the Church of England really legislating itself into a schism? Quite possibly. However, other denominations have not just had the equivalent of women bishops but some have even had female leaders. Moderators of the General Assembly here in Scotland and the like. The fact that some in the Church of England are still so pent up on the gender of someone rather than their ability to perform the duties is a travesty in the 21st Century. Without women priests there would be a lot of vacate parishes, or overstretched male vicars covering extra flocks. To deny them the same career track as their male counterparts, or deny them part of the duties upon promotion, is something that the Church leadership should not allow.

Having brought female vicars into being the Church must recognise that the cream will rise to the top. As in all walks of live and must be allowed to do so unhindered and unfettered.

I'm Going to Agree With Charlotte Gore.....In Part

Charlotte Gore wrote on Wednesday:

"Our constitution, too, represents this appeal to the centre between the two extremes - a masterpiece of equivocation that can mean anything to anyone who wants to read it. Balance liberty and equality? Great! Treating everyone equally is a feature of free trade societies, so I’m in favour of that…. wait, what? Sorry? You think it means treating people differently to get equal outcomes, which obviously means scuppering many people’s liberty? Crikey! Yes George, what’s that? Ah you think it means finding a balance between the two of our positions because we’re both extremists?"

I was intending to get around to around to writing a response yesterday but then Eric Joyce resigned and well one thing, led to another, led to.... well, you get the picture. So before anyone accuses me of brown nosing the top ranked Lib Dem Blogger I hasten to add I'm only agreeing in part.

The part I'm looking at is 'treating people differently to get equal outcomes, which obviously means scuppering many people’s liberty'. This is something I agree with in principle, however, there are still occasions where there is some need to be treated differently that at present because the ability to experience full liberty has yet to be reached.

Charlotte is right of course, we preach liberty for all yet seem to be banning more and more stuff. Banning the wearing of religious imagery is one example. We want freedom for all religions, and those of none to abide side by side, yet just because somebody want to show their faith on their sleeve (more accurately round their neck, on their head, in their label etc.) we get all uppity.

There are exceptions of course the most prevalent is the smoking ban. The libertarians will quote that this is wrong because people should have the right to choose. I agree that people should have the right, should they so wish to inhale carcinogens straight into their ventricular system should they want, it is why it shouldn't be banned in people homes. However, public places are always going to be somebody else's place of work, and are you giving the employees who work there the chose not to inhale the fumes. The libertarians will then say but they don't have to work in an environment that allows smoking, but then surely by allowing the smokers to work wherever they chose you are limiting the liberties of the non-smoking worker to work in certain establishments.

What Charlotte has got right is that you can't always take a middle road between two extremes, you will still have both extremes present and both will be upset for you for trying to moderate their behavior, plus you become an absolute muddle. However, you have to cut out what is harmful while allowing what is expression of difference to occur. That is a fine line between liberty and being overbearing for the sake of something to do.

Freedom means not necessarily being able to agree with everything that goes on, you can only agree with everything that happens with absolute control.

Is Lack of Equal Marriage Rights a Form of Apartheid?

Now I know that some members of my own party who consider the issue of same sex marriage a matter on conscience and not one we should form a firm policy on. However, with the aid of Calum Cashley the SNP PPC for Edinburgh North and Leith I’d like to prick that conscience just a little.

We as Liberal Democrats are the party of equality. The preamble to our constitution opens:

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

So let’s look at the parallel that Calum draws between Civil Partnerships and marriage designation in Apartheid era South Africa. There was a designation of interracial marriage which was viewed as substandard, below other partnerships. There were plenty of Liberals whose conscience led them to protest against that state of affairs, a young Peter Hain among them. There was no problem in forming policy against the Apartheid regime.

Calum says he not sure what the differences are between a Civil Partnership and a marriage, there are a number.

He gets the first one that there is a distinction in the name just as same sex couples cannot have a marriage; mixed-sexed couples cannot get a civil partnership. The Government claims it is the same yet there is a distinction there, one group is set aside from the rest of society with a second class designation.

The next issue is that while you can have a religious, humanist or civil marriage as a mixed sex couple, a religious or humanist celebrant is not able to solemnise a same sex union, if they want to. The assumption is that because you are in a same sex relationship you are outside the religious flock and would not want to join with your life partner in a religious context.

The final thrust of the equal marriage campaign is dealing with gender recognition and the anomaly that they face should one partner seek to alter their legally recognised gender under the terms of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. They are no longer able to remain either married or civil partnered once that event happens even they remain in love and wish to remain together. They then of course would also face the issue if they wish to re-union in not being able to have the same type of union as previously.

