Optical illusions

"Optics" is becoming the new "I misspoke". The new bullshit excuse. The new cliche when something isn't a good look. Or high praise when it is a good look.

Remember the fad of saying "I misspoke!" when all someone did was expose themselves as an idiot/racist/sexist/cloth-eared dolt/intellectual bankrupt? Misspeaking is when a kid calls a teacher Mum or Dad, it's a genuine slip of the tongue, it's often a Freudian slip, such as Sophy Ridge saying Kezia Dugdale is the leader of "Scottish Labia".

Now this election campaign we've all endured - largely with the able assistance of vast quantities of liquor, with all its car crashes from across the political spectrum - has popularised the good versus bad optics cliche. But it's lazy, shallow and lacking in nuance.

It was terrible optics for Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, when he flubbed and flopped in response to questions about his attitude towards gay sex. Never mind that he has a better voting record than Theresa May on LGBT rights and it would appear he can keep his private religious beliefs out of politics - the story became an excruciating series of images of Farron looking uncomfortable.

Compare those scenes with Theresa May being asked by Andrew Marr if she thought gay sex was a sin. Without hesitation, she crisply answered "No.", And that was the end of the debate, even though her voting history on LGBT rights has only recently become progressive. It was obvious that she was ready for the question. It looked like she had been rehearsing her answer in the bathroom mirror.

It was good optics.

Now she is desperately trying to eke out a deal with the notoriously homophobic DUP - surely these are the worst optics of all for her if she is trying to convince anyone that she gives a damn about LGBT rights.

And this nonsense is not limited to politics.

A few days ago, The Pool reported on a ridiculous PRWeek event in which an all-male panel addressed the audience on how to fight sexism in the workplace. PRWeek is generally pretty sound - it's a good source of news on the PR industry as well as a fine place for PRs (and journalists looking to cross to the dark side for more money) to find jobs. So you'd think an event run by an organisation dedicated to public relations would not be quite so tone-deaf as to host a festival of weapons grade mansplaining. Yet that is what happened.

The explanation for this debacle (at an event called "Hall of Femme" - I ask you...) was that "the optics might have appeared off".

"The optics might have appeared off".

Jesus H. Christ on a two-wheeled perambulation device. No, This is not merely about how it looked. It's about how it was. It's about how bloody patronising it is to expect a room full of women listen to a room full of men tell them where they're going wrong and to offer pearls of wisdom about speaking loudly, rather than being listened to, and "stretch opportunitoes" when, for some women, the opportunities simply are not there.

The "optics might have appeared off" is a shallow excuse for stupidity.

And, sometimes, when the optics are good, the reality is bloody awful. Just ask Theresa May.






Photography by savertashe2/F;ickr

"Lifestyle choices" - a term of belittlement

The angry online mob tore down the pregnant woman like a pack of anonymous wolves in need of a life. All she did was criticise fellow commuters for being reluctant to give up their seat for her. The way people turned on her, you'd think she had demanded to be personally chauffeured to work in a mink-lined Bentley at taxpayer expense.

She identified herself only as Lauren, a 31-year-old pregnant woman who was eight months pregnant and commuting between Crawley and London. On the Evening Standard Facebook page, the comments were a trip back in time, and not in a good way. Some morons asked what the hell she was doing going to work while she was pregnant, as if being knocked up means you automatically become incapable of working, suddenly lose the desire to go to work, or magically don't need the income any more. "My mother didn't work when she was pregnant!" was a common retort.

And then there were the people who said they shouldn't have to give up their seat because of her "lifestyle choice". True, there is no law in the UK that compels people to give up their seats on trains and buses for pregnant women, but it'd be nice to think we live in a society where good manners are still a thing.

But to merely describe pregnancy is a "lifestyle choice" is reductive. It is an insulting way to shut down debate, to demean pregnant women who are asking for just a little consideration as they gestate the next generation.

As someone who is militantly pro-choice, I support whatever decision a woman makes when she pees on the stick and it comes up positive. And when a woman chooses to carry to term, whether the pregnancy was planned or not, I stand by her and understand that sometimes accommodations need to be made, such as giving up my seat on the tube or being understanding if a pregnant colleague is late for work because she has a scan. It's called not being an arsehole.

Yes, I am talking about choices here, but I would not describe going through pregnancy and childbirth as a "lifestyle choice". That puts the rigours of maternity into the same box as buying a sports car or taking a skiing holiday. Someone fighting for the rights of people in sports cars to drive at whatever the hell speed they like would be met with ridicule, just as a petition to lengthen the opening hours of a bar in Klosters during the ski season would be roundly lampooned.

But a pregnant woman asking for a little common courtesy, for us to not degenerate into brutes, is not in the same category. To the people refusing to give her a seat because getting pregnant is apparently a "lifestyle choice", would it make any difference to you if she conceived through rape or if she had suffered multiple miscarriages and this was her last chance at motherhood? Would you parse her circumstances through your tiny mind before getting off your bum or are all pregnant women simply birthing babies for a lark, giving it the same seriousness that they'd give a trip to the seaside?

And would these same stubborn sitters give up their seat for someone on crutches on the train or bus? I'm guessing plenty of people would do so. What if that person was on crutches because they broke their leg on a skiiing holiday? Or is that "lifestyle choice" acceptable?

It's the same idiocy that leads people to talk about the "gay lifestyle". These people generally don't want gay couples to get married or have equal rights to heterosexual couples because they see it as condoning the "gay lifestyle".

