ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT EQUAL LOVE IN THE UK

BLOG ARCHIVE FOR EQUAL LOVE STORY IN THE UK

All the news, the couples’ videos and exclusive statements. http://neverblendin.wordpress.com/category/equal-love-articles/  Written by one of the Equal Lovers, David E Watters (Biography below)

PRESS CONTACT INFORMATION

 

EMAIL: DavidWatters@nbiassociates.co.uk

 

TELEPHONE: 07800813189

SKYPE: never.blend.in

David Watters, a graduate of Napier University, Edinburgh, Trinity College of Music, London and the Institute of Education, University of London, has worked internationally within education and Educational Management for more than 20 years.

He has taught extensively within many socially and culturally diverse settings; most recently as a Head of Performing Arts within Further Education.

He is a personal and professional development associate with The Pacific Institute(www.pacificinstitute.co.uk), personal coach, freelance writer and founding member of NBI Associates.

He is a writer on social equality issues, is a key player in the Equal Love Campaign UK and author of the forthcoming book, NEVER BLEND IN which features key voices from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community and which aims to inspire and encourage those who may lack self-esteem or who question their validity.

David is currently promoting a youtube campaign“Give ‘em Hope”and is asking individuals, couples and groups to make and share videos telling about the benefits of living with personal authenticity.

He has shared a platform with Stuart Milk and Peter Tatchell and is a supporter of 17-24-30, The Trevor Project, Schools Out, The Terrence Higgins Trust, The Albert Kennedy Trust and The Harvey Milk Foundation.

His background in arts and education, combined with a solid understanding of Cognitive Behavioural Strategies, and his passion for Equality Advocacy drive every aspect of his work as a personal development facilitator, motivational speaker and writer.

ARTICLE ARCHIVE

 

LINKS

 

Invite DAVID To Speak!

 

 

 

ENDORSEMENTS

 

 

CONTACT INFORMATION

 

EMAIL: DavidWatters@nbiassociates.co.uk

 

TELEPHONE: 07800813189

EQUAL LOVE – UPDATE 5 Feb 2013

UK MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Well done to all who have supported this equality initiative. The petition has had an undoubted impact. The push for the government consultation on marriage equality began with 8 couples who formed the Equal Love Campaign, coordinated by Peter Tatchell – for more on the early stages of how we took the case to the ECHR and forced the governments hand, look at EQUAL LOVE CAMPAIGN page on FB and the website http://www.equallove.org.uk Thank you to all for taking this cause forward in such an active an effective way. There is still much to be done. The end is not quite in sight and, as far as equality for all in this situation, we must support straight couples who seek the option of Civil Partnerships.

Support Civil Marriage & Civil Partnership Equality

Why this is important

The UK’s twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships are unjust discrimination. In a democratic society, everyone should be equal before the law.We urge that both civil marriages and civil partnerships should be open to gay and heterosexual couples, with no discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The UK government is committed to legalise same-sex civil marriage (not religious marriage) by 2015 but it is refusing to legalise opposite-sex civil partnerships. It currently has a consultation process where it is seeking the views of the public.

The churches have mobilised hundreds of thousands of people to sign a petition against same-sex civil marriages in register offices (which are civil ceremonies that have nothing to do with religion and religious marriages).

We need to counter the government’s and church’s opposition to full equality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to equal treatment and protection against discrimination, including the right to marry.

Legalising same -sex marriage is the recognition that LGBT people are of equal worth, equally part of humanity and have the right to the equal validation of their love. The same principle of equality applies in the case of civil partnerships. Heterosexual couples should be able to have a civil partnership if they wish.

By signing this petition, we can let the government know that we want equality in both civil marriage and civil partnership law. Help us send a message for universal equal rights. It’s in your hands.

7,816 signers so far.

Let’s reach 20,000

http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Support_Gay_Marriage_in_the_UK/

YOUR EQUAL LOVE DIGEST – DEC 2011 – MARCH 2012 – FROM THE PETER TATCHELL FOUNDATION

 

Local churches should defy Anglican leaders over gay ban

Total ban on civil partnerships is “autocratic and homophobic”

Some Anglicans want to host civil partnerships, the church says no

London – 5 December 2011

“I urge individual priests and their congregations to defy this harsh, intolerant ruling. They should go ahead with same-sex civil partnerships, if they want to. This autocratic decision should be defied. It doesn’t deserve respect or compliance,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, coordinator of the Equal Love campaign and Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

He was commenting on a warning by the Church of England hierarchy that same-sex civil partnerships will be banned in Anglican churches – even after the new regulation comes into effect today, Monday 5 December, allowing religious organisations to conduct civil partnership ceremonies on their premises if they wish to do so.

“Many grassroots Anglicans reject this homophobic ruling by the church leadership. They support hosting same-sex civil partnerships in religious premises. The Church of England top brass is out of touch,” added.

“The Anglican leadership has said the ban will apply unless permission is granted by the General Synod. Given that permission is inconceivable for the foreseeable future, this is an effective total ban.

“There are some local parishes that want to conduct civil partnerships. They’d be happy to host the civil partnership ceremonies of their gay and lesbian congregants. That’s why senior church officials are making this ruling, to pre-empt willing local churches from going ahead with civil partnerships ceremonies.

“The Anglican leadership is acting in a way that is dictatorial and homophobic. It makes the church look mean, nasty and homophobic.

“While no one is suggesting that churches should be forced to conduct civil partnerships against their wishes, local parishes that want to host civil partnerships should be free to do so. If senior Anglicans say they can’t, the individual churches should go ahead anyway,” said Mr Tatchell.

Note:

The Equal Love campaign is working to overturn the UK’s twin legal bans against same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. It currently has a legal case in the European Court of Human Rights. See here:

http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/partnerships/equal-love-echr-submission.htm

You can also read the Equal Love critique of the government’s proposals on same-sex marriage, which fall short of equality and will maintain discrimination against both gay and straight couples:

http://petertatchellfoundation.org/partnerships/gay-marriage-plan-sustains-discrimination

Lib Dem Equality Minister opposes equality

Featherstone backs discrimination against heterosexuals & pro-gay religions

London – 8 December 2011

Peter Tatchell, Coordinator of the Equal Love campaign and Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, writes on the Liberal Democrat Voice website:

http://bit.ly/sROR3t

Lib Dems should stick to their principles and urge Lynne not to renege on equality pledge

Bravo to the Liberal Democrat party conference. Two years ago, party members voted overwhelmingly to end the twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. They committed a future Lib Dem government to scrap sexual orientation discrimination in marriage and partnership law. Well done. Thank you

Sadly, the Lib Dem Equality Minister, Lynne Featherstone, apparently with the support of the Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, is now actively backing discrimination. She plans to keep unequal laws, contrary to the Lib Dem’s election pledges.

