Marriage equality in the UK

10 countries in the world now have marriage equality (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Portugal and now Argentina) as well as in several US States - Massachussets, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington DC and the state of Mexico City.

A number of other countries are in the process of preparing legislation to introduce equal marriage (Luxembourg, Slovenia and Finland to date with the political left in France supporting equal marriage - Socialists, Communists and Greens).

The UK introduced Civil Partnerships for same sex partners in 2005 with parity to same sex couples in all areas and this was reinforced with the passing of the Goods and Services regulations in 2006 which covered equal access to adoption and more recenntly the removal of 'need for a father' for IVF treatments complete the provision of equality in partnership and family law.

But the journey to equality never reaches its end and equality always needs to advance. In several areas the current law creates difficulties. There is a ban on a religious ceremony where the partners wish for it and the religous body wants to offer it. There is a ban on entering a marriage for those who wish for it - whether from their faith psrspective or because that's what they want. Gay relationships become apostrophised - whereas opposite sex couples marry, same sex couples "marry"; a woman has a husband, a man has a "husband". The apostrophe indicates it isn't a real thing and the same sex relationship is pointed up as being an unreal thing and definitely not the same in worth and dignity of an opposite sex coupling.

The ban on marriage is a modern, less in your face, but real nonetheless version of section 28. Same sex couples are inferior and therefore not entitled to equality of treatment and regard with opposite sex couples.

There are other problems. Those who have entered into marriage in other countries are unable to bring their relationship effortlessly into the UK - something heterosexual marrieds never have to worry about; when someone seeks Gender Recognition and they are married they are forced to end their marriage even if they wish to stay married.

So I believe only equality will do. This is not about choices - you may not wish to marry (whether you are gay or straight); you may not even believe in marriage - that still does not justify treating one group of people as less equal than others.

The question is a live one at the present time because of the number of countries that have or are in the process of adopting equal laws for marriage and because the debate is now engaged within UK's political parties. The LGBT groups of the three main parties support equality; all 5 leadership candidates have supported equality and a resolution on thew matter is to be debated at the Lib Dem Conference.

Therefore the time is now ripe for the UK political class to take note and move forwards inthe direction of creating more equality.

Marriage equality in California and Argentina

Oops, with all their funding the organisers of Prop 8 gave no thought to defending legal cases after it passed and struggled because their campaign consisted of a) galvanising religious antigay sentiment b) lying c) using 'despisal' techniques - 'a storm is coming' 'they're after your children' etc.

This is easy to do against small minorities such as LGB people but likely to be unconstutional and so has proved. Judge Walker's ruling is slightly dull and boring but works through the facts as one may conclude them boiling down to i)marriage is long held to be a basic right ii)gay people exist and face a history and ongoing legacy and reality of discrimination iii)prop 8 is motivated by animus against a group and is deisgned to classify and mark them out. Therefore it violates principles of Due Process and Equal Protection.

Regarding the stay motions see here.

The state of California declined to defend Prop 8 and the Governor and Attourney General are against a stay of the ruling so we shall see. We must also await the reaction of th 9th Circuit who may themselves grant a stay if Judge Walker doesn't.

Then also the Supreme Court will get its final say. Either way it coud end up being a 5-4 decision whichever way it falls.

Equally encouraging if not more so is the decision by Argentina to enact equality in its marriage laws.

Important ECHR ruling

I saw this in Pink News. See also ILGA-Europe.

It's a very important ruling, especially as it's unanimous and builds on previous rulings in similar cases (notably Austria).

The Court concluded that 'de facto marital cohabitation' must include same sex couples under the right to private life and freedom from discrimination.