Frankly, even if being gay was a lifestyle choice, so what? Why would anyone care if sexuality was a lifestyle choice and this led to two people falling in love and wanting to get married or having equal inheritance rights or end-of-life decision rights as a heterosexual couple? Why do bigots never talk about the "heterosexual lifestyle"? It is because they don't seek to diminish that of which they approve.

I suspect the "gay lifestyle" mentality gained traction because of stereotypes, such as gay male couples always having fabulous apartments (having cleaned the apartment of a gay friends while helping another friend house-sit for them, I can assure you they are not all living in spotless, minimalist abodes that belong in magazines...) or lesbian couples always being yurt-dwelling vegans (again, utter bullshit).

Once the word "lifestyle" is tagged on, there is a sense that it is silly, flippant, nonsensical, whimsical.

As such, it makes it easy to reduce gay couples to superficialities rather than growing up and recognising that a civilised society lets people marry whoever makes them happy, regardless of sexuality. And this same society also offers their seats when pregnant women board trains. That's the one I want to live in.






Image by Richard Davis

Marriage equality, Germaine Greer, and those who think of the children...

Ireland voted in favour of marriage equality for gay couples. Excellent news. Here's hoping my home country of Australia follows suit very soon. Many thought the power of the Roman Catholic church would be too strong but, given that just over 61% voted in favour, plenty of people who most likely identify as Roman Catholic also believe that if gay people want to get married, there should be no problem. Plenty of gay Roman Catholics will no doubt take advantage of this wonderful, historic change.

No Roman Catholic church in Ireland will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages. Nobody's religious freedoms will be impinged upon. Contrary to popular mythology, the Republic of Ireland does not have a state religion. It is known as a "Catholic country" because a lot of Catholics live there. Similarly, Turkey is a secular country that happens to have a lot of people who are Muslim, either observant or nominally so. The current government over there is doing all it can to piss on Ataturk's secular dream but, at the time of writing, Islam is not the state religion of Turkey.

The way in which the church will not be affected by same-sex marriage is a good example of why the further apart church and state are, the better it is for all concerned. Compare this to the absolute dog's breakfast that happened to the Church of England when the UK legalised same-sex marriage in 2012, except for the special snowflake that is Northern Ireland.

Maria Miller, who was at the time the utterly incompetent Culture Secretary, announced that the Church of England would be banned from performing same-sex marriages. The official religion of Great Britain would be exempt from this new law - which would be great, except that there are plenty of vicars in the Church of England in the UK and beyond who would love to perform same-sex marriages. This should be a matter for the Church of England to deal with as it sees fit. Whether this would mean a split in the church or a whole new church being formed is irrelevant. If the UK had separation of church and state, the Church of England could sort it out amongst themselves and there would be no daft ban enshrined in law.

In hindsight, marriage equality was inevitable for Ireland. In 1993, homosexuality was decriminalised and the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex became equal. In 2009, same-sex civil partnerships were introduced. The sky didn't fall. Perhaps now Northern Ireland might consider going down the same path instead of being given absurd religion-based privileges despite being part of an allegedly united country.

The "No" vote campaigners in the marriage equality referendum's main argument (aside from the fringe-dwelling loons who used the irrational "Next, people will marry dogs and toasters!" non-sequitur...) was that to legalise same-sex marriage would spell a decline in the traditional family, that all children need a mother and a father.

However, since 2000, lesbians in Ireland have had access to IVF and now gay couples can jointly adopt both non-biological children and step-children. There are, no doubt, plenty of people in Ireland who are horrified by this. In general, these are the same people who are horrified by abortion and want to preserve the ban in Irish law.

If a lesbian in Ireland falls pregnant, either by accident or design, these religious conservatives would not give her the right to have an abortion and they do not want her to be happily married to her partner either. I guess the only thing that would make these people happy is to force such women to give up their babies for adoption. Because that worked so well in the era of the Magdalene Laundries. Yeah. You'll have to forgive me for not being entirely convinced by their concern for keeping families together.

There is now talk that this new era of progressiveness for Ireland could lead to legalising abortion, or at least loosening some of the restrictions. If this happened, again it should be a clarion call to Northern Ireland to change abortion laws so they're in line with the rest of the UK. Of course, this would lead to the inevitable cries from the conservatives about how gay marriage leads to abortion when, for obvious reasons, gay people are not particularly responsible for causing too many abortions anywhere in the world. Indeed, when gay couples decide to become parents by whatever means they choose, it is usually a spectacularly well-planned process resulting in much-loved, much-wanted children.

Which brings me to Germaine Greer, bless her. This week at the Hay Festival, she became the accidental hero of religious conservatives when she used the example of Elton John and David Furnish and their children as an example of the "deconstruction" of motherhood. Really, Germaine? The cult of motherhood is bloody everywhere, especially if you manage to look hot while you're doing it. That is where the deconstruction is going on, where mothers are being insulted and degraded on a daily basis. It's not being deconstructed because some gay men are now parents. And it won't be deconstructed because gay people can now get married in Ireland. Get a grip.

Motherhood is still considered by many to be the pinnacle of female achievement, as if women without kids have somehow not fulfilled their full potential until they have bred. I remember a time when that was the kind of attitude that would appall Germaine Greer. Did she not notice the unseemly womb-watching of the Duchess of Cambridge? Did she somehow miss the endless media fawning as Kate and William emerged from the hospital with Princess Charlotte in an idealised, heavily styled tableau of heterosexual family values?

For good measure, Germaine criticised IVF, the very process which helps gay and straight couples become parents. She had the makings of a good point when she said that in some places, women don't know what happens to all the eggs that are produced by IVF and this is something women tend to care about. This is not the case in the UK where it is made perfectly clear what will happen to each and every egg harvested in the IVF process and this should be the global standard.

