Jackie Doyle Price appointed to W&E Committee

[ScreamingMeMe]

The only news outlet that seems to have picked this up is the odious Pink News, who discovered that Jackie's Parliamentary page has her as a member of the Women and Equalities Committe since 2 November.

Pink News and Peter Tatchell are unhappy.

members.parliament.uk/member/4065/career

"Oh @PeterTatchell darling. I fight for the rights of women. And my views on marriage are consistent and why I have never married myself. Lots of love xxx"

twitter.com/JackieDP/status/1458764937791213573?s=20

Agree Screaming I am a lesbian and totally disagree with marriage as a concept mainly used by wealthy people to ensure inheritance without taxes which seems profoundly unfair. Both to those that aren’t married/civilly partnered and to all those who rely on taxes to provide social services, health care, education , basic benefits etc.

This law firm site explains the difference between Civil Partnerships and Civil Marriage.

A Civil Marriage has vows.
Civil Partnerships became available for opposite sex couples only recently.

The difference between civil partnerships and marriage - BDB Pitmans

www.bdbpitmans.com/insights/the-difference-between-civil-partnerships-and-marriage/

I'd like to express a big sigh of relief for being able to say that one can oppose same sex marriage without being homophobic. Thank you. There are not many contexts where that can be said.

@CatherinaJTV

*Is her view then that only religious unions should be called marriages then? Regardless of whether the couple are same or different sex? And that any non-religious union should be called a civil partnership even between a straight couple?

If so I can't find any issue with that.*

but if so, I'd like her to propose that any union that has "only" been officiated in a registrar's office and not a church should be called a "civil partnership" and not a "marriage".

I'm pretty sure that is her view

Where did your sisters-in-law get married? If they definitely wanted to be married and not partnered then it should have been in a church.

Not so. Civil weddings (marriages solemnised in a register office) have been a legal way to create a marriage in England since 1836. You are as much married in the eyes of the law if you marry in a register office as if you marry in a religious ceremony (and sometimes more so, since not all religions in England have the right to perform legally recognised weddings).

By arguing that all civil weddings (regardless of the sex of the partners) should be termed "civil unions", Jackie Doyle-Price is arguing against something which has been settled law for 185 years.

Her view isn't homophobic, but it is religiously discriminatory. It disadvantages atheists, agnostics, and couples belonging to different religions. Banning civil weddings would be vulnerable to a human rights challenge.

I'd like to express a big sigh of relief for being able to say that one can oppose same sex marriage without being homophobic. Thank you. There are not many contexts where that can be said.

Jackie Doyle Price's view of civil ceremonies is not homophobic because she would treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples the same, referring to all register office ceremonies as civil unions, not marriages.

Since same-sex couples also have the right to marry in religious ceremonies conducted by those religions which have opted in, the arrangement which Jackie Doyle-Price has advocated would not prevent same-sex couples from marrying.

@picklemewalnuts

I'd like to express a big sigh of relief for being able to say that one can oppose same sex marriage without being homophobic. Thank you. There are not many contexts where that can be said.

No, some LGB people will think you're homophobic and even I, who wouldn't dream of getting married, have huge qualms about religion and the religious exceptions that are available for a small percentage of the population who participate in an irrational belief system. So I grudgingly respect Jackie Doyle-Price's stance but I would want to distance myself from her on that issue.

Catzwhiskas: I am a lesbian and totally disagree with marriage as a concept mainly used by wealthy people to ensure inheritance without taxes which seems profoundly unfair. Both to those that aren’t married/civilly partnered and to all those who rely on taxes to provide social services, health care, education , basic benefits etc.

Marriage and civil partnership confer the same legal rights. What was unfair was that until 2004 lesbian and gay couples had no right in law to legally register their relationships and didn't have the same choices as straight people. Some pension schemes wouldn't allow an 'unmarried' partner to receive a pension if the pension-holder died. That was the unfairness.

