Colette French & Katie Green – Attractive Opposites

By David Equality Watters   Wed, Aug 31, 2011

Katie and Colette were the fifth of eight couples to challenge the current twin bans on same-sex Civil Marriage and opposite-sex Civil Partnerships in the United Kingdom.

Photos of Katie and Colette at Petersfield register office by Brett Lock

Perhaps on first meeting Colette French and Katie Green, your impression would be that these are two young women who are such polar opposites that forming a lasting relationship could never be a possibility. How wrong you would be! What is it they say about opposites and attraction? Well, this inspiring couple are living proof.

Both born in Portsmouth, England, Colette French, an administrator, and Katie Green, a recent graduate of International Relations and Politics from Portsmouth University, have been together for over three years.

Katie and Colette were the fifth of eight couples to challenge the current twin bans on same-sex Civil Marriage and opposite-sex Civil Partnerships in the United Kingdom as part of the current Equal Love Campaign (www.equallove.org.uk).

Here Colette and Katie explain how their differences are what make them a strong and united team in their daily lives and in their work towards social equality.

In outlining their relationship, sharing personal insights of how they met and the personal qualities which enrich their relationship, the couple demonstrate the commonality of human relationships and shine a light upon our similarities, helping, in part, to remove the “us and them” perspective currently so predominant in our society.

The couple met whilst still in High School, through Colette’s twin sister. Katie explains, “I first met Colette through her twin sister, who used to share the same classes with me at school. Unfortunately at school it wasn’t really an option to be openly gay, so any first feelings I had for Colette were pushed aside until three years after we had left. Throughout those years, Colette and I went our separate ways, until a brief encounter with her at my work place led to me nervously asking her out on a date. We have now been together for three years, but sometimes wonder if a relationship could have formed earlier if not for the homophobia that is rife in schools.”

Colette recalls, “It makes me laugh, as Katie was far more headstrong and emotionally developed than all of us at school; she had an aura about her, and her charisma shone through. Nothing has changed! She is so finely tuned that I wonder how I can connect with her. I feel Katie helps me in ways sometimes I cannot comprehend. She seems to always be a step ahead, thinking of things I have never thought about. Katie is always rationalising, and debating how to act on Human Rights issues. She doesn’t rest until she has thought up how she can have the maximum effect on these issues. Katie has a knack for realising the potential people have and showing how it can be used. Within this, she has helped me effortlessly, and at times I wonder if she understands the magnitude of the help she has given. She takes it all in her stride. I seriously wonder if Katie understands how rational, selfless and utterly indescribable she is.”

The mutual love, respect and admiration this couple share is clearly evident and is confirmed by Katie when she says, “I quite often tell Colette how she keeps me grounded; if it wasn’t for her my head would constantly be living in the future. I quite often run on overtime contemplating ways of how to achieve equality in the realm of Human Rights and how to eliminate economic disparities. Colette helps me to live in the here and now and how these things can be achieved in a life time. She does this through her effortless ability to remain calm and relaxed.”

Both became involved with the Equal Love Campaign in the UK because they believe that separate institutions illustrate inequality in society. In this instance, the separate institutions are Civil Partnerships, currently only available to same-sex partners, and Civil Marriage, currently reserved for heterosexual couples.

Colette’s view is: “I believe in equality, and the institutions which exist at the moment are not equal and create an inferior position for gay couples. In a democratic state, we have a right to choose which institution we wish to be part of. Katie and I believe that these issues perpetuate the inequalities which currently exist in society. We both hold strong beliefs within Human Rights, and we want to fight for what we believe is right. We would like to see heterosexual and gay couples with the choice of either a Civil Marriage or Civil Partnership.”

Colette’s belief is echoed by Katie, who wanted to get involved with the Equal Love Campaign because she believes that being denied access to an institution in a democratic society is contradictory and that “…open institutions are a core democratic principle. Furthermore, the current segregation of opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples perpetuates many of the existing inequalities same-sex couples face. We feel that this campaign will not only affect the institutions of Civil Marriage and Civil Partnership but will in turn have a wider effect on society.”

Humiliated in Hampshire

The Equal Love Campaign involved a process whereby 8 couples, four heterosexual and four homosexual, were required to obtain evidence of exclusion from either Civil Partnership or Civil Marriage. This meant each couple filing an application for the institution to which they are currently denied. The letters confirming exclusion were then collated and used by legal advisor Professor Robert Wintermute, Professor of Human Rights Law at Kings College London, to file an Application to the European Court of Human Rights, challenging the twin bans.

“By excluding same-sex couples from Civil Marriage, and different-sex couples from Civil Partnership, the UK Government is discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation, contrary to the Human Rights Act. The twin bans violate Article 14 (protection against discrimination), Article 12 (the right to marry) and Article 8 (the right to respect for family life),” explains Professor Wintemute.

Prior to their Civil Marriage Application, both Colette and Katie felt a combination of apprehension and hopefulness. Prior to their Application Day, Colette said, “I am excited. I am honoured to be part of this campaign, especially with the prospect of being successful. Obviously, I am slightly nervous, but I think my tenacity will overthrow my nerves!”

Katie, more excited than nervous, said, “I am excited about the likely prospect of the campaign being a success, and I feel honoured to take part. I am nervous about being able to articulate thoughts and feelings into words.”

Aware that the application would be rejected on the grounds that the couple are of the same gender, no one could have predicted the disrespectful treatment that they received in November 2010.

The couple’s application for a Civil Marriage licence was not only rejected by the Petersfield register office in Hampshire, southern England, but the register office staff – Lesley Romano and Gaynor Russell – refused to put their rejection in writing and were described by the couple as “officious, unhelpful, obstructive and dismissive.”

Responding to the refusal, a visibly upset Katie Green said:

“We expected to be refused, but we were not expecting to be treated so unkindly. I felt humiliated and not respected. The staff didn’t seem willing to listen or comprehend our case. They kept on interrupting us and offering us a Civil Partnership, which we kept telling them we didn’t want. It was like being back in school and being lectured to. I found it a very unpleasant experience.

“The rejection of our application for a Civil Marriage was expected, but nonetheless still very disappointing. We’ve been denied our human right to have a Civil Marriage. Our rejection highlights the unjust and undemocratic nature of segregating gay and straight couples in separate institutions. In a democracy, public institutions should be open to all, without discrimination. As part of the Equal Love Campaign, Colette and I now plan to use the courts to overturn the ban on same-sex civil marriage.

“Being able to get married means a lot to us. This rejection is just a momentary setback in the long struggle for marriage equality,” she said.

