National Coming Out Day UK

Today is National Coming Out Day in the UK, many people will have notice twitter being alive with this yesterday but that was the USA and other countries. It is a day to celebrate the rights of LGBT rights achieved and the fight for those yet to come wherever that may be.

Coming out is a strange phrase it suggests one particular occasion instead of one of various events that someone who identifies as LGBT has to go through, on a day-to-day, person-by-person basis. Here are some of my coming out stories.

To my parents: I told my Mum while I was ironing door stairs in the house where I am writing this. I simple said "Mum there is something I have to tell you. I'm gay". She asked, "You're not having sex are you?", seeing I was clearly standing there ironing my shirts and not engaging in a sexual act and she had asked the question in the present tense I replied, "No." If she had phrased it, "You haven't had sex have you?" she would have got a different response. Since then seeing as she has discovered both condoms and lube at various times I would suspect that she knows that is not the case.

My dad was at the time a church elder and Boys Brigade Captain, in which I served in the section my mother was leader. When I told him, he simply said, "Thanks for being honest." I wish more Christians could take that approach when other gay Christians come out to them. We're avoiding the sin of lying.

To work colleagues: The first time I came out to work colleagues was on a works night out. One of the girls in the group, knowing I was single, asked me, "What to you think of that girl over there?" I ceased the chance in front of all my colleagues and said, "Not my type, but that guy just behind her. Phwoar!" That was it. I came out to the guys at work, in a fun non-intimidating way, to all of them at once and they were fine with it.

To the bowling team: I can't remember exactly what the first occurrence was. But it was most certainly one Saturday as a group of us night-clubbed the night away in Bangor, post match. Having never seen me hit on any of the girls the lads asked me why, so I told them. Some Saturday's later in the usual pre-match warm up banter across the green about who was going to pull that night, one of them started with, and we might even get a nice guy for you Stephen. They were fine about it, it was done in an inclusive and jocular fashion. If any of the opponents dared to use homophobic language about me the other 15 were on them like a shot.

On National TV: To be honest I suppose I actually have to identify as bi-sexual, even though I have only had one opposite sex sexual partner, though I was engaged to her for five years. However, most of the Scottish Liberal Democrats were aware of that as most of the five years coincided with my early days in Scotland. Indeed that was the reason I ended up there. So in 2009, three and half years after that relationship ended, I hadn't got around to telling everyone. Key friends and colleagues were all aware, but not every conference rep. However, we were going to have a debate on the blood ban. Here were my opening comments.

"Conference, my Grandfather donated blood from the early days of the Blood Transfusion Service. He was an on-request donor due to his rare blood type. My father received his gold badge for 100 donations. I used to give blood, but not now. I'm not allowed to, as (slowly) I have sex with other men. (long pregnant pause)"

This was going out live on BBC Scotland on a Sunday Morning, but there was also some interesting reactions of shock around the hall.

More work colleagues: At one point in recent history our team in Edinburgh were 4 straight, 3 LGB* (unlike Stonewall I know there was no Transgender involvement, nor did there have to be). However, despite subtle pronoun corrections and other such things in the work place 2 or maybe three of the straight members of the team hadn't quite picked up on the diversity in the group. The three of us all had from the first few days that the other ones joined the team. However, it was the turn of one of the three to leave (not me). So the leaving do was arranged for The Street, probably one of the most straight friendly, gay friendly bars in Edinburgh's pink district (so much so that some straight friends have missed what is happening around them). Slowly as the three of us waited for partners to turn up it became apparent to our newest team member and another innocent one that we were in a gay friendly environment in the more gay leaving do I've even been fortunate enough to attend with my own work colleagues.

These are just some of the coming out stories that there have been in my live. As I said at the start it is almost a daily experience as you meet someone different and you have to decide if you can go ahead with it and let them know that detail about you. As you can see there is a variety of ways that can be achieved. My opinion is if you are confident in yourself and go and do it your friends, acquaintances have no option but to respond in a positive way. If you are positive in yourself and happy to let them know. Sure there are also some bad tales to tell. But the more people who know and love you through it, the more people who will also watch your back when things go nasty.

* Yeah one of each.

