The problem of marriage - gay or not

GAY MARRIAGE - SO RIGHT IT'S WRONG?

“I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative” - David Cameron

Our Prime Minister, for once, is telling the truth. However it's painted, this is not the progressive legislation it is made out to be – it's regressive, intended to bolster the status quo and prop up a flagging institution which is seriously in need of a major overhaul to enable it function effectively in the 21st century. And so I find myself in an interesting position.

I saw a tweet from one gay activist saying "Can't understand why my Twitter feed is full of people saying not all opponents of same sex marriage are bigots. Of course they are." So there is one viewpoint suggesting that you cannot say anything of worth against the bill without ending up in the same camp as appalling bigots like Cardinal O'Brien. (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099)

But here is Alex Andreou, a respected gay journalist, giving his reasons for expressing doubts about the bill - http://www.newstatesman.com/alex-andreou/2012/12/fascinators-and-neo-puritanism-why-im-conflicted-about-marriage-equality. This strikes me as a well reasoned position evincing doubts I share about the government's motives. I would take this argument a step further to suggest this policy is not just about propping up the Conservative Party, but also to further their basic ideology.

But first I think it only fair to make it clear where I'm coming from on this subject. I'd be the first to admit that in my thirty-something years as a civil servant I never really achieved very much. But the one thing I am proudest of was playing a role, albeit a very peripheral one, in the introduction of same-sex Civil Partnerships. I felt I was a part of something that was beneficial to society as a whole, and specifically for a section of the community which was, and still is, frequently on the receiving end of sickening bigotry and discrimination.

So why am I expressing an opinion which might be seen as being against the gay marriage bill? Emotionally I am strongly in favour of full equality. But what is the point of having equal access to rights which are unfit for purpose and which hark back to a society which disappeared a long time ago? There is a lot being said about the ancient traditions of marriage, but it doesn't take much historical knowledge to recognise the falsity of this position. The concept of marriage as a loving and equal partnership is a very modern one which has only gained common ground in the latter half of the 20th century. Throughout most of history marriage has been seen as a means to an end, a tool to ensure succession and inheritance rights. Marriage was the legal means whereby a man effectively owned a woman. This was still as true in Victorian times, when the basis for our current marriage laws were drawn up, as it was in previous eras.

Most people in Britain would agree that stable partnerships, irrespective of gender or sexuality, are an essential component of our society, providing protections for the rights of women and children and providing a bulwark against loneliness in later life. If we were able to start with a clean sheet of paper what are the elements which make for successful coupledom? Which agreements or contracts need to be in place? Whilst the answers will vary greatly depending on circumstances and personalities I think it is possible to identify three main areas which every twosome need to address in some way or other.

Firstly, Private. My wife and I have an agreement that whichever of us cooks the dinner the other does the dishes. Works for us, might not for others. Couples will decide if they have joint or separate bank accounts, how childcare will be split between them, who does the cleaning or the shopping. The choices made may be influenced by health, family or employment, but ultimately these are decisions to be made by the couple jointly in whatever way is best for them.

Secondly, what I will call Social. How the couple relate to society around them. This takes in broad scope of subjects so I'll just look at a couple of the more obvious ones. There is a choice to be made as to whether either or both partners wears a visible symbol of their union, traditionally a ring in this country. This announces the fact of the alliance to anyone not in the know and also tells observers that the person concerned is no longer in the market for a mate.

The couple may want to mark the announcement of their partnership with a ceremony or party of some description. A way of sharing the occasion with family, friends, colleagues and those with whom they have other social interactions. They may want it to reflect some particular set of beliefs, values or views they hold and go through a prescribed form of ritual which gives meaning to the event for them.

Finally, there is the Legal status of the union. Recognition of the partnership in law can be important for several reasons. It gives each partner next of kin status which provides vital rights if one of them is taken seriously ill. Whilst we continue to have our existing quaint inheritance laws it provides for a bereaved partner against outside claimants. The rights of children are better protected. And, amongst other benefits, the need to go through a formal dissolution process can give pause for thought and help save troubled relationships.

I can not think of any good reasons why the state need be involved in either of the first two categories. Whereas it is clear that the legal aspects are the correct province of government agencies. So why does our existing situation muddy the waters and bring the law into all three areas, and permit non-state bodies to perform statutory duties?