I find para 92 (near the end) to be particularly important in terms of the Court's own understanding of its own jurisprudence:

92. Sexual orientation is a concept covered by Article 14. Furthermore, when the distinction in question operates in this intimate and vulnerable sphere of an individual's private life, particularly weighty reasons need to be advanced before the Court to justify the measure complained of. Where a difference of treatment is based on sex or sexual orientation the margin of appreciation afforded to the State is narrow and in such situations the principle of proportionality does not merely require that the measure chosen is in general suited for realising the aim sought but it must also be shown that it was necessary in the circumstances. Indeed, if the reasons advanced for a difference in treatment were based solely on the applicant's sexual orientation, this would amount to discrimination under the Convention (see E.B., cited above, §§ 91 and 93; S.L., cited above, § 37, ECHR 2003-I; Smith and Grady, cited above, §§ 89 and 94; and Karner, cited above, §§ 37 and 41).

At the same time ILGA-Europe reports of latest developments of the Schalk and Kopf case on same sex marriage where Prof Robert Wintmute has been given intervener status in front of the European Court of Human Rights (arguments regarding admissibility at this stage).

There is a very interesting link to the oral arguments here.

Civil partnerships in Church?

I must admit I still scratch my head about this one and struggle to see how it can work given the practicalities. Hopefully the government can work something out.

I am glad that the House of Lords did vote in this way. Kudos to Lord Alli who has been a fantastic performer in the House of Lords on this and on many other issues.

I am also glad for the fact that there is some respect for the spiritual autonomy of minority faiths such as Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaisms.

I think, ironically, that religion is quite a good angle to come at this problem and that it leads us to the view that for some faiths they will be able to marry people in church (or synagogue); others might not be happy to marry in church or synagogue but might doctrinally be happy to provide civil partnerships and others may opt for either civil partnerships or civil marriage.

I am for respect for spiritual freedom for churches, faiths and individuals and I think that this is the way to approach this issue.

The attitude of the Church of England is sadly pitiful. It's the kind of attitude of "Why on earth do people need religious services?" whilst being a church that wants (presumably) wants to attract people to have a service.

This attitude can only (a) put people off coming to church for a ceremony and (b) when they do have a ceremony they are likely to see through the church's spiritual bankruptcy and see this as a ceremony but no more and it's a pathway to a profound divorce between church and people which is very sad.

The scare stories about litigation against priests who refuse to conduct a ceremony are utterly mendacious and badly reflect on the bishops' seriousness and integrity - clearly people that daft (or frankly dishonest) have no place in our Parliament and should be kept out of any reformed upper chamber.

Thinking Anglicans has been great on this issue as well as Ekklesia.

Civil partnerships in Church?

News on PinkNews that Stonewall and LGCM are asking for the Government to allow churches to carry out Civil Partnerships.

Not sure what I think about this as Civil Partnership is 'civil' and not religious but on the other hand there is the freedom of religion argument and churches are not allowed to honour their faith in being able to join together same sex couples, though of course nothing stops them from offering a blessing ceremony or prayers for the couple after the ceremony.

I think it is more important to allow same sex couples to marry whether in church or indeed a civil marriage.

Disappointment in Maine

Disappointment because it was a battle we might have won and came close to winning but didn't.

But at least we tried and came close.

I consider that the vote of 47% was a good floor on which to build. In life, in this kind of campaign, you need to start somewhere.

It will take a few years to come back at this in Maine, but I am convinced we will come back in both Maine and California.

There was also a success, albeit slim, in Washington State.

By degrees we will get to where we need to be. Little by little, step by step, we'll get there.

Not tonight

Seems like tonight isn't the night for marriage equality by referendum in Maine. Results are being predicted at 52-48%.

Again this is incredibly close and actually a great achievement although winning would have been a better one.

We can still come back in Maine as in California

Voting over

That exciting time when polls close and there's no more you can do win or lose.
I am watching the live feed of the Maine election night party after the vote for or against the proposal to reject the law on same sex marriage.

The party looks good! But no results yet so probably best to get the partying in now!

First results here (initial returns not good at 3% count).

Whatever the result I think we can celebrate as even if lost it will be close and shows we've come an awful long way even if we aren't there yet.