I Quite Like Decaff

I quite like decaffeinated coffee.

If I drink it in copious amounts my head doesn't ache as it would if I drank the same amount of normal coffee. Also it enables me to sleep well* at night.

However, why am I a confessed tea drinker on the whole defending coffee of the decaffeinated variety? The reason is that a Vatican official Father Gonzalo Miranda, a bioethics professor at Regina Apostolorum University, travelling through Mexico has said:

"A gay relationship is like decaffeinated coffee, you do not wake up".

Other benefits of course of de-caff are you are less strung up, less irritable. Also you're less reliant on the next fix, possibly even a stronger fix to wake you up. Detoxing from caffeinated products can also bring revival to your system. For the professor in the pontifical institution to compare caffeine, a drug, and its dependency to wake you up to a heterosexual relationship shows that something is also wrong with his analogy.

He has merely looked at one aspect of coffee or indeed relationships without bearing in mind the counter argument. Of course there is bias in he words.

Can a gay relationship be as fulfilling as a heterosexual one? Of course it can. Can it be as life affirming, as cherished and as desirable as a heterosexual one? Again I say of course it can. From personal experience I'm getting to the point that I'm getting tired of the dating game, I'm looking for that one person I can lavish all my love unto, of course the only way to meet that person is go meet more people. I also don't fall in love easily so when I do that person really is special (and I guess I've probably just scared off a vast majority of potentials).

But there is a yearning a desire to find that one. It exists even in a homosexual relationship. It's not any less a desire. Maybe it is the Church both Catholic and otherwise that needs to wake up. There are members of their flocks who are gay. They need to be nurtured not picked out for singular mention from the pulpit of being sinful, while their heterosexual neighbours can breathe easily as their sinfulness is not highlighted with quite the regularity as lying with another man is.

As I said at the start there are many health benefits of decaffeinated coffee, just as there are with decaffeinated and herbal teas. Benefits that can aid the physical and mental well being of those that sup on it, rather than being forced to adhere to a caffeinated norm.

* Well being a relative term for an insomniac like myself.

Why Older Gents Find It Harder Coming Out

It must be something to do with me being here in Bangor, last time I was here briefly it was David Laws that came out today it is Crispin Blunt. There are differences between the two cases, the first had been with his partner for a number of years the second had been married and coming to terms with his sexuality has led to a split from his wife at the age of 50.

I've noticed some of the younger bloggers and tweeters don't seem to get that there was an issue with being out publicly even not that long ago. It is something that Iain Dale writes poignantly about here (and I don't think I can improve on) it also shows how near to the cusp of that sea change I myself am. Which when you add to the fact that I'm from Northern Ireland makes it all the more a step that I've been out for over a decade.

Of course there is no such thing as being totally out, there are the little outings that one can or decide not to make every day. It has been nine years since I lived here and to be honest it is like starting all over again with many people not knowing. Bearing in mind that only for the last 5 years in Scotland did the much stronger gay side of my bisexuality become a matter that impacted on people. It is of course five years that many of the people here didn't get to see much of me in. So I'm facing a lot of honesty on my part going forward of that I am sure.

Crispin Blunt has made that first step of being honest, possibly with himself, but especially with his family. That will be a bedrock that will help him going forward, much as it was for David Laws back in May. The fact is from here on in it is a fact. A fact of his life that he has finally acknowledged. It has nothing to do with libido* it is about the sexuality of the individual, and just as there are high and low libidos in heterosexuals the same goes for homosexuals.

However, one thing that does it easier for the older LGBT community in the public sphere (and I think the split comes somewhere in the 40s) to come out is the fact that the younger ones of us have come out to largely positive responses. As Kristofer Keane tweeted:

"the message that needs to be spread is if you've got anything to get off your chest, do it now, we'll all still love you."

* Shame on Fraser Nelson the Spectator editor.

Dear Stonewall, Some People are Closeted Get Over It

I make no apologies for twisting Sonewall's 'Some People are Gay Get Over It' slogan especially in light of reading Ed Fordham's opinion piece on Lib Dem Voice the other day. Like Ed said:

"I was appalled by the decision of Stonewall’s Chief Executive Ben Summerskill to take the airwaves and print media to launch his own mini-campaign against David [Laws]."