But then she went on to claim that the 1967 Abortion Act was only introduced because of lobbying by the fertility industry. Did she not notice the women marching in the 1960s to demand the right to choose? Does she think they were all there because they were getting kickbacks from the fertility industry? There may well have been lobbying by the burgeoning fertility industry at the time but that does not change the fact that a lot of women wanted the law to change and are glad that it did. Apart from a failed attempt to tighten abortion law by Nadine Dorries in 2012, abortion in the UK is not a hot button political issue as it is in Ireland and the US.

The sting has been taken out of the tail of the anti-marriage equality movement in Ireland. Maybe the sting will one day be taken out of the tail of the Irish anti-abortion lobby too. But in the meantime, we have a curious world indeed where Ireland is doing better on gay rights than Australia and Germaine Greer is echoing the sentiments of groups who have spent decades being horrified by the loudest voices of feminism. In the midst of it all, the kids will probably be all right.

 

And again, same-sex marriage debate results in another long afternoon/evening of talking...

I had an exhausting afternoon in February keeping track of the debate in British Parliament over the legalisation of same sex marriage. And today, they're at it again with amendments a-go-go to muddy the waters and, predictably, idiotic and paranoid things are being said by elected represenatitives.

Here is a rundown of some of the shenanigans from Westminster...

David Burrowes, a Conservative MP opposed to gay marriage kicked things off by saying that New Clause 1 says the bill "should not lead to schools having to promote a view of marriage 'contrary to the designated religious character of the school'."

So Burrowes doesn't really understand that "teach" and "promote" are two different things. It is one thing for a teacher to inform a class that marriage in Britain between two men, two women or a man and woman are legal. This is not the same as the same teacher saying: "Gay couples can now get married in Britain and I urge all you kids to go out and find a partner of the same sex so you can join in the fun!".

This does not stop Burrowes from adding that the bill could be a "compulsory redundancy bill" for teachers who disapprove of gay people getting married.

Tim Loughton, another anti-marriage equality Tory MP, whose amendment on civil partnerships is clearly aimed at wrecking the bill says those who support it, are "promoting a hierarchy of conscious objection" because they support the right of Catholic surgeons to opt out of performing state-funded abortions (because Britain needs to risk experiencing a horrific Savita situation...) but are not in favour of Catholic registrars being able to opt out of performing state-funded gay marriages. Frankly, if both abortion and gay marriage are legal here, anyone who works as a gynaecologist or registrar and accepts public money for doing so should not be able to opt out of either procedure. But clearly I am "promoting" a separated church and state here...

Stephen Williams, a LibDem MP, responds to Loughton's abortion/marriage comparison, saying that he is in favour of Catholic surgeons opting out of performing abortion but not gay marriage because abortions make up "only a small part of what surgeons do, but conducting marriages is central to the work of the registrar." Well, that's a nice, wishy-washy response...

Stephen Doughty, a Labour MP, enforces commonsense by quoting the barrister Lord Pannick who said it would rake a legal miracle for religious bodies to be forced to conduct gay weddings by the European Court of Human Rights.

Good grief. More proof that separation of church and state is urgently required as Edward Leigh, Conservative, says that marriage is between a man and a woman and this should be a protected characterising of religious belief under the Equality Act 2010. Chris Bryant, a Labour MP and ex-vicar, scoffs at this nonsense saying that other religious beliefs, such as the virgin birth and transubstantiation are not specified this way in the Equality Act.

Leigh willfully ignores the fact that Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage. Nor does religion in general. Next!

Leigh adds to the idiocy by saying amendments are needed, citing the case of Adrian Smith, a housing manager who said on Facebook that allowing gay weddings in churches as "an equality too far" and was advised he'd lose if he went to a tribunal. He didn't get his old job back and was only paid £100 n compensation. Firstly, no church will be forced to conduct a same-sex wedding under the bill (not even the Church of England vicars who'd like to do so...) and, secondly, nobody should be fired for expressing such views on Facebook. But that is another blog post for another time.

And there is now a break in transmission because work intervened and now I must get a tube home. I wonder what nonsense will transpire in the meantime...

The homophobic agenda of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

We have freedom of expression and freedom of association here in Britain. As such, if a group of people want to start an anti-abortion organisation, that is completely fine. I may not agree with their ideas but I wholeheartedly support their right to exist and speak out.

But freedom of expression works both ways and as such, I'm calling out the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) on their latest antics. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has recommended that same-sex couples be offered artificial insemination on the NHS for six cycles, and if that fails to produce a foetus, to move on to IVF.

SPUC's communication manager, Anthony Ozimic, has spoken out against this recommendation (remember, people, it is a recommendation, it is not a law...): "This decision ignores biology in the face of politically correct social engineering ... Same-sex couples do not have fertility problems, they have chosen a naturally non-fertile lifestyle, and we shouldn't be spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on fertility procedures for people who do not have fertility problems.

Firstly, it is adorable that Ozimic has started his argument by trying to be scientific with the claim that gay people are ignoring biology. Yes, it's true that a gay couple can't make a baby via sexual intercourse, but he then goes on to say that gay people have "chosen a naturally non-fertile lifestyle." No, Anthony. They are homosexual. They have not "chosen a non-fertile lifestyle". There have always been homosexual people. There always will be homosexual people.

Secondly, there are plenty of Public Care Trusts, such as the one that serves the borough of Merton where I live, that do not cover IVF treatment for anyone, regardless of sexuality. In this era of NHS cuts, it is not unreasonable to expect that not only will this continue but more PCTs may seek to cut funding to IVF for all couples to save money.

