Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Unless you've been living on the moon, you'll probably already know that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill -which will introduce same-sex marriage into English law - was published last week, along with a set of guidance notes.  You can download both documents and monitor the progress of the Bill here.

I published my take on the Bill on Pink News.  You can check out that article here.  The comments also make for very interesting reading.

2013: Marriage Equality Part Two

Matt Baume on the excellent Prop 8 Trial Tracker Blog recently looked back at 2012 through the (US) prism of marriage equality and transformative legal change.  As I look to the year ahead, I can't help thinking that we are simply entering the year of the sequel.  Not just for The Hobbit or Star Trek, but also for the question of marriage.

In the US, the Supreme Court will now seek to resolve the two questions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the ongoing Perry/Proposition 8 legal action.  Both will have significant ramifications for marriage equality across the United States, and the outcome of those cases is far from clear.  Expectations and nerves are equally in evidence.

In the UK, the Christmas period saw the question of same-sex marriage continuing to dominate the media.  The Catholic Church (who you might have thought would have had other things on their minds at Christmas) seem to have a pre-occupation with homosexuality which verges on the obsessive.  First, Britain's most senior Catholic, the Archbishop of Westminster, took another brave step into irrelevance, using his Christmas Eve mass to declare the government had no mandate for legal change (likening David Cameron to the Nazis and Communists), described the plans for legal reform as a 'shambles', and also declared that most people were against the reforms.

Now now, I hear you say, you're just singling out one man and he's not representative of the whole Catholic Church (even though he leads it in England).  Well, it seems the Archbishop of Birmingham (for it is he) agrees with you.  Not wanting the Catholic Church to be painted as led by an unrepresentative bigot, he made sure that such bigoted views are representative of the Church as a whole.  He decided to spend Christmas writing a letter to churches and chapels in his diocese (and to be read to worshippers on New Years Eve), telling them:

'Government policy cannot foresee the full consequences, for the children involved or for wider society, of being brought up by two mothers without a father’s influence or by two fathers without a mother’s influence. 'We first learn about diversity and acquire a respect for difference through the complementarity of our parents.' He describes the 'complementary love of father and mother' as a 'precious gift that we should wish for every child'.

So, the Government do look likely to have a bit more of a hoo-ha over their same-sex marriage plans.  Although the Archbishop of Westminster is wrong in describing the plans as 'shambolic', it would be fair to describe them as not yet fully thought through.  The Government do need resolve the issues of consummation and the issue of the status of Civil Partnerships far better than the sticking plasters on offer in their current formal response.

Perhaps feeling left out, High Court Judge Sir Paul Coleridge decided to embroil the judiciary in the mess of same-sex marriage. According to the Telegraph:

Sir Paul Coleridge questioned the decision to concentrate on an issue that affects "0.1%" of the population at a time when break-ups were leaving millions of children caught up in the family justice system. The comments by the judge - who started a charity to try to stem the "destructive scourge" of divorce - come after plans for gay marriage were criticised by the leader of the Catholic church in England and Wales as undemocratic and totalitarian. Sir Paul said that his charity, the Marriage Foundation, did not take a stance on same-sex marriage. But he told a newspaper: "So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1 per cent of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown. "It's gratifying that marriage in any context is centre stage... but it [gay marriage] is a minority issue. We need a much more focused position by the Government on the importance of marriage."

Daniel Isenberg noted on the excellent UK Human Rights Blog, that Sir Paul had recently agreed to take a lower profile in his Marriage Foundation.  Indeed, the Office for Judicial Complaints concluded in November of 2012 that:

“The OJC has concluded its investigation into the conduct of the Honourable Mr Justice Coleridge in relation to the judge’s participation in the Marriage Foundation. Having considered all of the facts the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division (on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice) do not consider Mr Justice Coleridge’s involvement with the Marriage Foundation to be incompatible with his judicial responsibilities and therefore does not amount to judicial misconduct. Mr Justice Coleridge has agreed that a lower profile role within the organisation would be more appropriate for a serving judicial office holder.”

I'm not sure that agreement is going entirely to plan.  Where does this leave us?  Well, for those wondering where the radical law and sexuality agenda will lead next, it seems determinedly stuck the conservative groove of marriage for now. 2013, the year of the sequel.

UK Government Responds to Same-Sex Marriage Consultation

A busy day has meant I'm somewhat late to the party on the Government's Response to same-sex marriage.  Twitter and the blogs are awash with some really thoughtful and interesting responses.  That said, you didn't think I'd let today go by without comment did you?

Well, let's firstly be clear what we've not seen today.  We haven't seen draft legislation.  We don't know what the bill will look like.  We don't know how these measures will be drafted and the potential problems/issues that will be raised or solved by such legislation.

What we do have is a Government response to a consultation.  That consultation - the Government reports - received the largest ever response to any consultation by the UK Government.  They received 228,000 responses (I was one) and 19 petitions (I signed one).  So, some folks may count multiple times within these stats but it's nonetheless impressive going.

Let's get down to the substance of the response.  The aspect that's grabbing the attention of the media is the so-called 'quadruple lock'.  The BBC reports that:

• No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises 
• Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so 
• Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple 
• The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply

These seems pretty solid and certainly addresses the worries of the religious lobby.  Well, so you might have thought until the Church of Wales helpfully waded in after the announcement to say "sorry chaps, we're not so sure about this" (or words to that effect).

Civil Partnerships

Others have raised the issue of Civil Partnerships (see for example) and these proposals.  The Government seems to have made a bit of a fudge of this aspect of reform, and to my mind clearly set up  a legal challenge.   At page 21, the Government states:

'5.6 Having taken the range of views into account, we intend to proceed with the proposals in the consultation document to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples only, including continuing to allow civil partnerships on religious premises. This is because we acknowledge the important role that these unions play in the lives of many couples. Civil partnerships are a well understood union, which have been become part of people’s everyday lives and society in general. We see little benefit from removing them.

5.7 Civil partnership formation will continue with exactly the same administrative processes and rules as currently exist. This includes current rules around notice periods, parental consent, age and witnesses.