Not everyone finds it easy to be out and proud as Summerskill seems to make it. It they did where are the gay footballers and apart from Gareth Thomas the gay rugby players at the top end of our sports. Similarly in other high profile professions, the media in certain quarters still take great delight in finding out that some film, pop, sport star or public figure is caught in a possibly compromising position with someone of the same sex. Those same sectors absolutely revel in it if that same person comes out, and if there is tragedy like in the case of Stephen Gately they can even blame it all on sexuality.

It's not easy.

Indeed Stonewall seem to have in the shape of Summerskill become the arbiter of family circumstances as far as coming out is concerned. They seem to be saying that they and only they know when you should be out. I thought that was a person decision for every one of us, don't we decide how out and open we are with each individual we know?

I am not a number! I am me!

Of course none of us in the UK have it as hard as Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga had it in Malawi. Therefore the news that Monjeza has either due to the governmental pressure, family pressure or whatever has found himself a female lover and is renouncing his previous love for and engagement to Chimbalanga is sad.

But Chimbalanga is the sort of person who does not need the support of groups like Stonewall, he's said:

"But I am not worried. You cannot force love, and nobody forced him when we did our symbolic wedding in December.

"I will also marry because there are lots of good men around. I will remain a gay."

It is people who like Monjeza feel the pressure to conform to a so-called 'norm' that need the support not the derision that Summerskill is heaping upon people like David Laws. For whatever reason, wherever in the world they are some people are quiet about their homosexuality. I guess it is a fact of gay life.

So Stonewall some people are closeted, get over it.

Some Good News for David Laws

There is some good news for David Laws following the rather forced and sudden nature of his coming out over the weekend his family have accepted his sexuality and welcomed James his partner into their lives. Speaking to the Western Daily News he said:

"I guess it was pretty stupid really, because all of the people I have spoken to since Friday have accepted it without hesitation: my parents, family and friends. Not being honest with them has meant a huge price over recent years. I have had to keep a large part of my life secret."

"I have heard from lots of friends over the past few days who said it didn't matter to them, or they didn't care about my sexuality, and to be able to meet them in the future, to be honest with them, to meet them with James, will be a huge relief."

I'm glad it went well, it is just a pity that four years ago or earlier he didn't take the plunge, then we'd propably still have him as Chief Secretary to the Treasury as he'd have been claiming for his share of a joint mortgage rather than paying rent to a 'partner'.

May's Own Private IDAHO

Today is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia(IDAHO)* it is the 20th Anniversary of the World Health Organisation de-listing homosexuality as a mental illness. Some people who think there is still a cure should get with the 1990s and realise it isn't a disease.

So our Home Secretary and Equality Minister Theresa May issued this statement:

"This government is committed to creating a society that is fair for everyone and supports equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people.

"This means supporting civil partnerships, tackling homophobic bullying wherever it occurs, changing the law regarding historic convictions for consensual gay sex and using our international influence to put pressure on countries where LGB&T people are persecuted.

"These commitments show our determination to tear down the barriers that continue to hold people back."

Considering May's own voting record on gay rights and that most of her party's predecessors the lifting of historic convictions for consensual gay sex is a start of the great repeal act against some of the Conservative's policies.

However, the statement is welcome. Especially in light of the reaction earlier this year of one of their MEPs to the situation in Uganda. I hope the UK under a Tory and Lib Dem government does bring pressure internationally for gay rights.


* Look I know the T has been dropped altogether don't look at me.

Grayling Not Fit to be Home Secretary

The Observer is reporting that Chris Grayling has told bed and breakfast owners that are totally within their rights to turn away same sex couples from their establishments. This really is turning the Tories back to the bad old days of the 80s. Also contravening the equality laws that Labour have brought in over the last 13 years.

What next?

Will they stop our schools protecting gay pupils from homophobic bullying? If they want to.

Will they allow employers to sack people purely on the basis of their sexual orientation? If they want to.

What happened to the Conservative party that March Pink Times said was making most impression with first time gay voters?

Maybe that David Cameron slip up with Gay Times (below) was merely the slipping of the mask about the true level of Conservative acceptance of homosexuality.



