Trans, Child & Woman

Many years ago, when I was about nine, I read a book called Conundrum by Jan Morris. It gave me hope. It gave me a feeling that I could belong. The book was about a strong woman who had climbed Everest with Hilary, reported on the Suez Canal Crisis and had reported on the trial of Adolph Eichman. During all of these events she had been struggling with a gender identity that wasn’t her’s.

I’d started reading that book several years after the start of my own struggle with gender identity. Mine had begun around four years old. I know people will say “you can’t possibly remember that” but, unless they had been living in my head since that time, how can they?

As I have said above, I have been living with this since aged four, the first time I can remember feeling wrong. I grew up with a loving family: My father was in the army, my mother looking after my brother and myself. Despite his Army career my father was never a disciplinarian, never forced us into any required boxes and never punished us, (athough he did smack me with his belt when I tried to steal someone’s car jack). So, as a child, despite our constant moves every two years due to Dad’s Army career, nothing was ever wrong.

Please note, there is a point to this diatribe and I’m not going too deep into my childhood and the point started in the first paragraph.

Over the years, I grew up and went to school. I was bullied, spat on and even had copper sulphate thrown in my eyes, all for being “different”, “effeminate”, “queer”, “fag”. My fear of walking home got to such a point that my father had to drive and pick me up inside the school gates each night. No-one would do anything about it. Teachers would laugh on Parent’s Night and tell my parents to “toughen me up”. I arrived at a point where I found I could almost hang myself using the back of a plastic chair, but it never worked. You can compress the back of the neck on the top of the chair until you pass out but then the chair would give away.

I tried sucking on a gas tube in the science lab, but one of the teachers caught me before I’d passed out.

I tried hiding in a snowdrift on a cross country run, hoping to die, but our sports teacher noticed I was missing and found me.

A friend of mine lined up tables in the maths room, pushed one upside down through a window and I ran after it. Our maths teacher caught me before I reached the window.

After that, I was sent to a mixed boarding school. To be honest, it was the best thing that could have happened.

Mr Braithwaite, one of the housemasters of my first house, caught me trying to jump out of one of the upper floor windows on my first night. He grabbed me and made me promise that if I didn’t do it again then he would have a surprise for me the next day.

Oh, and what a surprise it was. Jeff Wayne’s “War of the Worlds”. I had never heard such wonderful music. Such rhythm, such storytelling. Such an anthem.

It became the music of my life. And it always has been. Thankfully. It also inspired me to go into electronics and computers, along with a love of science fiction.

You may be wondering why Jan Morris’ story fits in here?

I read her book when I was nine. It gave me an understanding of who I was, what I was.

She became the first reporter to climb Everest with Hilary, the first to report on Suez and Eichman yet, if you read her book, she was the same as me, the same as every trans child: bullied, reviled, hated, because no-one tried to look, see and understand.

Why do people hate us? Because they don’t understand us. They don’t understand how we feel. Nearly fifty years later after reading Jan’s book and listening to “War of the Worlds” I’ve come to one conclusion:

They don’t even try.

When Does Caring End?

Tonight, I felt a little bit special. A part of something. A small cog in a caring system that helps people who are less fortunate, troubled, ill, disadvantaged or in situations I have been in and, with help, managed to pull myself out of, and it amazed me how many people do not want to be part of this.

I’d been to Tesco in Aldershot and was walking back through the underpass when I saw a man slumped to one side, lying in an awkward position, with an orange bag in front of him. To be honest, my first thought was just to walk past and ignore him. It would have been so easy to do. I’d just bought a new dress and was eager to try it on. I also really needed to get back and wash my hair and, as it was just past 11pm, I really needed to go to bed as well. So many reasons to walk past him and go home. So many superficial and idiotic and selfish reasons to walk past another human being, who was obviously in trouble, and ignore him. So I didn’t.

At first I checked to see if he was still breathing. He was. As I wasn’t sure of his condition and how he would react if I woke him, I walked the few yards to the end of the underpass and began to dial emergency services. I tried 101 at first but, as I was about to dial 999, a familiar face walked past me and approached the unconscious man. It was Rick, a man I knew from the local Job Centre. Ok, that meant that someone else was available to ensure mine and his safety. I dialed 999 and was put through to the Ambulance service. With instruction from the operator on the phone, plus Rick’s and my experience of having “been there”, we managed to ascertain that the man, Ben,  was severely inebriated and, with our help, in no danger. The ambulance was on its way.