And if SPUC really is concerned about taxpayer money being wasted on IVF, why aren't they openly raging about heterosexual prisoners accessing IVF treatment on the NHS? Or is it only law-abiding gay couples who shouldn't start families in the land of SPUC?

And by "social engineering", does Ozimic mean loving same-sex couples raising families? Can he explain why this is a problem without saying anything homophobic? Is he worried about gay couples raising gay children? What about all the heterosexual parents who have raised gay children?

The bigger question is: Why is SPUC so concerned about the sky falling if equality for gay people is fully realised in Britain? Last year, they held an anti-equal marriage conference in sunny Blackpool, attended by 150 people, a drop in the ocean for a country with a population of more than 60 million.

It is indeed curious when anti-abortion groups deliberately go out of their way to fly the anti-gay rights flag. A cursory glance at the pearl-clutching LifeSiteNews.com website is a prime example of rampant prolife homophobia. But if any group is not contributing to the nation's abortion rates, it's same-sex couples. When gay couples decide to become parents, it is usually a very planned process and the resulting babies are very much wanted. Surely this is a good thing, no?

SPUC, unsurprisingly, enjoys promoting the pro-adoption line as an alternative to abortion. Certainly, making the process of adoption as compassionate and unbureaucratic as possible is good. This helps women who are in the quandary of being pregnant without wanting to be, but do not want to have an abortion either - if a woman wants to give up her baby for adoption, this choice should not be made difficult for her. And making it easier for gay couples to adopt is surely an important part of good adoption policy, no?

But in the bizarre universe of SPUC, pregnant teenagers and rape victims should be forced to carry to term while gay couples should be prevented from starting a family, either by conception or adoption.

It's time for some honesty from SPUC. I know it's not catchy but if they really want to be truthful about their agenda, they should change their name to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children But Only Those Who Have Been Conceived By Heterosexuals.

SPUCBOTWHBCBH. It's a bloody convoluted acronym but then so is the agenda of SPUC.


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

Marriage equality and a long afternoon of talking...

At the time of writing, the House of Commons is embarking on a long debate on marriage equality - we will have an afternoon-long gabfest after which the bill allowing gay couples to marry is expected to pass. It is about time this happened although the bill is not without its flaws, chiefly that Church of England vicars will not have the option of marrying gay couples.

Culture Secretary, Maria Miller - who almost was brilliant on this issue and then jumped the shark on the issue of religious freedom - responded bizarrely when Green MP Caroline Lucas rightly pointed out that the Church of England will not be given the option of performing same-sex marriages. Miller said the Church of England is not being treated differently. Except it is. And she also said that the church has "different duties from other faiths; they have a duty to marry people." This is a moot point given that marriage is an important part of every religion that has a presence in Britain.

It turns out there are plenty of angry vicars out there who'd like the option of being able to marry same-sex couples. As it stands, assuming the bill is passed tonight, the right to say "no" to same-sex marriages will exist for churches, but not the right to say "yes". It will be interesting to see if Labour party policy for the next election will involve plans to reverse this part of the legislation, or if adjustments are made at committee stage or in the House of Lords.

Also interesting are American critics who say that the government should stay the hell out of marriage altogether - intriguingly, this is seen as a fringe argument to the bigger debate here in Britain. It seems that British people are quite happy to sign a civil document on their wedding day, regardless of the venue.

In the meantime, there are still people sticking their heads over the parapet with the usual non-arguments. It seems that every MP who is planning to vote against is doing so because of the Bible. If ever there was a solid argument for the separation of church and state in Britain ASAP, that'd be it.

And then there are the other idiotic arguments...

"Gay marriage? Next we'll be legalising incest!" No, we won't. Incest is currently illegal regardless of the genitals of the participants. This will not change.

"Gay marriage? Next we'll be legalising paedophilia!" No, we won't. Homosexuality is not the same as being attracted to children. Also, this ignores the high rates of paedophilia involving adults and children of the opposite sex.

"Gay marriage? Next we'll be letting people marry their pets!" No, we won't. This is a disturbing leap of logic and it equates animals who can't sign legal contracts with consenting adults who can. See also, "Next we'll be letting people marry toasters!"

"But the Oxford English dictionary defines marriage as being between a man and woman!" And dictionaries are not set in stone. This is why dictionaries are constantly being revised as use of language evolves along with society. If this is your best argument against marriage equality, you need a new dictionary. See also, "But the Bible says it's wrong."

"Teachers will be forced to promote gay marriage!" No, they won't. There is a difference between explaining what is legal in this country to school students of an appropriate age and actively campaigning for people to marry someone of the same sex. Anyone who tries this argument on fails to understand human sexuality.

"But what about fixing the economy? Why do we care about gay people getting married?" Uh, yeah, firstly tell that to any gay person who wants to get married and would like to see this last hurdle of discrimination fall. It's not about gay supremacy, it's about equality. Also, if our elected representatives are incapable of dealing with multiple issues, they are probably too stupid to be members of Parliament.

"Allowing gays to marry means straight people will be less likely to marry!" Say what? Giving someone else the right to marry will make me less likely to exercise that right? And I guess if they let women drive in Saudi, less men will learn to drive?

And now it is time to get the popcorn and see what unfolds this afternoon before the bill's inevitable passing at around 7pm tonight. A staggering 71 MPs want to speak on the bill so speaker John Bercow is allowing a maximum of four minutes each. It promises to be a long afternoon where enough hot air will be produced to end winter fuel poverty. But hopefully at the end of today, we can proudly say: "Yes. We live in a country where being gay is no impediment to getting married."