This is less the case in the Private field, although some forms of words used in marriage ceremonies verge towards this. (Although surely there is nobody nowadays who is asked to "love, honour and obey"? Is there?)  However it is obvious that there is currently considerable overlap between the Social and the Legal, for no obvious benefit. Religion, most especially Christian Protestant religion, continues to enjoy huge privileges within our society and it this essentially social function has an immense impact on the legal state of marriage. Although (some) churches can create legal unions they do not have the opposite power. Divorce can, quite rightly, only be performed by state bodies. This in itself illustrates the skewed relationship and the need to rationalise the situation. Apologies for appearing facetious, but I fail to see why something which can only be dissolved by properly appointed officials can be formed by someone whose sole qualification is a particularly good relationship with their imaginary friend.

Ironically we have a situation where gay couples have access to a state authorised concord which is more modern and some ways superior to the options afforded to heterosexuals. Civil Partnership (CP) is largely based on that for marriage, but improves on it in several ways. There is no statutory requirement to have a ceremony, thus removing one of the key links between the Social and Legal spheres. A large number of the initial rush of CPs decided to dispense with the ceremonial aspect because they had already organised something similar earlier in their lives. Usually these couples had been together for one or more decades, some for over fifty years. A long time to wait for their relationship to be officially recognised.

The partners in a CP are legally bound to one another when both have put their signatures to paper. Whereas in marriage this happens once both parties have spoken the relevant form of words, a reflection that this law was introduced for a society in which most people remained functionally illiterate. Both marriage and CP share a further anachronism, the need to give fifteen days notice of their intent and for this to be displayed for public inspection. Again this makes sense for a world in which most people lived and died within a few miles of their birthplace, in which people knew their neighbours and what they got up to, a world of long ago which is far removed from the bulk of the population who live in cities with considerable geographic mobility.

What should replace this largely shambolic situation?  I believe the marriage laws should be repealed en masse and CP extended to cover all who want to be have their relationship placed on a legal footing, with some further changes to make it more appropriate to the twenty first century. Marriage would not suddenly vanish overnight, but move out of the legal area and firmly into the social where it belongs. As in France there would be split between the legal bond, which comes from the government, and the interaction with society which would allow couples to choose any type of ceremony they choose. This could be provided by the state, or performed to whatever set of beliefs, superstitions or practices lighted their joint candles.

Lyndon B Johnson, one of the more intriguing US presidents, said of J. Edgar Hoover "It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in". That seems to sum up Cameron's thinking on gay marriage. Get the gay community inside that marriage tent and they become one more bulwark to defend the existing ludicrous state of affairs. I am fully in favour of equality for all, no matter their social, racial or national origins, without respect for age, gender or sexual orientation. Gay couples should have access to exactly the same legal rights as anyone else.

But, although I support this bill in principle, a part of me can't help hoping it fails. The resultant pissing in might be enough to set off the wave needed to bring down the whole structure and put us on the road to having a more modern view of relationships which benefits us all.

Footnote - Where I have commented on technicalities in the law these refer to England and Wales only. There are differences in the relevant legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, although the same conclusions can be drawn within those jurisdictions.

Xmas Passed

THE TRUE MEANING OF WHAT?

I write this on 25th December, a date known in the UK as Christmas Day, and by similar appellations in most countries in Europe, and in those colonised, and still largely occupied, by the descendants of Europeans. It is, supposedly, about the birth of Jesus Christ and all the attendant myths. But it is also now a time when a certain type of Christian will bemoan the loss of the 'true meaning of Xmas' to commercialisation and secularism. Which immediately identifies somebody who has little idea of the true meaning of 'true meaning'.

So is there such a thing as a 'true meaning'? Does it matter? What of the traditions and common practices that surround this festival? Just how much of it is actually Christian, or indeed 'traditional', whatever that means?

It's probable that somebody who became the basis for the Jesus myth did exist historically. It's certain that nobody has a clue when his birth date was. So why choose 25 December to mark it? It all makes sense when considered as part of the christianisation of existing pagan calendars.