Also distressed, Colette French added:

“We were not treated with dignity and respect. The staff told us verbally that we could not be married because the law prohibits same-sex marriage. We asked them to put this in writing, but they were unwilling to do so. They seemed needlessly unhelpful. They have referred us to the head registrar. We intend to pursue the matter. All the previous couples were given letters of rejection and were treated with great sympathy and courtesy. We are perplexed by the attitude of the register staff at Petersfield.

“We are sad that our desire for a Civil Marriage has been blocked. Rejecting us on the grounds of our sexuality is frustrating and discriminatory. I love Katie and want our love to be validated through a Civil Marriage. We will continue to fight this injustice through the courts, together with the seven other gay and straight couples who are part of the Equal Love Campaign. We’re confident that the ban on gay marriage will be eventually overturned. It is against the spirit and letter of the Human Rights Act. We are proud to be part of this historic campaign for equal rights,” she concluded.

Katie and Collete pictured with Peter Tatchell

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who accompanied Colette and Katie to the register office, later spoke with the register office staff:

“I was shocked by their unnecessarily obstructive manner. They were not listening to Katie and Colette. I tried to reason with them, but they were curt and dismissive. This is the first time in the Equal Love Campaign that register office staff have been unhelpful. Both women left the register office very upset. They were upset not by the rejection of their application but by the way they were treated,” he said.

The Equal Love Campaign’s legal advisor Professor Robert Wintemute said:

“The rights attached to Civil Marriage and Civil Partnership are identical, especially with regard to adoption of children, donor insemination and surrogacy. There is no longer any justification for excluding same-sex couples from Civil Marriage and different-sex couples from Civil Partnership. It’s like having separate drinking fountains or beaches for different racial groups, even though the water is the same. The only function of the twin bans is to mark lesbian and gay people as inferior to heterosexual people.”

Explaining their bid for marriage equality, Katie Green said:

“We love each other and want to formalise our relationship. Marriage is the universally recognised system of love and commitment. We want to be part of it, to secure the ultimate recognition of our relationship.

“In a democracy, institutions should reflect society and be open to all. Civil Partnerships and Civil Marriages offer almost the same rights and responsibilities. Therefore, it seems the only reason that marriage has a closed-door policy towards lesbian and gay couples is to denote their inferior status.

“Segregating gay couples into Civil Partnerships perpetuates homophobic prejudice and discrimination,” she said.

Her partner Colette French added:

“The ban on gay marriage denies us a democratic right. Not allowing us to register our commitment to each other as a marriage reinforces and promotes inequality.

“Love is equal and should be recognised as such. Failure to open up marriage to all couples sends out the message that lesbian and gay couples are not on par with our heterosexual counterparts.

“I have a lasting commitment to Katie and wish to register this through a Civil Marriage. I feel that Civil Partnerships were set up as a second-class institution to deny us equality with opposite-sex couples,” she said.

Despite the unnecessary rudeness and disrespect that the couple experienced, both remain extremely positive about the cultural shift and future legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

Colette is of the opinion that “[t]his campaign is absolutely 100% about the Human Rights of ALL couples. There is no doubt that both heterosexual and gay couples are being discriminated against. We are fighting this campaign as one because inequality affects us all in society.”

In absolute agreement is Katie, who explains that “[t]his campaign is whole-heartedly about the human rights of all couples. After all, it would not be possible to achieve equality without the human rights of all couples taken into consideration.”

Both are hopeful that the campaign will ultimately achieve a positive outcome.

“I hope that young people (particularly school age) will see this campaign and think positively about their own sexuality. I see this campaign as a turning point in the fight to recognise gay rights as human rights. The history of the struggle for gay liberation has used a separate-but-equal notion; this has been most effective. However, now, through that entire struggle, we have reached a point where we can achieve pure equality. I see this campaign as large as this: it is not just about institutions but the wider effects on society.”  – Katie Green

Describing her vision of this outcome in terms of personal and social progress, Colette states, “I believe that the campaign can achieve a positive outcome, and I find it difficult to see how it couldn’t. I personally would like to see equality for heterosexual and gay couples, with the right to the choice of both Civil Marriage and Civil Partnership.

“If the campaign is successful, I would hope for a shift in modern thinking and the view of society.  By allowing heterosexual and gay couples the right to both institutions, society is showing a full understanding of the rights of all couples. Thus, opening up Civil Marriage and Civil Partnerships would reflect a change in the way heterosexual and gay rights are viewed. Hopefully, this view could help people struggling with their sexuality to feel more comfortable and respected in society rather than feeling like a second-class citizen.”

No doubt many, if not all, readers will agree with International Relations and Politics graduate Katie’s sentiment: “I hope that young people (particularly school age) will see this campaign and think positively about their own sexuality. I see this campaign as a turning point in the fight to recognise gay rights as human rights. The history of the struggle for gay liberation has used a separate-but-equal notion; this has been most effective. However, now, through that entire struggle, we have reached a point where we can achieve pure equality. I see this campaign as large as this: it is not just about institutions but the wider effects on society.”

The campaign is far from over, but the clock is ticking on the British Government to do the right thing. Most major political parties and, evidenced by a recent poll, a majority of the British public support the change in marriage legislation.

With tenacious and eloquent equality advocates such as Colette and Katie, there is hope for a timely end to the current gender-based segregation in UK marriage law.

Not So Quiet on the UK’s Equal Love Front

By David Equality Watters   Wed, Aug 31, 2011

With more than 1,650 signatures in support of the Equal Love Campaign, coordinator and Human Rights Activist Peter Tatchell and his team show increasing support in the UK.

Whilst it may have appeared that the United Kingdom’s Equal Love Campaign (www.equallove.org.uk) had gone a little quiet in recent months, Human Rights Activist and campaign coordinator Peter Tatchell and his team have been working behind the scenes to garner the support of an increasing number of MPs, MEPs, political parties and prominent religious and philosophical organisations in the UK.

Tatchell has also been tirelessly speaking at Pride Events and academic institutions, whilst others from the campaign have grabbed any opportunity to communicate with the public on local radio and in the press.

No interaction is worthless in such campaigns. One campaigner has made every effort to support one MA student to write a paper on leadership which focused on political activism, another who was producing a radio documentary on Marriage Equality and others who were recreating the story as part of their Drama Degree.

At the very beginning of the campaign, the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement – whose chief executive, Sharon Ferguson, is half of one of the couples participating in the campaign – unsurprisingly gave the Equal Love Campaign its support, saying in a statement that, “LGCM wholeheartedly supports the Equal Love Campaign. LGCM has always been at the forefront of the campaign for marriage for lesbian and gay couples and therefore totally supports our Chief Executive, Rev Sharon Ferguson, and her partner as the lead same-gender couple in the Equal Love Campaign”.