So while Calum and I have a different idea of the governance style of what form a fair society for Scotland will take we can agree on this issue.

Update: I Uhmed and Ahhed about the title for this post since I wrote it, but decided to change it from "A Nats Backing For Marriage Fairness" to the new one to reflect on Calum's comments. In the end I decided to take a leaf out of Charlotte Gore's book.

Nick's Coup with that Post on LabourList

There has been a lot of discussion about why the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg posted his piece on gay rights on LabourList rather than say Lib Dem Voice. My good friend Caron says that we wouldn't allow an opposition politician house room on any Lib Dem election leaflet, and quite right too. But then doesn't LDV allow guest posts from politicians and commentators from different hues. Jennie doesn't hold back on the language [so minors are warned got that Mr Leslie ;)] when she point's out her outrage at what she sees as the glorious leader shooting himself in the foot.

But if you look at the thrust of what he is saying he is saying is not preaching to the choir. Us Lib Dems would all largely agree with exactly what he is saying, indeed I said so this morning. But Nick is merely pointed out the way still to go like my take on what Tony Blair said to Attitude in April. Indeed the fact is that if I had of written that on LabourList, as Irfan says he'd have no problems with, would people have given it as much attention both in our party and in Labours. I don't think so.

It's a message that needs to get out there. It has been put out there on a day when gay people are proud to be out.

Get this. Nick has become the first public leader to endorse equal marriage rights. Yes he has done it on a Government supporting website, but he has laid down the gauntlet on London Pride day, on Labour's turf, in such a public way.

I hope the Fail on Sunday leads with a headline 'Clegg Wants Gay Marriage', or something, I really do. This is the greatest fillip for the Equal Marriage Campaign. By Nick coming out and saying this in the way he has may just be the kick that this issue needs, we shall see how the MSM and indeed the Government and Tories run with it from here.

One Small Step for Rome

One giant step for Lord's reform.



The news that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is to take a seat with the Lords Spiritual on the red benches of the House of Lords should hardly be ground breaking news in our days of equal opportunity. After all Chief Rabbis have already had a seat (though not as a matter of course). However, the Cardinal will be treading where no Cardinal has trod since reformation times.



The ban on Catholics sitting in the Lords was finally lifted in 1829, at the same time as that on Jews and others was also lifted. But never has a senior Catholic Churchman been given a life peerage to add to the spiritual content of the upper chamber in those 180 years. There have been prominent lay Roman Catholics of course but none of equal standing to the 26 Anglican Bishops who earn their seat on appointment to their Diocese.



The 76 year old Archbishop of Westminster is setting another post-reformation precedent. He will be the first to retire that position, the rest have died in office. A move that is expected in the next couple of weeks after which it is expected he will be elevated (at least in the secular sense) to the Lords. He will therefore be the first member of the College of Cardinals to also be a member of the House of Lords since the 16th Century.

Equality and Maternity Leave - Victims of Recession

Plans announced the the Queen's speech to enhance maternity leave and toughen equality legislation are the latest victims of the recession if Lord Voldemort of Hartlepool and Foy has his way. The Business Minister sees these enhancements to the workplace as anti-business and therefore as part of the confidential memo calling on Minister to:

"advise on a moratorium on legislation and legislative announcements made but not yet implemented that will entail additional costs for businesses".

these measures have come under the Mandelson axe. However, these policies have been championed by Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader, who has rallied for a harder line against those who blame the recession to victimise those covered by such legislation longer.

However, it shows a rift in the cabinet and Labour party over just how to deal with the downturn in the economy. Jon Cruddas said:

"If the most progressive of our policies are the first to go under the hatchet, that will cause deep unease across the party. Genuflecting to the free market got us into this mess and the solution is not more of the same. There is now a deepening ideological divide about what to do next."

So the ideological battle between traditional and new Labour may also be raising its head in the midst of this crisis. At a time when the polls are not favourable to Labour inner party struggles may also been seen as a means to move on. However, there is a task at hand and it seems that there are two roads diverging in the Westminster village. It all depends which is the road Labour will travel by.

A Proud Place of Work or Several

The police force, banks and management consultants top the Stonewall equality index ahead of the public sector, the media and education.

The index which for the fifth year has ranked employers based on their impact of workplace culture on gay, lesbian and bisexual employees is as a key barometer of diversity practices across the UK. The index looks at how employees diversity policies and how they impact on recruitment applications comparing it with information of experiences gathered from the employees.