Specifically, Lynne is vowing to retain the prohibition on heterosexual civil partnerships and on religious same-sex marriages by faith organisations that want to conduct them. This is in direct defiance of what her party members voted for: equality.

Nick Clegg has not dissented from her stance. We can only assume that he endorses it.

Lynne is lovely. I like her as a person. However, she has announced a long and unjustified delay in the government’s promised consultation on civil marriage and civil partnership; pre-empting the consultation findings by ruling out straight and religious equality.

She said at the start of this year that the consultation would begin in June. Then she postponed it until October. Now it has been put off until March next year. Why can’t the consultation start now? Despite all our requests, Lynne has failed to explain why this delay is necessary.

I am not persuaded that there needs to be any consultation at all. The ban on same-sex marriage is homophobic discrimination and should therefore be repealed immediately.

If black or Jewish people had been banned from marriage, the government would act swiftly to ensure marriage equality. There would be no long drawn out consultation period. There would be no appeasement of racists and anti-Semites. Why the double standards?

No other government legislation is being subjected to such prolonged consultation and repeated postponements.

The Scottish government has not hesitated. It’s consultation on marriage and partnership equality is already underway. Why is the UK Equality Minister dragging her feet and delaying her consultation until next spring? It doesn’t make sense.

The Westminster government has promised to legislate marriage equality before the date of the next election, due by May 2015 at the latest. However, the delayed consultation could result in the measure not completing its parliamentary progress in time. Likely resistance by the House of Lords might result in its being timed out. Is this deliberate?

Ending sexual orientation discrimination in marriage law is not only the right thing to do,

it has majority public support. There is, therefore, no reason for the government to delay in bringing forward legislation to end this legal iniquity.

Nearly two-thirds of the public support marriage equality. According to a 2009 Populous opinion poll, 61% of the public say that lesbian and gay couples should be allowed by law to get married:

http://www.populuslimited.com/the-times-the-times-gay-britain-poll-100609.html

Lynne Featherstone’s gay marriage consultation announcement looks like an attempt to head off the Equal Love – www.equallove.org.uk - legal case in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

In February, four gay couples and four heterosexual couples filed an application in the ECHR to overturn sexual orientation discrimination in civil marriage and civil partnership law.

Speaking as the appeal coordinator, I can say we are quietly confident that we will win the case – eventually (an ECHR ruling can take four years).

The current UK ban on straight couples having a civil partnership is clear discrimination. Lynne’s commitment to maintain this inequality is both surprising and shocking. It is wrong for her to exclude in advance any discussion about opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.

I stand for equality and this includes equality for straight people too. It would be wrong for the LGBT community to demand equal rights for ourselves and then ignore or accept the denial of equality to heterosexual people. In a democracy we should all be equal before the law.

There are many heterosexuals who would like a civil partnership. To deny them this option is very unfair – and it is illegal under human rights law. How can a Lib Dem Equality Minister support inequality?

The Netherlands has an equivalent to civil partnerships. Called registered partnerships, they are open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The vast majority of Dutch civil partnerships are heterosexual ones. They are hugely popular and would be equally popular in the UK, if the government allowed straight couples to have them. To deny British heterosexuals the option of a civil partnership is profoundly wrong and unjust.

This is bad enough. However, Lynne has also ruled that her consultation will not consider the option of ending the ban on religious marriages for lesbian and gay couples, even though some faith organisations – such as the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews – have requested that they should be allowed to marry same-sex partners. Lynne says no. She says the ban must stay. This is a violation of religious freedom. While no religious body should be forced to perform same-sex marriages, those that support gay marriage should not be barred by law from doing so.

I appeal to Lynne – and Nick Clegg – to rethink this ill-considered consultation timetable and its pro-discrimination parameters – to both ensure non-discrimination and to avoid an embarrassing defeat in the European Court of Human Rights.

It is outrageous that the Equality Minister wants to maintain the unequal, discriminatory laws that bar gay religious marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. Her stance is not compatible with her professed Liberal Democrat values or with the wishes of the vast majority of Lib Dem party members.

If you share my concerns, I urge you to email Lynne Featherstone via her Equality Office senior officials, Emma Reed: Emma.Reed@geo.gsi.gov.uk and Lucy Phipps: Lucy.Phipps@geo.gsi.gov.uk

Your help could ensure a much needed rethink. Thank you, Peter Tatchell

To sign the Equal Love petition go to: www.equallove.org.uk For more information about Peter Tatchell’s human rights campaigns and to make a donation: www.petertatchell.net

Note: This article was published this week on the Liberal Democrat Voice website:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-independent-view-peter-tatchell-writes-lib-dems-should-stick-to-their-principles-and-urge-lynne-not-to-renege-on-equality-pledge-25888.html

Equal love rights for gay and straight

First anniversary of Equal Love appeal to European Court

Cross-party support for marriage & partnership equality is growing

No more stalling – both gay & straight couples deserve equality now

By Peter Tatchell, Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation

The Guardian – Comment is Free – London – 2 February 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/gay-staight-couples-deserve-equality-now

One year ago today, four gay couples and four heterosexual couples, sponsored by the Equal Love – www.equallove.org.uk - campaign, filed a historic joint appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Their appeal argues that Britain’s twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships amount to illegal discrimination, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The bans violate Articles 8, 12 and 14 – respectively the right to privacy and family life, the right to marry and the right to non-discrimination.

The 31-page application, drafted by Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College London, presents a compelling case. Since there are no significant differences in the rights and responsibilities involved in civil marriages and civil partnerships, there can be no justification for the segregation of gay and straight couples into two mutually exclusive legal systems. It is discrimination based on sexual orientation. For this reason, we are hopeful that when the ECHR eventually delivers a judgement, probably in 2014, it will be in favour of equality.

Soon after the ECHR appeal was filed, the government announced its intention to consult on the issue of same-sex marriage. Mere coincidence? Perhaps. But the government was surely mindful that it will be required to explain to the ECHR its rationale for excluding gay couples from civil marriages and heterosexual couples from civil partnerships. It can now report to the ECHR that it is consulting. This consultation is, however, flawed. It is limited to same-sex marriage.

David Cameron mistakenly calculated that we’ll be satisfied with marriage equality. We won’t. So long as heterosexual couples remain banned from civil partnerships, which is the Prime Minister’s apparent intention, the Equal Love campaign will continue. We believe in straight equality just as passionately as we care about equal rights for lesbians and gay men.

In our estimation, there is a sizeable minority of heterosexual couples who would prefer a civil partnership. They dislike the patriarchal history and language of marriage; viewing civil partnerships as a more modern, egalitarian alternative. In the Netherlands, where civil partnerships are open to both gay and heterosexual couples, two-thirds of civil partners are straight men and women. We could expect a similar take-up by heterosexual couples in Britain, if civil partnerships were open to everyone.