Human beings have celebrated the Winter Solstice for millennia. It has gone by many names in various cultures, but the Scandinavian Yule is one that remains familiar to us today. The turn of winter, where the days begin to get longer yet the hardest weather (if in Northern Europe) is yet to come, was a special time for most societies. An acknowledgement that improvement in their lives lay ahead, but before it came there would be the greatest hardship too. It is the birth of a new cycle of nature, with hope following on from adversity, abundance to come from scarcity. Celebrations, communal feasting and exchange of gifts all formed part of the festivities.

The Christ nativity story is also one of birth and hope, of children being the future of the community. The early Christians recognised that their new religion would not take hold if it was seen to do away with the high points of most people's lives, the annual festivals and revelries they loved and worked towards. So instead of condemning these pagan celebrations they simply hijacked them, twisting the underlying stories to suit their own ideology, but retaining the convivial and carousing aspects - at least to begin with. So it was that the two most important moments in the pagan year became the two most important Christian festivals. The Spring Solstice, which heralds the reawakening of the land, became Easter, whilst Christmas replaced that for winter. It was as near a perfect match as they could hope for.

Unsurprisingly, for all cultures and their belief systems share broadly similar myths. The importance of the changing seasons and their impact on the availability of food form the underlying rhythm of all societies, until the very recent advent of globalisation. It is at its strongest in those regions which have the greatest variations in climate across the seasons, because the difference between good living and simple survival is at its clearest.

So what is the true meaning? It depends on which period(s) of history you want to turn to. In a Europe where seasonal famine is now almost unknown the real origins of the festival have little meaning. For the same reason the Christian message has limited impact. We are left with jubilant aspects - the extended eating and drinking, the party going and communal gatherings - and the exchange of gifts, but without the ritual meanings which once accompanied these events. Instead there is the general message of 'the season of goodwill', a watered down sentiment that has no linking philosophy to underpin it.

I am not suggesting that this is necessarily a good or a bad thing. It is what it is. That we no longer have to fear food shortages (at least in our cosy First World) and are largely unaffected by the impact of the seasons (road and rail closures notwithstanding....) is a positive and the loss of those motivators is a mark of progress. The fact that the holiday is celebrated on the same date in much of the southern hemisphere is a reflection of how far the 'true meaning' has become divorced from the way we live our lives. There is little sense of rebirth about Xmas.

Of course it still has cultural importance, but of a different nature. There remains an emphasis on family, which is largely missing in other aspects of our culture. It encourages social bonding, even if only in the form of the oft-dreaded office party. There is a nod towards thoughtfulness, with gifts having to be selected for each person as an individual. We could no more abandon the festivities than the early Christians could do. And there are still links to the proper origins of the festival if we look for them. The Yule Log, the tree, the presents are all traditions rooted in the actions of our pagan ancestors who were more in touch with their surroundings than we city dwellers can mange to be. Perhaps this is the aspect which needs to be rediscovered? As a means of bringing some meaning to the time which everyone can share in?

Meanwhile that sense of the birth of the future has largely gone from today. But it will be with us in few days time. New Year. A chance to look back and plan forward. Of regrets and fears, but also of achievements and hopes. The birth of another year. Irrespective of where you are in the world the conceptual calendar, rather than the one imposed by your local seasons, may now have more genuine meaning for most of us. It marks the passing of time, the ageing process, the chance to live life anew.

As a Scot I have always viewed New Year as the most important time in the holiday period, without really having thought about why. I did it because that's what Scots did, it was a part of our culture that marked us out as other. We did it because the English didn't. But maybe there is more to it than that. Has the time come for New Year to be the most essential shared experience? One that clearly has a 'true meaning'?

Pavement Ranting

SOCIALLY CONSIDERATE?

GREAT SPATIAL AWARENESS?

OCD?

OR JUST A PAIN IN THE ARSE?

OK, an apology right at the start, because this is a rant, a full blooded, no compromise, intolerant, highly personal moan about one aspect of life that irritates me time and time again. There will be no more apologies.