Updat with Fact Check: Iain Dale says he had to disagree with Grayling but has also gone for the following defence:

Do I believe Chris Grayling is homophobic? No, I do not. Do I believe that his views, as expressed, will be damaging. Yes I do. He has just issued the following statement...

"Any suggestion that I am against gay rights is wholly wrong - it is a matter of record that I voted for civil partnerships. I also voted in favour of the legislation that prohibited bed and breakfast owners from discriminating against gay people. However, this is a difficult area and on Wednesday I made comments which reflected my view that we must be sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups in this country. But the law is now clear on this issue, I am happy with it and would not wish to see it changed."

Which would be well and good only They Work for You tells us that Grayling has voted moderately against equal gay rights. So just how has he voted on those issues.

For that Tory biggy repealling section 28 he was actually absent from the vote. He was actually a teller for vote agaist allowing same-sex couples to adopt. He'd also voted for there being an other sex 'role model' as part of the embryology and fertilisation bill consistently saying that a male and female are required in a family model.

However, in Chris's own words he voted for civil partnerships, that is only part of the story, he did vote for it in 2004 but on the 21 October 2001 he voted against bringing such a bill before the house.

Good Enough to Play. Unless You're Gay!?!

As a sportsman there is nothing I hate worse than telling someone hey shouldn't do that sport whether because of disability, race or sexual orientation. I'm a great advocate of the paralympian movement. I believe we should show racism the red card and same applies to homophobia.

Therefore the words of Rudi Assauer former player, ex-manager of German team Schalke 04 and now a player agent really upset me.

"If a player came to me and said he was gay I would say to him: 'You have shown courage'. But then I would tell him to find something else to do.

"That's because those who out themselves always end up busted by it, ridiculed by their fellow players and by people in the stands. We should spare them these witch hunts."

But why do such witch hunts exist? Because there are no openly gay professional footballers in any of the major leagues. It's not they aren't there, the ability to play football isn't based on the gender you prefer. Heck we have had Donal Og Cusack, of Cork's hurling team in October and Welsh rugby player Gareth Thomas in December both coming out in far more physical sports than football.

In a related story American skater Johnny Weir has been deemed not family friendly enough for the touring show Stars on Ice. The skater who is a three times US national champion who came sixth in the Vancouver Olympics. He was the butt of jokes from Australian and French commentators at the event.

Australian Channel Nine presenters Eddie McGuire and Mick Molloy took aim at his masculinity and pink and black costume, while French sportscasters Claude Mailhot and Alain Goldberg of the RDS network suggested he should take a gender test and that he was a "bad example".

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) claims that sponsors Smuckers and IMG Entertainment, refused to allow Weir to participate, because he refuses to clarify his sexuality.

They challenged his family friendliness by saying:

"To say that Weir is 'not family friendly' would be a clear jab at his perceived sexual orientation.

"Weir is extremely involved with his family. He is putting his younger brother through college, and supports the family financially because his father’s disability prohibits him from working."

Weir himself has not commented on this latest story, but in Vancouver about the comments he countered with this rather tongue in cheek riposte:

"There are some things I keep sacred. My middle name. Who I sleep with. And what kind of hand moisturiser I use."

The guy has class, see the rest of that press conference.

Let's not forget that post Olympics in the run up to the Worlds in 1976 the Gold Medalist John Curry was outed as gay. He was good enough to win gold, sportsmen if they are good enough shouldn't matter who they fancy.

The Attitude Check - The Leaders' Responses Part II

Yesterday I started to look at the common questions that Johann Hari posed to David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown over the last three months in Attitude. I'm initially going to look at the common questions and each leaders response.

The second such question was:

Who were the first gay people you knew?

Point of information: All three leaders are of roughly the same generation, though Gordon is of course slightly older. Gordon in 59 this Saturday, David Cameron is only a few months older than Nick Clegg who recently turned 43.

Clegg: That is a difficult question for me as I don't think there was a particular moment. I had a very liberal upbringing, a very open upbringing, I was lucky. I had very liberal parents, an international upbringing. I had gay friends at school and worked with gay colleagues for a long time, so there was no sort of "Eureka!" moment when I said "oh!" - it wasn't like that. I think that's in keeping for someone of my generation. I'm blind to this. My closest friend at university who I lived with, came out, but, you know, I never thought of him as "My Gay Friend". He was just Luke, my best friend, that was it.