The statement from the LGCM continues: “It was a hard decision for the organisation to agree to the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2005, but, at the time, the protection and legal rights that were offered were too great to risk by holding out for full equality. However, the time is now right to press forward once again” and “LGCM strongly believes that the current system, only allowing people either a marriage or a Civil Partnership, based solely on the gender of the person they love, is a form of sexual second-class citizenship. Both marriage and Civil Partnerships should be available to all couples regardless of gender. The choice of how to celebrate this lifelong commitment should belong to the couple, not the state”.

Also in support is the British Humanist Association, which released a statement indicating that, “As part of our own work to promote and realise equality in marriage law, whether on grounds of sexual orientation, or on grounds of belief, the BHA is pleased to support the Equal Love Campaign”.

Naomi Phillips, BHA Head of Public Affairs, commented, “The primary reason why same-sex couples do not enjoy the same rights to marry as couples of the opposite sex is because of religious opposition to gay marriage. Although civil partnerships are a step in the right direction, they are not equal to marriage and send a clear message that there is one system for gay couples and one for straight couples. There is no legitimate argument for maintaining a system that, on grounds of sexual orientation, bars couples from marriage or from civil partnerships, and the continuing discrimination on those grounds is unjustifiable”.

In London on 2 February 2011, a European Court of Human Rights application was jointly filed by the 8 couples who are challenging the current marriage inequality laws. A copy of this submission can be downloaded (in PDF format) here: equalloveapplicationtoechr.

At the announcement, Peter Tatchell said, “We are confident that the European Court will eventually rule in our favour and require the British government to end sexual orientation discrimination in civil marriage and civil partnership law”.

On Monday, 25 April 2011, days before the Royal Wedding, the Equal Love Campaigners made themselves visible to a wider and much more international audience when they presented a giant wedding card for Prince William and Kate Middleton outside the gates of Buckingham Palace.

As well as wishing the royal couple “congratulations” and “a happy life together”, the campaigners highlighted the ban on gay civil marriage and urged Kate and William to support the right of same-sex couples to marry in a register office.

Cupcakes with Equal Love logos, made by chef and Equal Love campaigner Richard J. Hull, were handed out to tourists and passers-by.

The timing and location meant that many eager, international news crews were looking for a story, especially one with a connection to the upcoming nuptials of Prince William and his then future bride, Kate Middleton. The area all around Pall Mall and outside Buckingham Palace was also swarming with tourists, many of whom wanted to hear more about the campaign and many of whom offered their support.

It may have been the cupcakes which first grabbed their attention, or the pink Union Jack flags, but many stayed and asked questions, expressed understanding and signed the giant card which read:

“Congratulations, William and Kate, on your Wedding Day. We wish you a happy life together. You can get married, gay people can’t. We are banned by law. We ask you to support marriage equality. Equal=Love.”

“As well as wishing the royal couple happiness, our card highlighted the fact that William and Kate can marry, but same-sex couples cannot. In democratic society, we should all be equal before the law. The ban on gay marriage is discrimination and should be repealed,” said coordinator Peter Tatchell. “This event is an affirmation of our opposition to discrimination in marriage law. We want to show our support for the right of everyone to be able to choose whether or not to get married.”

June 2011 saw the launch of an online petition by the Equal Love organizers. This is currently online atwww.equallove.org.uk but unfortunately only eligible for United Kingdom residents to sign.

However, for readers living elsewhere who would like to but can’t sign the petition, reposting the website link on social networks is still a vital form of support which could make all the difference to the success of the Equal Love Campaign.

One UK resident who signed the petition did so stating, “Making everyone equal before the law will not damage heterosexual marriage, and I have yet to hear anything remotely convincing claiming it could. Admittedly, it could annoy some homophobic bigots, but should bigots be allowed to deny others their human rights?”

Another, a heterosexual ally, said, “I am in a heterosexual relationship, I plan to get married but I am strongly against the fact of discrimination between a ‘civil partnership’ and ‘marriage’; under no circumstances is this acceptable. Marriage is between two people who love each other and are willing to spend the rest of their lives together. As for homosexual people, not being allowed to get married in UK churches is unacceptable, bearing in mind we have one of the biggest homosexual communities in the world. Who is to say we do not have a choice with what we do with our own lives? Apparently the government can overrule what we can do with our own relationships.”

A third simply states, “Equality for ALL!”

For those UK readers, and I hope that there are many, after you HAVE signed the petition, the Equal Love campaigners ask that you take further action and email your MP & MEP and ask them to write on your behalf to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, urging him to bring forward legislation to end the bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships.

 

To sign the petition go to: http://www.equallove.org.uk

You can find out who your MP and MEPs are, and email them direct, via this website: www.writetothem.com.

So, whilst it may seem that all had gone quiet on the Equal Love front, this is far from the truth. There are many approaches to achieving any goal, and constant high visibility is not always the most productive. Instead, a slow and steady burn, and tactical manoeuvring, are what will win the small battles, educate and enlighten, change public perception and ultimately win the war for true social equality.

The Marriage Equality victory in New York has taught us this and has also given us hope that eventually, with patience, perseverance and tenacity, we too can attain full legal recognition that our love is of equal value.

As Hafiz (rendered by Daniel Ladinsky) said:

“For I have learned that every heart will get what it prays for most.”

SAME SEX MARRIAGE VICTORY IN NEW YORK

SAME SEX MARRIAGE VICTORY IN NEW YORK

Sat Jun 25

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) – Governor Andrew Cuomo made same-sex marriages legal in New York on Friday, a key victory for gay rights ahead of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

New York will become the sixth and most populous U.S. state to allow gay marriage. State senators voted 33-29 on Friday evening to approve marriage equality legislation and Cuomo, a Democrat who had introduced the measure, signed it into law.

“This vote today will send a message across the country.

This is the way to go, the time to do it is now, and it is achievable; it’s no longer a dream or an aspiration. I think you’re going to see a rapid evolution,” Cuomo, who is in his first year of office, told a news conference.

“We reached a new level of social justice,” he said.

Same-sex weddings can start taking place in New York in 30 days, though religious institutions and nonprofit groups with religious affiliations will not be compelled to officiate at such ceremonies. The legislation also gives gay couples the right to divorce.

“I have to define doing the right thing as treating all persons with equality and that equality includes within the definition of marriage,” Republican Senator Stephen Saland said before the bill was passed. He was one of four Republicans to vote for the legislation.

