Reply From Caroline Dinenage (And Her Colleague!)

So...Caroline Dinenage emailed me back after I sent her an open letter. This was her response:

Dear Tori,

Thank you for writing to me about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGB&T) equality and marriage of same-sex couples.

Let me reassure you that I fully support LGB&T equality and will work hard to continue the Government’s strong track record of tackling inequalities. 

I recognise that the way in which I voted on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has raised some concerns that I do not support equality or equal marriage. 

I want to make clear that my vote on this issue was one over which I deliberated very carefully.  As you will know, I inherited a constituency bruised by the expenses scandal meaning that many of my constituents had lost faith in MPs.  I was therefore conscious of the need to be directly accountable to them.  I received correspondence requesting me to vote against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at a ratio of 100:1 in comparison to those in favour.  I therefore made the difficult decision to vote against the Bill – and my conscience – and instead represent the views of the many hundreds of constituents who had contacted me.  

Marriage of same-sex couples is now law, and I fully support this as an important step forward in the rights of LGB&T people. 

I hope I will be judged on my record in office rather than the past.  I am honoured to have been appointed as Minister for Equalities and look forward to building on the Government’s excellent track record in tackling inequalities and discrimination.  The UK has just been named the most progressive country in Europe for LGB&T rights for the fifth year running, which is a testament to the achievements that have been made.  But I recognise there is no room for complacency and I am committed to taking further action to support LGB&T equality, in particular, continuing the Government’s work on tackling homophobic bullying in schools and supporting LGB&T rights around the world.

I look forward to working with LGB&T organisations to understand the challenges that remain and to discuss this Government’s priorities for this Parliament.  Please be assured that I am absolutely committed to tackling discrimination in all its forms and to creating a fairer society for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

I hope this information is reassuring and thank you again for taking the time to write to me.

Kind regards

Caroline

And this was her colleague's response:

Dear Tori,

Thank you for your email of 13 May to Caroline Dinenage MP, Minister for
Women and Equalities and Family Justice, about lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender (LGB&T) equality and marriage of same-sex couples.

I have been asked to reply on the Minister’s behalf.

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to write to set out your concerns. Let
me reassure you that the Government fully supports LGB&T equality. It
has a strong track record of tackling inequalities and remains committed
to doing so. The UK has just been named the most progressive country
in Europe for LGB&T rights for the fifth year running, which is a testament
to the achievements that have been made.

The debate about marriage of same-sex couples was one about which
many MPs received a great deal of representations from their
constituents and which they will each have considered carefully before
voting on the legislation. The Minister received correspondence
requesting her to vote against the Bill at a ratio of 100:1 in comparison to
those in favour. She therefore made the difficult decision to vote against
the Bill, and represent the views of many of her constituents. As you
know, the Bill was passed by Parliament and is now law, and the Minister
fully supports this.

Despite the progress that has been made in advancing LGB&T equality,
the Minister recognises there is no room for complacency. She is
committed to taking further action to support LGB&T equality, in
particular, continuing the Government’s work on tackling homophobic
bullying in schools and supporting LGB&T rights around the world.

The Minister looks forward to working with LGB&T organisations to
understand the challenges that remain and to discuss this Government’s
priorities for this Parliament. Please be assured that the Minister is
absolutely committed to tackling discrimination in all its forms and to
creating a fairer society for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or
gender identity.

Yours sincerely

Alan Chapman

Government Equalities Office

Gay Marriage Is Legal

Yesterday - Wednesday 17th July 2013 was a historic day. The same-sex marriage bill passed and the Queen of England granted it. Now marriages could be taking place by summer 2014. I, along with thousand of other people, am so happy to have experienced this change. I can soon legally marry, just like everyone else. All the battles myself and others fought have now paid off. This is a magnificent piece of news for not just LGBT people, but all those who believe in equal love.
David Cameran says 'I am so proud we have had the courage to make love equal.': http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/18/exclusive-i-am-so-proud-we-have-had-the-courage-to-make-love-equal-by-david-cameron/
The Queen of England gives Royal asset to the same-sex marriage bill 2013: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/07/17/breaking-equal-marriage-bill-for-england-and-wales-given-royal-assent-and-is-now-law/

David Burrowes MP: ‘I am a supporter of traditional marriage. Get over it!’

So, I got a reply from the homophobic bigot of an MP, David Burrowes. 

I was also contacted by a journalist for The Enfield Gazette, as David Burrowes in an MP for Enfield-Southgate, she wrote an article about my letter to him, his reply and my opinions on it, which was published in The Enfield Gazette.

When Sally Met Sally also published an article about David Burrowes' reply to my letter.

In my letter I stated that "Pro-marriage means you believe in marriage and want as many people as possible to participate in it; so how is excluding a whole group of people from the marital institution pro-marriage?"
Along with a lot of political waffle that didn't get to the point, he said "I am a supporter of traditional marriage. Get over it!"
Doesn't he realise what 'traditional' marriage means?
Women are slaves, if they're not virgins when married they can be beaten, fathers can sell their daughters for cows and goats, interracial relationships were illegal.
Does he support these archaic 18th century values?

Paraphrasing and playing on the LGBT charity Stonewall's famous 'Some people are gay, get over it' slogan seems to be rather childish. Couldn't he be more original?

He did not answer my question: "I would be extremely happy if you could explain to me how you believe you are not anti-gay".
Looking at his voting record, he seems to want to deny lesbian and gay people rights and does not think they should be protected against from homophobic hatred. As he voted against outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 2007 and to prevent lesbians from having access to fertility treatment in 2008. Then against outlawing incitement to homophobic hatred in 2009. He doesn't appear to have voted on the Equality Act 2010 (which consolidated and extended the various bits of legislation on discrimination). He voted against same-sex marriage in 2013.