5.8 We have always been clear that the aim of this consultation and subsequent legislation is to enable same-sex couples to get married, rather than wider reform, and therefore there is no need to remove civil partnerships to fulfil this aim.

5.9 While we will recognise marriages between same-sex couples formed abroad as marriages, the retention of civil partnerships will enable us to recognise same-sex civil unions (that are not marriages) to be recognised as civil partnerships in the UK.'

So, Civil Partnerships stay for same-sex couples alongside new rights of same-sex marriage but different-sex couples who already (obviously) can enter into marriage will not be able to enter into Civil partnerships.  The careful logic for such obvious discrimination? They didn't intend wider reform in this legislation.  Well, they might not have intended it but that' surely the inevitable consequence.

I'm genuinely at a loss that the Government have chosen at this point to not extend Civil Partnerships to different-sex couples.  There is however an opportunity for Labour (or indeed someone else) to introduce an amendment introducing such a measure as part of the legislative process, and then campaign to secure cross-bench support.   I hope they show some real leadership on this.

Whether they do or not, the stage looks set for a legal challenge on this - and I'm sure that at some point such a case will succeed.  The Government can't even be bothered rationalising the discrimination.

They state at 7.10 (page 26):  'This consultation was not aimed at being a wider process of reform of marriage and civil partnership legislation and therefore we do not consider that it is necessary to open up civil partnerships to opposite sex couples in order to enable same-sex couples to get married.'  This is also arguably further fuels the Equal Love Campaign.

Gender

A welcome aspect of the report is an apparent understanding of the complexities that arise with the intersection of the current Civil Partnership Act and Gender Recognition Act.

The Government states (page 28) that:  '8.12 The Government remains committed to enabling someone to change their legal gender while remaining in their marriage. Those in a civil partnership registered in England or Wales would have the option to convert their civil partnership without being seen as legally ending that union and rights accrued within the civil partnership would remain.'

So, if you are in a marriage and become legally defined as same-sex, you will have a choice of continuing to be married or entering into a Civil Partnership (although the document doesn't seem to specify, so you could potentially have an action from someone saying they should have the same choice as someone entering into a partnership contract for the first time) .  If you are different-sex, you have no choice, you must be married.  Thus, a same-sex couple in a Civil Partnership becoming a different-sex couple for the purposes of the GRA must convert their same-sex Civil Partnership to a marriage or dissolve the CP in order to achieve a Gender Recognition Certificate.

If that doesn't have legal challenge written all over it, I don't know what does. The Equal Love Campaign could therefore be plausibly joined/extended by a challenge to the Civil Partnership law via a Trans case.

Let's not talk about sex

The issue that first emerged from this report (or rather, first leaked) was the idea that the Civil Servants were rather baffled as to what to do about consummation (see my previous post here).  What, one was therefore left wondering, would the Government's response offer by way of resolution.  Here's what they say on page 31:  '9.10 Therefore, in respect of non-consummation, we are proposing to create an exception for same-sex couples in a marriage, meaning that they would not be able cite non-consummation as a basis for annulling their marriage. Same-sex couples cannot currently annul their civil partnership on the basis of non-consummation. Opposite sex couples will continue to be able to annul their marriage on the grounds of non-consummation. By maintaining this position, we are not altering the legal position unnecessarily.'

To put it another way:  Crikey, this one stumped us.  We've therefore decided to pretend it doesn't matter for the purposes of gay people.  Now, can I stop thinking about gay sex?  Thanks.

Far better to have gone further and stripped out the requirement for all marriages but the Government seem keen to only change the minimal possible sections of legislation to introduce same-sex marriage.  However, given the fudge on consummation, these poor Civil Servants then faced the question of adultery, which does involve the 'S' word.  Yes, more bewildering bonking and a legal question of what amounts to adultery.  The report comments:

'9.11 We are proposing to maintain the current position with regards to adultery in marriage. This means that anyone, including same-sex couples, will be able to cite adultery to end their marriage if the behaviours currently defined in case law are exhibited. '

This statement has the following footnote:

Adultery is currently defined as follows: there must be at least partial penetration of the female by the male for the act of adultery to be proved. The attempt to commit adultery must not be confused with the act itself, and if there is no such penetration, some lesser act of sexual gratification does not amount to adultery (c.f. Dennis v Dennis [1955] 2 ALL ER 51 2WLR 817).


So, funnily enough we're back at the question of penetration and how gay people have sex.  The Government try and resolve things a different way this time (page 31-32):

'In practice this would mean for a same-sex married couple that, where one partner had sexual intercourse (within the meaning of the law for these purposes) with someone of the opposite sex, the other partner could cite adultery as grounds for divorce. If the behaviour exhibited fell short of the current legal definition of adultery, it would remain the case that this could be cited as unreasonable behaviour, as is the case with civil partnerships. In this way we believe that the current legal position on the meaning of adultery need not be changed. It will remain the case that a same-sex couple in a civil partnership will not be able to cite adultery to end their civil partnership.'

So, we're not sure what would be adultery in these circumstances but it doesn't matter anyway as you could use unreasonable behaviour in these circumstances anyway.

It's a fudge but it works.

Education

One of the issues that has seemingly pre-occupied some Tory backbenchers is what teachers will be forced to teach.  Worry ye not bigoted Tory.  Help is on hand via page 34:

'9.27 Every school is required to ensure pupils are not taught anything that is inappropriate to their age, religious or cultural background. This will not change and pupils will continue to receive broad and balanced advice on marriage.

9.28 In addition, teachers, particularly in a faith school, will be able to continue to describe their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman whilst acknowledging and acting within the new legislative position which enables same-sex couples to get married. They must continue to act within the current parameters of legislation on hate speech and discrimination law.'

Yes folks, it's still perfectly possible for a gay kid attending a Church of England School to be told that marriage means marriage between a man and a woman.  This truly breaks my heart.  It's a back way in for prejudice, and raises serious questions about the continued freedom that religious schools have in England and Wales.

So, there we go.  Lots of issues for further exploration and in need of resolution.  Bring on the Bill.

Key Links

The Parliamentary Statement can be watched in full via the Parliament website here.

Hansard (a transcript of the Commons Statement) can be read here.

