A 13 year old writes about same sex marriage - MPs take note #samesexmarriage

Yesterday Anna told me she'd received full marks for a school essay on same sex marriage. She had been told to write a persuasive essay on any subject of her choice, so she wrote about something she feels really strongly about. With her permission, I'm publishing it below. It would be nice if MPs read it. She is not always tactful, and she challenges deeply held beliefs - but she's pretty perceptive and shows off both compassion and a passionate sense of justice. If you read no further, at least read her conclusion:

A place where same gender couples are treated as legally equal to heterosexuals is a place one step closer to destroying homophobia before it destroys many more lives.

Here's the whole thing:

Marriage can be an important milestone in a person's life, so naturally unmarried people of all ages fantasise about their own wedding - them and their beloved, the perfect bride and groom, committing to each other. Their parents crying through the ceremony, so proud of their baby. No fear of being disowned, nobody to call their relationship "unnatural", "illegitimate" or even morally wrong.

In 2015, same sex marriage is set to be introduced in Scotland, giving any two individuals, regardless of gender the right to get officially married instead of the £"separate but equal" option of civil partnership. While this idea has rounded up a lot of support, those who disagree with it are perhaps the most vocal.

The number one reason for an individual to hold "traditional" (read: homophobic) marriage values is that their religion forbids it. The the infamous Leviticus 18:22 that may homophobic Christians love to call on. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination." Upon hearing these words, every rational human being should be able to constantly pick out the holes in this flawed and overused quote. The first being that the Bible is a very old book that was not originally written in English and this particular verse can be translated in several different ways, eg elderly men not lying with young boys. The second is that some of the laws of the Old Testament are invalid. The same people who condemn homosexuality are rarely seen forcing victims of rape to marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) or killing those who work on Sundays (Exodus 35:2). While the Bible can provide solace and teach some wonderful lessons, some early books are not to be taken word for word.

However the most important reason religious arguments fall apart in this case is this: In the UK, we are not a theocracy. While everyone has the right to use their religious beliefs to govern their own life, it is not fair to use your religion to restrict someone else. It is not an exercise of religious freedom to try and prevent marriage equality. If you disapprove of same gender marriages, the noble thing to do would be to let those involved in such marriages live their lives in peace. Your homophobia cannot be justified by religion, your bigotry is no less awful with a quote from a holy book.

Unfortunately, religious reasons are just a small section of the motivation behind people's closed-mindedness. One of the other frequently used arguments is perhaps even more preposterous, even more illogical, and it is this: most couples of the same gender cannot have children. 

While this can tie in with religious arguments "Go forth and multiply, Genesis 9:7) it is often just used on its own. It is difficult to see why this argument is so often used without a religious statement when  a simple look at some statistics render it entirely invalid: over 900 million people in the world are starving. There are over 15,000 children in care in Scotland alone. In a world with so many people and not enough resources, or rather not enough co-operation from wealthy countries to share said resources), surely having a child is not the sole reason a marriage is formed - and f people who cannot have biological children wish to adopt, they are helping an already existent life instead of creating a new one.

Discussing whether a couple can have children or not in relation to marriage equality makes even less sense when you consider the real facts. A menopausal woman or infertile person can still get married, the possibility of a child is never picked on in these cases. Besides, many couples marry and do not desire children, whereas many children re born to unmarried parents, proving that marriage and reproduction are by no means mutually inclusive.

This argument falls apart again when you realise that just because the two people of the same gender cannot get married to each other, they are not immediately going to leave each other to enter a heterosexual relationship and have children. The two people will stay together anyway so allowing them to marry will not prevent the births of any children.

Many will say that as civil partnership exists as a near identical alternative for couples of the same gender, granting them the right to marry is not necessary. While it is true that the same benefits are granted to couples in a civil partnership, marriage holds certain emotional and cultural significance and connotations. Young children dream of one day getting married, not getting "civilly partnered". 

Another reason it is harmful to separate them into two different institutions is that many people will try to delegitimise a civil partnership by saying it is not a true marriage and does not count. This could be very hurtful to the civilly partnered couple and would give people more reason to say bigoted things about how same gender couples cannot truly get married and therefore their relationships do not count.