Cheers erupted in the Senate gallery in the state capital Albany and among a crowd of several hundred people who gathered outside New York City’s Stonewall Inn, where a police raid in 1969 sparked the modern gay rights movement.

“It’s about time. I want to get married. I want the same rights as anyone else,” Caroline Jaeger, 36, a student, who was outside the Stonewall Inn.

But New York’s Catholic bishops said they were “deeply disappointed and troubled” by the passage of the bill.

“We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman,” the state’s Catholic Conference said in a statement.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an advocate for gay marriage who lobbied state lawmakers in recent weeks, said the vote was an “historic triumph for equality and freedom.”

“Together, we have taken the next big step on our national journey toward a more perfect union,” he said in a statement.

ELECTION ISSUE

President Barack Obama, who attended a fund-raiser in New York on Thursday for Gay Pride Week, has a nuanced stance on gay issues. Experts say he could risk alienating large portions of the electorate if he came out strongly in favor of such matters as gay marriage before the 2012 elections.

During the 2008 election, Obama picked up important support from Evangelicals, Catholics, Latinos and African-Americans, some of whom oppose gay marriage, which has become a contentious social issue being fought state-by-state.

In California a judge last year overturned a ban on gay marriage, but no weddings can take place while the decision is being appealed. It could set national policy if the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, and Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois and New Jersey approved civil unions. The first legal same-sex marriages in the United States took place in Massachusetts in 2004.

But gay marriage is banned in 39 states.

In New York a recent Siena poll found 58 percent of New Yorkers support gay marriage, while nationally the U.S. public is nearly evenly split, with 45 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed, according to a Pew Research poll released last month.

New York City’s marketing and tourism group NYC & Company said it was gearing up to turn the city into “the gay weddings destination.” “The new legislation is good news for the City’s $31 billion travel and tourism industry,” said NYC & Company Chief Executive George Fertitta.
New York’s Democrat-dominated Assembly voted 80-63 in favor of gay marriage last week and passed the amended legislation on Friday 82-47.

A key sticking point had been over an exemption that would allow religious officials to refuse to perform services or lend space for same-sex weddings. Most Republicans were concerned the legal protection was not strong enough, so legislative leaders worked with Cuomo to amend his original bill.

“God, not Albany, settled the definition of marriage a long time ago,” said Senator Ruben Diaz Sr., a Pentecostal minister and the only Democrat to vote against the measure.

However, fears of a slew of litigation arising from a possible religious exemption to New York’s proposed same-sex marriage law are not borne out by experience with similar laws in other states, legal experts say.

Sudden Inspection at Gay Bar Mars Victory Celebration for Some

An unannounced inspection that several agencies carried out at a gay bar in Manhattan on Friday night occurred at nearly the same time that patrons were celebrating the passage of legislation in Albany legalizing same-sex marriage.

Police officials said on Saturday that the inspection was part of a routine operation planned long ago. But Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, said that he was troubled by descriptions of what took place at the Eagle bar, on West 28th Street off 11th Avenue, and that the actions amounted to a raid.

“I am going to ask the police commissioner to conduct a formal investigation concerning the circumstances around this raid,” he added.

The inspection occurred late at night, Mr. Stringer said, and while it was “true that there are these multiagency inspections, I think this one was ill-conceived and ill-timed given the circumstances surrounding the marriage equality celebration, on Pride week.”

http://www.eaglenyc.com/index.php

According to those present, about 100 people were mingling at the Eagle, when representatives from the New York Police Department and three other city agencies, as well as from the State Liquor Authority, showed up, at nearly the same time as a vote by the State Senate to legalize same-sex marriage and as the thrill of victory was swirling through the place.

“I was on the roof deck, smoking a cigar and having drinks with friends, and all of a sudden, the police showed up and started shining flashlights in everyone’s face and offending everyone,” said Thomas J. Shevlin, a financial markets researcher and the treasurer of the Stonewall Democratic Club.

“Basically, it is offensive,” Mr. Shevlin, 40, said. “It is real serious harassment that they come out on pride weekend.”

Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, said the Eagle was one of four establishments in the 10th Precinct inspected on Friday under a program known as MARCH, or multiagency response to community hot spots.

He said every precinct in the city, except for Central Park, carried out such operations at what amounted to “a couple thousand clubs” each year.

The establishments are selected because they are the subjects of “chronic complaints” from community members that are mostly reported through the city’s 311 and 911 communications systems over concerns like excessive noise or fighting, Mr. Browne said. The inspections, he added, were planned weeks in advance.

He said the inspection at the Eagle led to six violations being issued: two from the police regarding unlicensed security; one from the Department of Environmental Protection regarding unnecessary noise; one from the Buildings Department for having no public assembly permit; and two from the liquor authority for “extension of premise,” and “failure to conform to application.”

Robert Berk, 50, the owner of the Eagle, said on Saturday that the operation’s timing was “bad.” The officers and other agents began entering, unannounced, about 10:30 p.m., he said, and eventually numbered about 20. They were “aggressive, but polite” as they examined the premises, he said, adding that they went over paperwork and inspected items like the ice makers and the licenses of security guards.

Mr. Berk, who is gay, and who described his bar as a “Levis and leather” establishment, added he expected to receive a list of violations in the mail.

“I definitely lost money last night because they made patrons wait outside in a line down the block,” Mr. Berk said. “I don’t know how much I have to pay, but it’s enough to matter.”

Christopher J. Borras, 46, was among those waiting to get in, finally gaining entry about 11:45 p.m., just as Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo was preparing to sign the marriage measure into law.

“I find interesting the timing,” said Mr. Borras, who had been at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village earlier that night. “I would just like to know from the police: `Why did they do that?’ To me, it is a blatant sign of intimidation and harassment, I mean, 42 years after the Stonewall riots and we still have to live in fear of the police disturbing our quiet enjoyment of life? I just don’t understand. We are very peaceful.”

Daniel P. Dromm, a city councilman from Queens who is gay, expressed concern on Saturday over reports over the years of officers entering bars on the Friday night before Gay Pride weekend.

“There needs to be some sensitivity to the importance of gay marriage being legalized in New York State, which means this vote for marriage is going to have national reverberations,” he said. “Not a good time for cops to be going into a gay bar for no urgent reason.”

On Saturday, accounts of what happened in Chelsea were pouring in to Mr. Stringer, Mr. Dromm and others and were being discussed both online and at gatherings around the city to celebrate the new law.

Some reacted angrily. Allen Roskoff, 61, a veteran gay-rights activist who was not at the Eagle, said, “In typical New York City Police Department fashion, the N.Y.P.D. demonstrated its disrespect for the gay community by raiding the Eagle mere moments after the passage of most important piece of gay rights legislation in history.”