The full Government Response can be viewed/downloaded here.

A pretty PowerPoint presentation on the reforms produced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can be viewed here (looks like someone was let loose on work experience).

Same-Sex Marriage: The Miller Warm Up

Maria Miller

We now know that the Government will formally announce their same-sex marriage proposals tomorrow (Tuesday) but following a leak, and grumbles over the weekend, the Minister responsible for Equalities (and oddly Culture Secretary) Maria Miller was dragged to the House of Commons to respond to an emergency question on same-sex marriage in churches.

Miller first of all clarified that this was all apprently nothing new, stating that:  'The Prime Minister did not announce anything new this weekend; he simply restated the Government’s position and, in particular, expressed a personal view regarding the possible role for churches in future—a view that he first expressed in July. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important matter that should be discussed first here in the House, and that is why we have brought forward our statement to tomorrow.'

It's just that we all collectively missed it the first time around.   The debate also show cased barely veiled homophobia from a number of Tory MPs.  Here are some 'highlights':

Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that approximately 500,000 people who responded to the Government’s consultation by saying no to redefining marriage have been excluded from the Government’s consultation and effectively denied a voice, although others—including those beyond the United Kingdom—have been included in that consultation? Is the consultation in danger of being seen as a sham that does not provide the Government with a mandate to redefine marriage?

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): With Christmas just around the corner, lots of people might be thinking of giving a dictionary as a present. Before they do so, and for the benefit of dictionary publishers, will the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to change the definition of any other words?

Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con): My right hon. Friend said that the views of people of faith should never be marginalised. Will she tell the House how she will square that with the 619,007 people who have signed the Coalition for Marriage petition, which calls for no change in the definition of marriage?

Matthew Offord

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Government are so hellbent on upsetting so many thousands of our citizens who are in normal marriages, especially at this time?

Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con): The suggestion that the Government’s proposals need not necessarily impact on religious belief is nonsense. The definition of marriage is the joining together of a man and a woman in holy matrimony, and allowing same-sex marriages will therefore require a redefinition of the term. Such a redefinition would undermine one of the basic tenets of many religious institutions, so it definitely would impact on religious belief. That is not scaremongering; that is fact.

My personal favourite (meant sarcastically, but an interesting point):

Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con): Many Members have expressed the sentiment that marriage is at the centre of religious life—amen to all that—but have the Government considered introducing other forms of marriage, such as polygamy, and if not, when can minorities who believe in such a practice expect their own consultation?

And a nice teaser for tomorrow:

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I am a Christian and I am against the redefinition of marriage, but that is for tomorrow. The urgent question today is why on earth the Government briefed in advance about a new policy and a change to the previous position. The Minister has condemned that herself in the past. Will she have a word with the Prime Minister and tell him off?

You can read the full transcript here.

Civil Partnerships

For me, a particualr fascianting exchange concerned Civil partnerships.  A big question ahs been what will happen to them as a result fo these reforms.  My hope has long been that Civil partnerships will stay on the statute book but be opened up to different-sex couples.  Based on the following response from the Minister, it looks like such a measure won't be in the proposed response (and the contineud existence of CPs looks uncertain):

 Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): As someone with a long-term personal investment in the institution of marriage, I can thoroughly recommend it to everyone who wants it. Nevertheless, will the Minister also introduce proposals for those who do not want the institution, such as heterosexual couples who want a civil partnership rather than a marriage? I have constituents who have raised this with me.

 Maria Miller: I am sure that the question of civil partnership will be addressed as part of the consultation response, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that civil partnership was never put forward as a replacement for marriage, and I am not sure it is something we want to open up to more people.

"Attack" Seemingly Cries Cameron in Same-Sex Marriage Battle

General Allenby - the late British General - was one of the great military innovators.  He would pound an enemy into submission with extensive use of artillery, mobile cavalry and later, aircraft.  This 'softening up' would make the job of troops easier when they were sent in.

David Cameron seemed to be inspired by Allenby's tactics as he launched a volley against his own backbenchers at the weekend.   It was announced (well, leaked!) that the Government would be bringing forth their plans on same-sex marriage in response to their consultation from earlier in the year.  Cameron waded in with a surprise announcement that he supported religious same-sex marriage and that would be provided for in the proposed legislation (despite assurances he'd apparently given previously that he wouldn't do this).  Cheers from same-sex marriage campaigners and Tory reformers.  Grumps from the likes of Tory malcontents like Peter Bone (of Mrs Bone fame).  It was almost as if Cameron could be heard yelling "pound them" as a group of Tories then emerged arguing for same-sex marriage led by Michael Gove, BoJo and others.

Then Cameron called for their very own big bertha, and former Prime Minister, Sir John Major.  A man of rare but thoughtful contributions, he lent his support to the Cameronite view that same-sex marriage should be supported.

It's certainly going to be landmark legislation and even with the Tories being given a free vote, a coalition of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem MPs will ensure it makes it through the Commons and I would expect a bumpy but ultimately successful passing through the House of Lords with implementation around 2014.

Why all the fuss then?  Well, in politics nothing is certain and so we can't be assured that it's passed until it really is passed.  More so however, this is a story about Conservative politics, Cameron's leadership, and the 2015 general election.  That's what I suggested back in March, and so far - in the words of Emperor Palpatine - everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

Same Sex Marriage and the De-sexing of the Homosexual

The Home Office, the Sunday Times (£) reported this week, have got themselves into a bit of a pickle when it comes to their same-sex marriage proposals.   They report that:

'Civil servants have been considering the intricacies of gay sex for months and have taken evidence from sex experts and gay rights organisations in an attempt to define consummation between two women and between two men.'

Gay Star News picked up the story later in the week, and reproduces much of the story for those who don't have access via the ST paywall.  Both pieces report that 'ministers have opted to leave the matter to judges to define'.  Which sounds like some decision, until you go back to the original proposals.

Speaking of which,  back in March of this year - when the Government published their initial proposals - I raised the issue of consummation as a potential difficulty.

The original proposals stated that: 'Specifically, non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law. However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery.'