In any case, the concept of "separate but equal" has proven itself to be a flawed argument many times throughout history. Separate does not mean equal. Calling it equal is something only the accepted, privileged people can say safely, while the other group feels inadequate, like their "equal" separate thing is a rip-off of the original.

There is one argument in particular that does not even try to try its utter and blatant homophobia and the people who use it do not seem to realise how harmful the thing they are saying is. I am of course referring to the argument that marriage equality would "promote the homosexual lifestyle" and make people accept same gender couples as normal. This argument is often used by closed minded people who cannot grasp that how people are able to express their relationships does not revolve around one individuals personal views.

This argument, along with "gay people are disgusting and unnatural" has no basis. All these arguments can be easily exposed as illogical and heterosexist with no back-up for the argument whatsoever. I could just as easily say that society's unwavering acceptance of marriage between one man and one woman suggests an "heterosexual lifestyle" and give no reasons why this is a bad thing but still oppose such marriages.

Apart from the obvious homophobia, this argument perpetuates that sexual and romantic orientation is a choice and excludes bisexual people in same gender couples.

In conclusion, marriage equality is certainly a good idea because it would improve the general quality of life for same gender couples while those it doe not directly affect would suffer no ill effects. It would make the institution of marriage fairer and contribute to reducing prejudice by normalising same gender relationships. Theo only arguments against this are from self-centred individuals who cannot respect the rights of other people to be treated equally. A place where same gender couples are treated as legally equal to heterosexuals is a place one step closer to destroying homophobia before it destroys many more lives.

My open letter to Liberal Democrat MPs on same sex marriage - it's not about you, it's about fairness and equality

This is what I've spent the morning drafting and sending to Liberal Democrat MPs on the same sex marriage bill. I've sent it to everyone unless I know for sure that they are wholeheartedly and enthusiastically supporting the Bill and not voting for any of the Tory Wrecking Muppetry.

I have had two replies so far - one from Malcolm Bruce, who can't be at Westminster today but who supports the Bill, and from David Heath's office, confirming his support.

Dear

I’m writing to ask you to enthusiastically support the same sex marriage bill today.

I’m a huge fan of marriage. In August, my husband and I celebrate our 25^th wedding anniversary and it pains me that many of our friends, who love each other just as much as we do and whose relationship has been just as enduring, do not have the chance to have their union recognised in an equal way.

I’ve been incredibly proud of how our MSPs and Willie Rennie have championed its cause in Scotland, and have stood up to the churches who have been unreasonable in the demands that they have made and deeply offensive in the language that they have used.

I don’t want to take up too much of your inbox, but here is why I’d like you to support the Bill:

It’s the most liberal outcome

Couples are free to marry if they wish to do so.

Religious organisations don’t have to marry same sex couples if they don’t believe in doing so.

That’s a win for everyone, with all rights respected. If anything the balance is too much in favour of religious organisations. They have more than enough protections – not just belt and braces, but superglue, stapes and sellotape too.

Liberals are here to curb the excesses of powerful organisations

So, church and religious leaders want to stop less powerful people having rights which do no harm to anybody? Are we going to allow that to happen? Seriously? It’s the very essence of liberalism to protect people from this sort of stuff. Our default position as liberals should be to protect and respect individual choice where no harm is done to others. I hope none of you would ever try to assert that two people making a lifelong commitment to each other is in any way harmful to the rest of society.

And, of course, all religious organisations have LGBT members, and the evidence suggests that a significant proportion, even a majority of church members do not agree with the stance taken by their leaders.

Imagine some arbitrary legal obstacle to your relationship

My husband is 16 years older than me. I often wonder how I would feel if there was some arbitrary law saying there couldn’t be more than 10 years between husband and wife. I think how much we would have lost. Ok, we could have stayed together, or taken an option for couples like us which would really just encourage discrimination against us, but it’s not the same. A distinction on grounds of sexual orientation is just as silly. Why would you pass up the chance to enact full equality?

What other inalienable rights would you want to have a referendum on?

I am really hoping that you are not considering voting for the amendment calling for a referendum before legislation. Would you do the same on the death penalty? Or to remove the right to join a trade union? Or to remove human rights from criminals? Equality is not negotiable.

Don’t vote for “son of Section 28”

That amendment on schools would entrench and enshrine discrimination against LGBT people in exactly the same way as Section 28 did. Please do not vote for it.