Nick's answer is very much like most people of my sort of age. It sort of happens around you from school up. No big deal, but being able to place one time or one person is tough, but he does talk a little about one friend. It's very much a relaxed answer, spoken in a chit chat sort of way. You can tell he's at ease with the question and merely answers it.

Cameron: Openly gay? I suppose friends I made particularly after I left university. I went to the Conservative Research Department and since then [I have had] quite a lot of [gay] friends, actually. It's difficult to know sometimes, going further back.

Ouch! I have to say it that opening is something that most Attitude readers will have also cringed at, most of us may well have experienced the first person we knew who was gay was letting us in on a secret possibly, a true friend hoping you'd keep their confidence. Failing that I don't believe any one could have gone through University in the 80s without having at least one gay friend. Somehow that is just what Eton and Oxford educated Cameron seems to have done. Now they may not have been friends but surely they were known to him.

Brown: Good friends at university. I went to one of the first civil partnership ceremonies in Britain, and it was very moving. I thought - here's something that wouldn't have happened in Britain ten years ago without there being a Labour government to bring it about. It demanded such courage from the people who campaigned for it for decades and then it took legislative decisions to make it happen. It showed our country is far more tolerant that people thought - we are ready to embrace the dignity of every individual. The gay community in Britain should take credit not just for winning rights for themselves, but making our country a better country. People respect individuals more as a result of the achievements you have had. And to have changed not only your own community but also to have changed the country itself over the last ten years - it's an incredible achievement. And that message has gone out across the world, everyone can see it.

That's why I spoke out so strongly when there were moves to roll back civil partnerships in America. There are people who have made a commitment to each other and clearly loved each other, who are now faced with this idea that it is going to be rescinded. It's totally unacceptable. And that's why I'm fighting to get all the countries in Europe to recognize civil partnerships carried out in Britain. We want countries where that hasn't been the case - especially in Eastern Europe - to recognize them. We're negotiating agreements with France and then with Spain. But I think we can actually go further than that. And if we could show, in Eastern Europe as well as Western Europe, that this respect for gay people is due, that would be really important. Of course it will be tough, and it will take many years, but that has never ever been a good reason not to fight. Every single change we've delivered for equality we started off with people telling us it couldn't be done.

Brown started well with his opening four words, they answered the question in part. He carries out about going to one of the first civil partnerships. But this launches him off into a tangent, rather than talking about any of those friendships he lurches into a treatise. There is repetition from question one of key words individual, rights community/society, equality. There are all sort of abstract concepts, speaking in a general rather than a specific. Rather stilted as if learnt rather than from personal experience. Also for quite a long answer only the first four words and possibly the second sentence actually deal with answering the question. Like an examination answer or a political answer picking up a key theme and running with it in totally a different direction.

Neither Brown or Cameron come across well in this answer, Cameron stalls with his question, before working out where to go. Brown starts with the answer but in four words is off talking generalities rather than about the friends, the object of the question.

My rating of this answer:

• Clegg 7/10
• Cameron 3/10
• Brown 2/10
  

The Politics of Showering

Or America's Hysterical Homophobic Far Right

I signed up a while back to the American Family Association (AFA) mailing list, I had to sign up to comment negatively on one of their forums a while back. Well this morning I received their latest hysterical mailing, it includes the phrase.

"If President Obama, congressional Democrats, and homosexual activists get their wish, your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals who may very well view them with sexual interest."

Oh dear, better go the whole hog AFA. Best not let them fight alongside Army's such as the British that allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality. Better have segregated University Campuses, can't have America's straight young students getting barracked up with open and active homosexuals in halls. Worse they need to vet their sports teams, or just stop the homosexual sportsmen and women taking part in sport.

• Martina Navratilova should not have been allowed in the women's locker room at Wimbledon
• Greg Louganis, who famously banged his head off the springboard on the way to defending his Olympic gold, should not have been allowed to get out of his speedos next to the Olympic pool.
• As for sending a team to the Winter Olympics starting later this week. Well you know those gay magazines advertise skiing holidays, can't be too careful.
  