This is not about driving standards (although I may turn to that another day....), but let's start on the road. Drivers instinctively know that they need an awareness of what is going on around them. They have to know where other vehicles are in regard to their own, front, back and sides, they need to be able to judge relative speeds and adjust their own progress and direction accordingly. Mostly this is done unconsciously, a product of experience and the ability of the human brain to take in information and make decisions in 3D. We know that if we don't do this there will be collisions - paint scraped, bodywork dented, or much much worse. The threat of injury of death is always present. But we also do it because most of us are fundamentally decent, both by instinct and intent, trying to treat others as we'd want to be treated ourselves, feeling that consideration for others is simply civilised behaviour.

So why does this decency, and awareness of other human beings, desert so many people when on foot? Why, why, why do so many people pay so little thought to the people in their immediate vicinity? Time and again I find myself being blocked on the pavement, getting barged into or stood on, obstructed from carrying on with my life. What is wrong with these people?!

If I'm walking along a busy street and want to change direction, to go into a shop say, I'll make every effort to take account of those whose paths I may have to cross. I'll try not to come to a sudden halt because there could be someone close behind me. If I'm moving slowly I will keep an eye out behind me to see if anyone needs to get past. When I meet somebody I know and stop to talk with them I'll suggest we move out of others' way rather than standing in the middle of the pavement. If I'm waiting for someone I will keep off the main walkway, take care not to cause an obstruction. So why doesn't everyone else? Am I so unusual to give some thought for my fellow humans? If it can be done on the road why not on the pavement? OK, there isn't the same danger to life and paintwork, but common courtesy is common courtesy. Why can't people use the observational and evaluative powers our higher intelligence endows us with?

The worst place for all this is the supermarket, a concentration of individuals whose eyes are not pointed in the same direction as the trolley they are pushing. Age, gender, class, it makes no difference, they all seem to assume that their path will be clear though some miraculous process and that knee/trolley contact could not possibly be painful. They will meet an acquaintance and, rather than seek out some place where they can talk without inconveniencing other customers, they will plant themselves in the middle of the dairy goods aisle, each with trolley, children in tow and an arse the size of Wales. Especially if it's around five thirty on a Friday.

One day we were in Asda, at a time when it was relatively quiet, so our progress went generally unimpeded (other than by the Ugg booted crowd hiding the pizzas, and the dithering OAP in rice and pasta). We used the self service till and took our bag to leave, only to find a young 'lady' using the next till had parked her pram at a 75 degree angle across the (plenty wide) exit from the till lane, with herself absorbed in passing through her purchases and oblivious to the existence of anyone else on the planet. If she'd just parked the thing by the side of the till all would have been well, but that would be too easy, wouldn't it? Oh no, she has to position the thing in the point of maximum inconvenience for her neighbours. If she'd done it on purpose it might even have been marginally less irritating simply because then she'd actually have made a good job of it. But no, this was done without thought, without consideration, without even the decency to be malicious. Stupidity rules.

Is it just me? Doesn't anyone else share my outrage? Can we band together? The Organisation Seeking Sensible Pedestrian Outdoor Techniques maybe?

I am not, you'll be relieved to know, going to try and propose a solution. Much as the idea of people needing to pass tests to acquire pedestrian licences has a strong appeal, or the encouragement of citizens' arrests for dawdling, blocking and general physical inconsiderateness would be a positive step towards a better world, I am forced to admit that these measures will only be enforced in my dreams. Or rants.

But is it really asking too much for somebody to draw up a pedestrians charter?

Thinks......

Football? Why?

THE STENHOUSEMUIR POSITION

"Wot team d'ya support?"

How many times was I asked that question during my childhood? And beyond. Small boys (hardly ever girls) and a certain type of adult seemed to regard this as the most important fact to ascertain on meeting anyone new. Not even the religious were so keen to determine if you share their views.

This being Scotland in the sixties and seventies the 'team' in question would be playing football - the one with the round ball. The interrogator had no doubt in his mind that you would understand this implicitly, for what other kind of teams existed? I don't doubt the experience was similar across Britain (except, perhaps, in South Wales?) and that it continues today. There is no sign that the arrogance of the association football supporter has diminished.