5% count - we're up and I might not get to sleep now
17% count - No is at 51.3% - I must say I fear that that lead isn't enough as rural votes usually come in later due to counting and geography - of course I don't know what districts haven't reported yet.
Different percentages given. Very. very close. We are down on some tallies. This may go down to the wire....... and absentee ballots

Following this also

Church of Sweden endorses same sex marriage

After already performing same sex blessings and supporting the country's recent gender neutral marriage law Sweden's national Church (Lutheran) adopted a decision to permit same sex marriages in its churches.

This is a positive and natural progression for that Church which has also elected a partnered Lesbian as Bishop of Stockholm and comes after pressure from the Church of England not to proceed in this way.

The Church of England is in communion with the Church of Sweden as part of the Porvoo agreement.

The vote was 176 in favour, 62 against and 11 abstentions.

New Hampshire makes 6

New Hampshire now becomes the US 6th state to enact same sex marriage, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa (by Court action) and more recently Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire (through the legislature).

The law in Maine is however subject to popular review in a referendum if enough signatures can be found to oppose the provision.

The law passed its final hurdle in the Assembly by 198 to 176.

Damage limitation in California

News just in that prop 8 banning same sex marriage has been upheld by the California's Supreme Court - the ruling can be found here.

The ruling is as expected from judges' comments in oral argument and therefore unsurprising to that extent.

The key point of interest to me is that on page 92 of the ruling they uphold explicitly that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is held to be 'suspect' - similarly to discrimination on grounds of gender or race and that prop 8 is accepted only on the basis it relates solely to nomenclature (i.e. the title of marriage) and is a 'narrowly drawn exception'.

This is therefore a good ruling (in the circumstances - we'd rather not be here at all) and we can look forward to prop 8 itself being reversed at some future point by the voters of California a few years down the line.

Reaction from Andrew Sullivan welcoming the ruling (referring to it as being the 'right call') here - also with a link to the ruling.

More developments in US states

Broadly encouraging developments - especially in New England.

Marriage equality bills have been endorsed by the legislatures of 3 states (Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire). In Vermont the Governor refused to sign the bill but the bill's supporters were able to muster a required 2/3 majority to override a veto; the bill passed in Maine but may be subject to a voter referendum and most recently the Governor of New Hampshire said he would sign a bill if they added further language for the protection of religious minorities.

Meanwhile in New York the lower house has approved such a bill but it is not clear if it can pass the Senate and the District of Columbia has passed a bill recognising same sex marriages (but not allowing them to be carried out) by 12 votes to 1 (subject to Congress not reversing it).

Iowa tempts me back to blogging

Just had to blog about latest developments from Iowa's Supreme Court ruling released today.

Iowa is not the first Supreme Court in the US to endorse same sex marriage (following Hawaii - overturned by a constitutional amendment- Massachusetts and Connecticut). It is though the first to be a unanimous ruling as well as being outside of the comfort zones of New England and trendy California.

It's also a good read if you like that sort of thing. I find it particularly well written, relating to previous Supreme Court rulings on issues like slavery, segregation and women's equality where Iowa was way in advance of the US Supreme Court. The language of the ruling contains subtle digs at other jurisdictions which have denied marriage equality (New York, Washington) or might be about to (California).

Its logic is faultless and is a delight to read and I'm certain will have a huge impact in years to come. In particular it reflects on the historic aspects of discrimination faced by "gay and lesbian people".

At the same time as all this marriage equality measures are progressing actively in New Hampshire and Vermont (where the Senate carried a bill by 26 - 4, the House by 95 - 52 - though not enough as yet to counteract a planned veto by the state governor).

And from Europe, news that the Swedish Parliament has enacted same sex marriage legislation by 261 votes to 22.

Joy on Obama; sadness on Prop 8

Obama wins big in the all important electoral college - picking the so called lock of the Republican's "Southern Strategy". Dems have struggled hard in all elections for the presidency since the passage of civil rights sparked all the politics of resentment that have coralled a Southern erstwhile Democratic stronghold for the Republicans.

Noticably the thinking has been the need for the Dems to do something to attract the South - Carter from Georgia, Clinton Governor of Arkansas, Gore Senator from Tennesee, Edwards from North Carolina....