But some accounts of the inspection diverged significantly, in places, from what the police described. For instance, Mr. Berk said the inspection lasted about two hours, while Mr. Browne said it was completed in about 45 minutes.

Along with flashlights being shined in people’s faces, lights were turned off and patrons were forced to empty their pockets “without probable cause,” Mr. Shevlin said.

Mr. Browne insisted that the inspection “had nothing to do with the vote” or with Gay Pride weekend. Those on the task force, he said, “are not seers; they don’t have a crystal ball that tells them when Albany is going to take up a piece of legislation.”

“We are treating everyone the same here,” he added. “It has nothing to do with the sexual preference of the patrons; it has to do with complaints. It is blind to who the club is and it was planned weeks before.” He also denied accusations of aggressive police action.

“The notion that anyone was searched or the lights were turned off is utter fabrication,” Mr. Browne said. The police, he said, lowered the music and turned the lights up a bit to see more clearly. “The only contact the police had with anyone there was the lieutenant shaking hands with the proprietor,” he said. The bar was not padlocked, and there were no arrests.

Mr. Berk said while he wished the inspection had been done during the day to avoid disrupting his business, the officers “were just doing their job.”

He planned to visit the 10th Precinct station house on Saturday, he said, to speak with commanders, with whom he said he had a good relationship.

A law enforcement official said the commander of the 10th Precinct who is responsible for determining a list of locations that were subject to chronic complaints, and were therefore eligible for the inspections, was Deputy Inspector Elisa Cokkinos.

 

CB Kirby – MR EAGLE 2011

CB Kirby

 

Royal Wedding – Gays want the right to marry too

http://equallove.org.uk/

If you oppose the ban on same-sex marriage, join us on Monday 25 April

Sign up to join the event on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=198721503499425&notif_t=event_invite

End the ban on same-sex marriage. Supporters of marriage equality will hold a celebration outside Buckingham Palace on the Easter Bank Holiday, Monday 25th April, at 12 noon.

They plan to deliver a giant wedding card to William and Kate. As well as wishing the royal couple every happiness, they will also highlight the fact that William and Kate can marry, but same-sex couples can’t. The Buckingham Palace event will urge the royal couple to support moves to end the ban on gay marriage. We want equal marriage rights for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

All welcome. Bring your friends for a party in front of Buckingham Palace. Some of the couples involved in the Equal Love campaign will join us on the day.

Even if you don’t agree with marriage, the prohibition on gay marriage is homophobic and should be overturned. Don’t let the government dictate that LGBTI people can’t get married.

Let’s make 25 April a glorious affirmation of our opposition to discrimination in marriage law and show our support for the right of everyone to be able to choose whether or not to get married.

Next Monday’s event is organised by the Equal Love campaign, which seeks to overturn the twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships:www.equallove.org.uk

It is supported by the LGBTI human rights group OutRage! www.outrage.org.ukand the Peter Tatchell Foundation www.petertatchellfoundation.org

More background info on the issues here:

http://www.petertatchell.net/celebrities/wills-and-kate-can-marry-gays-cant.htm

Join Equal Love on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Equal-Love/163531170333628

Follow the PTF on Twitter: twitter.com/#!/PT_Foundation

Join the PTF on Facebook: www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=35320687969

DONATE TO THE PETER TATCHELL FOUNDATION (PTF)

Donations are requested to help fund the Peter Tatchell Foundation and its promotion of human rights.

The PTF depends entirely on donations from supporters and well-wishers to finance its work. Please donate generously to the PTF.

Click here for five ways to make a donation: Standing order, cheque, PayPal and internet and telephone banking:
www.petertatchellfoundation.org/donate.html

The Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund is the fund-raising arm of the PTF.

Please make cheques payable to: “Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund”.

Send to: PTF, Studio 5, Disney Place House, 14 Marshalsea Road, London, SE1 1HL

IF YOU CAN’T MAKE IT TO THE EVENT, WHY NOT SEND A CARD WISHING THE COUPLE WELL AND POINT OUT THAT ALL COUPLES DON’T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. TELL THEM ABOUT THE EQUAL LOVE CAMPAIGN: http://www.equallove.org.uk

CARDS TO WILLIAM AND KATE CAN BE POSTED TO :

Clarence House, St. James’s Palace, London SW1A 1BA, United Kingdom

HAVE YOUR SAY ON EQUALITY

HAVE YOUR SAY ON EQUALITY

Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality

By David E. Watters (Campaigner for Equal Love)

Since our last article on the UK’s Equal Love Campaign, significant progress has been made and on 31 March 2011 the British Government published a consultation document which seeks your views on how to enable civil partnership registrations on religious premises in England and Wales.

The consultation document concerns the implementation of section 202 of the Equality Act 2010, outlines proposals for new arrangements and seeks views from all interested parties. Because this is a permissive provision, religious organisations that do not wish to host civil partnerships will not be required to do so as a result of this change.

The implementation of section 202 of the Equality Act 2010 is the first part of the Government’s work on the next steps for civil partnerships as set out in the document Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality. Having listened to stakeholders it is clear from many that there is a desire to move towards equal civil marriage and partnerships. The Government will consult further on how legislation can develop, working with all those who have an interest in this area.

Civil partnerships on religious premises: a consultation sets out detailed proposals for this voluntary measure which enhances the freedom of both faith groups and same-sex couples.

The proposals are designed to enable faith groups to opt in, respect the different decision-making structures of different faith groups, minimise the risk of successful legal challenges and be straightforward for local authorities to operate.  The law will make clear that faith groups are not obliged to host civil partnerships.  It would also be unlawful for a civil partnership to be registered on a religious premises that had not been approved for the purpose by the local authority.  That approval will be given only with the approval of the faith group concerned.

What is proposed is a two stage process for enabling civil partnerships to be registered on particular religious premises.  First the faith group concerned will have to consent to this and the consultation document sets out how this could happen.  Then the local authority in whose area the premises is located will have to approve the premises and the consultation document sets out what conditions should apply to the approval.  The registration of civil partnerships would remain secular, despite taking place on religious premises, but a religious service could be held to mark the registration.

This consultation will be of particular interest to:

• faith groups including religions, denominations and individual independent religious congregations
• Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) organisations, LGB individuals and their families and friends
• Local authorities, including registrars and other relevant local authority employees
• owners and managers of buildings approved for civil marriages and civil partnerships

 

The Consultation document can be found on the Government Equalities Office website here: http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010/civil_partnership_consultation.aspx and comments from interested parties are welcome.