People whose main sporting interests lie with the other forms of games which tend to get excessive media coverage - cricket, rugby and horse racing - do not, as far as I'm aware, automatically assume that a stranger is bound to share their passion. Other sports might hardly exist at all for most of the year, with exceptions being made for Wimbledon, the Open Golf and the Olympic or Commonwealth Games. Despite which a myriad of competitive activities, professional and amateur, take place every week, largely unremarked upon. Sports which are major events in other countries receive negligible coverage here, even though the domestic incarnations may regularly produce far better live entertainment that dreary football matches. Even a multi-billion pound global business like motor racing merits few column inches unless there is a chance that a British driver might become world champion. How many people are aware that one of the most successful British sportsmen of the last decade is a three-time winner of the biggest single-day spectator event in the world, and has won the US championship four times?

Is there any other field of life in which this kind of attitude occurs? Those who purport to be our ruling class may still automatically check which school another went to, but if this still occurs it is restricted to a minor section of society. There are probably some similar assumptions made within professions, but that would not seem unreasonable. Only in connection with football do you seem to find some people who think that everyone else must share their passion. Why?

This attitude even permeates into the wider news arena. A year or so ago I heard on the radio that Gary Speed, 'Manager of Wales', had died. Very sad for his family and friends no doubt, but who exactly was he? His name meant nothing to me. 'Manager of Wales'? What - the whole country? If he was manager of a national sports team then surely the most obvious assumption, given the culture of the country, would be rugby union? But no, it was soccer, but no clue to this was given in the announcement. Even the BBC thinks I should know this. Why?

To return to my opening question - that childish grilling technique to establish if you held the same beliefs as your inquisitor or those of the heretic - I always replied that I wasn't interested in football. It just didn't do anything for me so I had no 'team'. In most cases this was regarded as 'not good enough', an inadequate response which only demonstrated that I hadn't fully understood what was being asked of me. It was, apparently, my fault for not taking an interest, for not following the one true faith.

Tired of this reaction I decided to modify my response. I stuck a pin the in the middle of the Scottish Second Division table to find a name. I can't remember which one I hit, but it wasn't memorable. However the name immediately adjacent struck a chord, the sonorous multi-syllabic appealing to my lexophile nature. From then on I would answer 'that' question with a single word - Stenhousemuir. This proved to be the perfect tactic. I had responded to question in exactly the manner prescribed by the rules, but with a choice that mystified and confused. There was rarely a follow-up.

I find most football dull as a spectacle and banal as a subject. The idea of devotion to a single team, however it evolves over time, has never appealed to me. Spectator sport should be about entertainment, not faith. Perhaps I lack the necessary tribal gene or whatever it is that makes people behave that way.

My attitude can be demonstrated best by a story I told as part of the eulogy at my father's funeral. When I was in my teens he and I often went to watch seven a side rugby tournaments, the best of these being in the Borders towns of Hawick, Galashiels, Selkirk etc. There would be sixteen teams, usually including four or five from Edinburgh, and we would generally shout for them when they played. There would also be a guest side, usually from England, who most of the crowd would automatically side against! (I should also mention that the only prejudice I was openly exposed to at home was against 'The English'....)

At one of these the final was between the home side, Gala, and the guest team, Orrell from England (at that time I hadn't the faintest idea where Orrell was, but it was English and that was all I needed to know). Orrell's main weapon was a blisteringly fast winger called Barry Fishwick. Early in the match the Gala captain put in a thumping late tackle on the English fast man, obviously hoping to do enough damage to slow him down for the rest of the game. Which was enough to make us switch our allegiance and we cheered loudly as Fishwick recovered swiftly and ran in a couple of tries to seal the result.

Now that's what sport should be about.  

Why Leveson fails

LEVESON'S DUST

Whilst I am instinctively opposed to all forms of censorship, unless extremely good cause can be put forward, something had to be done. It is obvious that pure self-regulation, in the various forms it has taken across several decades, has failed. A legislative rein on the worst excesses of (mainly) tabloid journalism is required. Leveson, within the limited confines he was allowed to operate, appears to have put forward a reasonable solution. As I understand it, the law would only be called upon where there was a clear indication that ethical codes had been broken. This sort of regulation should not interfere with the justifiable investigative news writing we need to expose criminality and injustice in the powerful institutions, political and commercial, which dominate our lives.