Nine months ago I commented that:  'This is a polite way of saying that the law tends to think of consummation in terms of penile/vaginal penetration (although no orgasm or ejaculation is needed). This paragraph in the consultation is the equivalent of lifting a giant rug, shoving half-baked proposals under it, and hoping that nobody will notice. We did. This could have significant implications for different-sex marriage and the Government knows that but doesn't want to get into that debate. We should.'

I'm rather puzzled what those civil servants have been doing for the last few months as we seem back to precisely the same position.  The rug remains on standby, the law likely to be fudged.  The only winners of such a fudge will be the lawyers able to now spin-out cases of annulment.  Academics will have a nice new exam or coursework question, and topic for tutorial discussions.

As I've argued before, recent decades have witnessed the careful de-sexing of the homosexual, as a right-based narrative has come to dominate legal discourse over one of sexual liberation.  This marriage proposals carry a real risk of reminding people that people choosing to enter into same-sex marriage may also want to have sex.  The idea that "I don't care what people do, so long as it's behind closed doors" (a position first heard in public policy terms via the Parliamentary debates in the wake of the 1967 Sexual Offences Act) is directly challenged by the necessity to understand what people do.

This necessitates a benchmarking of sexual identity against sexual acts.  It seeks to establish a homonormative understanding of sex.  For 'gay' men, presumably this means buggery.  Anal penetration by one, by the other.  What of a couple of that prefer sex toys?  Would that be enough.  What of - shock horror - the gay male couple who actually don't enjoy anal sex, and don't engage in it.  Would oral sex be enough?  Would frottage?  Presumably not, as the government rationale is to put 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' marriage on the same footing.  So buggery it is.  Well, if the courts decide.

The problem is it turns out that some homosexuals are rather inconveniently women.   They don't have a penis.  Civil Service brain can not compute.  Do we therefore have different definitions for lesbians to men.  Does there need to be some form of penetration?  Will our illustrious judges find themselves pondering how far a tongue must penetrate a vagina in order for it to amount to penetration?  Will it count if a dental dam is deployed?

Ah, the legal joys to come thanks to a failure to take a decision now.  The law can not avoid this debate.  The Government is simply kicking the can down the road in a hope that nobody will notice.  They are failing us, and we shouldn't let them get away with it.

Who are you calling a Bigot?

Nick Clegg has a remarkable habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  It takes some doing to perform this trick with the consistency that has marked his increasingly gloomy years in government.

His latest moment comes today as part of the bigot-row (we can't call it bigot-gate as that nice Mr Brown bagged that title when he launched a verbal tirade about a Rochdale pensioner).

It seems Clegg was due to give a speech this evening in which he referred to those opposed to same-sex marriage as 'bigots'.  A draft of the speech was released to the media (as usual) but then the text was changed, removing references to 'bigot'.  This gives Clegg the impression of being gutless once again, dodging calling out those who many would regard as bigots.

On this occasion, those critics seem to have called this wrong.  I think Clegg has shown remarkable guts on this.  We presumably have yet another almighty cock-up.  A draft was produced and then sent out - presumably prematurely.  Clegg then had a choice - recall the speech and make a change, thus looking weak, or running with a speech that he didn't want to give, thus looking weak privately but the public wouldn't know.  However, in doing so, he risks upsetting many, and increasing the chance of defeat - and a defeat wouldn't make him look weak, it would demonstrate that he is weak.

So, Clegg made the strategically sensible decision of appearing weak, rather than proving to be weak.

In the short-term it fuels bad headlines but he made the right call.  The next call is to find out why a speech was released which did not use appropriate language - this is about effective government and whilst many words can be used to describe the Coalition, effective isn't one of them.

I realise - and my twitter timeline certainly reflected this earlier - that there are many who will think the term bigot is entirely appropriate, but it's a term that denotes not only narrow views, but an intolerance of other views.  Whilst this is true of some who oppose same-sex marriage, it is not true of all.  Some LGBTQ activists are opposed or question same-sex marriage but they would not describe themselves as intolerant, they just take issue with the institution.   So too, many on the right and those who identify as religious would not regard themselves as intolerant but they would have difficulty reconciling the institution of marriage as a religious concept with the civil union of a same-sex couple.

In seeking to drive through a policy such as same-sex marriage, it's important not to annoy the opposition so much that they feel stirred into fierce action.  You want mild gentle resistance which can ultimately be overcome.  Going around calling everyone bigots is a sure fire way of raising the stakes, and goading the opposition into feeling they have to make this a major battle.  A good sound-bite in the short-term would have been bad politics in the long-term.

Of course, by retracting the comments in this way, he does show the opposition that he doesn't want to annoy them, which may mean they (they being predominantly Tory back-benchers in this context) may feel they can extract some concessions from the Coalition government on other issues such as taxation and regulation.  Thus, the government not only once again looks weak, but is.

However, let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.  Clegg looked an idiot today and undoubtedly took yet another hit, but for once I see a man fighting a real political battle rather than a war of soundbites.  It's just a shame they have to make so many clumsy mistakes in the process.

Pride in Conversation

The Guardian carried a really interesting piece on Saturday featuring a conversation between Peter Tatchell and Julie Bindel on pride. There was much in what both said that I found myself agreeing with, but I probably came down supporting Tatchell overall.  I was particularly struck b his comments in relation to marriage. There are some who have been puzzled by his support for same-sex marriage given his queer philosophical roots - and his comments here reflect my own squaring of queer theory and a pro-same-sex marriage rights stance.  Check out the piece here.

Puzzlingly, the Guardian also featured a World Power List 100:  The Most Influential LGBT People in 2012, but it doesn't appear to be on their website.  Number 1 was Jane Lynch, Lord Alli comes in at number 2, Gok Wan at 3, Barney Frank at 4, Tammy Baldwin at 5, Tim Cook at 6, Ian McKellen at 7, Martina Navratilova at 8, Ellen DeGeneres at 9 and Clare Balding at 10.  The whole list is celeb-heavy with no academics featured.  One current lawyer - Daniel Winterfeldt - makes it to the list.   Although I'm not sure this is a fair list, it probably does say about the visibility of power - and our collective understanding of influence.  For me, the teacher out in the classroom influencing the lives of countless children through their simple existence is more influential on those children than a distant celebrity.  Those fearful of queer power have long recognised this.  Meanwhile, gay activists are all too often seduced by the glitz, glamour and illusion of power and influence which celebrity often offers.