During the time that Rick and I spoke to the guy, quite a few people walked through the underpass. Someone walking a dog, several couples hand in hand, single people going to or from the shop, and many others. Yet, not one single person asked if they could help. No-one spoke to us, even to find out if we were ok. I was on the phone, being instructed to ask certain questions to find out how Ben was feeling, if he was in pain, if he’d been hurt. Despite one of those questions being “Have you had a heart attack recently?” and Ben’s answer being yes, as someone walked past, as I looked up, that person had actually moved over to the other side of the underpass, as if we had some sort of disease. As if heart attacks were catching. It made me think.

When, as a society, did we stop caring? I don’t know how long Ben had been there but it couldn’t have been more than forty-five minutes. That’s how long it had been since I’d walked to Tesco and finished shopping. How many people had walked past him in that time? How many people had passed by, not caring about a fellow human being, and not shown a shred of compassion? When did we, as the human race, stop caring?

I’ve been there. That road that Ben is on. The road of depression, despair, loneliness. The road that leads to lying drunk, passing out and ignored in an Aldershot underpass. I know where that road can lead. It leads to a fork. A choice. A choice that depends on not only you, but the people around you. Those that care. If you have people that care then it helps you to take to fork in the road that leads to living. If not then, chances are, that road will lead downward into darkness.

As it turned out, Ben had been taken in by the Ambulance service several times that day. I didn’t care, neither did Rick. Rick and I had both spoken to him. We had told him of our experiences when we’d been in his position and, I would like to think that Rick would agree with my when I say: If even a spark of what we said leads to Ben getting help, even once, then both of us have been part of something special.

I walked past a person in trouble today. I helped. Someone else walked past and helped too. Maybe if we all helped, we’d run out of people in trouble.

One day.

Entitlement and Free Speech….

Another blog that I read,, had a piece about the recent furor regarding Germain Greer and her being refused a voice at Cardiff University.  A comment on that post about “free speech” really ticked me off and I’d like to talk about that.

If you want, you can refuse to listen, refuse to read what I write, ignore anything I say. It will disappoint me, as I like it when people read what I write but, I won’t complain. I won’t go running to the media complaining that I have been denied a voice, because I haven’t. The fact that I can write this and post it on my blog is a freedom that I can enjoy. Whether or not anyone reads it is up to those who find it, not me.

I have opinions. Sometimes I like to share those opinions. Some people may not agree with them but, hey, that’s what debate and argument is all about. I won’t shove those opinions down anyone’s throat, I cannot force anyone to agree with me and I cannot force anyone to like what I say, but I still have the ability to say it.

I am a woman, a woman with a transsexual past. Consequently, any person with an opinion that seeks to deny my existence, or claims to know what I think or how I feel, will be in disagreement with me. I will tell them that they are wrong, and argue the point with them but, if they do engage with me, I don’t have to listen. I don’t have to spread the word. I am under no obligation to allow them a platform and I can quite happily tell them to shut up.

This isn’t denial of free speech. As an individual or an organisation, not providing someone with a platform to speak isn’t a denial of their rights, nor is it silencing them. Its an exercise in free speech itself.

If I were to stand in Parliament Square in London, espouse my dislike of certain policies enacted by the government, and then be arrested and taken away on the orders of the government, then that would be suppression of free speech. If I wrote something on my blog which was then deleted by GCHQ, then that also would be suppression of free speech. Conversely, if I were denied any form of media through which I could express my opinion, then that would be denial of free speech.  Any form of suppression of opinion by a government is denial of free speech.

Anything else is simply “I don’t want to listen to you.”

Reclaiming Stonewall – Redux

I suspect that most people in the LGBT community have heard the name Stonewall, and know something about the Stonewall Riots of 1969, and how they led to the Gay Rights movement which has campaigned for equal rights for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people across the world. But, to all intents and purposes, the LGB movement has seemingly ignored Trans people, leaving us to campaign on our own. I suspect, though, that not too many LGB people recognise the horrible irony of this.

I’m going to throw two names at you, dear reader and, be honest with yourself, there’s a good chance that you’ve probably never heard of them or know who they are. They are: Sylvia Rae Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson. No? Then read on. (Kudos if you really did know).