Are you going to protest and been consistent that these openly gay American sports stars hand back their achievements in the name of your country. Here is the news, from my personal experience, not all gay sportsmen view their straight team mates or competitors as sexual objects in the showers after the event. Fact is some of the straight guys show signs of arousal in the showers, but we won't ask and won't tell. So why should the military be different?

As a former footballer, rugby player and runner, and someone who still works out at the gym who happens to be gay I have seen plenty of naked straight guys in the showers. If I'd view each of those as a sexual interest and decided to follow through on it, I'd never be able to get anything done, either compete at the level I competed at or do any work.

In this months Gay Times magazine there is an article about gay men in the British army. Unlike in the USA where they exist but in a closeted way, in the British Army ten years after we changed our policy. One serving gay soldier said:

"Because the armed forces consist of such close-knit teams, I didn't want to hide anything, so it was important to be to be honest. That doesn't mean being camp though, it just means I don't have to put up a facade.

"That said, my sexuality is only as relevant as a straight guys. I wouldn't say it's part of my experience in the forces, in any other way than it's part of my experience of life. I suspect other gay soldiers feel the same."

Another tells of his coming out to his comrades:

"It wasn't planned. People found out by accident. However, everyone has been really understanding and supportive. The people I work with are like my extended family so we all know each other really well. They may make a joke of certain situations but nothing more that that. We are all serving in a conflict and that is the priority."

That joking about being one of the lads is something that I encountered when I came out to my team mates. It was an acceptance of me and who I was. They would be joking about each other and it was inclusion of me.

The AFA email concludes:

"If we do not insist that the ban on homosexual military service be retained*, our military will no longer be the place America's families want to send their best and brightest young men and women."

Personally I think that if they can't be confident enough with their own sexuality, confident enough to stand up for it, capable of saying no to unwanted advances they can't really be the best and the brightest that America has to offer. But if they are, heaven help the free world, we're being run and protected by simpletons.

* It doesn't exist they just can't tell.

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.

How Rainbow are the Tories? Part II

Earlier this month I asked how truly gay friendly were the Tories. Tim Trent a blogger from Devon wrote to his local representatives about the Ugandan 'Anti-Homosexuality Bill' and got this response from Giles Chichester Conservative MEP for England South West and Gibraltar, I've highlighted a key phrase.

Dear Mr Trent,

Thank you for your round robin email to South West MEPs of 8th January with regard to Ugandan proposed legislation. I am replying on behalf of my Conservative colleagues because under the arrangement we have for constituency cover on a geographical county by county basis I am the initial point of contact for correspondence from Devon.

Yes I am aware of the press reports. I have the impression that being against homosexuality is not the sole or even major part of this draft legislation nevertheless I can well understand the concern it has caused in the wider world

My Personal opinion is that homosexuals have human rights like every other person. I have not made any representations in this matter up to now because I regard it as a matter for Ugandans to decide.

Of course as Tim correctly points out the name of the bill is 'The Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009". If the sole purpose of locking up anyone who has taken part in same sex sexual activities isn't a sole purpose of being against homosexuality I want to know what Mr Chichester thinks would be. Maybe his allies in Europe are clouding his judgement, or maybe that is just his Conservative party philosophy.

Tim goes on to criticise the sentiment in the last paragraph it is just a form of words. He wrote back asking the MP to imagine he was in the 1930s, instead of 'homosexuals' use 'Jews' and instead of 'Ugandans' use 'Germans' and read the paragraph again.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

How Rainbow are the Tories?

Answer not much. In the Guardian today Chris Huhne Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman reveals how he fears gay rights would "grind to a halt" under a Conservative government. This is based on evidence of their voting records in Westminster.

• Ten out of 32 members of the shadow cabinet voted against at least one piece of gay rights legislation. The shadow Europe minister, Mark Francois, voted against all four.

• David Cameron, Kenneth Clarke, Mark Francois, Chris Grayling, William Hague, Francis Maude, Patrick McLoughlin, Andrew Mitchell, George Osborne and Sir George Young voted against legislation to repeal section 28, which had banned local authorities and schools from "promoting" homosexuality, in 2003.