Same-Sex Civil Marriage Gives Deference to Church of England Canon Laws

The ever-excellent Paul Johnson had written a really interesting piece for JURIST.  Check it out here.

Perry Presses on to Supreme Court

The Perry/Proposition 8 same-sex marriage constitutionality case looks on course to finally make it to the US Supreme Court this Autumn with a decision next June.   The LA Times reports that:  'In a brief order Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said a majority of the court's active judges voted against reconsidering a three-judge panel's decision to overturn the voter-approved 2008 state constitutional amendment. Three dissenting 9th Circuit judges who favored review called the panel's ruling a "gross misapplication" of the law that "roundly trumped California's democratic process." The two judges who voted to overturn the ban last February reiterated Tuesday that their decision was limited to the situation in California.'

I've long been unconvinced that a decision from the US Supreme Court is necessarily a good outcome for those opposed to Proposition 8 (and in favour of same-sex marriage).   Although the outcome is far from certain, the court remains weighted in favour of a conservative outcome and that would then 'lock-in' a potentially unfortunate outcome.

Read the full LA Times story here.

Same-Sex Marriage for Denmark

Various media outlets are reporting the news that the Danish Parliament has passed a new law enabling same-sex marriage in the country.  It's due to come into force on 15 June this year.  Interestingly, Denmark already had a system of registered partnerships in place (since 1989) so the move has similarities with any UK move to introduce same-sex marriage, given we have civil partnerships.

I get the impression that this will be religious as well s marriage ceremonies but the media reports are unclear.  GayStarNews states (in the best report on this I can find) that 'couples already in civil partnerships will automatically be granted 'married' status' which suggests that registered partnerships will be abolished as part of the move and people automatically converted to a marriage (whether they want it or not).  Far from something to welcome, this seems an unacceptable application of state power.

Hopefully in the coming days, a bit more information will come out but the brief "yay, Denmark has 'gay' marriage" perspective that seems to dominate the UK reporting fails to address the significant questions around religion (GayStarNews does touch on this) and the implications for civil unions.    It would be deeply regrettable if the UK was to simply replicate this approach, and it is even more regrettable that the LGBT media is not giving this move a little more scrutiny.

DOMA Unconstitutional (Again)

Thursday saw another fascinating case which declared DOMA unconstitutional.  The ruling by Claudia Wilken of the US District Court for Northern California is the third by district level judges that have declared the 1996 law known as the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, to be unconstitutional.

Wilken ruled that the federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex unions is unconstitutional because it denies long-term health insurance benefits to legal spouses of state employees and retirees. She also concluded Thursday that a section of the federal tax code that made the domestic partners of state workers ineligible for long-term care insurance similarly violates the civil rights of people in gay and lesbian relationships. Both laws were based on what she called “moral condemnation” of same-sex couples.

It's another nail in the coffin of a law which Obama has said his White House will not defend (although nor is he seeking to be the one to repeal it).  A showdown in the Supreme Court looks increasingly likely, but this 1996 law has been on quite a journey.

Read the full story here.

You can access the judgment here.

OUT4MARRIAGE

I always tend to be suspicious of 'pack mentality' initiatives, typically trendy projects that everybody piles in on and serve as nothing more than the most ephemeral worthy event, soothing the egos of celebrities and 'ordinary' members of the public alike.  Sometimes however, I've just got to get over my own cynical streak and get involved.

So it is with the Out4Marriage campaign, a campaign that Pink News is promoting with gusto.  Unsurprising, given that the project was conceived by PinkNews.co.uk founder Benjamin Cohen and Mike Buonaiuto, the director of the Coalition for Equal Marriage viral video.  Inspired by the 'It Gets Better' Campaign, the idea is that individuals record videos of themselves coming out for marriage, explaining why they are supporting a change in English law and always ending with the same phrase.

I've previously expressed my view that same-sex marriage is politically inevitable in English law and it remains my view.  However, there is a always the possibility that in an apparent silence from the pro same-sex marriage lobby, we might concede an open goal.  Moreover, the historical narrative will suggest that there was no great demand for same-sex marriage - that it was merely an example of political expediency by the Coalition government of 2010-2015.   This campaign suggests otherwise.

I'm also incredibly conscious that I'm uncomfortable with marriage and whilst some queer theorists reject the die oaf marriage full stop, I disagree with that strand of Queer Theorists, accepting instead a fluidity which allows a range of social and legal partnerships to emerge.  Anyway, the other week I had a go at making a video for the campaign.  The end result is below.  It's rather hideous but I tried.  I hope you'll think about recording one too.



Check out their website here.

The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage

On both sides of the Atlantic, politics seems to have been dominated in recent days by the subject of same-sex marriage (or 'gay marriage' as the British media insist upon calling it).  In the US, the decision to opt for Mitt Romney as the Republican contender in the 2012 Presidential race, rather than his more Conservative (and frankly a wee bit bonkers) contenders meant that the social-issues test (which Santorum had mined in the final weeks of his campaign for the nomination) has now moved back to the Democrats. As Obama toured US College campuses this week (prior to a doubling in interest rates on student loans in the fall), the issue continued to rumble on in the background.  It exploded via NBC's Meet the Press earlier today - a morning show in the US and British viewers can catch it via CNBC at 3pm each Sunday.

The main guest in a pre-recorded interview was the current Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden.  Biden had been in the global press this week following the release (by the US administration) of the so-called 'Osama Papers'.  These represent a small number of the documents seized as part of the bin Laden assassination raid last year.  They revealed that the terrorist leader was keen that Biden should not be killed, as if he became President he would be incompetent and thus lead America astray.  Osama bin Laden instead advocated an assassination attempt on the President and a high-profile military General (thus elevating Biden to the Presidency).  This is important in understanding that Biden needed to demonstrate that he was a serious powerful political figure in his own right when he appeared on Meet the Press today.  That he undoubtedly did with what I considered an assured performance.  Yet it was his comments on the subject of same-sex marriage which caught the attention of the media and social networks.

