>
Stonewall have finally come out with a statement ‘supporting’ equal marriage:

“We seek to secure marriage for gay people as a civil vehicle on the same basis as heterosexual marriage, available in a registry office but without a mandate on religious organisations to celebrate it.

“We seek to retain civil partnerships for lesbian and gay people recognising their special and unique status.”

But hang on, this is not what I or the Liberal Democrats are saying. Merely keeping is a civil vehicle ignores some of the LGBT community. People like me who are of faith and LGBT and want a church wedding, and certain religious groups The Quakers, some liberal Jewish synagogues etc want to carry out same-sex marriage in their faith, if we can but allow it.

Yes the Liberal Democrats also are not mandating every religious group to celebrate same-sex marriage. We called for allowing those “that wish to do so” to be allowed to. Five small words but a world of difference from what Stonewall are now saying. If they have consulted on this who have they consulted, clearly not widely. Clearly they are getting a statement out to appease some.

Also as you would expect from Stonewall they miss out the whole area of difficulties facing those people of transgender. Their existing relationships need to be allowed to carry on if they wish. Yet the failure to extend civil partnership to hetero-sexuals along side gay marriage and civil partnerships leads to an issue there. What if a partner in a same sex-couple undergoes gender reassignment, what happens to their marriage? Stonewall are not allowing them to have a civil partnership.

The Liberal Democrats have introduced a fully inclusive equal marriage policy, even allowing humanist celebrants in England and Wales to conduct weddings (as they can in Scotland), Stonewall are still failing to see the whole picture. Although this first step is to be welcomed there still is a lot of catching up still to be done to be where most of us are.

Advertisements