Cameron also miscalculated by ruling out any legalisation of religious same-sex marriages, even by faith organisations, such as the Quakers and Unitarians, who want to conduct them. This is an attack on religious freedom, as well as perpetrating homophobic discrimination. Moreover, given that the government has recently authorised religious same-sex civil partnerships, a continued blanket ban on religious same-sex marriages looks inconsistent and petty.

For all these reasons, the Equal Love campaign is building momentum. The right of gay couples to marry is backed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson and a growing number of Tory MPs, including Chloe Smith, Mike Weatherley and Margot James.

In 2010, the Green Party national conference was the first to vote to end the twin bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. It was followed by the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru conferences. Oddly, the Labour conference has declined to vote on the issue; although the GMB, Unison and all 13 Labour MEPs want the twin bans overturned.

The SNP government in Scotland is leading the way, with its public consultation period already concluded; while David Cameron inexplicably postponed the start of his consultation from last summer to next month.

Some people argue: what’s there to consult about? Homophobic discrimination is wrong and should therefore be abolished pronto. Would the government have a long drawn out consultation about repealing racist laws? I doubt it. It would immediately abolish them on the grounds that they were incompatible with a democratic society. Why should homophobic bans be treated any differently?

The public is on our side. A Populus poll in 2009 found that 61% of the public believe: “Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.” Only 33% disagreed. It’s likely that there is similar support for heterosexual civil partnerships.

What’s the government waiting for? The time for equality is now.  Peter Tatchell is the coordinator of the Equal Love campaign

Links:

Appeal to the European Court of Human Rights    http://www.petertatchell.net/campaigns/Equal%20Love/Equal_Love_ECHR_Application_2_Feb.pdf

European Convention on Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/CONVENTION_ENG_WEB.pdf

Populus poll http://www.populus.co.uk/uploads/download_pdf-100609-The-Times-The-Times-Gay-Britain-Poll.pdf

Local clergy urged: Defy Anglican civil partnership ban

Banning church civil partnerships is “homophobic and autocratic”

Opposition and delay to women bishops reveals “ugly sexism”

London – 6 February 2012

“Individual priests and their congregations should defy the Church of England’s ban on same-sex civil partnerships in church premises. The ban is homophobic and autocratic. The church hierarchy is behaving like the politbureau of the old Soviet-era Communist Party; imposing its central diktat on local parishes and demanding unquestioning obedience. The ban doesn’t deserve respect or compliance. It should be ignored,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, coordinator of the Equal Love campaign and Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

Speaking on the opening day of the General Synod, he also deplored the endless delays in ordaining women bishops which, he said, “reveals an ugly sexism at the heart of the Anglican Communion.”

“The idea that women lack the moral and spiritual capacity to be bishops is an insult to all of female humanity. Many women priests have given exemplary ministry. There is no reason why they cannot offer religious leadership as bishops,” added Mr Tatchell.

“Many grassroots Anglicans support hosting same-sex civil partnerships in religious premises. The Church of England top brass is bigoted and out of touch. They are acting in a way that makes the church look mean, nasty and homophobic.

“While no one is suggesting that churches should be forced to conduct same-sex civil partnerships against their wishes, local parishes that want to host them should be free to do so. If the Anglican hierarchy says they can’t, individual churches should go ahead anyway,” said Mr Tatchell.

Note: The Equal Love campaign is working to overturn the UK’s twin legal bans against same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. It currently has a legal case in the European Court of Human Rights. See here: http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/partnerships/equal-love-echr-submission.htm

You can also read the Equal Love critique of the government’s proposals on same-sex marriage, which fall short of equality and will maintain discrimination against both gay and straight couples: http://petertatchellfoundation.org/partnerships/gay-marriage-plan-sustains-discrimination

Valentine’s wish: Equal love rights for gay & straight

First anniversary of Equal Love appeal to European Court of Human Rights

No more stalling – both gay & straight couples deserve love equality

London, UK – 14 February 2012

“Our Valentine’s Day wish is for ‘Equal Love’. We seek love equality. All couples who love each other should be treated equally and without discrimination. This means an end to the twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships,” said Peter Tatchell, coordinator of the Equal Love campaign and Director of the human rights organisation, the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

“Every couple should have the option of a civil marriage or a civil partnership, as they wish. In a democratic society, we should all be equal before the law,” he added.

“One year ago this month, four gay couples and four heterosexual couples, sponsored by the Equal Love campaign, filed a historic joint appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).  See here: http://www.petertatchell.net/campaigns/Equal%20Love/Equal_Love_ECHR_Application_2_Feb.pdf

“Their appeal argues that Britain’s twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships amount to illegal discrimination, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The bans violate Articles 8, 12 and 14 – respectively the right to privacy and family life, the right to marry and the right to non-discrimination.

“The 31-page application, drafted by Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College London, presents a compelling case. Since there are no significant differences in the rights and responsibilities involved in civil marriages and civil partnerships, there can be no justification for the segregation of gay and straight couples into two mutually exclusive legal systems. It is discrimination based on sexual orientation. For this reason, we are hopeful that when the ECHR eventually delivers a judgement, probably in 2014, it will be in favour of equality.

“The public is on our side. A Populus poll in 2009 found that 61% of the public believe: “Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.” Only 33% disagreed. A similar level of support for heterosexual civil partnerships is very likely. See here: http://www.populus.co.uk/uploads/download_pdf-100609-The-Times-The-Times-Gay-Britain-Poll.pdf

“Soon after the ECHR appeal was filed in February 2011, the government announced its intention to consult on the issue of same-sex marriage. Mere coincidence? Perhaps. But the government was surely mindful that it will be required to explain to the ECHR its rationale for excluding gay couples from civil marriages and heterosexual couples from civil partnerships. It can now report to the ECHR that it is consulting. This consultation is, however, flawed. It is limited to same-sex marriage.

“David Cameron mistakenly calculated that we’ll be satisfied with civil marriage equality. We won’t. So long as heterosexual couples remain banned from civil partnerships, which is the Prime Minister’s apparent intention, the Equal Love campaign will continue. We believe in straight equality just as passionately as we care about equal rights for lesbians and gay men.

“In our estimation, there is a sizeable minority of heterosexual couples who would prefer a civil partnership. They dislike the patriarchal history and language of marriage; viewing civil partnerships as a more modern, egalitarian alternative. In the Netherlands, where civil partnerships are open to both gay and heterosexual couples, two-thirds of civil partners are straight men and women. We would expect a similar take-up by heterosexual couples in Britain, if civil partnerships were open to everyone.