Not anymore. Obama a left leaning liberal, black lawyer from Chicago as well as a Veep from Delaware carrying North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri being split (SPLIT!), Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Floriday.

I am sure Obama is the right person for the job at this point and at some deep level the US and the world needed this renewal even though on one level not much is going to change - but we'll see.

Just the fact of how far we have come when we have gone from the Civil Rights fights (to vote, not have to sit on a separate part of a bus, segregation in both church and state) to a black person being elected as President. Just to see tears in so many faces - including Jesse Jackson.

On the other hand, sadness that Proposition 8 was carried by a small majority.

Many have speculated on the reasons for this failure.

I think the No campaign had serious shortcomings with poor ads. And our own community has probably been prone to some hubris - if we celebrate our victory loudly enough no-one will be so cruel as to reverse it.

Well they can. And did.

Having schoolchildren attend their school teacher's same sex wedding when school teaching, children and religion were at the core of the Yes on 8 campaign.

Gavin Newsom triumphally stating that you're going to get same sex marriage whether you like it or not; that there's no way of turning back. Voters thought otherwise.

So it was a sad day but great to see there was an opposition of 48% with so much support from trade unions, young voters, church groups. These networks should be built on and nurtured as a way of building up support for LGBT people.

I think that same sex marriage will proceed in its own way in many states of the US as well as other countries in the world (the latest being the statement that Sweden's centre right government is likely to introduce same sex marriage legislation by 2009).

All is not so negative. Connecticut having recently commenced same sex marriage in a similar court ruling and voted against calling a Constitutional Convention and the Dems got majorities in many state legislatures.

Progress marches on, though sometimes via a winding road.

Same sex marriage losing in California

Latest polls show homophobic Proposition 8, restricting marriage to heterosexual couples and intending to upend a Constitutional provision of non-discrimination enacted by the Supreme Court of California (albeit recently).

Stripping people of constitutional protections and measures affording equality and fairness for all is a grave and serious step to take.

I am not sure what happens if it passes, given there are now tens of thousands of same sex couples who have married. Maybe it all becomes null and void, but the equal protection clause of the California Constitution is still operative as is the Supreme Court's analysis of sexual orientation as being a suspect or quasi suspect category (in like manner as the Supreme Court of Connecticut which has also recently provided for gender neutrality) given the overwhelming animus toward LGBT people over recent US history and difficulty in gaining equality using the usual political channels - a point that is rather reinforced if Prop 8 passes.

Maybe California will adopt a UK style Civil Partnership provision.

This all remains to be seen.

Again, were it to pass, the only way for civil marriage to be afforded with full equality is for a future amendment to the Constitution. And while it may be several years before such an amendment to be carried it is worth campaigning for, even though the LGBT community be heavily outspent by religious bodies.

Although to date the campaign against Prop 8 looks weak and dire (and is being heavily criticised though it may be they have a game plan for the final 2 weeks) a lot of the work is already being done in trade unions, newspaper editorials and supportive churches.

This work will no doubt continue as well, perhaps, some telling questions of the Democratic hierarchy who haven't come out too visibly against the amendment (at all in fact - maybe they are biding their time). There may well be a broader day of reckoning for this who offer warm words and sympathy when they ought to know better.

California - it will be tight

Now the Supreme Court in California has confirmed that proposition 8 will be on November's ballot (with the intention of reversing same sex marriage) two opinion polls show that the No vote has a small lead.

Latest figures show a lead of 51-42%.

This is good but incredibly narrow and anything could happen between now and then. Still a good initial poll finding that (hopefully) will encourage the No campaigners.

Jewish same sex wedding ceremony on the streets of California

Some nice footage on BBC website.

Reminds me a bit of the scenes accompanying the introduction of Civil Partnerships in the UK - seems we are still arguing about that.

Marriage now legal

The California Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage has now entered into force and several couples (some of whom have already been together for years - or decades in some cases) are planning to marry immediately at State offices that are staying open for the occasion.