You can see the key section of his interview in the clip below:



Biden indicated that he was 'comfortable with same-sex marriage', but he did walk something of a tightrope in the interview.  He talked about people obtaining the same civil rights as heterosexuals - that doesn't necessarily equate to same-sex marriage but the overall positive tone of the interview gave the strong impression that he personally would support same-sex marriage, that his views on the subject had evolved, and that the focus of the debate should be on 'love'.  He seemed a guy genuinely moved by encountering people and learning of their lived experiences.  It seemed a judgement based on a human calculation rather than one arrived at after careful constitutional and legal consideration.

Obama has not been able to convey this to date - a man who is despite the rantings of some on the far right, is a centrist political figure.  Obama campaign chief David Axelrod tweeted that it was the same-position as the President of the United States (thanks to Kate Sheill for alerting me to this).  The tweet was aimed at NBC political correspondent Chuck Todd who can be seen on NBC's Nightly News and who took to Meet the Press to comment on the significance of the announcement.  The Advocate also immediately ran a new lead story that the VP supports same-sex marriage.  In truth, both sides are kinda right.  The media ran with the impression that Biden - a canny operator - gave in his interview.  He did not however commit the Obama regime to moving any further forward on the same-sex marriage issue. Instead, he re-iterated the focus upon 'rights' (as opposed to the institution of marriage), a legal divide that Obama has clung to.  

This is to take the view that marriage is about acquiring rights and responsibilities, rather than about joining an 'institution' (i.e marriage) per se.  The Obama position is that it's OK to have the rights, but not to join the institution (irrespective of whether the institution would like you).

So where does this leave us?  The answer is 'we'll have to see'.  The ball is now in the court of the media and Republicans.  Romney could use the issue to assure Republicans that he's Conservative enough by attacking the VP.  Yet he also wants to position himself in the political centre in time for the general election in the fall. He could challenge Obama: "what's the President's position on this?  The American people have a right to know", although any journalist will ask him his position (thus potentially back-firing on Romney).

Obama would then come under pressure, and doesn't want to be the guy defending same-sex marriage at this time (it would alienate some in the centre) or be the guy advocating his current half baked position (civil unions, don't like same-sex marriage but OK if States want to do, but oops we still have DOMA which prevents that being federally recognised)  as this is a position which de-motivates core Democrats.  In other words, it's a lose-lose issue for Obama but one the media may be keen to peruse.  As things stand, we've had some interesting verbal comments, but no change in substance.

Meanwhile, back on this side of the Atlantic, this week saw local elections take place up and down the country.  Liberal Democrats took another hammering and the Tories also received a pounding.  Ed Milliband's Labour party did well in the polls.  Talk on election night quickly moved to stories of another 'Rose Garden Moment' between Nick Clegg and David Cameron as they caught to re-cement the coalition.   David Cameron - it seemed to be briefed -would refocus on issues of the family, and the economy.  In other words, he would throw his own supporters a bit of red meat.  Nick Clegg on the other hand offered nothing to his increasingly jittery followers who must surely be questioning whether they want this man to lead them over a cliff at the next general election.

The Sunday Times led with the headline (£ link) 'PM in retreat over gay marriage', and the issue was raised with Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne on the Andrew Marr show this morning.  Joe Biden he ain't, and although I suspect he's actually very sympathetic on the issue - more so than Cameron despite his public persona.  Osborne ducked the issue in initial questioning and later added that measures wouldn't be in the forthcoming Queen's Speech (which sets out the legislative agenda for the next 12 months).  A number of social media folks commented that this was hardly surprising given the consultation doesn't end until June.  I confess that my brain had short-circuited and I had (I turn red as I admit this) forgotten that the Queen's Speech is now always in the Spring.  This means that any measure on same-sex marriage won't occur until after May 2013.  We knew this before Osborne's interview this morning and we know exactly as much afterwards.

This means that any slowing down is a misleading message to Tory back-benchers.  In reality, it's at least 12 months off and always has been.  However, Osborne did have an opportunity to say that he was personally in favour, or that the government hoped that the consultation was positive, and anticipated bringing forward legislation in Spring 2012.  He didn't.  Politically, he had absolutely no need to.  I would have been pleased, and so would many other activists but in all probability we won't vote for him or his party.  Party groups which support same-sex marriage can equally be assured from the ST story that slowing down does not mean the ultimate destination has changed.  It is in fact Cameron's right-wing back-benchers and his Conservative Association's across the country who will be most annoyed.  An attempt to re-assure them was cynical and misleading in the extreme.

All of which probably explains why Nadine - you wouldn't like me when I'm angry - Dorries, the one-woman machine of an MP - went on the attack this afternoon by saying that gay marriage is a policy of the 'elite', and once again slammed same-sex marriage proposals.  Dorries - divorced, and now on the rebound from a relationship with a married man - perhaps understandably seems to have something against marriage.  I too am something of a sceptic, yet I don't seek to deny rights and freedoms to a section of society because of a heady mixture of political dogma, mumbo-jumbo religion and a series of unfortunate experiences with men.

I remain of the view that same-sex marriage will be a reality during the term of this government.  The question is whether it will be in 2013 or 2014.  Liberal Democrats have an opportunity to offer a firmer position on this issue - to indicate that 'all being well with the consultation', they 'expect' legislation to be brought forward in 2013, because it's 'the right thing to do'.  Their failure to do so this weekend is yet another disappointment from a leadership which seems to have lost its way.

Obama and Gay Rights: Funny if it Wasn't so Tragic

Barack Obama issued a reminder to the American LGBT populace this last week as to why they should vote for him in the Presidential race later this year.  Often criticised as a let-down on gay rights (as on so many other issues) his campaign have knocked together a graphic to remind everyone what he has done.

You can check out the full timeline here.

Obama will of course - barring accidents - win a second term in November but he needs to convince his own supporters to go out and vote.  The current strategy seems to be "have you seen the other guy?  Aren't the Republican's scary?"  Well yes, they are and yes Obama will be a better President than them.  yet, his goal should not be to be slightly better than a bunch of Republican nuts.  The American people deserve better than that.  A terrific campaigner, it's hard not to accept the criticism that he's a less talented office holder.