Exemptions for registrars

Why should public servants be exempted from providing a service that is legal to access? If they don’t approve of same sex civil marriage, then they shouldn’t be registrars. It’s quite simple. You’d soon rightly tell BNP members where to go, in no uncertain terms, if they demanded exemption from marrying people from different ethnic origins. Why would you even consider exemptions for those who object to same sex couples?

Extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples

I personally don’t have any objection in principle to this, but, and it’s a big but, why would the same group of Tories who proposed the rest of the daft amendments be proposing this? Tories are supposedly in favour of marriage above all else, so why muddy the waters in this way? This smells of an attempt to wreck and I think should be avoided at all costs.

It’s not about you and what you believe about same sex marriage

For me, this is a fundamental issue of liberalism and equality. It doesn’t actually matter what your own view on same sex marriage is. A vote in favour of this Bill is a vote that is entirely consistent with our principles as a party and I hope that you will support it.

Willie Rennie: highlights of his first two years as Scottish Liberal Democrat leader

It's two years today since Willie Rennie was elected Scottish Liberal Democrat leader. It's sunny today, as it was then. I remarked at the time that 17th May was the first day it hadn't rained since the SNP had won their overall majority.

Here are some of the highlights of his first two years in the job:

The first interview - I was there in North Queensferry when he kicked off his leadership in the sunshine. At that point it had rained every day since the Nationalists had won their overall majority.

He was soon calling out Alex Salmond for attacking a senior Supreme Court judge.

And being praised by journalists.

Then he spent 24 hours with carer Clare Lally - and he still keeps in touch with her and her family.

Standing up against the SNP's illiberal bill to tackle sectarianism.

Standing up to the Catholic Church's threats on equal marriage.

Urging Alex Salmond to meet the Dalai Lama instead of pandering to the Chinese Government. Not to mention meeting the Dalai Lama himself and subsequently sending him a DVD of the Reverend I M Jolly to explain the meaning of the word "dour"!

Making Salmond squirm over the First Minister's pandering to Murdoch.

I have a feeling he won't be on Donald Trump's Christmas Card list any time soon.

His successful fight for extra college funding secured praise from the NUS of all people.

Now, he's fighting for Scotland's poorest two year olds to get 15 hours of nursery a week to give them the best start in life.

In two years, he's travelled the length and breadth of Scotland many times over to enthuse and motivate activists. He's stood up to vested interests trying to wield more than their fair share of power at others' expense. He's fought for children and young people and tried to focus thinking on the serious issues facing Scotland. No, that's not the independence referendum, it's caring for an aging population and reducing poverty.

EDMwatch #1: animals, Sir Alex, Diabetes and VAT on tabloids

I thought it might be a good idea to introduce a new feature for the start of the shiny new parliamentary session - a regular look at the Early Day Motions tabled by MPs. These are basically House of Commons petition and are used to raise awareness of an issue. One of the biggest elements of an MP's postbag or inbox is a pile of requests from supporters of a particular organisation or charity to sign a particular EDM. As a rule, ministers don't sign EDMs.

You would think, wouldn't you, that MPs could just sign them with a click of the mouse, but as far as I know, they actually have to print it out, physically sign it and take it to the Table Office. You wouldn't necessarily expect our Parliament to get all 21st century about anything, but this could be an easy way of saving work.

Anyway, I intend to look at the most popular EDMs each week, those brought forward by Liberal Democrats and any others that catch my eye. MPs are pretty prolific with these things.  The session isn't even a week old, and already 71 have been tabled, ranging from the worthy and uncontroversial to the hyperlocal to the ridiculous.

The race to be number 1 of the new session was won by Falkirk's independent MP, Eric Joyce with a series of motions on international development issues. This was number 1:

That this House commends the Government and opposition parties on their continued commitment to international development aid; recognises that in challenging economic times such expenditure must be continuously justified to the UK public; welcomes the change in emphasis towards enabling developing nations to grow their own economies and move away from reliance on aid; further recognises the crucial role of good relations with partner nations in the developing world; congratulates non-governmental organisations on their work to date; and urges UK investors to work with new prospects in the developing world.

