Spark In Darkness

As in, the gays can't get married because we don't make babbies! And they're not a homophobe, they're just thinking of the babbies (can we have "think of the children” added to the list of ridiculous phrases that automatically get you labelled homophobes – like “I have gay friends?”)

Ok, my first and last post on this particular fuckery, because it's beyond self-evident and anyone with a moment's thought and half a brain cell in their heads should be able to work this out

Tory MP and bigot (but then, the two do tend to go together to such a degree as to make that a redundancy), Edward Leigh is looking at all the talk about marriage equality and has lost his little bigot head over it.

He doesn’t understand why we need marriage equality because only a tiny minority of us gays wants it. Well, that kind of conflicts with Pink News polls and I do wonder why he thinks he knows the mind of gay people up and down the country. After all, this is a man with one of the most stinking records on anti-gay legislation there is – I can’t imagine he has a legion of gay friends. (And if he does pull the “I have a gay friend” card I am going to break something). Who is this straight man who presumes to speak for us?

But, y’know what? Even if only a few of us same-sex loving types wants to get married – we should be able to do so. If only a quarter of a minority wanted the vote it wouldn’t be an excuse to deny the whole group the right! Access to a right is not dependent on sufficient number wanting to exercise it. There are inordinate number of religions with a tiny following in the UK, we can’t stomp on their rights because we decide there just aren’t enough of them to make it worthwhile – this stinks of the same bullshit muttered around that damn ONS farce.
And you know what? It doesn’t matter if only one single gay person in the entire country wanted to get married and he couldn’t because no-one wanted to marry him. The law STILL needs changing

Because when you have a law that has a two tier system for marginalised people then you are legally enshrining inferiority in law. Even if I didn’t want to get married I would want this law changed – because as it stands the law of Great Britain says I am an inferior person. Under law, I am a lesser person. Legally, I am not due the same rights and considerations as straight people.

Let me say that again – my lesser status as a citizen is currently enshrined in law.

And that bothers me. It bothers me that the highest authority in the country has officially declared my inferiority, my unworthiness, my lesser status. And don’t tell em that doesn’t have an effect on how we are treated, how we are viewed or how we view ourselves – you can’t legally impose inferior status without there being repercussions

I want to be equal before the law in all instances. I have and had no intention of joining the military, but I wanted the anti-gay military ban dropped. I have no immediate plans to have children, but I refuse to accept different standards for us in the adoption system. I hate Bed and Breakfasts and would rather eat my own foot than stay in one – but that doesn’t mean I’m indifferent about the spate of bigoted hoteliers turning us away.
Because these things mean something above and beyond the specific right they are protecting,. They are statements of equality, of worth and of value and respect due.

And as for the rest of his screed? – well standard bigot talk. “Mangling marriage.” “Redefining what marriages mean” really? I thought marriages meant people loving each other – I wonder what HIS marriage means if it’s not about love? (Of course the whole love thing is a very recent definition of marriage which *gasp* has been redefined quite a lot).

I wonder if Cameron will reprimand him for being a bigot? I doubt it.

News reports have come out to all and sundry that apparently we’re going to get gay marriage at last over here!

I blinked in shock because, damn that was a bit out of the blue!

Sadly, this doesn’t seem to be quite the case, we’re dealing with some sloppy reporting. To understand this, you need to look at civil partnerships – that not-really-marriage-because-you-homos-aren’t-good-enough-for-it provision.

One of the interesting provisos of civil partnerships is that religion is banned from them. You can’t use a religious building, can’t have a preacher, can’t have religious readings. Religion is verboten!

And this INCLUDES if the religion in question WANTS to be involved. So if you’re, say, a Quaker or a Reform Jew (two groups that have been most irritated by this law) you cannot have a religious civil union EVEN IF YOUR CHURCHES WANT TO.

This is, of course, a rule in the name of religious freedom. And by religious freedom we mean stinking bigotry.

Now we’re looking at removing the restriction. NOT forcing churches to include us, oh-no. But allowing those churches that DO want to bless our unions to do so.

This change was originally put forward by the last government, though it faced fierce and vehement Tory opposition. It’s actually part of the Labour made Equality Act and an Amendment pushed by a Labour peer. We were actually furious with Harriet Harmen for caving to the Tories over this when their opposition was so fierce.
And Lyn Featherstone – the figleaf and supporter of Theresa May, the woman who already hand waved away all our legal protections and is one of the reasons why I would never return to the Lib Dems – seems to be trying to claim credit for this? Really? They’re going to claim this as a coalition victory for our rights? What a manipulative, disgusting prejudiced move – and I expect no better form her or her government.

That’s even weaker than claiming that the convictions of gay men who were convicted for having sex when our existence was criminalised. Because they’re not – they’re counted as “spent.” They’re still there, they’re still viewable.