UPDATES (most recent at the bottom)

- Nadine Dorries (the whipless Conservative) has happened again. Without a blush, she has said that same-sex marriage does not require faithfulness and thus it is meaningless. She is labouring under the misapprehension that vows of faithfulness in heterosexual marriages are always effective... Ahem. As you were, Nadine...

- Jim Shannon (Conservative) is speaking against the bill because "the government should leave faith groups free from persecution." Ironic, given the only faith group who is actually being persecuted for their beliefs on this one is the group of Church of England vicars who want to be free to conduct same-sex marriages.

- Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Lib-Dems (who we've all heard of, right?) wants more time to be set aside for debating this bill. Superb!

- Sir Roger Gale (Conservative) made absolutely no sense with his incest analogy. None. At all. Not a bit.

- Craig Whittaker (Conservative) demonstrates for all the world to see that he fails to grasp that all marriages are first and foremost a civil contract and the religious bit is a matter of choice for individual couples.

- Labour MP for East Ham, Stephen Timms says he will vote against the bill because marriage revolves around children. He is given the smackdown very nicely by fellow Labour MP for West Ham, Lyn Brown who points out that he was at her wedding which took place after her childbearing years were over. Brown asked her colleague if her marriage is invalid. Timms then goes on to score a spectacularly asinine own goal by saying he was referring to church teaching from hundreds of years ago. Which is clearly so relevant to a debate that is happening in 2013. He is referring to an era when rape in marriage was still legal.

- Welsh Conservative Cheryl Gillam echoes Jim Shannon's idiocy on religious freedom...

- Jonathan Reynolds (Labour) and Stephen Williams (Lib-Dem) both talk sense. Hurrah!

- Conservative Mike Freer also talking sense and rightly calling out those who say same-sex marriage makes them feel sick.

- Labour MP Michael McCann joins Cheryl Gillam and Jim Shannon in the religious freedom chamber of buffoonery.

- Peter Bone would like a referendum on marriage equality added to the 2017 referendum on Britain's EU membership. Here's hoping that by then, this whole debate will seem quaint. And that politicians will quit saying "Let's have a referendum!" every five minutes.

- Peter Bone plumbs new depths when he says that today is the saddest day of his career as an MP. So not when cuts were made to the NHS or tuition fees put a university education out of reach for many or whenever Michael Gove has said anything about schools...

- And Sir Gerald Howarth adds to the growing crowd whose main objection to marriage equality is "I don't like it because the Bible says so!"

- John Glen, Conservative MP for Salisbury, says he has "tried hard" to reconcile himself to the gay marriage laws, but he cannot. He does know that if the bill becomes law, he doesn't have to marry a man, right?

He goes on to say he has "stood up to homophobic bullying" but "redefining marriage is the wrong way to tackle prejudice." I see. So removing a form of prejudice won't help reduce prejudice? Good to know!

- Fiona Bruce, a Conservative MP for Congelton, reduces the equal marriage issue down to very specific minutiae by speaking out on behalf of Christian guesthouse owners who are registered to hold civil ceremonies being forced to hold same-sex marriages. Here's the thing, Fiona - when you sign up to hold civil ceremonies at your guesthouse, you are signing up to hold them regardless of the law.

- David Burrowes, Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate, says redefining marriage to include gay couples would downgrade marriage. A law that would create more married people would downgrade marriage? Dave, marriage isn't the same as an exclusive club.

And like Peter Bone, Burrowes is "sad" about letting gay people get married. I'm sad about the downgrading of Lewisham Hospital, but hey, clearly I'm an emotional cripple.

- Stewart Jackson, a Conservative MP, reverts to Daily Mail-speak in lieu of an actual argument when he says that marriage is being "smashed at the altar of political correctness." He then says he is "personally offended that David Lammy, a Labour MP, used civil rights campaigner Rose Parks to justify the argument that gay and black rights are similar."

Stewart, here's a fun game for you. Say out loud: "I oppose black people getting married." And then say out loud: "I oppose gay people getting married." And then ask yourself whether one is more offensive than the other and, if you seriously believe the answer to that question is yes, ask yourself why.

- David Simpson, a DUP MP, actually uses the pathetic "it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve in the Garden of Eden" argument to oppose marriage equality. Wow. He has actually used an ancient allegory that also tries to convince us God made the world in a week, that women were made from a bloke's rib, and a snake talked two naked people into eating an apple and thus we are all evil sinners.

Simpson also says that marriage is a matter for God, not government, a popular argument against marriage equality put forward by many American conservatives. But in this context, in Britain, it seems weird and out of place.

- Sarah Wollaston and Stuart Andrew, both Tory MPs, speak in favour of the bill and restore some hope for humanity after much idiocy this afternoon. Wollaston, a self-described "non-believer", has received much "hateful" mail suggesting gay people need treatment. She eloquently speaks out, saying: "Homosexuality is not forbidden love and it is time this House recognised that. And that you cannot be a little bit equal."

At last! Some secular sanity!

Stuart Andrew, an openly gay MP, says he has been coming to terms with his sexuality and his faiTh for many years and says he would like to "live in a society that does not discriminate. But I do want to secure personal choice for marriage as well as religious freedom." A moving speech indeed.

- An another sanity failure, this time from Northern Ireland's Ian Paisley Jr, who says same-sex marriage is "against the nature of life and is not close to being on par with marriage between a man and a woman." He also goes on to say marriage is "not defined by love" but hastens to add that he loves his wife. Awkward...

Nice one, Ian! Let's go back to the days when marriage was merely a transaction, or something kings and queens used to do to secure power and conquer other countries. Yay, traditional marriage!