These two are trans women who, on the 28th June 1969, became leaders in the Stonewall riots, a turning point in LGBT rights, when a police raid on the Stonewall Tavern, a gay bar, on Christopher Street, Greenwich Village, NYC resulted in a series of of spontaneous and violent demonstrations. Rivera and Johnson, both present in the bar, became the first to strike back at the police. Rivera is quoted as saying “I’m not missing a minute of this — it’s the revolution!”

Sylvia Rivera went on to become a founder member of both the Gay Liberation Front and the Gay Activists Alliance and, with Marsha Johnson, also formed STAR, Street Transgender Action Revolutionaries. One of the GLF’s first acts was to organize a march in response to Stonewall and to demand an end to the persecution of homosexuals. The GLF had a broad political platform, denouncing racism and declaring support for various Third World struggles and the Black Panther Party. They took an anti-capitalist stance and attacked the nuclear family and traditional gender roles.

A parallel GLF was set up in the UK in 1970 which eventually led to the creation of  the London Lesbian & Gay Switchboard and then to OutRage! and Stonewall.

Sylvia Rivera eventully left the GLF due to a falling out over the marginalisation of trans people by the gay community.This marginalisation was brought to the fore in the 1973 Stonewall Rally when feminist activist Jean O’Leary protested the presence of crossdressers and drag queens, believing they were mocking women. During a speech by O’Leary, in which she claimed that drag queens made fun of women for entertainment value and profit, Sylvia Rivera and Lee Brewster jumped on the stage and shouted “You go to bars because of what drag queens did for you, and these bitches tell us to quit being ourselves!”

This marginalisation continued through the years. Marsha Johnson died in 1992 in mysterious circumstances, her body found floating in the Hudson River. The police ruled it suicide but, with continued pressure from her friends and supporters, eventually reopened the case in 2012. Trans exclusion increased over the years, as attitudes about binary and fluid sexual orientation and gender developed and came increasingly into conflict.

Rivera eventually led a protest march against trans marginalisation in 1994, in response to the exclusion of trans people from the Stonewall 25 march in NYC. Since then, trans exclusion from the LGB community seems to have grown. In the US, the inclusion of transition expenses and surgery costs  was removed from medical insurance cover, in 1980, on the recommendation of the radical feminist Janice Raymond. It also seems that its impossible for US trans people, especially trans women, to perform even the simplest functions, such as using a public toilet, without suffering from some form of harassment. Things in the US, however, are changing slowly. Many states have voted in protections for trans people, equal marriage, and now coverage for transition-related medical expenses (including surgery) from medical insurers.

In the UK, in the last few years, our situation has improved as well. Despite it’s flaws we have the Equalities Act, the introduction of the GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) giving us the ability to change our birth certificate to reflect the correct gender, and the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act, giving us the legal ability to get married, (the annoyance of the spousal veto notwithstanding).  Our ongoing, (and sometimes problematical), ability to obtain treatment on the NHS, with ongoing support, is something none of us take for granted.

Unfortuantely, some of what benefits us as trans people has been gained as a by-product of changes put in place to benefit LGB people, with trans people often left out of the decision-making process. Everything that directly affects us only, as trans people, has been gained as a result of the work and dedication of trans people, by those at the forefront of activism in the UK. People such as Sarah Brown, Roz Kaveney, Natacha Kennedy, Sarah Savage, C. N. Lester, Fox Fisher and many others.  Every inch of legal protection, every scrap of equality, every ounce of recognition has been gained by trans women and trans men.

Yet, we have been treated, as a whole, like the little sister sitting in the corner that no one has time for, marginalised and left to fend for ourselves by the gay rights movement that trans women helped to start, and the organisation that carries its name.

We need to talk. Things need to change.

I think it’s time we reclaimed Stonewall, don’t you?

Media and Misinformation….

In this glorious new internet age we are bombarded by the media. 24 hour news channels both online and television, online newspapers, online news sites et al. The sheer quantity of accessible information is staggering. Unfortunately not all of it is correct, and some of it is just outright lies. In this information age, misinformation is one of the biggest problems. People believe the media, believe what they read in the papers and online. They believe what they watch on the television, what they’re told but, if the facts are wrong then there will be problems. For trans people, these problems can be huge, even deadly.