And to add to this post

BBC FOR FUCK’S SAKE! Stop presenting our basic human rights as a matter for fucking debate! Enough already! Why the hell do I pay this license fee again? So beyond sick of this shit.

One of the things on this blog I have repeatedly said is that speech has consequences. For the most part I have said this in the context of marginalised people and hate speech – how marginalised people will have low self-image and even self hate when they’re in a society that continually demeans and hates and degrades them. How the haters will be discriminatory, bigoted and violent towards them while they’re in a society whose speech continually upholds such prejudice, accepts such prejudices and promotes such prejudice.

Hate speech has always had a cost – it is the foundation on which prejudice is built, it is the cheerleader squad for threatening action, it is the rallying cry for the violent, the extremist, the bigot. Speech can and does excuse the violence, it encourages it, it supports it and it makes it ok, acceptable, NORMAL.

.

.

And this applies just as much to political discourse as we have just tragically seen in the US.

Violent rhetoric in politics has always been an unfortunate staple – especially in the US. Poverty, Drugs, Terrorism? These aren’t wounds to heal or problems to solve or even criminals to catch – they’re wars to fight and battles to combat. There has always been an aggressive slant to the rhetoric (It’s said that “when all all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” – then what can we say when all you have is a bullet?)

But this is further exacerbated and taken to new limits looking over the right wing there (and I don’t say they’re the only ones, but they extremely unrestrained and unrestrainedly extreme). How many rallies have wee seen with banners like “If Brown cannot stop health care, then Browning can” or “Time to Water the Tree of Liberty.”?

We know what these mean. They’re threats, they're calls to violence – and they were held up in rallies and accepted and normalised and understood. Violent threats were accepted as part of the discourse.
And worse – they were adopted by people who were supposed to be in authority. Not just demonstrators on the ground (and, I think, we can all admit that any demonstration is going to have a fringe) – but present, past and aspiring elected officials. That’s not fringe – that’s mainstream adopting the same violent rhetoric.

Congressman Michelle Bachman has said so many violent things that I can’t even keep track

Senate candidate Sharon Angle called for “second amendment remedies”

Former VP-hopeful and ex-governor Sarah Palin posted on her Twitter feed “Don’t Retreat, instead reload”

Sarah Palin has also produced an image on her website putting gun crosshairs over the districts of several democrats.

Congressional Candidate Jesse Kelly, Republican candidate in Arizona in the 2010 election spoke of shooting M16s in an event leading up to the election

And now a gunman has attacked Rep Gifford, Jesse Kelly’s opponent and one of the targets of those crosshairs. She is now in hospital, severely injured after being shot. 6 other people died in the attack – including a 9 year old girl. Jarod Loughner and a possible unknown accomplice killed 6 people. And maybe there’s no connection, maybe there was no influence – but I doubt it

These are just some examples of the rhetoric of violence, I know we’ve all seen more, repeated over and over again and from people in or aspiring to be in some of the highest offices in government. The constant reference to guns and ammunition, the battle analogies, the violent references, the borderline – and not so borderline – threats coming from people we would hope would know better (though experience tells us not to expect them to know anything).

And all this violent rhetoric and violent posturing has welled up and killed several people, including a child. And we should not – cannot – be surprised by this. With every threat, every symbol, every metaphor, every gun site, the use of violence in politics was established, normalised and accepted. You can’t call for violence use the language of violence, normalise violence and then be surprised when violence happens.

Sadly the concept of “free speech” is one of the most abused and twisted you will ever come across. Once meant to be a simple concept that the government shouldn’t suppress dissenting views, shouldn’t try and hide and cover things up. It was a principle to prevent newspapers being shut down, to prevent the shit being stuffed under the rug, to prevent anyone who had an idea or a different system from being

Now it is used more and more and more for people to say any kind of vile shit and expect everyone to smile and eat it. Now it is used to pretend that speech has no consequence, has no power, that it is not part of the hatred or the violence or the pain that uses it as a foundation.

Free speech arose precisely because speech has power. It has great power, sometimes devastating power. When used foolishly, carelessly or maliciously it can hurt – it can wound and it can kill. And just because your weapons were words do not mean the blood is not on your hands.

Now, it seems that the American TSA has jumped in the deep end over the ever escalating need for “security” (an idea that makes me feel a lot less secure, tbh)

See there’s these backscatter imagining thingummies appearing in airports (and other places – and I’m sure they’ll be making shipped around the world most merrily soon) that dose you with lots of radiation (and big question marks as to how healthy that is, especially for frequent fliers) and produce images of you naked. Pictures that can be saved and transferred no less.

As to quality – well it’s not perfect – but it was apparently sufficient for one employee in an airport to be mocked about his penis sized based on the image – so that’s a fair amount of detail right there.

You can opt out. And you will be patted down. Except this is a special pat down which should be better termed “heavy petting” or “third base” or “damn I don’t go that far on the second date!” without that sexy consent stuff (which is another way of saying “freaking sexual assault, damn it!”) So get irradiated and naked pictures taken of you – or have a complete stranger grope your genitals.