Come on Burrowes, admit it, you just don't like the gays.

Marriage Versus Civil Partnerships

This whole gay marriage debate is still going on. I have previously posted 10 reasons why the government should allow equal marriage and my post with my poem about equal marriage but this is going to talk more about the fight between marriage and civil partnership. Have you heard Susan Calman's legendary comedic rant on gay marriage? At her wedding she wanted to march down the aisle to The Proclaimer's 'Let's Get Married' and have Pam Ayres' 'Yes I'll Marry You My Dear' read out but wasn't allowed, because it wasn't technically legally actually a marriage.
So there is marriage (civil marriage)...and there's civil partnerships (civil ceremonies, civil unions) but why aren't there same-sex marriages/gay marriages/equal marriage?
People say that gay people have equality because they can have a civil partnership - but no, the mere fact that it is called a 'civil partnership' rather than a 'marriage' illustrates that there is not equality.
"I'm married" sounds so much better than "I'm civil partnered" and "Mrs and Mrs" beats "Ms and Ms". "This is my wife" has a better ring to it than "This is my civil partner".
People argue that marriage should be kept 'traditional' but traditionally interracial couples could not marry, women were slaves and divorce was unheard of. Religious organisations say that allowing two men or two women to marry is going against God's view but what about secular atheist couples who marry? They are tied into a religious institution but don't believe in it.
Another argument: Marriage should be an institution that promotes in the birth of children. So we shouldn't let elderly, infertile or couples who don't wish to procreate have children? 
Marriage should be between a man and a woman. What about forced/arranged marriages? And straight couples who marry at 2am in Las Vegas as part of a drunken mistake. Couples who divorce not long after tying the knot.

Marriage v civil partnership:

What's the difference?

Is there a legal difference between the two?
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities similar to those in a civil marriage. Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights, the same exemptions on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits as married couples. They also have the same ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children as well as reasonable maintenance, tenancy rights, insurance and next-of-kin rights in hospital and with doctors. There is a process similar to divorce for dissolving a civil partnership.

So why don't they have the same status under English law?

In 2006, Sir Mark Potter, president of the high court family division, told an academic lesbian couple that they faced an "insurmountable hurdle" in trying to have a same-sex marriage recognised in English law. He said marriage was regarded as an "age-old institution" that was "by long-standing definition and acceptance" a formal relationship between a man and a woman primarily designed for producing and rearing children. The couple, Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson, who were married in Canada and spent their life savings on the court battle, said they were deeply disappointed saying they had been "stripped" of their marriage.

Any practical differences in the ceremonies? Until now it has been banned for civil partnership ceremonies to include religious readings, music or symbols and forbidden for them to take place in religious venues, regardless of the views of the building's owners. In Scotland, which has its own legislation, some church parishes offer blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Any other practical differences? Civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled.

Maybe we should allow straight couples to have civil partnerships so that non-religious couples don't have to buy into a once religious institution and liberal couples into a once racist and sexist institution. Equality means EVERYONE marries or EVERYONE civil partners, no separating and dividing. Marriage has changed over time so now it should change one little bit more.
Marriage should be about love not gender. If two people want to marry why stop them? Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a gay, simple.

Pro-Marriage But Not Anti-Gay: I Don't Think So

So I click open my emails and find an email news update from PinkNews about the MP David Burrowes. He quoted that "I am not anti-gay just pro-marriage". I found this statement ridiculous and clicked onto the link to read the full article. Basically the MP was saying that he supported civil partnerships but did not approve of same-sex couples entering into marriage because it is 'for a man and a woman'. 

"I support civil partnerships so much so that I do not see the need to change marriage to encompass same-sex couples when it has always existed as a distinctive relationship between a man and a woman" David Burrowes.

Well I proceeded to argue with his point and sent him an email explaining why you cannot be pro-marriage but only for straight people and not anti-gay.

I researched his voting record only to discover he voted for/against:

• Against outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 2007
• To prevent lesbians from having access to fertility treatment in 2008
• Against outlawing incitement to homophobic hatred in 2009
• He doesn't appear to have voted on the Equality Act (which consolidated and extended the various bits of legislation on discrimination) in 2010
• Against same-sex marriage in 2013

So it appears that he doesn't want LGBT people to be able to get married or have children and he thinks that discriminating against them is fine but he is not anti-gay. This does not make any sense whatsoever. 

I emailed him my angry yet well-mannered composition of ideas and beliefs and then sent it to PinkNews. They said it was a "strongly written letter" and posted it on their website. 

I am now waiting for David's reply, may he send one. I looked him up on Twitter and discovered that he believes: "There must be safeguards for religious freedom in the Same Sex Marriage Bill. And a referendum".

I informed David that "I am 17 and I identify as lesbian. I am one of the future generation. I believe everyone should be allowed to marry if they desire to, including the LGBT community".

I went on to question: "How is their (LGBT people's) love any less deserving or real than straight people's? The only thing that undermines marriage is divorce, something straight people seem to be very good at".

I was annoyed by his use of the term 'pro-marriage'. Someone who is pro-marriage would believe strongly in the marital institution and want as many people as possible to take part it in, so how is excluding a whole group of people from the marital institution pro-marriage?

Using the 'I support marriage' argument in an equal marriage bill is not rational. If you support marriage you must believe it is best for everyone. Claiming you are 'pro-marriage' but not 'anti-gay' is like saying you are vegetarian but don't mind eating pork when it suits you. 

Come on David, think about it; are you really in favour of civil partnerships? Are you really not 'anti-gay'? I don't think so...you're just a bigot covering your homophobia with pro-marriage blankets.

I later found that When Sally Met Sally had published a similar article on their website and I contacted them and they have arranged to publish my blog posts/for me to write posts to be published on their website. Woo!