“David Cameron miscalculated by ruling out any legalisation of religious same-sex marriages, even by faith organisations – such as the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews – who want to conduct them. This is an attack on religious freedom, as well as perpetrating homophobic discrimination. Moreover, given that the government has recently authorised religious same-sex civil partnerships, a continued blanket ban on religious same-sex marriages looks inconsistent and petty.

“Some people argue: what’s there to consult about? In our view, homophobic discrimination is wrong and should therefore be abolished without delay. Would the government have a long drawn out consultation about repealing racist laws? I doubt it. It would immediately abolish them on the grounds that they were incompatible with a democratic society. Why should homophobic bans be treated any differently? ” said Mr Tatchell.

See the Equal Love campaign website here: www.equallove.org.uk

Peter Tatchell outside Buckingham Palace - photographed by David E Watters

‘Coalition for Marriage’ bids to block gay marriage

Campaign backs discrimination, opposes equality

Opposition to marriage equality is “intolerant and out of touch”

London, UK – 20 February 2012

“The Coalition for Marriage is intolerant and out of touch. It’s support  for the ban on gay marriage is homophobic and discrimination,” said  Peter Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation and coordinator of the Equal Love campaign, which seeks the  right of gay couples to have a civil marriage and heterosexual couples  to have a civil partnership: http://equallove.org.uk/

“Coalition members are entitled to believe that same-sex marriages are wrong, but they are not entitled to demand that their opposition to such marriages should be imposed on the rest of society and enforced by law.”

Mr Tatchell was commenting on today’s London launch of the Coalition for Marriage, which is being hosted by Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Colin Hart, Director of the right-wing Christian Institute.

“The Coalition for Marriage opposes same-sex marriage; claiming that it wants to defend ‘traditional marriage’ and halt attempts to ‘redefine’ it.

“The coalition is out of touch with public opinion. Most British people now support marriage equality,” added Mr Tatchell.

“A Populus poll in 2009 found that 61% of the public believe: ‘Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.’ Only 33% disagreed. See here:

http://www.populus.co.uk/uploads/download_pdf-100609-The-Times-The-Times-Gay-Britain-Poll.pdf

“The ban on same-sex marriage is discrimination. It violates the democratic principle that everyone should be equal before the law.

“It was recently claimed that 100 Conservative MPs are bidding to veto the government’s commitment to legalise same-sex marriage before the next election. If true, this is evidence that substantial sections of the Tory party still back homophobic discrimination.

“The Equal Love campaign is building political momentum. The right of gay couples to marry is backed by David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Boris Johnson and a growing number of Tory MPs, including Chloe Smith, Mike Weatherley and Margot James.

“In 2010, the Green Party national conference was the first to vote to end the twin bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships. It was followed by the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru conferences. Oddly, the Labour conference has declined to vote on the issue; although the GMB, Unison and all 13 Labour MEPs want an end to sexual orientation discrimination in both marriage and partnership law.

“The SNP government in Scotland is leading the way, with its public consultation on marriage equality already concluded; while David Cameron has twice postponed the start of his consultation, from last summer to next month.

“One year ago this month, four gay couples and four heterosexual couples, sponsored by the Equal Love campaign, filed a historic joint appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). See here:

http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/sites/files/Equal-Love-Application.pdf

“Their appeal argues that Britain’s twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships amount to illegal discrimination, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The bans violate Articles 8, 12 and 14 – respectively the right to privacy and family life, the right to marry and the right to non-discrimination,” said Mr Tatchell.

More information:

Peter Tatchell, coordinator of the Equal Love campaign and Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation

0207 403 1790

Email: peter@PeterTatchellFoundation.org

Website: www.PeterTatchellFoundation.org

How the Tories were won to marriage equality – by Peter Tatchell

London, UK – 13 October 2011

Peter Tatchell, coordinator of the Equal Love UK campaign, writes:

For many months, the Equal Love campaign has been lobbying the Conservative party and government, and Tory MPs and activists, urging them to support the legalisation of same-sex marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships.

We’ve recently won the government’s commitment to marriage equality, but not to heterosexual civil partnerships. Never mind. We’ll keep fighting for the rights of straight couples until they get equality too.

Below is an article I wrote for Progressive Conscience, a liberal Conservative journal, which was published shortly after the government announced its commitment to marriage equality but before David Cameron’s speech to the recent Conservative party conference.

As you can see, to win over Conservatives we pitched our arguments to appeal to their Conservative values.

We were delighted that David Cameron backed marriage equality in his keynote party conference address.

Indeed, we were surprised, and flattered, that the Prime Minister’s speech echoed very closely the wording of our Equal Love briefings: Gay marriage is a Conservative value.

We said:

“Conservatives rightly encourage and approve loving, stable relationships because enduring care and commitment are good for individuals, families and for the well-being of society as a whole. If marriage is a Conservative value, then same-sex marriage is consistent with this value. Far from undermining marriage, gay marriage strengthens it. Conservatives believe in marriage. They should therefore support same-sex marriage precisely because they are Conservatives.”

Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone is who supporting the Equal Love campaign in the UK, especially the eight couples who have taken their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Together, with your help, we will win. Marriage equality is an unstoppable global trend.

Best wishes, Peter Tatchell, Coordinator of the Equal Love UK campaign

Two wrongs don’t make a right
By Peter Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation

The Progressive Conscience – London, UK – Autumn 2011
http://www.brightblueonline.com/ProgressiveConscience/brightbluesept11.pdf

Marriage is a Conservative value. So why did David Cameron, George Osborne and Theresa May take so long to support the right of lesbian and gay couples to get married?

The government has announced that it will consult on legalising same-sex marriage. But not until March 2012. Why the long delay? The consultation was supposed to start last June.

Moreover, the terms of reference explicitly exclude legalising opposite-sex civil partnerships and same-sex religious marriages by faith organisations that wish to conduct them.

It is odd that the Prime Minister wants to maintain the discriminatory laws that prohibit gay couples from having a religious marriage and heterosexual couples from having a civil partnership. Surely everyone should have a free and equal choice?

While religious bodies should not be forced to marry same-sex couples, those that want to marry gay partners – such as the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism – should be permitted by law to do so.

Many heterosexual couples would like to have a civil partnership, rather than a marriage. Why is David Cameron dictating that they can’t?

The Prime Minister’s proclaimed liberal Conservatism rings hollow when he opposes straight civil partnerships. It’s inconsistent for him to trumpet the western values of liberty and equality, while simultaneously refusing to endorse equality for heterosexual people. Can’t he see the contradiction?

Conservatives rightly encourage and approve loving, stable relationships because enduring care and commitment are good for individuals, families and for the well-being of society as a whole.