As you may, or may not know, there was a big misinformation campaign against a trans student by a US right-wing group called ‘Privacy For All Students’, featuring the Pacific Justice Institute. I’ll not repeat it but you can read about it here. The story was picked up by US national newspapers and television stations, including some here in the UK. Amazingly, not one of these media outlets fact-checked the story. They just assumed it was true and it continued to spread. It wasn’t until the story was fact-checked by Cristan Williams of The Transadvocate that the truth finally came out. The whole story was manufactured, false, but the damage had been done. The student in question ended up on suicide watch.

This is an extreme example of how the media can be manipulated and be made to serve others’ malicious purposes. Here in the UK we have another problem. Not one of malicious, targeted campaigns, but one of long term, inertial misinformation.

Ever since the seventies and eighties, media outlets such as tabloid newspapers and mid-morning chat shows have portrayed trans people in a bad light, misrepresenting us in such a way that we became laughable, objects of ridicule to be pointed at in the street. For trans women it was worse. We became ‘blokes in dresses’, ‘freaks’ and ‘weirdo’s’. We were having sex-changes, being castrated, hormones were giving us instant female bodies. Tabloids were obsessed with what we were wearing, rather than our actual stories. There was rarely any reporting of the story behind the person, documenting the pain behind transition. The stories always seem to rest on the phrases “I felt like a woman” and “I always wanted to be a woman”, making it sound like a decision taken one morning after breakfast. No-one took transsexuals seriously. It was seen as ok for us to be beaten in the street, have graffiti daubed on our homes. To be transsexual was to be an object, non-human almost, worthy of none but the most base attention.

Nowadays, things are different. Or are they? With certain newspapers the reporting hasn’t changed all that much. Neither has the language used to describe us. Still the process of transition is glossed over, making it sound like something you do in your spare time. No information is imparted to the readers or viewers about what transsexuality actually is. The differences between Gender Identity, Expression and Role is rarely, if ever, mentioned or explained. We are still seen as the subject for salacious gossip and maliciously intrusive reporting. The case of Lucy Meadows is a case in point. No link between the reporting and her suicide has been established but there is no doubt, in my eyes at least, that it was a contributory factor.

I would appeal to the media, should any member of it read this, to change. Change the way our stories are reported. Do your research. Fact-check stories if and when they come in. Speak to trans organisations such as GIRES and Mermaids, (when reporting on trans children and teens). Rather than concentrating on what happens to our genitals, ask us how our lives have changed, how much better they have become. Listen to us, ask us questions and we will give you answers. We are the ones living our lives, the ones who can tell you how we feel, no-one else. Don’t ask us what we wear day-to-day, ask us what we do day-to-day, how we live and work, and you will see how ordinary we are.

Remember: In our quest to become who we really are, we go through incredible changes, painful changes, in order that we might live ordinary lives. We suffer prejudice and bigotry, some of us on a daily basis, so that we may fade into the background and become someone you will pass on the street without a second glance. All we ask is the right to live without fear of hatred, to walk the streets and go shopping or visit friends without the fear of abuse and this can only come about with the help of the media.

After all, if its in the paper, it must be true.

Transition Truths and Bathroom Lies….

I don’t normally blog about things outside the UK but the problems in other countries, most notably the US, regarding the treatment of TS people, are becoming to big not to. Probably no-one will read this, or maybe some will but, if it helps to change even one life then my time has been well spent.

There are several items that seem to be high in the US news at the moment but, in this entry, I will concentrate on two. One is AB1266, the so-called “bathroom bill” in California. The other is the case of the Florence High School student in Colorado, (known as “Jane Doe”), who has allegedly been harassing students in the girls bathroom. This has since been proven false by Cristan Williams of the TransAdvocate website. Both stories have involved the Pacific Justice Institute, a “Christian” organisation seemingly devoted to eradicating anyone and anything that doesn’t fit their world view, along with the Traditional Values Coalition and The Privacy For Students Coalition (of which PJI is a member). All of these organisations are right-wing, allegedly Christian organisations who seem to see gay, lesbian and transsexual people as some kind of threat that needs to be destroyed.

I suspect that much of their problem is based in ignorance of what being transsexual actually means. I also suspect that they don’t want to know because, in their eyes, acceptance would mean realising that we are not the enemy and are not out to destroy families or corrupt children. All we want to do is be like everyone else and work, earn money, pay taxes and bills, go on holiday and live our lives as we see fit within the law of whichever land we live in.

I. Minds, Maps & Transition

I’m only going to concentrate on transsexuality here since the two stories I previously mentioned (and will speak about further), are about that.