Most popular

This week the honour is shared between EDM 8, in support of Yorkhill Children's Charity (a Glasgow Children's hospital) and EDM 55 on childcare ratios by some Labour MPs. Nick Clegg was way ahead of them. They have 14 signatures each.

They are closely followed by a couple of motions on religious liberty or the lack of it, in the Middle East, several on Diabetes, smoke detectors and, interestingly, EDM 43 on the fire service in England to be required by law to respond to serious flooding incidents. You would have thought that this was already in place, but apparently not.

The three on Sir Alex Ferguson, though, have failed to ignite MPs, attracting just 10 signatures between them. The biggest surprise was George Galloway describe him as the Greatest Living Scotsman. For someone of his monumental ego, that's humility!

Liberal Democrat highlights

Adrian Sanders has been busy. He's filed no fewer than 11 EDMs on subjects as diverse on the effect of sending reductions on seaside resorts, particularly welfare reform changes, to racehorse safety, applying minimum standards to all races in the UK. Actually, I'm wondering if he can do that - isn't animal welfare devolved to Scotland and Wales? He certainly seems to know that from his motion on a close season for hare shooting to protect nursing mothers!  Oh, and he wants to impose extra darkness on Scotland, too. so excuse me while I frown in his direction.

John Leech's EDM 30 calls for a pardon for Alan Turing and EDM 33 calls for action on homophobic chanting at football grounds:

That this House welcomes the report from the Brighton and Hove Albion Supporters' Club (BHASC), along with the Gay Football Supporters' Network (GFSN), that details evidence and a log of the level of homophobic chanting at both home and away matches; recognises the extent of the problem when Brighton fans have been subjected to homophobic abuse by at least 72 per cent of opponents they have faced this season; agrees with the report that, although chants range from what would be considered to be mild to much more offensive, if these words relating to a person's sexuality were replaced with words relating to someone's race or skin colour, appropriate action would be taken; further recognises the good work both the BHASC and the GFSN have done in highlighting this problem; and calls for the clubs, the football authorities, the police and relevant authorities to work with them to eradicate this abuse.

He also wants to see 17 year olds given protections in police custody.

John Hemming welcomes a new practice direction on secret jailings for contempt of court, Bob Smith on the importance of the oil and gas industry and Malcolm Bruce congratulates the first deaf sailor to circumnavigate the globe. Mike Hancock has two - on travel for young people and animal experts.

Silly motion of the week

Let's face it, when you have a George Galloway, there is plenty of scope. Probably the daftest of his crop is the idea that tabloid newspapers should attract VAT:

That this House urges the Government to impose VAT on daily and Sunday tabloid newspapers which are principally in the entertainment industry rather than the news business; and believes that such a measure could bring in an estimated revenue of £3 billion a year to HM Treasury which could be used for house-building and infrastructural measures to stimulate the economy.

The idea that the government should tax expression and opinion that it doesn't like is not a healthy one.

I know you don't really need more reason to procrastinate on the internet, but you can see the whole list here. What are your favourites?

Quentin Letts calls Miriam Gonzalez Durantez a "castanet clacker"

You expect Quentin Letts to be unpleasant and spit bile at Nick Clegg at every opportunity. It's not nice and almost never accurate, but it's what passes for right wing political commentary in this country.

His frequent attacks on Nick's wife, Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, are also umpleasant and unjustified. But today's was actually racist. He referred to Nick's "castanet clacker" Spanish wife.

Article 12 of the Editors' Code of Practice is pretty clear on discrimination:

12	Discrimination
	i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

It's clear to me that Letts' description of Miriam falls foul of both points. And, frankly, I'm not just going to stand by and let him racially abuse anybody. I am shocked that this got past the editorial team at the Mail, too.

I won't be holding my breath for anything to come of this, but it's such a clear example of racism that it cannot go unchallenged. So, I have complained to the Press Complaints Commission. 

There is much that is objectionable in Quentin Letts' article. That's just Quentin Letts. If you read something he's written and don't feel like you need a shower afterwards, then there's something wrong.  But this crossed a line. 

You'll note I haven't linked to it. You can find it yourself if you wish, but I'm not going to spend the currency of the internet on this disgraceful piece. 