Contrary to what the critics say, gay marriage doesn’t undermine marriage, it strengthens it. At a time when large numbers of heterosexuals are cohabitating and not getting married, isn’t it a good thing that many same-sex couples still believe in marriage and want to be part of it?

The elimination of discrimination in marriage law is consistent with modern, liberal Conservatism, and with the Prime Minister’s personal pledge to eradicate homophobia and ensure gay equality.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, understands this. That’s why he wants the law changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. So do Tory MPs Margot James, Mike Weatherley and Chloe Smith. But, sadly, I am not aware of any other Conservative MPs who support marriage equality.

Under the current law, not only are gay couples banned from having a civil marriage in a register office, heterosexuals are banned from having a civil partnership. Two wrongs don’t make a right. In a democratic society, we should all be equal before the law. This means that both civil marriages and civil partnerships should be open to all couples, without discrimination.

Nearly two-thirds of the British people back marriage equality. In June 2009, a Populus opinion poll -  http://tiny.cc/ipsqv - found that 61% of the public agree: “Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships.” Only 33% disagreed. We can probably safely assume that a similar poll today would reveal even greater support for gay civil marriages – and for the right of heterosexuals to have a civil partnership.

To challenge the current legal discrimination, eight British couples – four gay and four heterosexual – have filed a joint legal application to the European Court of Human Rights. They are seeking to overturn the twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships.

The eight couples are part of the Equal Love campaign - www.equallove.org.uk - which seeks to open up both civil marriages and civil partnerships to all couples, without discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Prohibiting black people from getting married would provoke uproar and accusations of racism. The prohibition on gay civil marriages should provoke similar outrage, as should the equally reprehensible exclusion of heterosexual couples from civil partnerships.

The bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships create a system of legal segregation, with one law for gay couples and another law for heterosexual partners. Segregation is incompatible with caring, compassionate Conservatism.

The legal advisor to the eight couples and author of their legal application is Professor Robert Wintemute of the School of Law at Kings College London. Outlining the legal basis of the Equal Love challenge, he said:

“Banning same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnerships violates Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It’s discriminatory and obnoxious, like having separate drinking fountains or beaches for different racial groups. The only function of the twin bans is to mark lesbian and gay people as socially and legally inferior to heterosexual people.”  

Since there is no substantive difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems.

One of the same-sex plaintiffs, Matthew Toresen, explained:

“Scott and I have been together for over 18 years. Our love for each other is as valid as anybody else’s. We want to get married. It seems nonsensical to me that my two brothers are married to the women they love but that Scott and I are denied this social legitimacy and celebration. If the state is going to offer options about how relationships are recognised, these options must be available to all,” he said.

His partner Scott Maloney added:

“Language does matter. Marriage is universally understood as a meaningful commitment. As a gay man, I am expected to pay taxes, obey the laws and, if necessary, defend this country like everybody else. In return, I expect the state to treat me equally,” he said.

One of the opposite-sex plaintiffs, Stephanie Munro said:

“The institution of marriage has never appealed to me and it certainly doesn’t reflect my relationship with Andrew. We’re equal partners and we want to make an official, lifetime commitment to each other. But we don’t want to participate in a marriage system that has patriarchal foundations and rejects same-sex couples. We’d prefer a civil partnership,” she said.

The Greens and Liberal Democrats support reform, as does Labour leader Ed Miliband. The SNP and Plaid Cymru are expected to soon embrace equality. With this emerging cross-party consensus, and the backing of nearly two-thirds of the public, legislating equality would prompt little resistance and generate much goodwill for the Conservatives.

David Cameron should do the right thing by opening up civil marriages and civil partnerships to everyone, without discrimination.

It’s a win-win no-brainer for the Conservative Party. It would cost almost nothing, promote marriage, win the respect of gay and liberal heterosexual voters, and burnish the government’s progressive credentials at a time when it faces widespread criticism over public spending cuts.

Over to you, David.

*    For more information about the Equal Love campaign and to sign the petition:www.equallove.org.uk (sorry, only UK residents can sign).

http://equallove.org.uk/

*    Peter Tatchell’s campaign website: www.petertatchell.net

 

PETER TATCHELL FOUNDATION (PTF)

Web: http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org
PTHRF Ltd, limited company number 07805736

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 to find out how to make a donation:
http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/donate.html

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

Send to: Peter Tatchell Foundation, Suite 5, Disney Place House, 14 Marshalsea Rd, London, SE1 1HL

For information about the PTF: http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org

For information about Peter Tatchell’s many other present and past campaigns:http://www.petertatchell.net

ARTICLE ARCHIVE – LINKS TO WRITING BY DAVID E. WATTERS

http://www.ambiente.us/05509JohnAmaechi.html

http://www.ambiente.us/08009ChrisMason.html

http://www.ambiente.us/06010CrossBurning.html

http://www.ambiente.us/110010EqualLove.html

http://www.ambiente.us/021511EqualLove.html

http://www.ambiente.us/010011EqualLove.html

http://www.ambiente.us/010011Trevor.html

http://www.ambiente.us/041511DavidWatters.html

http://www.ambiente.us/041511Equality.html

http://www.polarimagazine.com/?p=794

http://www.polarimagazine.com/?p=5404

http://www.manchestermouth.co.uk/index.php?action=content&content_id=101 

http://10thousandcouples.com/issue/december-2010/article/launch-of-equal-love-campaign-uk

http://10thousandcouples.com/issue/january-2011/article/expanding-equal-love-in-2011-uk-style

http://10thousandcouples.com/issue/march-2011/article/tom-freeman-and-katherine-doyle-altruistic-allies-for-marriage-equality

http://10thousandcouples.com/issue/december-2010/article/understanding-the-application-to-the-european-court-of-human-rights

http://www.whof.net/guestwritermay.htm

http://www.polarimagazine.com/?p=5628

http://10thousandcouples.com/issue/may-2011/article/two-decades-of-love-scott-maloney-and-matthew-toresen-from-the-uks-equal-love-campaign

http://www.ambiente.us/051511DianaMera.html

BLOGS: 

WORDPRESS: http://neverblendin.wordpress.com/     
MILK.COM: http://harvey.milk.com/forum/topics/prop-8-equality-and-other 

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

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

 

(GROUND) BREAKING NEWS – EQUAL LOVE UK

Researched and Written by David Equality Watters

Photographs: Chris Houston

Equal Love case filed to European Court

 

Legal bid for gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships

A copy of the submission can be downloaded (in PDF format) here: equalloveapplicationtoechr

 

We bring you news that the UK Equal Love Campaign, coordinated by human rights activist Peter Tatchell, has progressed significantly in the last few days with the historic filing of a legal application to the European Court of Human Rights.