A transsexual is a person who’s gender identity does not match the body they have. It’s not a choice as so many people think. It’s something we are born with and grow up with. The mind’s internal map of the body is confused because the body doesn’t match. The map cannot be changed as it is an intrinsic part of the mind.

Imagine a sat-nav which has one map, a map that cannot be changed without destroying the sat-nav and losing yourself forever, but the map doesn’t match the roads you are on. Rather than destroying the sat-nav and becoming irrecoverably lost, its easier, with a lot of work and time, to change the roads to match the map. That way the sat-nav works and you can navigate with no problems. Changing the body to match the mind is far less problematical and less fatal than trying to change the mind to match the body.

From the UK Home Office Guide: The Workplace and Gender Reassignment:

In medical and scientific disciplines, gender dysphoria is increasingly understood to have a biological origin and is strongly associated with a neuro-developmental condition of the brain. Studies, such as those conducted by Professor Van Gooren, of a region in the hypothalamus of the brain which is smaller in women than in men showed that in M-F transsexuals this region was of female size or smaller. The view that the weight of current scientific evidence suggests a ‘biologically-based, multifactorial etiology’ for transsexualism is supported by articles in journals, the press and popular scientific works. Transsexualism is therefore innate, not acquired. It cannot be ‘cured’ by psychological or psychiatric treatments alone, although psycho-social factors may play a role in the outcome. It is a medical condition and transition to the preferred gender role, thereby confirming the individual’s core gender identity, may be the only solution.

Transition is a choice of sorts that eventually befalls us, but not much of one. With most transsexuals its a choice of transition or a descent into a life of excruciating depression and mental anguish. With many its a choice of transition or die. Transition brings its own problems: Ridicule, physical or verbal abuse, difficulty with employment, housing and finances, loss of family and friends. Along with learning new behaviours, hormone therapy, extremely painful laser and electrolysis treatments, voice training, and eventual surgery, it’s not something that can be undertaken lightly. So why the groups I mentioned earlier want to make things harder is beyond me.

II. Bathrooms and Beyond

I’m not really sure if the case of the Florence High School student, “Jane Doe”, and the opposition to AB1266 are as much about use of the bathroom, (toilet or loo in the UK), by TS students as they are about the hatred and distrust of the unknown and the frightening refusal to learn the facts about that unknown.

It seems that, in the Florence HS case, the facts were totally ignored in order to manufacture a situation that would promote hostility to Jane Doe, and therefore force her removal from the school, or at the very least, prevent her from using the bathroom of her gender. (I’m not going to dance around the fact that she is female, and presents as such). Since, thanks to some in-depth fact-checking by Cristan Williams, it has been proven to be a false claim, the PJI and the PrivacyForStudents coalition have taken to attacking her in other ways, even though she has been put on suicide watch due to death threats received after Fox News aired the story (again, without any fact checking whatsoever). Even the UK media picked up on the story, most notably the Daily Mail, who, along with most other media outlets, after receiving correct information from TransAdvocate and Cristan Williams, removed the story from their web pages and online newspapers.

Along with this, the PJI, Traditional Values Coalition and The Privacy For Students Coalition have also resorted to underhand tactics to try and get AB1266 repealed. These tactics include a manufactured story about a trans student in LA who allegedly peeked over the top of the stalls in the girls bathroom. This, also, has been proven to be false, fabricated because, as with Florence HS, one parent disagreed with a transgender student being at the school and the PJI et al, jumped on the story and twisted it to fit their own ends.

Now they appear to be using even more underhand tactics to scare people into signing a petition that, should it reach the required number of signatories, will open the vote on repealing AB1266. These scare tactics include saying that AB1266 will open the way for gay men to use the ladies bathroom and that it will facilitate rape and molestation by trans children.

III Opinion

Looking from the outside, in, it seems to me that there is a lot of blind ignorance, hatred and simple bigotry going on over the water. What amazes me even further is that many of these organisations claim to have a Christian basis and operate to Christian values. I have many Christian friends, both practising and non-practising, and none of them can understand the attitude of these organisations. In fact, most of them reacted with disbelief when I told them what was happening. I also live in an area with Muslims, Hindu’s, Sikh’s, Buddhists, Christians and various other religions and have good relations with all of them and I am accepted by them as a woman. So, religion itself doesn’t appear to be the problem.

