Catching up on the news that’s happened whilst I’ve been traveling I note that the marriage “equality” bill has got through the lords. I put equality in quotes as it still doesn’t provide equality as I muttered about earlier. Apparently the evil wrecking amendment would extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples, yep in a bill for equality asking that it actually deliver equality should be rejected because it would delay things and cost too much, cost not being a concern that I’ve noticed for the bill as it stood. If equality is the right thing to do then surely it’s the right thing to do properly? Mr Hodges did after all go on to say:
“The same-sex marriage bill is a simple piece of legislation, based around a simple principle; providing equality to members of our society that have been denied it under the law. “
Which does rather blissfully ignore the fact that the bill as it stands doesn’t provide equality, it just provides another way for people of the same gender to register their relationships with the state that is not the same as that open to people of opposing genders. Whilst some of the people putting forward this argument may not be very nice, nor be doing it for the purest of motives that doesn’t make them wrong. As Archbishop Cranmer records the committee stage of the bill hasn’t changed a single word. Of the four issues Cranmer highlights the first two are clear inequalities.
If it’s too difficult to enforce the adultery clauses of marriage for same sex couples why not drop them for opposite sex couples?
The second issue of converting civil partnerships to marriages without further ceremony is a problem that again stems from the limited an unequal availability of civil partnerships, surely for the sake of equality the simple solution is allow people of opposite genders to also enter into civil partnerships. I find it very hard to believe that removing the gender requirements of civil partnerships, which don’t have a large amount of historical legislation dependent on them would take that long or be that costly – after all marriage equality wasn’t in a single manifesto at the large election and with huge financial crises and other issues the Governments still found time to get it dealt with so how much longer and more costly would it be to also amend a further very recent piece of legislation?
On the subject of the speed with which the marriage equality bill has come about from not being in a single manifesto to being almost passed into law during a time when the economy is apparently of utmost importance, why has this bill come about at all. From the point of view of equality I can see the point of it, or I could if it achieved equality, though I’d still prefer the state to just leave peoples relationships alone, but as Brendan O’Neill observes, there’s hardly been a huge popularist movement to bring it about. Given that recent Governments have happily ignored the popular wishes of those campaigning against the fox hunting ban, the war in Iraq and student cuts to name but a few issues, surely to push marriage equality to the top of the agenda like this must have taken absolutely colossal public action – which somehow just hasn’t been reported? Even the support for the bill within parliament in what was meant to be a free vote is starting to look suspect. Which leaves us with a bill which few people have called for, supported by fewer of those elected to represent us that has been rammed through without proper consideration and doesn’t even achieve what it sets out to do.
You’ll forgive me if as a fan of liberty and equality (yeah some of you probably won’t believe that) I won’t be cheering this bill any time soon. Still to end on a lighter note it seems that the first Muslim lesbians (surely high scorers in minority top trumps – bet they don’t need to check their privilege) have entered into civil partnership in the UK (and immediately claimed asylum). Which is lovely but what will I think most tickle followers of this block is the statement made by one of the happy couple:
Ms Kausar, originally from Lahore, said: “This country allows us rights and it’s a very personal decision that we have taken. It’s no one’s business as to what we do with our personal lives.
“The problem with Pakistan is that everyone believes he is in charge of other people lives and can best decide about the morals of others but that’s not the right approach and we are in this state because of our clergy, who have hijacked our society which was once a tolerant society and respected individuals freedoms.”
Emphasis mine.
The irony, it burns!
What\’s more, it is not a good idea for Muslim gay people to publicise their photos and location. There are anti-gays who can be a bit unstable and certain fundamentalists of a certain religion who can be quite a lot unstable.
Bragging about being the first Muslim lesbians to marry in a country where Muslim fundamentalists have just beheaded a soldier in the street does not sound, to me, like a clever move.
It certainly wouldn’t seem a move designed to improve ones health and life expectancy. Mind I do wonder if an honour killing or some other such nastiness were to happen to them caused by followers of the religion of peace just how many Guardian readers would explode due to not being able to decide which minority “rights” they should standup for.