• Nineteen members of the shadow cabinet joined the attempt to block the equality bill, which included a requirement for all publicly funded bodies to promote equality.

• Seven members of the shadow cabinet voted to allow only heterosexual married couples to adopt in 2002.

• Four of the shadow cabinet voted against powers which passed through the house in March 2007 giving the secretary of state the ability to bring in regulations with a new definition of discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation.

• Thirty-five Tory MPs voted to allow only heterosexual married couples to adopt in 2002 and a third also voted against the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations in March 2007, allowing the government to make regulations defining discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation.

Add to this their partners in Europe and you have to ask yourself where under the rainbow does the Conservative Party really position themselves. When David Cameron said in his New Year message:

"between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats there is a lot less disagreement than there used to be."

He ignored just where those differences actually come. As Nick Clegg said of Cameron in his interview with Attitude he is a confection. Indeed he seems to be just the soft centres the easy sweets to digest. He and his party haven't taken on the hard centres well. Indeed some of his party leave them to the side. Even key ministers have shown that they aren't on the same yellow brick road with Dorothy.

Even Dave, as I've said before, took a whole week to realise he hadn't included civil partnerships in his marriage person allowance. Not sure whether the Conservatives need to meet the wizard for a heart, a brain or the courage over gay issues, but certainly are a long way from home when they do seem to want to talk about them.

The non-Sexuality Bits of Clegg's Attitude Interview

I blogged on Wednesday about The Independent's coverage of Nick Clegg's interview in Attitude magazine. So this afternoon on the way home (via Clifton Terrace to drop off my conference registration) you guess which article I read first.

The one about Gareth Thomas the rugby player?

No.

The one about E4's latest show about teenagers Glee?

No.

The interview with Nick Clegg.

Could be. Indeed how could it be anything else, though the article of geek love sandwiched between Gareth and Nick almost got my attention. Only joking. So apart from the gay agenda which the Indy picked up on how did Nick fair? Quite well in my humble opinion.

I don't think it has anything to do with the end of the lead in saying:

Clegg is also, by consensus here in the Attitude offices, the hottest of the party leaders - although we were slightly too embarrassed to ask if he approves of that accolade.

But on with the interview. The opening question is "Why should gay people vote Lib Dem?". The response shows just how instinctive the Lib Dems are about gay being a equal state. Last month's Gordon Brown's first sentence was, "Because we're the anti-discrimination, anti-prejudice and pro-equality party." This month Nick started with:

"I want anyone from any community to vote for us because of the values we represent, not because they think we tick a particular set of boxes. We are a liberal party who believe in tolerance. We have the longest and proudest record in campaigning for gay rights in British politics. The main reason I want people to vote for us is not some sort of segmented appeal, but because we've got a vision for what Britain could do that I believe lots of folk - gay, straight, white, black, Asian, women, men - can support."

Nick not diluting the message of Liberal Democrat policies just because he is being interviewed for a gay magazine goes on to mention issues like the third runway at Heathrow, Kingsnorth coal power station, Stephen Lawrence, freedom of speech (even those whose views we detest), pension rights, fairer taxes, reforming the commons. Gordon Brown didn't move subjects unto other subjects that way, even though both faced questions posed from a gay standpoint, Gordon didn't show inclusion and breadth in his answers. Nick made the point to answer the questions and expand on it. He showed that not only is gay equality something that is not some theoretical aim or goal, like Gordon tended to, but that they are people who care about issues rather than merely their sexuality.

Gordon also skipped the key issue between civil partnerships and marriage, the issue of pension rights. When he was asked "why not introduce full equality and call it marriage?" he missed the point the clue is in the question "full equality". Nick grabbed the bull by the horns, to the same question said:

"Yes, totally. I don't understand the objections to this. There's one specific issue of substance here - I think it's about pension rights which you don't enjoy in a partnership, but you do under marriage."

Far better response that Brown's (I paraphrase) call it what you want it's not the important thing, people have freedoms they never previously had. I'd ask him what about those few rights that the "equal but different" element of civil partnerships tends to ignore.

