Support equal marriage vigil as Lords debate Bill on Monday 3 June

The House of Lords debates the Same Sex Marriage bill on Monday 3 June. They will address the general principles of the Bill before voting on a Second Reading.

When the matter was debated in the Commons two weeks ago, I was saddened to see that so many of my friends were upset by a protest against the Bill.  Think about how it feels to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender and to see people demonstrating outside Parliament to exclude you. They tell you that they think that your relationships are somehow less valid. It makes me feel angry to see my friends put through that sort of discomfort. Love and commitment between two people who want to spend their lives together is the same, so it's clearly logical that everyone should have access to the same legal recognition.

That's partly why I'm so glad to see that there is an equal marriage vigil taking place outside Parliament from 5:30 pm on Monday. I would so love to be there, except this 400 miles' distance thing is a bit of a problem.

Monday also marks the second anniversary of the death of Andrew Reeves, the much loved London campaigns officer and then Scottish Director of Campaigns. I've been thinking a lot about how he would be feeling about the process of the legislation both at Westminster and Holyrood. He's been a much missed presence at every vigil, every march we've been to. I'm sure he would have been very proud of everyone from Willie Rennie, Nick Clegg and Lynne Featherstone to LGBT+ Liberal Democrats who have done so much to turn this Bill into a reality.

Wherever we are in the country, I hope all supporters of equal marriage will take part in this vigil in some way, whether by tweeting (or  using any other form of social media), blogging or organising local events to show support. It's also important that we politely and reasonably make the case to the Lords and ask them to support this Bill. Even if they don't personally agree with it, they should not stand in the way of equalising the rights of others, especially as the Commons has voted it through with such a stonking majority. Many people in the Lords will remember the day when it wasn't just legal, it was commonplace to discriminate on racial grounds. The changes in the law have done much to improve things, although there's a long way to go on that front, too.

Oh, and a note to people on the vigil, if you happen to see Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Moore anywhere near Parliament, sing Happy Birthday to him. 

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.