This year the study has grown to more than twice the size when it started surveying 7,000 lesbian and gay employees of 371 employers over 23 sectors. Seventeen separate police forces feature in the top 100, three in the top ten. While sectors like law and housing have improved considerably, the construction industry along with media and the NHS do particularly poorly. Indeed only one NHS Trust, Tower Hamlets, appears in the top 100.

However, for this fifth incarnation of the index the standard was made tougher than in the past as Stonewall also required proof of long-term effectiveness from entrants.

One encouraging statistic from the index is that 97% of the top 100 were organisations that had an organisation-wide equality and diversity strategy linking Lesbian Gay Bisexual equality into their wider organisational aims.

The Count Down of the Top 10

10. Home Office*
8. = Merseyside Police
8. = Manchester City Council
7. London Borough of Tower Hamlets
5. = Transport for London
5. = Nacro (last years no. 1)
4. Kent Police
3. Brighton and Hove City Council
2. Hampshire Police
1. Lloyds TSB

*I will reserve comment about other issues for now. (Will right a balance piece later)

Warren: It's Marriage Not Relationships That's the Issue

With less than a month to go to the inauguration of the first Black President of the United States, Rick Warren the pastor who some has, in the eyes of some been controversially, chosen to pray at that historic event has made a statement on gay marriage.

He said in the podcast released on Monday:

"I have in no way ever taught that homosexuality is the same thing as a forced relationship between an adult and a child, or between siblings. I was trying to point out I'm not opposed to gays having their partnership. I'm opposed to gays using the term marriage for their relationship."

Strange then that in the past he has made such comparisons of homosexuality with paedophilia, polygamy and incest, as he equated all four together only last week when he answered a question with a clear "I do".

He also said that while he doesn't equate homosexual relationships with incest or pedophilia, that he opposes redefining marriage just as any conservative Christian would. Problem with using such phraseology as that is very similar to what the conservative Christians in the American bible belt were saying about inter-racial marriage up to 41 years ago in 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned bans in Loving v. Virgina. Thing is he is opposed to Proposition 8 in California, which again was a redefinition of marriage.

Is Rev Warren, also opposed to the 1967 Supreme Court ruling? I don't think he is and am not accusing him of such. However, the thing is that laws are transitory the US has Supreme Courts at state and federal levels to past judgements on such things.

As any fan of The West Wing will know the USA hasn't always looked favourably on minorities. The rules of the Census as outlined in Mr. Willis of Ohio pointed out how the original wording from the founding father's appropriated proportions only of slaves or descendants of slaves towards state and national totals. So the rules move, the fact that Warren also quotes the extremely low church based guesstimate of 2% gay population rather than any scientifically sampled survey does not give his affectations any merit. Afterall the church is supposed to stand up for the underdog and the oppressed. Yet not as often in the past they are the oppressor and the big guys pulling their disproportionate weight.

His Larry Ross a spokesman for Warren's Saddleback church tried to ease things over by saying the church's view that Scripture prohibits sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Anyone can attend Saddleback worship services. But the church article had said that gays "unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted" as members. One wonders just how many Saddleback members have or are having heterosexual relationship in a lifestyle not conforming to the churches view. But that is an investigation for another day.

If Age is No Limit on Safety

The Blood Transfusion Service has announced plans to extend existing donors ability to give blood beyond their 70th birthday. It is a move seen as increasing the available pool as blood by about 15,000 donation per annum (of course with the addition of my Y Chromosome the odds of me getting that far based on familial precedent are slim). It will not apply to new donors who must start before their 65th birthday as at present and donations must be within 2 years of the last donation made to continue this extension. The service said that:

"given the steady improvement we have seen over recent years in the general
fitness of our older donors, it is now safe for us to remove our upper age limit
for donation."

So NHS Blood and Transplant are able to lift arbitrary provisions when they see that it is safe to do so. Which leads to the other arbitrary limit that does hit the headlines. Men who have had sex with another man, either orally or anally, with or without protection.

The Blood Transfusion Service will argue about men who continue to practice having sex with other men seeing as it is a high risk group. Something that while many in that group feel aggrieved about can see some justification in the argument from the statistics. However, while a woman who has had sex with a man so excluded can give 12 months after that relationship is terminated, a man who may have experimented in his past whether 2, 10, 20 or 30 years ago cannot. Is there not some way that such a group can been shown as safe after all this time? Especially as they are as at risk as those already included in the service's "donor selection rules".

When will the service see such men as being now safe? Indeed how are they certain that the simple question asked by such a group is not already by passed by any of their donors? If it is so far in their past it may be something that certain people may consider an irrelevance to their donating and makes the policing of such an arbitrary ban almost impossible to enforce.