- Commonsense from Tory MP for Battersea Jane Ellison as she says religious people do not own marriage. Finally, someone who understands history and isn't in the business of bothering God!

- And, kapow! Andrew Selous, Tory MP for South West Bedfordshire, starts clutching his pearls over "the collapse of family life." Clearly, it's not all those heterosexual couples breaking up that harm the children. Oh no, it is gay couples causing all this to happen!

Selous thinks he is being dead clever by pointing out that David Cameron once said Britain is a "Christian country."

Yes, Andrew, Church of England is that state religion, but it does not hold sway over the population in the same way, say, Islam does in Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. This is a country with freedom of religion, which not only gives non-Christian faiths the right to establish themselves here, but also guarantees freedom from religion for those who are not interested. Church attendance is not compulsory, there is no compulsion to state your religion on government forms or human resources forms, as is the case in the United Arab Emirates (just ask a former colleague of mine who wrote "atheist" on a form for HR...).

We can pretty much agree on certain items in the 10 commandments, such as the one about not killing and the one about not stealing, because they are dick things to do. It doesn't mean we all need to believe there is one God and if any of us want to worship false idols we can. Also, being a "Christian country" has not resulted in the "thou shalt not commit adultery" commandment being followed fanatically, especially by certain MPs.

- Oh joy. Matthew Offord, a Tory MP for Hendon, opposes the bill because polygamy and bigamy are potential future implications. Can he provide any evidence that there is a groundswell of support for legalising polygamous and bigamous marriages in Britain? I am going to go out on a limb and say no.

- Thank you Crispin Blunt, an openly gay Tory MP for Reigate, for welcoming the bill and being personally grateful to everyone who has campaigned for gay rights over the decades. So glad to live in a country where this can be said openly in parliament without fear. Thank you also to Gavin Barwell, another Conservative supporter of the bill, for saying that marriage equality will not undermine marriage.

- And with the vote now less than an hour away, three more Tory MPs, John Howell, Ben Gummer and Kris Hopkins, have spoken in favour of the bill.

Therese Coffey, Conservative MP for South Coast, however, is opposed. She says: "People who work for councils will not be able to discriminate." Huh? People who work for councils are already barred from being discriminatory. She has also started pushing the family-procreation barrow. She clearly hasn't noticed that gay people come from families and can already be parents by a number of different means.

Bizarrely, although in keeping with other MPs who have seen fit to use ancient examples despite it being 2013, Therese Coffey tweeted this: "It was Henry VIII who criminalised homosexuality by law in 1533. Catholic Queen Mary repealed it. Elizabeth I reintroduced it."

What is her point? That she wishes more modern day Catholics were like Bloody Mary? That she supports a separation of church and state in Britain given Henry VIII's apparent homophobia? I have no idea but I'd love for her to get in touch and enlighten me on her weird little history lesson.

Good grief, can we just vote on this already? The idiocy levels are starting to go nuclear.

- Is there anything more mealy-mouthed than the abstentions? MPs cannot formally abstain but can vote for both sides to show they are sitting on the fence. Such as Andrea Leadsom, Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, who is voting "yes" to show she supports gay rights but also "no" because the thinks the legislation is ill-considered (on the quadruple lock for the Church of England, she would be right...) but also because the government does not have a mandate for it. I'm pretty sure they don't have a mandate for systematically privatising the NHS by stealth either, but hey ho...

- Bob Blackman, Conservative MP for Harrow East, is opposed to the bill. Guy Opperman, Conservative MP for Hexham, is in favour and says the House is "on a journey".

- It's a rare day that I am moved by multiple Tories but my hat is off to Iain Stewart, Conservative MP for Milton Keynes South, for sharing his poignant coming-out story.

"I often recall the day a few years ago when I finally plucked up the courage to tell my parents that I was gay. I began the conversation with the line, 'You know, I'm never going to be able to marry.' I used that form of words just as a way of broaching an awkward conversation and I didn't really think much of it at the time. But I often reflect on them and it makes me very sad that for so long that was a factually correct statement."

- Kate Green, shadow equalities minister, reminds the House that marriage is not just about procreation. Thank you, Kate! She adds that what children need most is "stability and love". The good news is that gay parents are just as able to provide this as heterosexual ones.

- MPS NOW VOTING! RESULTS EXPECTED IN 15 MINUTES!

- PASSED WITH 400 VOTES! Now for the House of Lords to do the right thing...

British readers, check here to see how your MP voted.

And behold! The Merciless Prism of Equality! This wins the internet.


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

It's that time of the week again! It's the world of stupid!

This is a gun-free World of Stupid this week. I need a break, my head is going to explode. Instead, here are some other examples of idiocy that demand exposure. I warn you. It's not an entirely light-hearted rant this week. There is predictable political stupidity, religious stupidity and stupidity from the judiciary that is either rank or completely repulsive.

1. Britain's bid for marriage equality has officially jumped the shark. Culture Secretary/Equalities Minister  Maria Miller was doing surprisingly well with it all until she announced a "quadruple lock" making it illegal for any Church of England vicar to conduct a same-sex marriage. Except that some vicars would very much like to be able to do this and they are bit peeved that they were never asked. And now the Muslim Council of Britain has demanded that the government make it illegal for them to conduct same-sex marriages as well. Never mind that they are already allowed to discriminate against gay couples in that way already - and they would still be allowed to do so after marriage equality becomes law here. "PASS A LAW FOR US TO NOT BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING WE ALREADY REFUSE TO DO!"