Andrew Sullivan on same sex marriage in 1997

Ahead of the introduction (maybe only for a few months) of same sex marriage in California and in the midst of all of the (somewhat overblown in my view) broohaha about the so called Anglican gay wedding I am putting up a weblink to a talk by Andrew Sullivan on same sex marriage from 11 years ago.

It's well worth watching - and can be found here - the Daily Dish.

Pastoral letter from Bishop Andrus regarding same sex marriage in California

I am indebted as ever to Thinking Anglicans for this and thought it so important I reproduce fully below:

Web link

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,I welcome the ruling of the California Supreme Court affirming the fundamental right of all people to marry. I am writing to you now to recommend a path to use this decision to strengthen our support of our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered sisters and brothers, and our continued witness to God’s inclusive love.

Clergy and lay leaders in the diocese have been working for the rights of LGBT people and for their full inclusion in our Church for more than forty years. Today, we continue to walk a journey that includes:

• Bringing the witness of our LGBT sisters and brothers to this summer’s Lambeth Conference,
  
• Combating a ballot initiative this November that will attempt to take away
  the rights recently recognized by the California Supreme Court,
  
• Providing leadership at next summer's General Convention to bring our marriage practices and theology in line with our fundamental baptismal
  theology.

For far too long the onus has fallen on marginalized people to bear the burden of inequalities that exist within the Church, and the decision by our state’s Supreme Court has given us the opportunity to level the playing field.

To that end, the Diocese of California seeks to provide, by advocacy and example, a way forward for The Episcopal Church so that the marriage of same-sex couples will be a part of our official marriage rites, without distinction.

Although The Episcopal Church does not have canonical rites for same-sex marriage, it is our goal that all couples be treated equally by the Church, as they are equally loved by God.

I therefore provide you with the following pastoral guidelines:

I urge you to encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in The Episcopal Church. I will publicly urge all couples to follow this pattern.

For now, the three rites approved for trial use under the pastoral direction of the bishop, adopted by resolution at the 2007 Diocesan Convention (see appendix), should be commended to all couples (again, regardless of orientation) to bless secular marriages.

All marriages should be performed by someone in one of the secular categories set forth in California Family Code, section 400 (see appendix), noting that any person in the state of California can be deputized to perform civil marriages. The proper sphere for Episcopal clergy is the blessing portion of the marriage.

The understanding of The Episcopal Church currently is that blessings are an extension of the pastoral office of the bishop. I ask that you continue to inform me of all same-sex blessings.

Couples who have been married under the auspices of the California Supreme Court ruling must have the same pre-marriage counseling as that required of any couple seeking marriage or blessing of marriage in The Episcopal Church. This should be understood as an offering of the Church’s support for marriage.

I urge Episcopalians, clergy and lay, to volunteer as Deputy Marriage Commissioners. There are over 4,000 civil same-sex marriages planned in a short period of time in the city of San Francisco alone and the city is asking for help in meeting demand. I intend to volunteer for this at my earliest opportunity. This would be one sign of affirmation for the Supreme Court ruling from our diocese. By city requirement, clergy will not be allowed to wear collars when presiding at secular marriages. (For more information about how to be deputized, see the attached appendix.)

All people receiving blessings of civil marriages in the Diocese of California are free to use the same degree of publicity (e.g., newspaper notices).These are interim measures as the Diocese of California and The Episcopal Church continue our journey in the context of this prophetic opportunity provided by the California Supreme Court’s ruling. I have already initiated a process to arrive at a more studied, permanent answer for Episcopal clergy presiding at same-sex marriages in this diocese. That process includes the formation of a panel of diocesan clergy to make recommendations about how to move toward equality of marriage rites for all people. These recommendations will be discussed across the diocese resulting in an official diocesan policy.

In the coming days, I will publicly state my opposition to the initiative to overturn the Supreme Court ruling. The Diocese of California will publish advertising around June 17 celebrating the Supreme Court ruling and inviting same-sex couples to our churches for pre-marital counseling and nourishment in communities of faith. As always, I welcome your wisdom, your insights and your input on these matters, and I continue in my commitment to work for a Church that sees all of God’s children through the same eyes that God does.