If you have any queries on this consultation, please email: civilpartnerships@geo.gsi.gov.uk

 

To join the UK’s Equal Love Campaign visit: www.equallove.org.uk

 

Civil Partnerships on Religious Premises Consultation Document

Today, the Government has published a consultation document which seeks your views on how to enable civil partnership registrations on religious premises in England and Wales. The consultation document concerns the implementation of section 202 of the Equality Act 2010, outlines proposals for new arrangements and seeks views from all interested parties. Because this is a permissive provision, religious organisations that do not wish to host civil partnerships will not be required to do so as a result of this change.
The implementation of section 202 of the Equality Act 2010 is the first part of the Government’s work on the next steps for civil partnerships as set out in the document Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality. Having listened to stakeholders it is clear from many that there is a desire to move towards equal civil marriage and partnerships. The Government will consult further on how legislation can develop, working with you and all those who have an interest in this area.

 

Opening date:            31 March 2011

Closing date:             23 June 2011

In February we announced our commitment to enabling civil partnerships to be registered on the religious premises of those faith groups who wished to host them.  This will be done by implementing section 202 of the Equality Act 2010.  This provision removes the legal prohibition on civil partnerships being registered on religious premises, enables regulations to be made setting out the arrangements for these premises to be approved by the local authority and clarifies that there is no obligation on faith groups to have civil partnership registrations on their premises.

Civil partnerships on religious premises: a consultation sets out detailed proposals for this voluntary measure which enhances the freedom of both faith groups and same-sex couples.  The proposals are designed to enable faith groups to opt in, respect the different decision-making structures of different faith groups, minimise the risk of successful legal challenges and be straightforward for local authorities to operate.  The law will make clear that faith groups are not obliged to host civil partnerships.  It would also be unlawful for a civil partnership to be registered on a religious premises that had not been approved for the purpose by the local authority.  That approval will be given only with the approval of the faith group concerned.

We propose a two stage process for enabling civil partnerships to be registered on particular religious premises.  First the faith group concerned will have to consent to this and the consultation document sets out how this could happen.  Then the local authority in whose area the premises is located will have to approve the premises and the consultation document sets out what conditions should apply to the approval.  The registration of civil partnerships would remain secular, despite taking place on religious premises, but a religious service could be held to mark the registration.

This consultation will be of particular interest to:

• faith groups including religions, denominations and individual independent religious congregations
• Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) organisations, LGB individuals and their families and friends
• Local authorities, including registrars and other relevant local authority employees
• owners and managers of buildings approved for civil marriages and civil partnerships

Comments from other interested parties are also welcome.

If you have any queries on this consultation, please email  civilpartnerships@geo.gsi.gov.uk

The Consultation document can be found on the Government Equalities Office website here:

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010/civil_partnership_consultation.aspx

60 SECONDS FOR EQUAL MARRIAGE VOTE

It’s the time of year when Crate and Barrel holds their Ultimate Wedding Contest. This year a gay male couple is currently in second place.

I believe it would make a powerful statement about equality if members of the LGBT community won such a mainstream contest.

Can you help by clicking the link below and voting for Robbie and Allen.

http://www.ultimateweddingcontest.com/entry/104050?vote=1

They are working hard to be a face for fight for equality.

 

Robbie & Allen from: Los Angeles, CA

 

 

Our love story

I saw Allen’s profile many times over the years but was still struggling with my sexuality. Finally I found the courage to “wink” and it was just in time, the next day Allen was canceling his profile! Within 24 hours we emailed, talked, and met. From day 1 we never turned back. In 3 months it was “I love you!”, in 12 months “Move in!”, and in 24 months “Marry me!”. By finding Allen I found myself, my friends and family found the real me, and we found true love. http://www.LoveAtFirstWink.com

Three important details about our ultimate wedding.

1) Sustainable Love: Imagine our friends & family receiving an eco-friendly invitation to embrace us while we pledge our love and dance the night away under a starry night. 2) Modern Lifestyle. Picture an iconic black and white urban lounge high up on a hill or rooftop overlooking panoramic views of the LA skyline. 3) Creative Souls. Imagine a dessert bar of childhood dreams with bright pink cotton candy, crispy treats, and the most colorful, gooiest, and decadent sundae bar you’ve ever seen.

Our ultimate dream home.

It remains true to us: sustainable love, modern lifestyle, and creative souls. It’s a family room with a handcrafted coffee table that says “put your feet up” and a sofa with room to curl up. It’s a contemporary kitchen evoking the desire to cook with space to socialize. It’s a playroom for our future kids filled with color and creativity. It’s a master bedroom with classically styled furniture and modern fabrics. Its a guest room that’s a home away from home; a place for grandparents to visit.

 

 

SHOULD WE “TOLERATE” HOMOPHOBIC CHRISTIANS?

THAT SHOULD REALLY BE THE QUESTION…

This is NOT to suggest that REAL Christians are homophobic.

Just the dim-witted, ill-educated ones who somehow feel that HATE and FEAR are Christian values.

David Cameron says Christians should be ‘tolerant’ of homosexuality 8 March 2011

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/08/david-cameron-says-christians-should-be-tolerant-of-homosexuality/

I could not be any clearer on my viewpoint but HERE IT IS AGAIN:

THE DEADLIEST OF SINS SPEECH

(FIRST DELIVERED IN TRAFALGAR SQUARE, LONDON AS PART OF THE VIGIL AGAINST HATE CRIME ORGANISED BY MARK HEALEY AND 17-24-30)

This is not a time for silence but a time to take personal responsibility, to speak out and to share our humanity; because the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of the spirit and YOU, as much as anyone, can influencereal social change.

Harvey Bernard Milk, and others of his generation, fought for social progress with intelligence and creativity.

Harvey talked of breaking down the closet doors, yet for many these doors remain firmly locked; bolted both inside and out.

On the surface, it seems that society has grown more “accepting”, note the inverted commas, of the LGBT community but this, in itself, still suggests that  “acceptance” is required, that we are “less than” and that our VALUE is based upon the judgment of others. (?)

ALL the “ism’s” still exist and, YES, ALL prejudices have equal importance, require of us to remain vigilant and ALLmust be actively challenged.

Bigoted behaviour occurs in many different ways and can range, as YOU know, from subtle to malicious and even if Bigotry is, in theory, being addressed in the law, in policy and in procedure within schools and in the workplace,culturally the progress is much slower.

We must not allow ourselves to be defined and judged solely by sexuality or gender identity any more than we should be defined or judged by our cultural heritage, the colour of our skin, our profession, our income or even… ourtaste in music.