If the Blood Transfusion Service is using word's like safety, fitness regarding their older donors they should look at what they do consider safe, prudent etc on some of their other arbitrary limitations.

Something Old, New, Borrowed..Oops

Yes it could be very blue for married women with regard to the latest lunacy to emerge about Labour's ID card scheme. Apparently failure to tell the authorities that they have changed their name after marriage will land them with a £1000 fine.

However, there is a major problem with this. There are a number of women I know, and some of them are elected representatives even, who continue to use their maiden name for professional reasons, but for other things use their married name. Let's take one famous example:

There is a top whizz international lawyer and speaker who wishes to present her credentials to appear at the High Court. Whoops however, her ID card is not accepted as it is in her married name, as she doesn't want to incur the wrath of a £1000 fine not that she can't afford it.

Now let's assume she wants to attend a major engagement along with her husband, also a well known figure. But let's take it that her ID card is in her working name. Oops her husband walks on by to his appointment with the Queen or the Prime Minister but she is not allowed to follow as the maiden name on her ID card doesn't match the guest list. She may be fined £1000 pounds as well as arrested for identity fraud.

Of course this is all unlikely to happen to Cherie Booth/Blair but what about the rest of womankind.

Churches Out to Invalidate Proposition 8

Yes I had to double take that as well when I read it on Liz Williams Singing My Song blog. However, it does appear that church and religious leaders in California have been one of the first groups to file a law suit against Proposition 8 which overturned the States Supreme Court Ruling, in March this year, that 2000's Proposition 22 violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and upheld the right held that individuals of the same sex had the right to marry under the California Constitution.


Rev. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director of the California Council of Churches said:

"Proposition 8 poses a grave threat to religious freedom. If the Court permits
gay men and lesbians to be deprived of equal protection by a simple majority
vote, religious minorities could be denied equal protection as well—a terrible
irony in a nation founded by people who emigrated to escape religious
persecution. If the Court permits Proposition 8 to take effect, religious
discrimination similarly could be written into California's Constitution."

Wow! I'm quite impressed that senior churchmen are prepared to stand up for the USA's separation of the powers of Church and State in such a sensible way. One co-signatory of the law suit Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ added:

"We believe our communities are strengthened and our religious freedoms
protected by ensuring that the principle of equal protection applies to all
Californians. Religious groups know from long experience the dangers posed by
placing unchecked power in the hands of temporary majorities."

The groups represented in this law suit are the California Council of Churches, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, two Episcopal Bishops (of California and Los Angeles), the Progressive Jewish Alliance, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of California, and the Northern and Southern California Nevada Conferences of the United Church of Christ.

No Gay Sex We're British

Well at least that's what 24% of them think according to the latest opinion poll in today's Observer, as they want it made illegal. Also 40% want to reverse the equalisation of the age of consent legislation brought in for same sex relationships. With over 56% thinking that same sex couples should not be able to adopt.

At the end of the article is one key statement that men are more likely than women to hold a negative view towards homosexuality. The more liberal men also tend to be ABC1 in terms of social status and the bigger homophobes the C2DE groups. Whether this is genuine fear (of the unknown or personal effect), peer pressure or mere ignorance is the question that really needs to be asked and addressed.

It is probably not surprising therefore that despite Paul Elliot the former Celtic, Chelsea and Aston Villa player saying that he knows a dozen gay men playing football at the top level none are openly out. The average fan on the sidelines is more likely to be classes as C2DE. No professional player has been openly out since the sad demise of Justin Fashanu.

Has 42 Days Extended 40 Years Without Abortion?

Remember back in June when the DUP backed Labour in able for the flailing government to secure 42 day detention without trail in the commons? Remember the DUP denying that there were any deals done over upcoming legislation? This despite historically the DUP being a defender of civil liberties in the area of detention without trial even in the tough times of the 70s and 80s.

When just what are we to make of the decision of Labour to totally shelf the amendment to the human fertilisation and embryology bill scheduled for today which was to relook at Northern Ireland's exemption from the bill. All the abortion amendments including the need for two doctors approval have been slipped to the end, with no time to debate them. A recent survey showing 62% of people in Northern Ireland being in favour of allowing abortion as a choice to be taken up locally. Despite this Labour have put off the chance to discuss it for how long? Another 40 years maybe? Many protested both for and against the idea on Saturday so it is a debate that Northern Ireland wants, no needs to have.

Northern Irish politician's claimed that they should have a say in such legislation at the assembly. But if they are given the option will they listen to the majority of the people on this? Or will they listen to the vocal minority? who sadly make up the core vote of most of the main parties.

Just what role did the 42 day vote have in making Harriet Harman basically dump these amendments en masse?