Let's look at the timeline covering the last four years.  He starts with extending key-benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.  He could do this without legislation so it was easy to achieve but note the language - 'key-benefits' not all.

The following week - and I'm not making this up - they had an LGBT party at the White House.  Please tell me that LGBT activists in the States expect more than a Whitehouse shindig? He then awards honours Billie Jean King and Harvey Milk.  Nice, and welcome for sure but I feel underwhelmed.  On and on we go.  Federal law which apply to everyone are included (which seems patronising) and in the case of care costs for seniors is insulting given the massive issues that face LGBT seniors.  The list largely comprises of making speeches, saying he doesn't like things, and making the occasional video.  These are not achievements, they are sound-bites.  Judged by actions rather than words, with the exception of repealing DADT, Obama has been a massive let down for the LGBT community.  What does he offer for the next term? Nothing according to this.  Quite astonishing.  He also has the brass neck to state that DOMA is unconstitutional and they won't defend it in the courts.  That doesn't mean it won't be found constitutional in the court, and nor does it stop the law being in force right now, affecting millions of Americans this very day.

The LGBT movement fear playing into the hands of the right by calling out Obama to put forward more positive LGBT measures.  Republicans will - they argue - then be able to point to the terrifyingly lefty/socialist/communist things he would do if elected for another term.  Keep your mouth shut and you'll be looked after when we win is the implicit message.  I'm unconvinced.  The US desperately needs some LGBT out-riders who effectively take the administration to task on a  shoddy record and a lack of future promise.  Four more years of this might be better than the Republican alternative, but it's simply not good enough for America.

Marriage Equality?

There is a Yes Minister joke that the British Civil Service would take care of the hardest part of a proposal by putting it in the title.  So seems to have been the case when it comes to the publication yesterday of the government consultation 'Equal Civil Marriage: A Consultation'.

Many on the usual social media sites and LGB advocacy and campaign groups sprang to life seeking to motivate people into responding to the consultation.  I deliberately held off.  I wanted to see how the debate initially shaped up and - something I'm not convinced everyone who is commenting has done - read the actual consultation document.

Let's deal with the politics of this first off.  The Conservatives need this.  Ever since Cameron announced he was in favour of 'gay marriage' at the Conservative Autumn conference last year, it's been a done deal. It's win-win for Cameron.  He has a majority to pass a bill on same-sex marriage of some description.  if the party does it with just one or two dissenters, he can claim it to be a further sign that the party has genuinely changed.  Something that LGBTory - the LGB group of the party - has been keen to establish as a narrative.

Peter Bone

On the other hand, he may have a fight on his hand.  I don't think this is likely but let's explore the scenario.  In this situation, the comments of Peter Bone (the MP famous for introducing Mrs Bone at PMQs and looking like a man who once ran a football team and slept with Ulrika Johnson) would gain wider support among MPs and party activists in the same way that the NHS Bill did for for LibDems.  This would give Cameron a sort of 'Clause IV moment', defeating his party and able to demonstrate he is a true reformer.  Either of these scenarios also allow the Tories to knock on the head the developing narrative that the Lib Dems are a moderating influence on the coalition.  Tory strategists know this is an effective line and this would go some way to neutralising it.

This brings us to the Liberal Democrats themselves.  Long committed to this reform - and long before it was popular to be - this will probably appear on lots of LibDem election literature as an achievement.  Unfortunately, it doesn't take them any further forward in terms of support in off-setting tuition fees or NHS reforms, and the Tory strategy outlined above removes any possible 'credit' for the LibDems.  The one plus is it does enable them to do is to say that a minister in government has achieved something.  It's a questionable narrative but the party needs every crumb of comfort they can get.  The LGBT+ LibDems have however created a useful resource supporting the bill and telling people step-by-step how to respond to the consultation.

For the Labour Party, this is the natural extension of their reforms.  That narrative - which has not yet been clearly articulated - enables them to reach out to the New Labour voters who have deserted the party since 2010 (arguably in stages since 2001).

So politically, everybody - more or less - backs the idea of same-sex civil marriage.  It's a done deal.  The real politics and the real legal debate should therefore be about the nature of the law, and what it embraces.

Puzzlingly, few activists have engaged with this.  Peter Tatchell has called the consultation out on this issue but seemingly everyone else - notably Stonewall - are fighting what I would describe as the 'wrong war', and seeking to argue for a law on civil marriage.

Every Government figure I've seen on and in the media since the consultation emphasises the same line - this is about 'civil marriage' and not 'religious marriage'.  This is a bid to neutralise the challenge from religious lobbies - notably the Catholic Church  - to attack legal reform.   Don't be fooled by the media brouhaha, the Government need not cave in as dramatically as they have.

The proposals on the table - and this aspect is not up for debate as the consultation makes clear - prohibit religious same-sex marriages or to be more precise, do not change the present arrangements in that regard.

Let's revisit the overall aims of the legal reform, as set out by the Government:

• To remove the ban on same-sex couples being able to have a marriage through a civil ceremony.
• To make no changes to how religious organisations solemnise marriages 
• To allow transsexual people to change their legal gender without having to legally end their existing marriage or civil partnership

So, even if a religious institution wanted to solemise a same-sex marriage they would prevented from doing so by law.  The Government had two alternative approaches.  Firstly, they could have enabled religious institutions to choose not to conduct marriages.  However, as the Church performs a combined civil and religious ceremony, LGB activists could have argued that it was discrimination that only they were begin rejected by a particular church as a class (expect a legal case revolving around comparison to divorcees and so on).  So, the chance of a legal challenge down the line would be high and the churches would have seen this.   Not an attractive option for anybody.

The second option I would suggest, would have been to remove civil marriage powers from churches.  It avoids the discrimination both in the proposed provisions and the first option I just outlined.  It would upset many in faith groups, and would be a more radical or complicated message to convey to the public.  It would not stop churches performing religious ceremonies for whoever they wanted but the actual civil - legally binding - marriage would come into existence outside of a religious institution.  Although the harder road, I believe this would have been the better solution.