For us to effectively tackle any of the “isms”, we all must engage in actions which address discrimination andprejudicial attitudes in every area of our society; our schools and universities, our workplaces, our communities and our shopping malls.

Each and every one of us has an obligation to take responsibility for making our society safer, fairer and more inclusive and we should not rely on the good will and hard work of others to secure that just and equal society, whilst complaining that we ourselves are powerless.

Whatever YOUR strengths, whatever YOUR core character traits, there is something that YOU can do to influence change in the world.

It’s not about waving a placard or marching in a parade, unless that’s your style. Instead, it’s about finding thecorrect method of communication for YOU.

Sign that petition, tweet and retweet your views, repost a powerful YouTube video or an article you’ve found, Facebook or MySpace it, write to your MP, talk to, write to, email if you have to political leaders, police forces, health services, broadcasters and employers so that they too can all positively influence the way that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are perceived.

We can no longer wait for another Harvey Milk to follow or rely on the Peter Tatchell’s of this world, the pioneers, the visionaries, to fight our fight; but instead must learn ways to be tenacious, tireless and determined advocates for social equality ourselves.

We must, ourselves, find the strength, resolve and determination to lead and influence the change we want to see, to bring hope to those who have none.

Somehow in some way we too can be capable of great things.

LISTEN TO THE SPEECH HERE: http://www.nbiassociates.co.uk/Invite-DAVID-To-Speak-.html

Invite DAVID To Speak!

Since graduating from The Institute of Education, University of London, David has gone on to train with LEAP, as a mediator, and is a qualified facilitator for The Pacific Institute.

As a teacher, David has worked in both the public and private sectors. His focus has been on inclusion with regard to Special Educational Needs and the development of Creative Partnerships.



David, who regularly writes for www.ambiente.us, One Nation and Polari, has been championed by Stuart Milk, nephew of Harvey Milk and Equality Advocate, who has said: “I love your work, which is vital to show the richness of embracing and celebrating our wonderful diversity. As Harvey would say, you’re bringing medicine into the world that the world needs! Thank you!”

His background in the arts and education, combined with a solid understanding of CBT and his passion for Equality Advocacy make him a creative and innovative program planner, facilitator and public speaker.

FEES ARE NEGOTIABLE

AVAILABLE NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY

FOR MORE ON DAVID’S BACKGROUND CLICK HERE

Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle: ALTRUISTIC ALLIES

Written by David E. Watters. First published on 10,000 Couples: http://10thousandcouples.com/issue/march-2011/article/tom-freeman-and-katherine-doyle-altruistic-allies-for-marriage-equality

Photographs: Chris Houston

Just as important a question as “why?” is “why not?”  Civil Partnerships have already been provided for by the law.  What purpose could excluding us on the grounds that we are of a particular sexuality possibly serve?  All institutions should be equal “by default” if there is no good reason for them to be otherwise.

– KATHERINE DOYLE & TOM FREEMAN, from a statement delivered at the launch of the Equal Love Campaign, 21 Dec 2010, King’s College, London, UK.

The following interview investigates the reasoning behind Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle’s choice to participate in the Equal Love Campaign. Both are candid in their answers, demonstrating an inspiring altruism and an authenticity of living in which core beliefs in equality and social justice guide their choice to take action publicly against marriage inequality.

Tom Freeman, 26, grew up in Suffolk and now lives and works as an administrator in Islington. His partner, Katherine Doyle, also 26, grew up in Watford and is currently studying Archives and Records Management (MA) at UCL.

The couple first met in 2004 through the music scene at university but didn’t begin their relationship until meeting again through mutual friends in London in 2006.

The couple credits the success of their relationship to a shared sense of humor, saying, “The things we laugh about only we find funny” – but by far and away, they agree that their most important shared value is an ethical one: uncomplicated, unabashed kindness towards all others… and PIE – key lime pie, to be precise. “We have stayed together due to our mutual love of key lime pie and Katherine’s ability to make it.”  

---

 

Why did you decide to get involved with the EQUAL LOVE CAMPAIGN? Personally, and as a couple, what motivated you to participate in this initiative?

Tom: I have always had enormous sympathy with gay and lesbian people as one of the last minorities who have still not been granted even bare legal equality, let alone begun to be treated as fully equal in society and the media.  This goes back to studying the civil rights movement in America at school and gradually realising that the whole reason we are taught about these things is to prevent the same mistakes being made again – and yet we allow them to be made over and over again by the supposed elites responsible for legislation – who will have had the same lessons at school themselves.

At university I spent a great deal of time reading philosophical ethics, and was influenced in particular by Victorian radical ideas about concrete harm having been done as the measure of “wrongness” (something that has been conveniently ignored at points throughout the 20th century) and about the human good consisting simply in happiness, and by classical conceptions of the human good in terms of what it is to be “good at being a human.” I am not a natural protestor and not particularly confident at speaking, interviews, etc., but a sense thatsomething had to be done and that no one else was doing it (proved wrong by the number of us now involved with this campaign!) led me to involve myself very happily with this campaign when I first heard about it early in 2010.

Katherine: Early on in our relationship the subject of marriage came up, and I remember being a little taken aback by Tom’s determination not to get married himself until same-sex couples could also marry.  Over the next three years I grew a little irked that I would have to wait whilst the gay and lesbian community were seemingly reluctant to push for marriage.  This came to a head in the summer of 2009; a relative’s wedding prompted a bout of impatience, and I, taking Tom’s stubbornness on marriage as a reluctance to commit, asked in exasperation, “Can we get a civil partnership?”  It hadn’t occurred to me at this point that a civil partnership sat better with our outlook on life; I guess I had always presumed I would get married.  But once we started to look critically at marriage, there was no going back.

The reason that we decided to go “public” is a little clouded in my memory; I think it seemed like the next logical step.  Our other option was unappealing – to remain unmarried for an indefinite period and wait for someone else to tackle the issues of partnership segregation.  I remember a sinking feeling when I could not find any apparent organised campaign for gay marriage (post–civil partnerships); I realised that if we wanted a civil partnership, we were going to have to make as big a fuss as possible about it on our own.  Our aims were to spark debate about gay marriage and straight civil partnership; we certainly had no ambition of taking the thing to court, or changing law in the short term.  The important thing for me was that we had done all we could to commit to each other, and we could settle down to a life of “un-marriage,” knowing that there was nothing more we could do.  [Civil rights activist] Peter [Tatchell]’s help with our 2009 civil partnership attempt led to our involvement this year.  Tom capitalised on the publicity from the 2009 attempt, recruiting many of the same-sex and opposite-sex couples who are participating in the Equal Love Campaign.