He also, by the way, has a go at Nick Clegg for being an atheist, saying he "is not a man troubled by fears of how he may some day be judged." Is facing the electorate in 2015 not judgement enough?

Anyway, if you agree with me that Letts' comments about Miriam were racist, please feel free to complain to the PCC too. I can't see any wiggle room for the Mail here and I'm not going to stand by and let them away with it.

Sunshine and pandas. Is Summer really here at last?

So, I bunked off on Tuesday. I'd always half intended to, especially as it was a school holiday, and an opportunity to spend some time with Anna, but the fantastic weather meant that the laptop stayed firmly switched off and we headed off to the zoo.

Earlier, I'd woken with a start. Maybe it was the unfamiliar surroundings. I'm not used to waking in my parents' spare room, seeing as we live just a few minutes' away, but we are staying here with my wonderful niece Laura, who's down for her uni exams. Anyway, I woke up thinking I should have been in London the day before for Federal Executive. Once I'd hit the roof with horror, it slowly dawned on me that not even someone with Tim Farron's work ethic would summon us on a bank holiday the week after the elections.

It was lovely sitting outside on my parents' patio having breakfast. We don't get a lot of sunshine up here - and what little we've had this year has been accompanied by a goosebump inducing chill. This was real hot stuff, though. Anna and I decided to go to the zoo while Laura was sitting her exam. We hadn't been since last Summer so we hadn't seen the new penguin enclosure.

We were surprised to be offered panda viewing tickets for half an hour after we arrived. You normally have to book them online in advance, but there had been a cancellation, apparently. So, after checking in with the flamingoes - we both love their chilled out pinkness and when Anna was little I made up a series of stories about the adventures of one of them, Florence - we headed to the panda house. We weren't full of expectation - when we've seen them at lunchtime before, they've always been asleep. We've never had much from Yang Guang. He was sitting with his back to us the first time. The second he was asleep on his little trolley thing. He woke up, saw people there and turned over in a very grumpy manner reminiscent of the way I pull the duvet over my head in the morning, in futile denial of the need to get up. The third time he had his wee bout of man flu.

On Tuesday, though, he was very lively and the picture of charm. He ate his bamboo, he moved around and even went outside, where he treated us, if that's the appropriate word to a panda handstand. This is not as cute as you might think. Not when it involves him doing the toilet when he's in position.

Tian Tian was sleeping when she went in, totally starfished on her pile of bamboo, showing off the shaven patch on her abdomen from her recent artificial insemination. She then woke up and gave herself a rush of blood to the head by hanging off the platform.

The rest of the afternoon was spent with penguin watching and ice cream before we headed home. I hope we have more Summer to look forward to as it's clouded over and become a good deal colder since....

Some nationalists need to get a grip - you can't compare UK with brutal occupation of Latvia

I wrote this post yesterday on Liberal Democrat Voice about the implementation of the Scotland Act. 

I was slightly perplexed to see this comment appear:

I am assuming you would not agree that Latvia and Russia, for example, are “better together”?

Clearly not, but you cannot compare a brutal occupation and a mutually beneficial, legitimate union. Perhaps a little history lesson is in order.

Let's have a look at the recent history of Latvia from Britannica.com:

The uncompromising effort of the regime to transform the country into a typical Soviet bailiwick compounded the devastation of the war. Severe political repression accompanied radical socioeconomic change. Extreme Russification numbed national cultural life. Several waves of mass deportation—of at least 140,000 people—to northern Russia and Siberia occurred, most notably in 1949 in connection with a campaign to collectivize agriculture. 

It's hardly the same thing as a union entered into peacefully and mutually and which has served Scotland well.

From Better Together's Facebook yesterday:

It is 306 years today since the Act of Union came into effect. Over those three centuries we have achieved so much together. Our thinkers and inventors created the modern world. Our writers and artists have inspired billions across the globe. We fought together to defeat fascism. We have married, traded, shared failures and triumphs, all together. We can make history again next year by renewing the world's most successful union.

The UK isn't perfect. We need proper home rule in Scotland and a fairer voting system and wider political reform at UK level wouldn't go amiss. It's the best option for us now, though, by a long way. If you believe in independence of course you are not going to see it that way. That's fine. But please don't spread the idea that we are unwillingly occupied by some sort of repressive regime, because that's just ridiculous.