 

The ECHR application was announced on 2 February 2011 at an Equal Love briefing in Committee Room 17 of the entirely apt and austere House of Commons, London.

 

The legal application was then simultaneously posted and faxed to the European Court in Strasbourg.

 

Also in attendance were several of the sixteen plaintiffs, including the lead same-sex couple, Rev Sharon Ferguson and her partner Franka Strietzel, and the lead heterosexual couple, Tom Freeman and his partner Katherine Doyle.

Hosting the briefing, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said:

 

“Some fairly well known singer-songwriters once said that ‘all you need is love’. But sadly it’s not as simple as that if you’re an opposite-sex couple wanting a civil partnership, or a same- sex couple wanting a civil marriage. This is a campaign about equal love – it is not about asking for special treatment for gay couples or straight couples. It is about everyone enjoying the same rights regardless of their sexuality.”

THE STORY SO FAR

 

“Since November, four same-sex couples were refused marriage licenses at register offices in Greenwich, Northampton and Petersfield. Four heterosexual couples were also turned away when they applied for civil partnerships in Islington, Camden, Bristol and Aldershot. All eight couples received letters of refusal from their register offices, which we have used as the evidential basis to challenge in the European Court of Human Rights the UK’s exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage and its prohibition of straight civil partnerships. Since there is no substantive difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems,” explains Mr Tatchell.

There is strength in that the Equal Love case highlights the two separate but equal institutions of civil marriage and civil partnership as discriminatory, divisive and exclusionary in that access to each institution is dependent upon the sexuality of the couple.

 

We would do well to remember that there is not a Gay way …there is only one way towards social equality.

 

ALTRUISTIC ALLIES

 

One of the opposite-sex plaintiffs who, with her partner Tom Freeman is seeking the option to enter a civil partnership, Katherine Doyle, explains that, “We have been together for nearly five years and would like to formalise our relationship. Because we feel alienated from the patriarchal traditions of marriage, we would prefer to have a civil partnership. As a mixed-sex couple, we are banned by law from doing so. By filing an application for civil partnership, we are seeking to challenge this discriminatory law. Our decision is also motivated by the fact that we object to the way same-sex couples are prohibited from getting married”.

At the official press launch of the campaign, last December, Tom and Katherine summarized their views on marriage inequality and their own personal reasons, as a couple, for representing the Equal Love Campaign.

We have been amazed by how many people have reacted so strongly to the Equal Love campaign – both against it and in favour.  This shows that the ways in which people choose or have the right to choose to give legitimacy to their relationships is acknowledged as being central to their identities.

I want to explain my and Tom’s take on the straight half of the Equal Love campaign in terms of equality, fulfilment and choice.

Our original idea, back in the summer of 2009, to try to get a civil partnership started off as a plan to highlight the inequalities faced by couples such as Sharon and Franka and the other gay couples seeking Equal Love, but as we gradually realised the positive value of straight civil partnerships, moved towards a concern for fulfilment and choice for all – it moved from the negative to the positive.

We are among a great many couples who choose not to marry because they object on grounds to do with feminism, discomfort with heritage and terminology or simply because it doesn’t feel right.  Opening up Civil Partnerships to heterosexual couples will bring the legal benefits previously only attainable through marriage to these couples.   The government always seems keen on maximising the numbers of people who want to have their relationships recognised in law by contracting a legal partnership with a fellow citizen.  Here is a way of enabling a great many more to do this – those who want to do just this and nothing more, to move away from the associations marriage carries with it.  The right to choose will thus bring an increase in full participation in society, and work to minimise the numbers of people who feel excluded.

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.

The introduction of civil partnerships for gay couples only suggested that there is something fundamental in the nature of sexuality which dictates that long-term committed relationships between same-sex and opposite-sex couples are fundamentally different and must be recognised as such in law.

Civil partnerships thus began as part of an effort to preserve separateness, and it was only in this old, outdated spirit that straight people were excluded from them.  In the context of the worldwide trend towards gay and straight couples enjoying the same rights through the same processes, it is becoming clearer that the only important thing about marriage or partnership, in modern times, is love between two people.  But the strongest riposte to this old prejudice is the inclusive one – to embrace the new options that have been thrown up by the process of change and, since they are already here, make the most of them by incorporating them into a new framework offering maximum choice.   Why not increase people’s levels of choice when the groundwork has already been done?  There is no reason why we shouldn’t, now, in the era of more complete equality we are moving in to.  We have now an opportunity to turn a negative into a positive, and retrieve something of real value from an old, flawed situation.  This is an historic opportunity, and it is too good to miss.

So while it is obvious that marriage equality is now on the way – the fight for gay equality is very far from over, but it is a one-way railway of increasing toleration, and decreasing homophobia – another fight must not be forgotten: one for increased choice for all, whether gay or straight.

To us, the applicants, and many other heterosexual couples, getting married would be a compromise.  This is the most personal of life experiences and, it follows, if there is one area where compromise should not be accepted, this is surely it.

So don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater – don’t let it become just a gay issue.  Most people, at some point in their lives, will fall in love and want recognition for their relationship.  This is basic to the modern human condition – it is not a gay issue or a straight issue but a human issue.

The Equal Love campaign is for us about working for complete equality, the utmost fulfilment, and maximum choice – for all.

 

TOM AND KATHERINE WITH THE ECHR DOCUMENT

 

 

 

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.

 

As a Human Rights, rather than “just” a Gay Rights, issue the Equal Love campaign has great weight behind it.

 

There is a growing level of public support both nationally and internationally; conduct a web search and you will find numerous references to Equal Love UK in conventional mainstream media and on a wide variety of privately held websites and blogs – from Manchester to Malawi.

 

The words of our altruistic allies will enter forums of discussion where the LGBT community have been often ignored and this broader discourse can only serve to enhance a shift towards more positive public perceptions about the need for equality in our world.

 

http://equallove.org.uk/

 

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=ts

David E. Watters is planning a second book and is looking for couples to contribute. Much like the commendable mission of this incredible Campaign, the book will explore the diversity of romantic relationships. If you would like to take part in this project please contact David E Watters: DavidWatters@nbiassociates.co.uk

You can now also add David on Skype: never.blend.in

www.nbiassociates.co.uk

 

Equal Love case filed to European Court

European Court of Human Rights application filed today – London 2 February 2011″Eight British couples – four gay and four straight – today filed a joint application to the European Court of Human Rights, in a bid to overturn the UK’s twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships,” announced human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) human rights group OutRage!. “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,” he said.

PHOTO CREDITS: Chris Houston

Legal bid for gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships

Eight couples submitted joint legal appeal on 2 February

 

Professor Robert Wintemute outlines the legal case sent to Europe

 

London – 2 February 2010

 

“Eight British couples – for gay and four heterosexual – filed a joint legal application to the European Court of Human Rights today, Wednesday, 2 February, seeking to overturn the twin bans on gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships,” announced human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of the LGBT human rights group OutRage! and coordinator of the Equal Love campaign.