This is not a great choice

Now I have seen people say “what’s the big deal?” and even joke about how big their equipment is and the ribald jokes they’d make to security feeling them up.

Well, lucky you. You are one of the lucky ones who hasn’t had any negative body issues foisted on them by our ever-so-much-fun messed up society. You don’t have triggers from sexual assault that can be brought on by a stranger grabbing you in extremely intimate places. For survivors of sexual abuse or any abuse situation where control of their bodies was taken from them, then being forced to submit to having someone intimately grope them without their consent, to have someone assert control over access to their genitals… even the most insensitive must see how damaging this is.

You’re also not going to face the grief that comes from being outed as trans in a busy airport. Being outed as trans can be literally life threatening – and now they must disclose to fly? For many trans people there will be no way they will be able to keep their trans status private with these measures – that is a grossly unacceptable position to impose on them

See, I don’t particularly have body issues except about my scars – which I’m pretty certain won’t show up on the scans. But that doesn’t mean that someone else’s literal panic attack at the idea of complete strangers taking and saving pictures of them naked aren’t perfectly legitimate. I boggle at people deciding that because they don’t have a problem with it, absolutely no-one should have.

I do have issues with strangers touching me. I don’t like it, I’m not fond of handshakes really hate spontaneous hugs from people I hardly know – and a complete stranger putting his hands on my groin? Awww hell no. I object, I seriously object. I have a right not to be groped, I have a right to keep my genitals to myself and people I choose to share them with (ye gods… I’m arguing that people have a right to control who has access to their genitals. Seriously? This needs arguing?) The very idea of being required to allow my penis and testicles to be groped by a complete stranger against my will makes my hackles rise and gives me goosebumps – and not in a good way.

Nor do I accept the idea that air travel is some kind of frivolous luxury (the implication being that they have absolutely every right to impose any kind of terms and conditions they want on you because, guys, it’s only flying and you can totally skip it if you don’t agree). Some jobs require you to travel. Families are split across vast distances often these days. If you want – or need – to travel long distance then flying is pretty much the main realistic choice unless you have several days to spend on the journey. We’re not talking about a theme park ride here. We’re talking about something that is an essential for many people.

And if we were? If we were talking about a frivolous luxury that could be avoided and make no difference in your lives – would we still accept the idea that you have to be seen naked or groped to take part? Really? I mean, if I arrived at Alton Towers and they said “queue for roller-coaster is long because we have to grope you first” would that be fine and dandy because I could turn around and leave?

What I am also deeply uncomfortable about is this idea of sacrificing liberty for security. Yes it’s an old theme, but it just keeps growing. We’re willing to endure an ever increasing amount of crap under the banner of security. A lot of the really crap stuff we tend to dismiss because we firmly believe it won’t happen to us – the torture, the renditions, the detentions without trial. Most people don’t care because none of them believe it will ever happen to them – very selfish, very shortsighted, very human, alas. I hate that people have this reaction and I wish people would think with more compassion, more deeply and more long-sightedly (I won’t say more humanity – because I don’t have much faith in it) but I can understand it even if I loathe it.

This is somewhat different in my eyes. Because while it’s not even close to the massive vileness that is torture, detention without trial, renditions, etc, it IS a violation that can be expected to happen to anyone who flies (and that’s before these machines creep in elsewhere. I understand they’re already used in some courthouses in the US). This is not some bad thing that the common person in the street can dismiss as happening to someone else who they don’t give a shit about – this is something that they can legitimately see happening to themselves.

And they’re cool with that? Happy with the idea of complete strangers having the right to see them naked and/or intimately grope them for entering a certain building or using a certain form of transport. Happy to simply concede bodily autonomy simply for being in a certain place?

And that worries me – because this is a really intimate violation that people are consenting too – all in the nebulous name of security. What more will they tolerate?

Relatedly – I actually thought that *gasp* the religious right agrees with me on this! But, no, it seems they’re only upset because it may be a GAY TSA agent groping you! Because straight folk violating your body and touching your genitals without your consent would be totally fine

Proposition 8 – it has been overturned.  And Judge  Walker’s ruling, from what I’ve read of it, is a thing of beauty. Yes yes it is.

The singing, dancing and general leaping for joy in my RSS is a thing of joy to behold.

Naturally it will be appealed – but in that lies some hope itself. A beautiful step forwards – keep on hoping.

Let the partying commence!

And review again why the trial was almost comedic Such a wonderful summation

In fact, let’s have more of that

Hmmm sweet sweet schaudenfreude. Where’s that pie recipe? Nom nom schadenfreude pie.

In Mexico, Mexico City’s gay marriage law was also being challenged in court – and it reached all the way to Mexico’s Supreme Court.

Which upheld the law Oh I love the smell of justice in the morning.

Justicia has been smacking ‘em down lately