2. Maria Miller's shark-jumping went beyond her club-footed handling of marriage equality and extended into her expenses when The Telegraph revealed she had claimed £90,000 in expenses for a second home in which her parents live. If only we could all be so well rewarded via the taxpayer for looking after elderly parents... And then, according to The Telegraph, Joanna Hindley, one of Miller's special advisers, warned the paper to consider Miller's role in deciding the future of press regulation before running such a story. Naturally, the government is denying any wrongdoing and it was maybe a little convenient for the right-leaning Telegraph to run this story on the same day as the marriage equality story was breaking, but the stench around it all is not just stupid, it's ominous.

3. Geoffrey Clark, who was running as a UKIP candidate for election to Gravesham Council announced a pretty appalling policy in his manifesto, which we can only assume was seen by other party members before it was printed. Under the section on NHS policy, Clark puts under "items for review": "compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Downs, Spina Bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family."

Just so we're clear here, this is not what prochoice is about - compulsory abortion is not choice. It would be amazing if prolife and prochoice voices could actually come together on this one and condemn this policy equally loudly.

On the upside, it may make the head of many a Daily Mail commentator spin uncontrollably as they try to reconcile their hatred of all abortions with their constant threats at the bottom of every story to join UKIP.

An update on this story: UKIP say they have suspended Geoffrey Clarke from the party, he will be running for election to Gravesham Council as an independent. A UKIP mouthpiece claims they were not aware of his views. Yes. And I am Dolly Parton.

4. A woman in Australia has won her bid for compensation following injuries she sustained while having vigorous sex in a motel room while on a business trip. This court decision sets a fairly stupid precedent. A light fitting came away during the act and she suffered facial injuries and then depression - and then she couldn't do her job anymore. Now, I'm sorry, and I am certainly not one to dismiss mental illness, but a cheeky shag in a Nowra hotel room is not part of anyone's job. Well, unless you're working in legalised prostitution, as is the case in the Australian state where Nowra is. The woman in question was a federal government employee so I am going to go out on a limb and suggest the sex was not work-related.

Eating, sleeping, showering, going to the loo, reading boring conference papers - these are the sorts of things you have to do when you're in a motel on a business trip. If you suffer an injury during these activities, then, yes, employers should compensate away. The sex bit is entirely optional. It would have made more sense to sue the motel for the dodgy light fitting. Or simply get your face attended to at the nearest A&E and have a laugh about it at the pub by Friday night.

5. And speaking of stupid precedents, it appears Lord Turnbull, a judge in Scotland, does not understand why Britain has age-of-consent laws. This week, 22-year-old Steven Pollock walked away from Edinburgh's High Court with just a community service order and the stipulation that he attend a sex offenders' programme - for the rape of a 13-year-old girl. Who was drunk. In fact, in Lord Turnbull and the prosecutor's world, the offence wasn't even a rape at all - the charge was downgraded to "sex with a minor".

Lord Turnbull said out loud in the courtroom where other people could hear him: "It is important to understand that the offence rises out of consensual conduct rather than any form of force, grooming or manipulation."

Oh boy, here we go again. We're bound to have morons come out of the woodwork to say that 13-year-old girls "these days" all wear high heels and make-up and have the temerity to reach puberty earlier. As if every 13-year-old girl is a sex-hungry vixen dressed like a truckstop lapdancer. And even if a 13-year-old is dressed "inappropriately"/is not wearing a burkha/put a saucy dab of Carmex on her chapped lips/grew breasts, that is not an invitation for rape. The age of consent is a sane line in the sand - it is the age at which most reasonable people are mature enough to decide if they want to have sex or not.

There has been a media campaign in Britain to hammer home the point that if someone of either sex is drunk, they're not well placed to consent to sex and it is best to either help them get home safely or find somewhere for them to sleep it off. But in the world of Lord Turnbull, this basic level of respect does not apply to 13-year-old girls.

Bloody hell. After all this week's stupid, my head is going to explode anyway...


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

Hold on to your hats and mittens! It's this week's world of stupid!

We've reached critical mass with the commentary on the royal prank call and tragic death of Jacintha Saldanha. I'm not sure what the DJs could have said in their banal interview on Australian TV to make it any better apart from: "We are very sorry, this casts a shadow over the rest of our lives, and we hereby announce that we are going to quit radio and devote our time to volunteering for a suicide prevention charity."

And the whole sorry saga has created a distraction from other stupidity that deserves to be exposed. As such, here are some other examples of idiocy that simply cannot be tolerated.

1. George Osborne's Autumn Statement: Nobody expected it to be a kind-hearted budget - and it wasn't. But the mirth from the government's front bench, Nick Clegg's ongoing political impotence and the mocking of Ed Balls' stammer were all completely unnecessary.

2. Nadine Dorries happened yet again: This time, she is on board the WAHHHHHHH-mbulance because she says that asking about how much she was paid for her time on I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here is sexist. Except it's not. It's a valid question. And Nadine crying sexism, when she supports gender-segregated, abstinence-based sex education, is beyond parody.

3. Virgin Mobile US thought it'd be hilarious to declare that "a necklace or chloroform" could be a festive surprise for the woman in your life in their Christmas promotion. Still, the outcry ensures people are talking about the brand and they probably didn't lose a single customer as a result.

4. Also in America, a group of self-professed "riflemen and patriots" are setting up The Citadel, a walled community with one point of entry. They are hoping that up to 5,000 households will settle there, the kind of people "who wish to live without neighbors who are Liberals and Establishment political idealogues." Bizarrely, they seem to have nabbed a picture of a British castle for their website. That would be Britain where most of us go about our business unarmed and have a much lower rate of gun crime...

5. In the name of work, I have been in Qatar for COP18, the annual United Nations climate change conference. The air conditioning at the supposedly "carbon neutral" conference was turned up so cold that people were wearing winter clothes indoors. The irony appeared to be lost on the organisers.