 

The Equal Love campaign – www.equalove.org.uk – seeks to end sexual orientation discrimination in both civil marriage and civil partnership law. It is supported by the Peter Tatchell Human Rights Fund.

 

“Outlawing black or Jewish people from getting married would provoke uproar. The prohibition on gay marriages should provoke similar outrage. Arbitrarily excluding heterosexual couples from civil partnerships is equally reprehensible,” added Mr Tatchell.

 

“The bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships are a form of sexual apartheid – one law for gay couples and another law for heterosexual partners. Two wrongs don’t make a right. In a democratic society, we should all be equal before the law,” he said.

 

The legal application was simultaneously posted and faxed today to the European Court in Strasbourg. Peter Tatchell and Professor Robert Wintemute posted the application in the letter box at the corner of Abingdon Street and Great College Street, SW1, diagonally opposite the House of Commons.

 

The filing of the legal application to the European Court of Human Rights was announced this morning at an Equal Love briefing in Committee Room 17 of the House of Commons.

 

Photos of the posting and the House of Commons briefing are available here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/outrage/sets/72157625835380333/

These photos are free to use, without charge, but please credit Chris Houston

 

This morning’s House of Commons briefing was chaired by Peter Tatchell and hosted by Green MP Caroline Lucas. She said:

 

“Some fairly well known singer-songwriters once said that ‘all you need is love’. But sadly it’s not as simple as that if you’re an opposite-sex couple wanting a civil partnership, or a same- sex couple wanting a civil marriage. This is a campaign about equal love – it is not about asking for special treatment for gay couples or straight couples. It is about everyone enjoying the same rights regardless of their sexuality.”

 

The legal advisor to the eight couples and author of the legal application, Professor Robert Wintemute of the School of Law at Kings College London, outlined the legal basis of the Equal Love challenge to the current proscriptions:

 

“Our Equal Love campaign wants both marriages and civil partnerships opened up to all couples, different-sex and same-sex. Let everyone have a free and equal choice,” said Professor Wintemute.

 

“Banning same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnerships violates Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

“It’s discriminatory and obnoxious, 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 socially and legally inferior to heterosexual people.

 

“I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UK’s system of segregating couples into two ‘separate but equal’ legal institutions violates the European Convention.  I predict that same-sex couples will be granted access to marriage in the UK and that this will be because the UK Government will eventually accept that it cannot defend the current discriminatory system,” he said.

 

See Prof Wintemute’s detailed legal arguments below

 

Also in attendance were several of the sixteen plaintiffs, including the lead same-sex couple, Rev Sharon Ferguson and her partner Franka Strietzel, and the lead heterosexual couple, Tom Freeman and his partner Katherine Doyle. Former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who is President of the Lib Dem LGBT group, also spoke. He said:

 

“This is a very important legal challenge for both gay and heterosexual couples. I am glad it is happening and I am proud to endorse it. Sexual orientation discrimination must be challenged and it will be overturned,” said Mr Harris.

 

“Since November, four same-sex couples were refused marriage licenses at register offices in Greenwich, Northampton and Petersfield. Four heterosexual couples were also turned away when they applied for civil partnerships in Islington, Camden, Bristol and Aldershot,” added Mr Tatchell.

 

“All eight couples received letters of refusal from their register offices, which we have used as the evidential basis to challenge in the European Court of Human Rights the UK’s  exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage and its prohibition of straight civil partnerships. Since there is no substantive difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems,” said Mr Tatchell.

One of the same-sex plaintiffs, Rev Sharon Ferguson, is an ordained minister of religion and chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. She said:

 

“Franka and I have been together for over two years and we recently started talking about having our commitment to each other recognised.

 

“The simple fact is that no matter how good civil partnerships are with regard to the legal protections and rights they  provide, they are still a separate system that was put together to stop gay and lesbian people from being able to marry.

 

“Like most people in this world, we were brought up to believe that one day we’d fall in love and get married. This is what we want to do and our sexual orientation should not be an impediment,” she said.

 

One of the opposite-sex plaintiffs, Katherine Doyle, added:

 

“We have been together for nearly five years and would like to formalise our relationship. Because we feel alienated from the patriarchal traditions of marriage, we would prefer to have a civil partnership. As a mixed-sex couple, we are banned by law from doing so. By filing an application for civil partnership, we are seeking to challenge this discriminatory law.

 

“Our decision is also motivated by the fact that we object to the way same-sex couples are prohibited from getting married. If we got married we would be colluding with the segregation that exists in matrimonial law between gay civil partnerships and straight civil

marriages. We don’t want to take advantage of civil marriage when it is an option that is denied to our lesbian and gay friends,” she said.

See below a summary of countries around the world that have legislated same-sex civil marriage and civil unions.

More information:

 

Professor Robert Wintemute – 07405 027 278 or 0207 848 2356 (office)

 

Peter Tatchell – 020 7403 1790

 

Rev Sharon Ferguson – 079 44 65 78 41

 

Katherine Doyle – 07745 122 866

 

www.equallove.org.uk

 

http://www.twitter.com/EqualLoveUK

 

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

Professor Robert Wintemute explains the legal basis of the application to the European Court of Human Rights:

1. Why and how we are able to take the Equal Love legal case direct to the European Court of Human Rights, without first exhausting the UK courts

“We have decided to take our case directly to the European Court of Human Rights for two reasons,” said Professor Robert Wintemute.

 

“First, anyone challenging discriminatory legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998 has to worry that losing could mean being ordered to pay the UK Government’s legal costs. This happened in 2006 to a lesbian couple, Susan Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, when they tried to have their lawful Canadian marriage recognised as a marriage in the UK. Our government would only recognise it as a civil partnership. Their case was rejected by a High Court judge, who ordered them to pay the UK Government £25,000 in legal costs. They could not afford to appeal the decision. In contrast, individuals who lose in the European Court of Human Rights do not have to pay the UK Government’s legal costs. The eight couples bringing this joint legal action are not well off and are not in a position to take the risk of a potentially huge legal bill.

 

“Second, even if we were to win in a UK court, the Human Rights Act 1998 only allows a UK court to make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, if the court deems legislation to be discriminatory. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states that the parties to a marriage must be male and female. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 stipulates that the parties to a civil partnership must be of the same sex. A ‘declaration of incompatibility’ is not legally binding, so the UK Government is free to ignore it. Even if the declaration is made by the UK Supreme Court, the UK Government is able to say: ‘We’ll wait to hear what the European Court of Human Rights has to say.’ This limit on the powers of UK courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 is a defect in the UK’s legal protection of human rights.  Because of this defect, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed in 2008 that a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ is not an effective remedy, and does not have to be exhausted before making an application to the Court against the UK Government.”