We need a free press and wider media. Really, really need it. For democracy to have any chance of working effectively people need information. Objective information backed up by opinion, with a clear divide between the two. If democracy is about making informed decisions (even if only between the limited choices we are presented with) then we need to have access to the relevant raw data and reliable interpretative sources. Journalism, at its best, gives us that and more. But what exactly is a 'free' press. Free from what? State censorship and interference to be sure. But it is not just politicians that seek to control our opinions and understanding of the wider world.

In the coming weeks there will be much written and said about the reasons why David Cameron, the lamentable Maria Miller and their various cronies are so dead set against the most important recommendation of Leveson, the statutory underpinning of regulation of the press. Finer, and better informed, minds than mine will bring some clarification to this so I won't attempt to try.

Meanwhile Boris wades in and muddies the waters -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9718041/It-is-the-web-not-the-press-that-must-be-brought-under-control.html

I like that he celebrates the positives of our press (perhaps he'd like to do the same for the BBC....?), but it seems the negatives aren't quite bottom-scraping enough for him. Apologies for mixing my metaphors, but the article seems to be both flogging a dead horse and nailing a jelly to the wall. In the long run the printed press is spiralling into decline. More and more we get our information from the web, on the sites of established news organisations and from a wider range of sources, especially social media. Our press has failed us and the 'lifeline' Johnson sees is a chimera, an attempt to blind us to the real motives of Cameron. Boris gives himself away with his apparent hatred of the unregulated, and uncontrollable, Twitter. He cannot do business with tweeters. You can't easily corrupt a mob.

This is the elephant in the room. Ownership. An iniquitous aspect Leveson has touched on, but only in passing for he has no remit to tackle it head on. Don't just take my word for it, read Harold Evans -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/leveson-inquiry-clever-silence-on-ownership

Our major press organs are, in the main, owned by super-rich individuals. Benevolent, philanthropists with the interests of our society at hard, passionate believers in democracy and the power of the citizen, warm, caring human beings who love their fellows? Yes, of course they are, and my name is Felicity Kendal. Is anyone in any doubt that, with few exceptions, this strata of society is anything other than self-interested, self-seeking, uncaring and motivated by greed and power over others? This, above all else, is the power which needs to be controlled and Leveson hasn't done one bloody thing about it.

Murdoch has almost always run The Times at a loss. Why? Because owning that organ provides him with influence, access to power. News International, effective owner of Sky, continually wages a war of attrition against the BBC. The latter, whatever it's recently revealed flaws, is a public service broadcaster outside the control of Murdoch and his ilk. He would like to see the BBC neutered, and, one suspects, the law changed to wipe out the need for 'balance' in coverage of political issues on broadcast media. If you want a crystal ball gaze into that potential future I suggest you seek out a few clips of Fox News in the US. A recent survey found that people who got most of their news information from Fox knew less about world affairs than those who didn't follow the news at all. Being misinformed is worse for your brain than blissful ignorance....

The Tories, as this government has demonstrated beyond doubt, are the party of the rich. They are ideologically driven to favour free market capitalism and self-interest despite the clear warning of the banking crisis that this is a system doomed to fail. A press dominated by the wealthy beasts now in place suits them just fine for it is a symbiotic relationship. Whilst the papers may criticise the party, or the individuals that comprise it, they will do nothing to reflect disquiet with the underlying socio-economic system which gives them power, influence and wealth. How much has the 'free' press accurately reported the progress made by the likes of UKUncut and the Occupy movement? They try to make out that these grass roots activists are an irrelevance, but Starbucks might now suggest otherwise!

Meanwhile the web offers an alternative source of information and influence. One that can't be controlled easily and here we come to Boris' jelly. You can't regulate something which has no structure. Twitter's lack of control can lead it astray at times, as Bojo suggests, but, as yet, it has done nothing as bad as the News of the World. It probably isn't organised enough to do so.

I have no idea how, or by whom, this nettle can be grasped. Implementing the Leveson recommendations is a must. But it will still just be the polishing of a constantly steaming turd. Until ownership of the press can be wrested away from people who do not have the interests of the wider public at heart it can never be trusted. Media organisations as cooperatives, or in some form of distributed ownership (but not through the state), could provide workable models. In the end the problems of the press are the problems of society at large - unfettered capitalism.

For now I suggest you ignore Boris and trust to your instincts in the more egalitarian web community. Flaws and all.