It would appear to me that, as I have said before in this article, it boils down to fear. Fear of the unknown, fear caused by lack of understanding and fear of understanding and finding there is nothing to fear. This fear then gives rise to such hatred and bigotry, disguised by a thin veneer of religion, attempting to give it a socially acceptable face. Take away the fear and the whole house of straw would drift away on the breeze, leaving behind the knowledge that we are trying to live our lives as best we can, to become ordinary in somewhat extraordinary circumstances.

I am not asking for anyone to give up their beliefs, nor am I trying to denigrate any religion. I am just asking for understanding, some compassion and maybe, just maybe, for people to open their minds a little and see us as the men and women that we are.

Its not too much to ask, is it?

Apocrypha and Apocalypse

I took a walk out yesterday and, despite the high temperature and humidity, (having worked in hotter countries, the humidity in the UK still gets to me), it was a lovely day. The sky was pale blue with not a cloud in sight, birds sang, people gathered in the parks to enjoy the sun, children played, the traffic flowed and all seemed well in the world. This troubled me. How come married couples were walking hand-in-hand in the parks and streets, and children playing happily, (well, most of them anyway)? Where were the plagues of rats and mice? Where were the floods, destroying the towns and cities and the terrible diseases to accompany them? Why weren’t husbands and wives murdering each other in the streets, while the children ran rampant and feral, attacking all and sundry. Why wasn’t society destroying itself in an orgy of insane violence?

After all, Same-Sex Marriage was signed into law last week.

Following many of the articles in the online press and reading many of the comments, from the members of the religious communities and the far right, regarding SSM, has been a constant source of both amusement and amazement, frequently at the same time. Many of the early comments focussed on the “Why change marriage when there are Civil Partnerships” argument here in the UK. Others focussed on the ‘death of society as we know it‘ and some just became abusive. Around the world the harbingers of doom came out of the woodwork, (closet-shaped, of course), to proclaim everything from plagues of rats and mice caused by gay people and gay marriage to full on end-of-the-world-in-six-months caused by the defeat of DOMA and Prop 8 in the US. And then there’s the Westboro Baptist Church, but the less said about that lot, the better.

But once again, the predicted doom has not come about. Oceans are not rising up, rats and mice are not flooding into cities and eating the citizenry, there isn’t a sudden rush on storms and tornado’s to destroy gay-friendly towns. There have been two earthquakes this week in China but, since China has no plans on introducing same-sex marriage, I doubt even the WBC could ascribe these to anything other than stress-relief in the Earth’s crust (although they’d probably give it a go).

Nope. All we have is 18 countries where same sex marriage has been legalised (I’ve included the US even though its not nationwide yet). 18 countries where society still flourishes and grows, changes, updates, moves on. This gives me hope that, despite the recent law changes in Russia and despite the problems suffered by gay and transgendered people in Greece and other countries, the human race is moving, albeit very slowly, in the right direction.



I’d started this entry with a whole host of quotes from various different people on the subject of Same Sex Marriage, and my replies, but it sort of changed as I went along, (which probably explains the stilted writing style). I have kept a couple below, along with links to their sources and other information:

One notable comment came from Dr John Semantu, the Archbishop of York regarding SSM and civil partnerships (BBC News 11th March 2012):

“There’s a difference – and people don’t these days want to talk about difference – there’s a difference between a civil partnership and marriage, and that difference doesn’t mean one is better than another, but they’re different.”

I wondered if he realised what the SSM bill was all about. CP’s are different from marriage. That’s the problem. They’re supposed to be equal but one is more equal than the other. (See The Lords of Orwellian Change). That’s the whole point of the government introducing the SSM bill, to make things equal.

Gerald Howarth, MP for Aldershot (my home) was even more off the wall and, seemingly, target as well (Aldershot News 8th Feb 2013):

“Civil partnerships offer virtually all the benefits available to married people. The vote last night will not secure equal marriage as the government suggests; it will create two forms of marriage.”

Um, two forms of marriage? Marriage and, er, marriage? The two forms will be straight marriage and gay marriage which, eventually through the natural evolution of language, will become ‘marriage’. CP’s offer “virtually all the benefits”? From that we can infer that they don’t actually offer all the benefits then.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, however, went down the ‘death of society’ route (BBC News, 4th June 2013):

The traditional concept of marriage will be “abolished” under plans to allow same-sex couples to marry in England and Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned, ahead of a crunch vote on the issue.Speaking in a debate in the House of Lords on Monday, the Most Rev Justin Welby said that marriage was the “cornerstone of society” and that what was being proposed was “neither equal nor effective”.