As much as I'm not fan of the history of marriage and the burden that word carries, marriage or civil partnership can provide really useful legal protections and rights which are particularly important for women who are planning to have children with a partner.

The government can change tax regulations any time it wants. Lobby for that.

I don't think the concern about same sex marriage is necessarily tied to religion- although that is where the discussion most often happens, and of course the Church of England is still in hot conversations about it.

I'm not against same sex marriage. I am Christian. Some people are against it who are not Christian.

Separate issues.

Jackie Doyle Price's view of civil ceremonies is not homophobic because she would treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples the same, referring to all register office ceremonies as civil unions, not marriages.

I don't really have a strong view about SSM, right up until you get to what you are alluding to here, that it is discriminatory and illegitimate to base social institutions and laws on something as important as reproductive role. Wether that's in reference to an individual or a pair of individuals.

It's one thing to come to a pragmatic conclusion that it's not an important distinction in the west in the 21st century, and it won't cause any problems to do it, and another to say that it's inherently opposed to human rights in any time or place.

Where did your sisters-in-law get married? If they definitely wanted to be married and not partnered then it should have been in a church.

Very little chance of that, since one of them is Catholic ...

@ScreamingMeMe

Plenty of gay people were opposed to gay marriage.

Here is Peter Tatchell in 2014, having a good old rant about the fact that Stonewall not only vigorously opposed gay marriage and undermined other organisations who were campaigning on the issue but also opposed the right of straight people to have Civil Partnerships. Like the latter was any of Stonewall's business!

Extracts:

"Stonewall got it badly wrong on this issue. They refused to support marriage equality for four years – from 2006, when many other LGBT groups were urging an end to the ban on same-sex marriage."

"Even worse, while opinion polls from 2009 onwards showed that two-thirds of the general public agreed that same-sex couples should be able to marry in civil ceremonies, Stonewall did not agree with marriage for LGBTs."

"I remember a meeting of LGBT organisations at the House of Commons in the summer of 2010, hosted by Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone MP. Every LGBT representative supported same-sex marriage – except Ben Summerskill of Stonewall. He refused to endorse equality and advanced arguments against equal marriage. The rest of us were shocked and appalled. In addition, he mounted what I interpreted as a veiled personal attack on Featherstone over her willingness to consider equal marriage legislation.

Stonewall only switched to support same-sex marriage in late October 2010, after a coalition of other organisations had done the groundwork and after it faced a huge LGBT backlash – including harsh criticism from two of its founders, Ian McKellen and Michael Cashman."

"After being a latecomer to the campaign, Stonewall now brags that it won same-sex marriage; never acknowledging the contribution of OutRage!, Equal Love, Out4Marriage, the Coalition for Equal Marriage, Pink News – and many others.

Having long urged straight people to support marriage for gay couples, Stonewall is still refusing to support the right of straight couples to have a civil partnership. This comes across as one-sided and selfish. What happened to Stonewall’s professed mantra of equality?"

From "Up against the Stonewall on equal marriage"

www.petertatchellfoundation.org/up-against-the-stonewall-on-equal-marriage/

I do find it rather convenient that posters wheel out the ‘didn’t support same sex marriage’ when at the time Stonewall also didn’t support the legislation.

Many people take voting against specific wording of a bill as being against the concept. As we have seen, language in the EA2010 is now becoming vitally important. It is the same for any legislation.

And even if it wasn’t because an MP saw issues with the language or the impact of the bill. If an MP took a lobby groups lead on the legislation, they would have also voted as recommended by the lobby group.

Instead we now see ‘they voted against’ as being a convenient club to use to discredit them.

If that is all you can find to discredit JDP from joining a parliamentary group (you know, with other members and not just her sole responsibility ), I find it says more about the poster than about the MP.

My brother and his partner never got around to any civil partnership as they had tied up all the legal aspects a few years into their relationship in the early 90s. They welcomed civil partnerships when they arrived but thought marriage an unnecessary step and somewhat debasing of same sex relationships as aping traditional heteronormative practice.