If it worked for them...

If you want a model of how this would look in reality, just look at the marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles.  A 'legal' ceremony followed by a religious one.  Legally, they became married in Windsor Registry Office but for the Queen and many, they became married in the Chapel at Windsor Castle.  This would be genuinely equal under law and would also remove any potential legal challenges.  I am sure that this is where we will eventually end up but it's a shame that all three parties are running scared of religious groups this time around.

Thanks to the government proposals on transgender marriage, it is now possible for someone legally defined as a male and someone legally defined as a female to enter into a marriage in a religious building and then for one of those individuals to transition so that there will be some individuals who are legally a same-sex couple and who married in a combined religious/civil ceremony.  Don't be fooled, these proposals create as many legal anomalies as they remove.

Speaking of which, the proposals also contain a paragraph (2.16) which will long be a focus for family law student seminars and tutorials in the coming years.  It states:

'Specifically, non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law. However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery.'

This is a polite way of saying that the law tends to think of consummation in terms of penile/vaginal penetration (although no orgasm or ejaculation is needed).   This paragraph in the consultation is the equivalent of lifting a giant rug, shoving half-baked proposals under it, and hoping that nobody will notice.  We did.  This could have significant implications for different-sex marriage and the Government knows that but doesn't want to get into that debate.  We should.

Adultery too will need to be re-visited and a sensible move would simply be to abolish it.  Anything else, and the Government will be lost in the midst of another legal mess.  Again, a potentially major reform for family law.

Speaking of half-baked botches, Let's turn to civil partnerships.  The proposals set out a way that people can 'covert' from a civil partnership to marriage and answers my question in previous posts about the continued presence of civil partnerships - they stay.  Hurrah!  Unfortunately, they remain for same-sex couples only, and in doing so fails to address the arguments of the ongoing Equal Love legal challenge.  That legal challenge will come and I can't understand why the Government isn't pre-empting such a challenge.

Paragraph 2.20 sets out another wonderful fudge:

'The Government is not considering opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples because we have been unable to identify a need for this. However, we appreciate that there are a number of views on this issue.'

How have they explored this need?  What constitutes a need?  If civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples fall below some mystery figure as a result of these reforms, will they then be abolished as there is 'no longer a need'?   Big questions with potentially hugely significant answers, but who is asking them?

This consultation is a significant document but it's formal questions are limited and fail to engage with the real difficulties.  That should not stop the big campaign and advocacy groups from questioning the Government.  Yet as things stand, we are failing to provide that scrutiny to these proposals.  The legal community similarly needs to wake up to the potentially half-baked and wide-ranging reforms that could come through as a result of these reforms with historic implications for marriage.

Read the full consultation here.

Did someone mention marriage?

Unless you've been living in a cave, you can't have missed the various same-sex marriage stories in recent days.  I continue to be snowed under with other projects, and lacking something terribly original to say, I've left it to others to provide a commentary.

That said, if you are looking for a great site to see the latest on the important US decision relating to the Perry case - and the legacy of proposition 8, I continue to recommend the Prop 8 Trial Tracker website run by the Courage Campaign.  Check it out here.   For what it's worth, I'm not sure we've yet heard the end of the Perry case.  More broadly, states in the US continue to grapple with the question of same-sex marriage, all of which is putting fuel in the furnace of right-wing GOP Presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum.

Closer to home, Stonewall published their draft marriage bill.  It's actually been incredibly well put together and seems ready for enacting as is.  In fact, I'd be amazed if parliamentary draughtsmen could do much better.  Stonewall address one of my questions about what would happen to Civil Partnerships.

Clearly under the the Stonewall bill, Civil Partnerships would continue to exist.  What is unclear - and what might be addressed in a Government bill - is the question of whether civil partnerships will still be available - and if so whether they will remain restricted to same-sex partners.  They could - and I would suggest should - extend Civil Partnerships to different-sex couples and allow both to operate.  We could yet have some of the most progressive partnership laws in the world, although clearly further reform would be ideal.  Stonewall are pushing for the marriage bill to be included in the next parliamentary session and I have a hunch that they'll get what they want.

Check out the excellent Stonewall bill in full here.

Prop 8 Trial Videos to Remain Sealed

Very interesting developments (or lack of developments) over in the States in the last few days concerning the Proposition 8 trial (or Perry trial).  The battle over releasing video footage from the trial continued with the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling ensuring that videos made remain sealed - despite a judge who made the promise not to show the videos showing them as part of speaking engagements.   Read the full story here.

Spate of New Legal protections in California

I previously blogged on the introduction of the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act in California but KPBS notes it's just one of a range of new laws that are coming into force in California and potentially transforming the lives of LGBT citizens.   These include:

California Gay Bullying Law or "Seth's Law," named after 13-year-old Seth Walsh, from central California, who killed himself in 2010 after years of bullying. The law forces schools to address bullying through mandatory policies.

The "Gay Divorce Law," which allows a gay couple married in California, but living in a state that won't grant them a divorce, the right to divorce in California.

The LGBT Equality and Equal Access to Higher Education Law, which is an anti-harassment law that applies to state universities and colleges.

The Transgender Non-Discrimination Law. It protects transgender Californians from discrimination with regard to employment, education and housing.

Exciting times.  Read more here.

New Hampshire Turns Back From Same-Sex Marriage Repeal?

Law makers will be among those returning to work this week.  In New Hampshire, the issue of same-sex marriage will be back firmly on the policy agenda - even though the bill to repeal the state’s gay marriage law is not among the hundreds of bills House members will have to act on this month.

It's a sign of the debate in many parts of the USA that the argument in New Hampshire is not about the introduction about same-sex marriage but whether it should be repealed.  This is a battle that just won't go away.

A new poll done will be released Wednesday at a legislative breakfast sponsored by the Republican (pro repeal) Standing up for New Hampshire Families. The results of the poll of 712 likely New Hampshire voters show an overwhelming majority of Democrats and solid majority of independent voters believe strongly the law should remain in effect.  Unsurprisingly, New Hampshire voters want elected officials to focus on jobs and the economy, taxes and spending, and education, with little interest in the social issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

Read more here.