6. David Davies is scaremongering over marriage equality in the UK - we already know that churches won't be forced to perform same-sex marriages in much the same way that certain churches refuse to let divorcees or people who aren't regular parishioners get hitched on their premises. Nobody will lose any religious freedoms by giving freedoms to gay people.

Then Davies travelled one stop further on the Idiot Bus, saying: "I think most parents would prefer their children not to be gay, knowing most parents want grandchildren if nothing else." Newsflash, Dave: Gay people are already parents in Britain, even without full marriage equality and they are raising what are commonly known as "children". Not gay children. Just children. Who may or not be gay. In much the same way that heterosexual parents may be parents to gay children.

He is also concerned that legalising marriage will change the way sex education is taught in British schools. Another newsflash, Dave: Sex education is not the same as marriage education and homosexuality is already discussed in British schools.

7. Irish musical berk Brian McFadden showed a lack of understanding about the complexities of domestic violence with a moronic tweet describing women who stayed in abusive relationships as "pathetic". He then tried to explain the tweet by adding another idiotic tweet to the mix: "It's just one of my friends is in that situation and it made me angry."

Wow, Brian. I'm sure your friend is delighted to know that you think she's pathetic. That'll help her situation no end.


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com

Same-sex marriage: it's good and it's conservative...

Ah, Boris Johnson, you mad-haired goofball, you. Pretty much most of the time I look at you and wish Siobhan Benita was the mayor of London but once in a blue moon, you make sense. In your own buffoonish way, of course. In last night's Evening Standard, there was a jolly old column by London's Conservative mayor that I agreed with wholeheartedly. BoJo wrote in support of same-sex marriage, recalls that he once thought it was already legal and was chuffing-well surprised to find that it's not. Well, not yet. 

Other leading Conservatives including Prime Minister David Cameron, Culture Secretary Maria Miller and Home Secretary Theresa May have all publicly voiced their support for marriage equality in Britain. Maria Miller got a round of applause (mostly from younger Conservatives, there were also some pursed lips in the crowd) for her positive statements on the matter yesterday at the Conservative Party Conference. 

Miller said: "I still believe in marriage. It's part of the bedrock of our society. The state should not stop two people from making the commitment to be married unless there's a good reason. I don't believe being gay is one of them."

Good. Now can we please just get on with making it legal and then we can all move on with our lives?

It is precisely because letting gay couples marry shouldn't be a big deal that it should become law. Live and let live. Peace out. If some churches don't want to conduct same-sex marriages, that is their business. I believe the conducting of same-sex marriages should be down to the conscience of the individual minister. I know of vicars who'd happily conduct such weddings and others that would not. 

Why would anyone want to be married by someone who clearly disapproves of their relationship is a mystery anyway. As there are no plans to force ministers of any religion to conduct same-sex marriages, if someone's only objection is "The Bible says no!", there will still be plenty of places where they can go and hang out with likeminded people. The issue of "Where will I find a cake topper for Cedric and Barry's wedding?" will probably never be an issue in their lives.

Marriage is, first and foremost, a civil contract. The religious bit is optional. You will still have to sign a civil document saying you're legally wed. This is where the "But if we let gay people marry, next we'll have people marrying their dog or their toaster!" argument is completely ridiculous. Dogs and toasters are not consenting adults. They are not capable of signing legal documents. Why are people even trying that argument on?

Likewise, the argument about marriage being about having kids is stupid. Yes, starting a family is a big deal for a lot of couples. But what about infertile couples? Couples who choose not to have kids? Couples who are too old to have kids? If you're making marriage all about baby-making, you're going to have to tell these people as well that they'd better call the wedding off. And given that gay couples can already adopt and society hasn't crumbled as a result, surely it'd be a good thing if same-sex parents want to make the big public commitment statement in support of maintaining a stable family life.

David Cameron said he supports gay marriage because he is a conservative. And let's face it, no matter how cool any of us think we are, getting married is a pretty conservative thing to do. At least outwardly. What married couples get up to behind closed doors is nobody's business, even if it is, shock, horror, gasp, cover the kids' ears, an open relationship and they consensually involve other people in their sex life. Yes, this is how some heterosexual married couples behave. Get over it. You're not required to join in. Equally, what gay couples do behind closed doors is nobody's business but theirs. The obsession some gay marriage opponents have over the mechanics of gay sex borders on that of a curtain-twitching stalker.

Once same-sex marriage is legalised here in the UK - and I do believe that will happen - life will go on much the same as before. Nobody will be forced to have a same-sex marriage. Plenty of gay couples are probably perfectly happy remaining unwed, just as plenty of heterosexual couples are - but the difference is that everyone will have the choice to get married or not. 

Civil partnerships for gay couples were a great leap forward in equality but letting such couples call their relationship a marriage would be a way to show respect, to honour their relationships. To say: "But I tolerate gay couples and their civil partnerships!" is, frankly rude. People we "tolerate" tend to be people we don't get along with or don't really like, but we have to be polite to them because they're colleagues or family or a friend of a partner. Nobody wants to be merely "tolerated".

I haven't got much new to add to the debate suffice to say that I look forward to the day when I can look back at this blog posting and laugh at how bizarre it was that we used to deny a significant proportion of the community the right to get married. Britain has an economy to fix. Let's quit farting about with gay marriage arguments and let it happen. And with the average wedding in the UK costing a rather insane £21,000 these days, not to mention the expenses guests face just to attend the damn things, more weddings can only be a good thing for the economy. What conservative can argue with that?