 

2. The key points and arguments of the Equal Love legal case

 

“Our case is that the combination of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 creates a system that segregates couples into two separate legal institutions, with different names but identical rights and responsibilities. The segregation of couples is based on their sexual orientations: same-sex couples are excluded from marriage, and different-sex couples are excluded from civil partnership. Under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, all differences in treatment affecting other Convention rights -  in this case the rights to marry in Article 12 and to respect for family life in Article 8 – must have an ‘objective and reasonable justification’.  The European Court of Human Rights has said that differences in treatment based on sexual orientation ‘require particularly serious reasons by way of justification’, like differences in treatment based on race, religion or sex.  The only apparent reason for maintaining the system of segregation is to use the law to mark same-sex couples as socially and legally inferior, and different-sex couples as socially and legally superior. Same-sex couples are excluded from marriage, which is the universal system for legally recognising a loving, committed, sexual relationship between two adults. This legal segregation is similar to having separate beaches and drinking fountains for white and black people, as existed in South Africa under apartheid.  It is comparable to having a system of marriage for Christians and civil partnership for non-Christians.”

 

3. Why previous ECHR rulings against same-sex marriage might not apply in our case

 

“On 24 June 2010, the European Court of Human Rights issued its first judgment in a case in which a same-sex couple was seeking the right to marry. The Court found no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of two men, Horst Schalk and Johan Kopf, who were seeking the right to marry in Austria. Although the Court ruled that Article 12 of the Convention did not yet impose an obligation on European governments to allow same-sex couples to marry, the Court changed its interpretation of Article 12, saying that it ‘would no longer consider that the right to marry enshrined in Article 12 must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex’. When more Council of Europe countries than the current 7 (out of 47) allow same-sex couples to marry, the Court will be willing to consider ordering all of them to do so. The number European countries that allow same-sex marriage increased from three in 2005 to seven in 2010, and could double again while this case is pending. Same-sex marriage bills are currently being considered by the parliaments in Luxembourg and Slovenia, and a bill is expected soon in Finland. With a change of government, Denmark and France may follow suit.

 

“In our case, we are not asking the Court to order Italy, Poland, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and 35 other Council of Europe member states to allow same-sex couples to marry. Some countries in continental Europe, like Austria, do not want to allow same-sex couples to marry, because they are not ready to allow them to adopt children jointly, or to grant lesbian couples access to donor insemination. But this is not the situation in the UK. In 2002, same-sex couples in England and Wales were granted the right to adopt children jointly. In 2004, they won the right to register a civil partnership and acquire all of the rights of married different-sex couples, except in relation to assisted reproduction. In 2008, they achieved full equality in relation to assisted reproduction, including donor insemination.  We are asking the Court to require the UK Government to explain why, after taking these politically difficult decisions voluntarily, and having gone so far to ensure equality between marriage and civil partnerships, the UK should be allowed to withhold access to marriage from same-sex couples, and access to civil partnership from different-sex couples. Given that UK marriages and civil partnerships confer identical rights and responsibilities, the UK government will have to justify to the European Court its maintenance of two different institutions that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

 

“We will draw on the EU Court of Justice’s requirement of consistency, set out in its Maruko judgment in 2008. The EU Court ruled that it was up to Germany to decide whether or not to have a registered partnership law for same-sex couples, and how many rights to grant registered same-sex partners. But once Germany decided voluntarily to pass a registered partnership law, and to put registered same-sex partners ‘in a situation comparable to that of spouses’, Germany could not exclude them from survivor’s benefits under employment-related pension plans that fell within the scope of EU anti-discrimination law. EU freedom of movement law also requires consistency with regard to the immigration rights of same-sex partners who are not EU citizens, ‘if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage’.

 

“Our case is essentially that the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with developments in European Union law, imposes an obligation of consistency on European governments that voluntarily create an institution like civil partnership, and then grant same-sex civil partners all of the rights of different-sex spouses.

 

“The European Court of Human Rights should, as a matter of consistency and for the avoidance of pettiness, require the UK and other countries in the same position, like Denmark, to take the final step and grant access to the institution of marriage. Anyone who has attended a civil partnership ceremony, and seen how similar it is to a marriage ceremony, knows how extraordinarily petty it is for the UK Government to say that a same-sex couple can have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage through an institution with a different name (civil partnership) but cannot have access to the word and institution of marriage.

 

4. Our assessment of the chances of success

 

“I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UK’s system of segregating couples into two ‘separate but equal’ legal institutions violates the Convention. I would predict that same-sex couples will be granted access to marriage in the UK and that this will be because the UK Government will eventually accept that they cannot defend the current discriminatory system. The UK Government should settle the case, and voluntarily introduce a bill in the UK Parliament, so that the European Court of Human Rights does not have to issue a judgment. This bill should simply repeal the twin bans on same-sex marriage and different-sex civil partnership, and give every couple, different-sex or same-sex, a choice of marriage or civil partnership, as in the Netherlands, Quebec and South Africa.  This bill would bring ‘Equal Love’ to the UK,” said Professor Wintemute.

 

 

“At this event we will announce the joint legal action to be taken by the eight Equal Love couples. Four same-sex couples have filed applications at register offices for civil marriages. Four different-sex couples have applied for civil partnerships. All have been refused, on the grounds that the law prohibits same-sex civil marriages and different-sex civil partnerships. It is this discrimination that we intend to challenge in the courts,” said Professor Wintemute.

 

 

Background information

 

Segregation of couples in UK law, based on sexual orientation:

 

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s. 11:  ”A marriage … shall be void [if] … the parties are not respectively male and female …”

 

Civil Partnership Act 2004, s. 3(1):  ”Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners … if they are not of the same sex …”

 

Countries, provinces and states with marriage for same-sex and different-sex couples:

 

17 – Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, USA (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, District of Columbia), Mexico (Federal District)

 

Countries, provinces and states with civil partnership for same-sex and different-sex couples:

11 – Australia (Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria), Canada (Québec), Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, USA (Illinois, Nevada, District of Columbia)

 

Countries, provinces and states with both marriages and civil partnerships open to gay and heterosexual couples ie. “Equal Love”:

 

3 – Canada (Québec), Netherlands, South Africa

 

 

More information:

Professor Robert Wintemute – 07405 027 278 or 0207 848 2356 (office)

Peter Tatchell – 020 7403 1790

Rev Sharon Ferguson – 079 44 65 78 41

Katherine Doyle – 07745 122 866

 

www.equallove.org.uk

 

http://www.twitter.com/EqualLoveUK

 

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