So far of the two leaders to have been interview Nick does come across as more open, more natural and naturally inclusive. Brown seems more stilted, somewhat forced and focused only on the issues of sexuality, not how the gay people are integral in society. He also of course pales alongside Tony Blair's interview in the same magazine last April.

Next month is the turn of David Cameron and I will do a comparison of all three of them.

Officious Police Halt Mr Gay China

The other day I post about the potential opening up of China with the arrival of the Mr Gay China Pageant.

Guess what?

The event that was due to start today has been shut down by the Chinese police. As the Guardian article concluded on Tuesday:

"Officials could show up and say 'your fire hydrant is in the wrong place. It is still a sensitive issue."

So today they did indeed turn up and said the event had not followed the "correct procedures", such a 'clear' reason of what is wrong is obviously difficult for organisers to appease the officials. I hope that Google.cn make this a special icon on their front page.

So the country that only decriminalised homosexuality 13 years ago and declassified it as a mental condition 9 years ago has either found a fire hydrant in the wrong place, a wrong date on a piece of paper work, or chairs no aligned in the right way as a reason to halt this step forward.

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.

A Pageant as Progress (?)

It is not often, indeed this is likely to be the only time, you'll see this blog praising a beauty pageant, but I will make an exception for this one.

Yes there is a swimwear round and yes there is a talent round. It is the location and the competitors that make this newsworthy rather than the event itself. The location is Beijing, this Friday, the winner will be crowned Mr Gay China.

In a country where being gay was illegal until 1997 and still classed as a mental illness until 2001, this is a major step forward. One of the contestants from Inner Mongolia Emilio Liu said:

"We are intelligent, we're professionals, we're gorgeous – and we're gay. I want the audience to know there are a whole bunch of people like us living in China. It's a wonderful life and it's not hidden any more."

The winner will be picked for his ability to represent gay issues as well as his skills, personality and looks before heading to Norway for next month's finals of Worldwide Mr Gay.

However, there was outcry only last month when Chinese authorities shut down 10 gay websites, so while there is public acceptance on one hand there is also restraint on the other. Indeed many of the contestants in Mr Gay China are reluctant to give their full name, all are from white collar jobs, most have studied or worked abroad and some talk about the stereotyping of gay men being weak or HIV carriers in their country.

One contestant says that the pressures faced by the Chinese gay community are different, not greater, than elsewhere. There is no religious condemnation and anti-gay violence is rare. But it is still a traditional society where the only child, if he is male is expected to marry. However, while we have this pageant official acceptance remains at a variable level in China, Shanghai Pride for example remains a low key event without banners or a parade and indeed the authorities banned some events. Similarly the Mr Gay China event is to remain low key as organisers have not invited mainstream Chinese language media.

Homeless, Gay and Muslim

I've commented before about the story in Eastenders between Syed and Christian. Now that Syed has been the son he thinks he should be and marry Amira.

But this article on BBC Asian Network highlights that he has got a relatively easy outcome. Many more gay Muslim men are being forced into marriage, often back in the countries where their families come from. Those that don't abide with their family wishes but run away to be themselves often end up ostracised by the whole family network, an outcast, penniless and homeless.

For many the option of taking a bride to please their family is just not they can do. They know that the outcome is going to be rejection from all that they consider close their family, culture etc. But forced marriage is only the start of it, many also face beatings, so called honour violence for bringing 'shame' to their family. Annie Southrest of the Albert Kennedy Trust tells of some examples:

"They face threats of physical violence, actual violence and restriction of liberties.

"We've had people chased out of the house with knives and we have had issues around young people who had exorcisms planned to get rid of the gay demons, I suppose.

"They come to us because they're homeless, or in danger of being homeless imminently. We sort out emergency accommodation for them.

"But the biggest loss they face is the loss of their families.

"I can't imagine what it must be like to suddenly in your late teens, early 20s suddenly not to have a family anymore."

Of course we have yet to see where the Syed storyline goes now that he is married, but apparently still in love with Christian, so maybe there will be twists along the lines of some of those who have had to seek help from the Trust featured.

Listen to the programme on iPlayer on today's Asian Network Reports to hear more about this issue.

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.