What core beliefs guide your choices, and where do you think these have come from?

Tom: Three separate strands for me, mostly elaborated on above: a) my perception of the importance of looking hard at our history as a civilisation and really thinking about what we can learn; b) ideas about what truly constitutes meaningful human good and harm that I encountered as a student; c) (influenced by this) a conviction that we all have a duty of simple altruism to those around us.

Katherine: I believe that the Government should recognise that we are objecting to marriage on grounds of conscience
, and we should not be denied the rights of a married couple because of this.

What positive or negative responses have you received from either family or friends to your involvement in this campaign? How do these responses impact your desire to pursue the campaign?

Tom: I have had nothing but support from my family, and several of my friends have taken a keen interest in it.

Katherine: My parents were a little shocked, primarily because it is very much out of character [for me], and because they didn’t understand why we couldn’t leave it to someone else to do.

In order for the Equal Love Campaign to prove discrimination, each couple needed to receive a letter of refusal from their local registry office. The difficulty here was that names of the couple needed to be given to the registrar, by phone or email, prior to the appointment. If full names were given, the appointment and subsequent refusal would likely not happen since it would be clear that the couple were of the “wrong” orientation for the type of application being made. The legal representative for the case, Robert Wintermute, required a refusal letter from each of the 8 couples in order to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. Hence, the posing of the following question:

What difficulties, if any, did you face in booking your appointment with the registrar?

None at all.  In our case, they must have known that we were a mixed-sex couple as it’s the same registry office we went to last year!  But then, they were very supportive and helpful towards us last year as well as this year.  We even had our appointment with the same person.

How do you feel about your application day? Is there excitement, dread, or a bit of both?

Tom: Definitely a bit of both!

Katherine: Having gone through the same process in 2009, I am more nervous this year; it feels like less of an adventure, but also because we are part of a wider campaign, it feels like there is more at stake.

What are your feelings about the anticipated media interest in the campaign? Do you embrace the opportunity to be a spokesperson for EQUAL LOVE, or is there any sense of apprehension?

Katherine: A lot of apprehension from me – it’s not what I naturally do.  Part of the reason we were so happy to get so many other couples involved was that the load would be spread!  It has been hard, but we have stuck to Peter’s rule of not saying no to any opportunity for publicity.

Tom: I find being a spokesperson difficult because I have a speech impediment that often affects me when I am put on the spot, and this affects my confidence all the time.  I rely on Katherine to deliver the set-piece speeches, but I can sometimes enjoy speaking one-to-one to journalists if they are sympathetic.

For many Christians and people from other faiths, there is a cognitive dissonance between faith and sexuality. How can this be reconciled? What has been your personal journey between faith and sexuality?

Tom: I was brought up as an atheist and have completely failed to rebel against my upbringing, never having wavered in this.  I think it was perhaps partly this that enabled me to think clearly and freely about ethics from a comparatively early age, and see the cruelties and abuses of freedom that were right under my nose.  What has endured for me is the idea that in a truly compassionate society, nothing will ever, ever be made a more final end than human good. Maryam Namazie summed it up when she said of humanism that it is “holding nothing sacred but the human being.”  My feelings towards the phenomenon of faith have evolved continuously over the years as I have encountered the full spectrum all the way from far-right evangelists at university to people like my co-campaigners in Equal Love, Sharon and Franka and Ian and Kristin, who I take to be motivated by the very best aspects of Christianity: Jesus’ fantastic message of unrelenting love for one’s neighbours, friends, and enemies; that was revolutionary in his time, and could be again if only it was remembered today.

I think any dissonance can easily be resolved as long as we can focus on the spirit of the faith (love) while remembering that all text is contingent on context. What was written two thousand years ago will inevitably reflect the sexual ethics of the time, including, for example, the legitimacy of concubinage, or a much narrowed definition of rape.  Attitudes to sexuality in such a religious text can similarly be expected to reflect the concerns of the time, explaining, for example, the stronger focus on the condemnation of male same-sex activity than female.  This contemporary thinking about sexuality could include, for instance, a conflation of homosexuality with pederasty or with rape, or a failure to appreciate that there is any such thing as sexuality as an enduring quality of a person, as opposed to just same-sex sexual acts – assumptions which could affect judgements of legitimacy.

Katherine: I was raised and educated as a Catholic, and whilst no longer a person of faith, I try to apply many of the lessons I was taught during this time, such as the importance of community, humility, and giving of your time charitably.

In what respect is this campaign about the human rights of all couples rather than the human rights of same-sex couples?

Katherine: For me this campaign is emphatically not about identity politics.  This is because, as we have said all along, the important thing about any relationship is the love between the two people concerned, not their sexes.  All love, gay and straight, is equally deserving of recognition and equally deserving of options in how the people who experience it choose to celebrate it.  Campaigning for a change in the law to recognise this of course involves the interest of all – at the moment no one has this freedom, and we want everyone to have it.

Tom: One opponent of gay equality criticised us for wanting to “steamroller” the rights of a minority over the wishes of everyone else, which relies on the assumption that the interests of straight people and gay people are necessarily opposed – obviously this is not true at all, and I think only a minuscule minority would think that way.

Are you hopeful that the campaign will ultimately achieve a positive outcome? Describe your vision of this outcome in terms of personal and social progress.

Tom: I think it is a foregone conclusion now that gay people will attain full marriage equality in the very near future.  As for straight civil partnerships too, I am confident that the campaign will succeed.  But the very least we could achieve is the stimulation of an enormous amount of debate and critical thinking about our society.

Katherine: It is funny that actually getting “married” or “partnered” seems less important now than at the very start, when it was the trigger for the 2009 campaign.  Maybe I thought that getting married was the next thing on the “to-do list.”   I think the campaign has brought us much closer; Tom and I are busy people but we had never worked on a project together.  Our different strengths have meant that we have had to work dynamically, and learn more about each other.  If we had just gone ahead and got married in 2009, I don’t think our relationship would be as strong as it is now; that for me is a positive outcome.  That said, I am looking forward to a big party at the end; hopefully the reception for our civil partnership.

 

---

We are yet to see the full impact of this initiative. This is just the start of what promises to be a ground-breaking move towards redefining the nature and purpose of marriage.

The words of our altruistic allies will enter forums of discussion where the LGBT community have often been ignored.

This broader discourse can only serve to encourage a shift towards a more positive public perception about the need for equality in our world.

 

For more information on the EQUAL LOVE CAMPAIGN:

www.equallove.org.uk

http://www.twitter.com/EqualLoveUK

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Equal-Love/163531170333628?v=wall&ref=t