The Archbishop denied that his opposition to the bill was a faith issue, insisting it was “about the general social good”.

Hmm, “cornerstone of society”, “the general social good”. It makes me so annoyed that my teeth itch. It’s simple arrogance, coming from the leader of a church that came into existence by an Act of Parliament because a monarch wanted to get a divorce. If marriage is the “cornerstone of society” then society, as a whole, is doomed. The divorce rate was 42% in 2011 and there were approximately 2 million victims of domestic violence according to the ONS, so Justin Welby’s ‘cornerstone’ is crumbling quite badly. Maybe it can be shored up with the addition of Same-Sex Marriage.

In Russia, the leader of the Orthodox Church is claiming that same-sex marriage, having been legalised in so many countries, is the harbinger of the apocalypse:

“This is a very dangerous and apocalyptic symptom… It means that people are on the path of self-destruction.”  

Not really sure where to go with this one. Russia has been recently criticized for its introduction of anti-gay laws and the recent imprisonment of four Dutch tourists for “spreading gay propaganda to children”.

The Lords of Orwellian Change

I’ve been taking a somewhat perverse delight in reading various articles about the Same Sex marriage debate in the House of Lords just lately. It appears, with the number of amendments being tabled, that many of the members have an inherent fear of change. These amendments even have a name now, “wrecking amendments”, specifically designed to wreck or seriously delay the SSM bill’s passage through Parliament. They also have one other thing in common. They seem to also be designed to place same-sex marriage below that of opposite-sex marriage, all the while maintaining the façade of equality.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has tabled an amendment to bring two tiers of marriage into play. This redefines opposite-sex marriages as “traditional marriages” and makes a distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex marriage. The amendment states:

“nothing in this Act could take away the right of a man and woman to enter a traditional marriage. A ‘traditional marriage’ is one where the basis of the marriage is the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others.”

What concerns me about this is that nothing in the act takes away the right of opposite-sex couples to enter into a so-called “traditional marriage”. It merely extends the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples, giving them the right to call their union a marriage. Lord Carey doesn’t even bother to give same-sex marriage a label, as if it is beneath him. Also, if it wasn’t so serious, the part about “voluntary union of one man and one woman for life”  would have me laughing, when you consider the divorce rate in this country (42% in 2010).

So, two tiers of marriage then? Both offer exactly the same vows, both have exactly the same status in law, both legally cement the relationship between two people who love each other, both have the same benefits but, if this distinction from Mr Carey were to go into the bill, one would become slightly more equal than the other. To paraphrase George Orwell’s character, Napoleon, in Animal Farm:

“All marriages are equal, but some marriages are more equal than others”

Another amendment, tabled by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would allow straight couples to enter into civil partnerships. Why? Equality? CP’s were introduced because the SSM bill either wasn’t finished or the government of the day were too scared to bring it in, so they came up with Civil Partnerships.  CP’s were supposed to be equal in law but could never be called marriages. It was another example of discrimination masquerading as equality. So Lord Mackey wants to offer straight couples the ability to join Rosa Parks at the back of the bus? Or is it because same-sex couples had something that straight couples didn’t? Or is it something more insidious? Lord Mackey also went on to say that “marriage should be for natural procreation”. Is there a hint of something there or is my imagination reading something more than is being said? Giving opposite-sex couples who cannot have children a less than equal marriage, maybe?

Probably the most damaging amendment, though, is the call for a referendum on the SSM bill in 2015. This would mean that, even if the bill passed through all stages ready to become law, it couldn’t become law until voters approved it on 7th May 2015, at the earliest. Now, I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I  don’t recall ever being asked if I wanted the country to join Europe, or being asked to vote on Universal Credit, or the Equality Act 2010, or any other bill which affects nearly everyone in this country to one extent or another, prior to them becoming law. So why is it so important that a bill, which will bring equality to a small minority of the country, leaving the majority unaffected, be voted on in a countrywide referendum? It isn’t going to cause the end of the world, nor is it going to cause the downfall of society, or cause a post-apocalyptic degenerative society to suddenly appear. Most countries who have introduced SSM seem to be getting on with things quite well, even the US states which now have it don’t seem to have broken down into chaos and disorder.

I can only hope that the Lords see sense and reject all of these ‘wrecking’ amendments and take another step toward a saner world.